After working through David Durnell’s article on Dumbland last night, I went to bed wondering if maybe Lynch did intend Dumbland to be a pessimistic film. It does seem pretty pessimistic. The thing is, mosty of his films are very dark, but somehow, I always come away with a stronger sense of compassion from them than pessimism. Dumbland was more crude than what I’m used to from Lynch and I’m not exactly a fan of that sort of “humor”. But I woke up with a very strong sense that it was compassionate.

I looked up pessimism and there are two definitions: 1. an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects, conditions, and possibilities or to expect the worst possible outcome; 2. the doctrine that reality is essentially evil b: the doctrine that evil overbalances happiness in life.

Lynch definitely emphasizes adverse aspects, conditions, and possibilities. But I don’t think he personally expects the worst possible outcome and I have no sense whatsoever that he thinks reality is essentially evil or that evil overbalances happiness.

I think the reason Lynch presents so much “evil” in his films is because we, as a culture, are addicted to happiness. Also, we’re still a society based on puritanical values which taught that humanity is evil/fallen and that only the “chosen” are “good”. America thinks of itself as “chosen”. We are good and we intend to spread our goodness to others. Problem is, we tend to deny what is “bad” in order to keep the focus on our “goodness”.

This has layers and layers and layers that I think Lynch plays out beautifully in his films. The abusive patterns that are perpetuated by the denial of the abuse at the family level make their way into the societal level, too. We were raised with an extremely detrimental metaphysical model that told us we are bad and God is good. In order to be good, we have to do as we are told - “accept Jesus as our Lord and savior” (or whatever.) What this model has done is obscured the fact that we are both “good” and “bad” - every single one of us. To deny either in favor of the other is going to cause problems. It seems to me what Lynch is showing in most of his films is that the overbalance of so-called “goodness” is what is causing so much evil. The denial of evil/pain in order to focus on good/happy creates an imbalance that needs to be corrected.

What we deny is what gets perpetuated. Instead of recognizing it for what it is, we glorify “acceptable” or entertaining forms of violence, and become numb to the horrors that are happening around us. If we were to see evil for what it is, we’d do more to bring it to an end. But we don’t want to see it - especially in ourselves. So what Lynch does is shove the evil in our face, hoping we’ll see ourselves reflected in it. He wants us to wake up - not so that we’ll think of ourselves as evil, but so that we’ll quit unconsciously perpetuating it. I don’t think he’s trying to say it’s hopeless. But I do think he wants us to see reality without all the filters.

It isn’t that humanity is bad, it’s confused. We confuse perception with reality. We can’t change reality, but we can change our perceptions about it if we are willing to quit numbing ourselves with our “happy” distractions. Perhaps it isn’t optimism, but it isn’t pessimism, either. If we see pessimism in Lynch’s art, it’s probably because we are pessimistic ourselves. If we see hopelessness in his films, it is likely because we have a strong sense of hopelessness ourselves. If his films make us angry, then perhaps we are a bit like Randy and don’t realize it. His films are meant to evoke a response - not just the typical “feel good” response of the movie industry. He wants to pull up all of those repressed emotions we don’t like dealing with to make us deal with them. Until we are willing to do that, we will unconsciously perpetuate them.

I don’t think that’s pessimism; I think that’s compassion. We’re all in this together, after all and it is we who create our reality. Why not create consciously? We have to be willing to look at all aspects of ourselves in order to do that - not just the ones that make us “feel good” or allow us to pretend our existence doesn’t affect others and that the existence of others shouldn’t affect us. (Sartre said, existence is about “being in the way” - our existence is contingent upon others, not separate from others.)

So a few thoughts while I’m at it…

In Episode 1, Randy is looking at “that wooden shed over there” and the neighbor makes a point to say “it is my shed” which is obvious because it’s in his backyard which separated from Randy’s by a fence. The neighbor tells Randy he only has one arm and flings his arm on the ground, Randy seems not to know what to say, and a helicopter flies overhead. My immediate thought was Vietnam - especially with the neighbor’s arm lying on the ground. There is some emotion trying to register, but it doesn’t register so Randy gets angry instead. To distract himself from his anger, he turns to the local gossip about his neighbor - “the who is sleeping with who” conversation. To me, the disconnect is painfully sad.

In Episode 3, the doctor keeps asking Randy, “Does this hurt you?” and and Randy keeps replying that it doesn’t. What finally angers him, I think, is the realization that the doctor wants him to feel something. Randy doesn’t want to feel anything - especially pain. Randy reacts when the knife is in his brain which may signify that he doesn’t have any. But I think it also points to emotional pain. It isn’t physical pain that Randy reacts to, it’s emotional pain.

In Episode 4, just before Randy has beaten his wife to a pulp, she momentarily acquires a new and improved beautiful face. I agree with Durnell that this is about plastic surgery. Women, instead of recognizing that they are being objectified, attempt to become a more attractive object. This, of course, simply perpetuates the objectification.

Episode 8 is great. It’s very much like Meursault beginning to recognize his existence through other’s judgments of him. As I mentioned early, Sartre said in Nausea that existing is “getting in the way” of others. Randy doesn’t want anything in his way. He’s always saying things like - what if I wanted to take a shit in my backyard? He should be able to do whatever it is he wants on his little plot of land without others getting in his way. He doesn’t realize that he is as much in the way of others as they are of him. You can only fully understand your existence through others and, as Camus said, this is typically realized through their judgments of you.

But it’s a mixed thing. If you are a child and have adults telling you that you are a “shit head”, a “dumb turd” and an “ass hole”, then you are likely to do one of two things - believe it and let yourself be abused, or deny it and become abusive. I think the ants could be both his repressed thoughts about himself and the fact that he does indeed exist so “is in the way” of others.

I think Randy definitely represents American society in general - not just suburbia (although I think suburbia just does America “bigger” because we’re in more denial). We don’t like being told what we can and cannot do, even when it’s for the sake of all of humanity. Our response to having limits imposed upon us is always anger: “If I want to drive an SUV then I want to drive an SUV. Fuck you! You are full of shit anyway. Everything is OK because I say it is and I’m a part of a special “chosen” society so I know and you don’t. I want to do what I want to do and you have no right “to get in my way.” In other words - you do not exist. But when you deny the existence of others, you are, in effect, denying your own existence as well because our existence is contingent upon the existence of others.

That’s why I think Lynch is being compassionate rather than pessimistic. He’s presenting our reality to us in a way that hopefully we can accept. And hopefully, we do find that reality disturbing! (If we don’t, then we’re probably psychopathic.)