Dear Mr. Chung

You also see something like what Damon Lindeloff has been able to do with The Leftovers -- a great show -- which came together in spite of the general public disappointment and the shadow cast by the end of LOST. You see can see how the seeds of that series crystallize into something that speaks far more maturely to his themes and concerns with this one, dovetailing.

..."a lust for result could spin against the way it drives."

This is a constant struggle, and I find myself arguing both sides, depending on the situation and the mindset of whom I'm talking to.
I've met quite a few professionals who genuinely did not care about the audience's experience, and were only motivated by their own creative process. When you are spending other people's money and time, that is just plain reckless and narcissistic. On the other hand, writers and directors at big studios are so intent on pleasing their masters sometimes that they forfeit any claim to having a personal vision. A good director knows what the desired finished film will be and must convince the studio and staff to trust him/her even if they cannot see it themselves.

While working on Firebreather, I was getting persistent notes discouraging me from taking certain risks. The trick is not to let it become adversarial, nor to take it personally. I understand that I cannot expect executives to have the same picture in their minds as the director. I was fortunate in that instance that I had a good relationship with them and they were willing to let me do it my way in spite of their doubts. In the end, I was able to get everything I wanted, and the studio was very pleased with the results.

Here is something that may come as a surprise to many. The fact that you enjoyed the AF series at all is because foremost in my mind was that the finished episodes would be accessible, emotionally affecting and thought provoking for the viewer. Those concerns were absolutely primary. I knew that the stories and ideas would be complicated and unconventional. But I always strove to make the storytelling (directing) as clear and as engaging as possible.

Well it helps to have already established that you personally in the AF shorts were able to tell stories of complexity and nuance without needing words at all. I watched the lecture where you explain how you mapped out "Tide" that way. The primacy of the image is central in any case. And adding spoken language to something at which you'd already proven adept, you didn't pull punches either. No exposition. Nor would there need to be for anyone paying attention. But even for those who aren't, establishing a multivalent architecture.

It's too bad that for some people the notion of the "avant-garde" has an import of work unnecessarily convoluted or purposely, needlessly skewed and not worth the efforts required to decipher meaning. Tho visual literacy is so often merely a series of doors. Door, door door, a door a door a door. Visual storytelling by itself establishes that semiology inherently. Perhaps for some who become confused it's simply a question of speed, pace..? The symbolic order too prog-y or sumthin'..? No idea.

.. I had an ex-girlfriend who when watching something had the impeccable timing of asking about *What is Going On* at the exact moment when continued attention would otherwise have answered her question ..

Regardless, every force evolves a form. A gap or an absence in narrative architecture is at once a goad and an extension of the engine & algorithm. The heart of the thing accounts for those lapses in understanding, and they're necessary. You say what you have to say in as direct a way as it can be conveyed. I don't think that ought to be in dispute, personally. .. And if it is, it shouldn't figure in in any case.

One thing I enjoy about Deadwood is that almost 100% of the dialogue is exposition. But how that's executed is what's remarkable. It becomes a showcase for baroque language and the themes at the story's core, while essentially never yielding in its transmission of What is Going On.

.. But when you kill the "hero" in your fourth episode, there are still people who are going to walk away, even if that signal jamming is entirely the point.

.. You can lead a horse to water ..

Aeon Flux was an inspiring to make My own attemp of animation 10 years ago. Is a unique style of animation and an example of creative Freedom. Although My animation workflow and style are diferent and not at the high Mr Chung level. Aeon Flux is today an importante reference of quality for new animators.

Derdekeas,
I recently decided to watch the Leftovers. I agree the show is great, up to a point. In this case, it would have been best if it ended after season 2. The amount of gratuitous plot that kept accumulating started to have the effect of cheapening what had happened before. Relationships that were ravaged get repurposed to the point where the arbitrariness of outcomes starts to show.

Having said that, there were moments during the show that were astonishing, even transcendent. Especially the season 2 opener. It's my high regard for what they were doing that made me wish they exited on a high note.

I agree that the show probably should have ended with the second season, and that that season's ending had a more satisfying finality than what ultimately concludes the third season.

There were certain things about the third season I liked -- the 'sequel' to "International Assassin" was pretty great structurally -- and I thought the performances were all very good. But, yes, in terms of story, it didn't really *need* to happen. I certainly wasn't as emotionally affected by the third season in the same way I was with the first two.

: : : : :

Have you been keeping up with Twin Peaks: The Return..? It's not tidy, but almost the entire time I've been thinking that it's just exactly the show I want to be watching. It certainly feels game-changing in a way that mirrors the original run of the series and its subsequent influence. But I'm also a big Lynch fan and am just 100% on board to go whatever the show wants to take me.

*wherever

As an episode on its own, the sequel to Intl. Assassin was cool. But the problem for me was bringing back the Patti Levin character. The importance of her assassination earlier is undermined by bringing her back.
It feels like they're just jerking us around.

Yes, I'm keeping up with Twin Peaks 2017.
There are times when shots of soap opera are delivered in the most perfunctory way possible, with straight exposition.
I like to think that Lynch does it deliberately, to get them out of the way so he can do the thing closest to his heart- dreamlike excursions of cinematic mind bending.

I love Patti Levin as a character and I think she and Kevin's arc is a highlight of the series as a whole, so even while I was delighted to see her again it *did* feel a bit fan-servicey. The logic of the show's metaphysics wasn't violated by Kevin bringing her out of "retirement", but I agree that it does cheapen the closure she was given.

: : : : :

TP '17 seems to be the most explicitly self-conscious and meta television experiment that's been attempted. All the parts that seem to be pandering are so self-aware that they're rendered, for me, palatable. (Although I hated Michael Cera's scene, Frank Truman's eye roll as he walks away from it would be a good example.)

Above all, Lynch's decision to embed himself as a character so prominently in the narrative is appropriately multidimensional, and his admission to not understanding the situation is to me the best invitation as an audience member to participate and co-author the mystery that's unfolding. I've half wondered if Lynch wasn't editing and delivering episodes week to week, so accurate has it been in taking our temperature.