Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

David Lynch Lady Dior...issues anyone?

Tim Hole

Tim Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
1,327
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
United Kingdom
Lynch has shot the third segment of Dior's advert which can be found on...

http://www.ladydior.com/thefilm/?lang=en&color=blue

I CANNOT for the life of me get the thing to play. I can watch the first and second parts but...

it is on various other sites online, all with pretty shocking quality. I want full screen goodness. Anyone actually get this thing playing?
 
wow, that was cheap!

on the other end, I suspect the second segment was shot with a 5D.
 
Tim Hole said:
Anyone actually get this thing playing?
Click to expand...

Working for me in both Safari and Firefox. Although when I realized it's 16 minutes long I decided to watch it later. But it does load and play ok.
 
It looks like a great example of big advertising sort of technologically KITCHY PLOT just because Dior saved its money

using cheap Sony EX cameras to pay fees to David Lynch, Marion Cotillard and John Galliano (he is anyway Dior's employee).

But today that's not a new thing at all because Sony EX camcorders were used by "George Lucas and the USC faculty and students discuss why EX is their camcorder of choice."

and David Lynch was already using Sony PD-170 for his Inland Empire feature.

And even Dior will probably cash a lot of money on this "famous" BLUE Bag that going to sell like a hell to all those "jealous" Chinese girls

who saw that Chinese guy who was kissing that pretty French girl (he's got a famous FRENCH KISS) on that Shanghai night skyline...
 
Peter Strietmann said:
Just because it was shot on an EX cam doesn't mean it has to look like that!
Click to expand...

It looks that David Lynch sold his artistic idea for that expensive Dior bag using cheap Sony camera.

I'm not saying that the movie is bad or that camera is not so good for that kind of web advertising stuff...

Just saying what's going on there...
 
Sorry, I may not be in the same league as many (well, perhaps most) on this board....

But that was bad. Horrid/ambient light. REALLY cheesy smoke/light on purse. Couldn't stomach watching it thru. Even skipping thru was bad....

The first 2 segments however were interesting, and I like the song on the second a lot.

YMMV
 
reassuring to know, I´m not the only one that obtain different definition/sharp shoot by shoot using the smalls XDcam EX, depending on light, ambient temperature and focal distance. I bet this is the X1.

Kill the DP if you want, but I like the cut.
 
I could never for the life of me understand David Lynch's appeal. I hate most of his films (I guess Blue Velvet was decent but certainly not a masterpiece like everyone makes it out to be) and the look of the vid is pretty awful. I have seen high school films with more production value.
 
Peter Strietmann said:
Just because it was shot on an EX cam doesn't mean it has to look like that!
Click to expand...

So true.

I remember reading an interview with mr Lynch some years ago where he was saying that he loved the dirty look of digital images, especially when combined to the light weight of the camera (he probably never carried a fully accessoried F900 for two hours).
 
Has nobody here seen Inland Empire? This look isn't remotely new to David Lynch. In fact, the production values on this video are significantly better than most of Inland Empire. Similar to Michael Mann, Lynch seems to really like the video look for his recent work.

There's always been something stilted and awkward about much of Lynch's cinematic universe; without the glamorous lighting and surface look of his film-shot work, that aspect really stands out. IMO, it's the really polished look his films had up through Mulholland Dr. that made Lynch relatively easy viewing. Inland Empire and other recent work like this are raw and unpolished; they definitely don't go down smoothly, but there's still (for me, at least) something compelling going on amidst the amateurish lighting, stilted dialogue and the weirdity here.

Also, more than a little Wong Kar-wai happening in this video. Perhaps it's just the Shanghai location, but it seems like a pretty conscious reference on Lynch's part.

EDIT: Sorry, Sanjin, noticed you mentioned Lynch shooting Inland on a PD-170.
 
Of course David Lynch is free to use what ever tool he thinks that is good for his story: an iPhone (he hates it) or Panavision cameras and anamorphic lenses (he likes the most).

But that was not my main point.

I wanted to say that Dior paid for this sort of "Lynch story" directly to the original artist "David Lynch" that he by himself packed that "product" in web video shot by Sony XDCAM format quality...

Somebody would say that the production's economic and aesthetic reasons were brought "nicely" together in one "great" advertising message "colored by Lynch" (for me all was a bit funny

or even a sort of stupid) about that fuc*n mysterious ownership of Dior women's bag in this particular case as a brand new Dior Blue Bag.

Also asking myself how David Lynch is going play with audience after this probably one of the worst examples of "cheap" art-selling today and to convince us to follow truly his next feature (???!!!)...

Or he was trying to make fun of media and audience at the same time but it looks more like that he made fun of "David Lynch" label himself.

Today David Lynch himself should be a perfect (photo)-model for the next edition or sequel of David LaChapelle's photo-book "Artists and Prostitutes".
 
Robert Frank said:
Working for me in both Safari and Firefox. Although when I realized it's 16 minutes long I decided to watch it later. But it does load and play ok.
Click to expand...

Peter Strietmann said:
Don't bother. It will be 16 minutes of your life you will not get back.
Click to expand...

I watched about 30 seconds of and I thought, "mmm, maybe later". :rolleyes:

Hehe.... you saved 16 minutes of my life, thank you!
 
As much as I detest the video look, I respect Lynch as a visual artist and storyteller, like no other working today. The only film that fell apart was Dune but I don't really hold him responsible for that. Lynch, in my book, is unique and extremely gifted master of the moving image. I understand if people can't watch or dislike his fiims, a lot of people can't handle watching Tarkovsky. I personally don't like a lot of Robert Bresson's films. I hate his non-stlye which only works in A Man Escaped.

I ended up watching a small version on some random site. Yep not one of Lynch's finer moments in film. It did seem he was parody-ing himself. Shame. He does tend to do his adverts with a little tongue and cheek but this just seemed a little step in another direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top