I really love his work. I couldn't tell you what they are about either. It's been a while since I watched Inland Empire and Blue Velvent, but besides the plot, the surrealism is more about feelings or visual poetry or something. It feels subversive and critical of the liberal facade of society.

I think if it was easy to put into words what they are about, they wouldn't be art. Lynch creates things that cannot easily be defined by writing them down. Like the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words".

Pretty good but find it hard to get past him singing the Polanski petition, also in retrospect of that its clear the guy isnt a feminist and has literally 0 idea how to write women.

A bit overrated imo

I absolutely adore Lynch!

It's quite difficult if not impossible to boil down any of his works to a single meaning, but Blue Velvet (and much of Lynch's work in general) is largely focused on the exploration, violence, and horror beneath the veneer of American society.

One of the first shots of the movie makes it quite explicit: beneath the white picket fences and happy families are masses of writhing insects.

Inland Empire is significantly more complicated and touches on the exploitiation of women in Hollywood, the unreality of American life (what is fiction and what is real?), and the alienation that unreality causes.

I strongly suggest watching Twin Peaks if you want to try to get a better understanding of Lynch. It's a lengthy work consisting of three seasons of TV and a film but it's absolutely worth the time investment. Some of it (looking at you, Season 3) is absolutely as difficult (or more) than even inland empire but somewhat paradoxically I find the length also means you have more information to work with while tying it together in your head and thus provides a better opportunity to come to your own conclusions rather than the one and done nature of a film.

I loved the first season of Twin Peaks, ideologically his work is very postmodernist with all its fallacies.

I don’t think I’m “sophisticated” enough to have a well-informed opinion. I don’t think he’s for the literarily/cinematographically naïve. Every art form develops its own “language,” and to fully appreciate it you need to learn that language and its historical development. I think he’s something of a cinematographer’s cinematographer.

If you watch his first film. Eraserhead, it’s excruciatingly clear that nothing is intended to be taken literally, and that there’s no one simple/pat/“right” answer/interpretation is intended.

i hate them; they're all vague, postmodern, unapproachable and idealist garbage. not understanding them is part of the point, so that those who think the films are deep can wax poetic about how amazing they are, but then fall back on any interpretation they like whenever serious criticisms are levied at the works or their underlying ideology.

Terrible horrors behind the facades of suburban Americana. Mulholland Drive and Twin Peaks are probably better introductions.

They are not my jam, and plenty of other directors do weird better without being vague about it.