Six Men Getting Sick

David Lynch once said about how he came to start making films.

• "One night I was drawing a garden in my studio, immersed in a thick black night, where green grass seemed to dilute this bottomless darkness, and I sat down beside my picture, began to peer at it, and I heard the wind blowing and My picture was rustled with grass, and then I thought, "Oh,the moving painting!" "

And so he realized that he wants to shoot / draw "moving pictures" called films. And this work, his first work, is so simple, so genius. In its essence, this is the true image of the philosophy with which Lynch still pictures his paintings. This is nothing more than a painting that constantly changes its state, and all this translates into a moving picture.

It is with this thought you need to look at this picture. It is she who will give you a complete idea of ​​the primary thought Lynch shot his greatest works ("Mallholland Dr.", "Eraserhead", "Blue Velvet").

Looking at this disturbing picture, you can experience the same sensations as when looking at pictures of surrealists, such as Salvador Dali. And if you are suddenly not familiar with the works of Lynch at all, then I advise you to understand and feel his view of the cinema precisely from this work, and what undisclosed potential the cinematography possesses, not playing with your intellect, and not even with your eyes, but with your subconscious mind ...

I remember Lynch was once quoted as saying that he was initially a painter, but he wanted the paintings to move, just a little bit, & that's what got him into animation.

This short is a good example of that - it portrays six figures on a wall vomiting, complete with visible internal organs, then catching on fire. The visuals are accompanied by a siren. Originally, the 40 second short was screened on a loop at an exhibition, which ran indefinitely. The DVD of Lynch's short films has it repeated 6 times.

No story, no characters - it really is more like a moving painting than a 'short film', more at home in a gallery as an installation than in a darkened cinema. The crude, but striking, animation style is similar to that which Lynch later used in 'The Alphabet' & 'The Grandmother', although they did include plotlines & characters, bizarre though they were.

Well worth a look, if only to see where this great director's career started.

Lynch explains on the DVD that he was inspired to make a moving painting and that is just what he did. As per usual with Lynch, there is no explanation for what is going on (actually, with this short, there doesn't even seem to be a reason for what's going on) but it is somehow beautiful in its repetition.

WHEN WE SAW this recently thanx to our good friends at TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES we were quite surprised: A) That there really was such a film with such a title, B) That an outfit like TCM actually did televise such, C) That we watched it and finally D) That we are doing a review.

IN MANY WAYS the very brief tidbit of what can only be referred to as limited (very limited) animation. In some respects it appears to be a sort of intentional throwback to the very earliest animation to be committed to film. In our mind, that means the short (3 + minute) titled HUMOROUS PHASES OF FUNNY FACES (Stuart Bracton/Vitagraph, 1906).

IN SOME AREAS, the cartoon succeeds in doing this as an homage to both the artist, as well as to the art-form as well. It is in the beginnings of animation in this embryonic stage and form that started both artist and producer on the road to the shorts and full length features that we take for granted.

IN SHORT, without HUMOROUS FACES, there'd be no FANTASIA.

ON THE OTHER hand, we get the distinct impression that the cartoonist and the producer really did want to gross out the audience and induce gastro-intestinal maladies. This would seem to be superfluous as we don't learn anything that we don't already know and have all experienced for ourselves.

SO SORRY TO report to Animator/Director/Producer Mr. David Lynch, that no one was edified in the extended display of vomiting, puking, wreching, hurling and heaving; nor by displays of dysentery, diarrhea, the runs or the scutters.

WELL SCHULTZ, DO you think anyone's shocked?

Okay, the thing is, this isn't a movie you can really rate on a site like this because a few things need to be taken into account:

1) It was a statue. Some of this is meant to be seen in 3D. 2) It's non-narrative. Even for Lynch, there's no real way to approach it, only "experience it". Which in the case of seeing it in real life, would be vastly interesting, but through the medium of the television it's only slightly so. Think about it like seeing a screensaver picture of the Eiffel Tower instead of being there. You can still appreciate it's magnificence, but you still haven't seen it. 3) It was an experiment. An award winning experiment, but still an experiment.

So for that, it's at least interesting. It honestly makes me want to see the actual set up to get a better idea of what all the various forms helped do for each other (animation, projection, sculpture, painting, etc.). But as a filmed medium, it's just something to sit and watch a while, nod your head in acceptance, and move on.

Still, I'd check it out. The idea behind it is inventive enough that maybe it'll open up more ideas for like experiments or further experiments.

--PolarisDiB