Pervert in the Pulpit: Morality in the Works of David Lynch

Rating:
Summary: Seriously Nietzschean Lynch
Review: I agree with the other reviewers that this is a serious book, not a cheerleading ditty for die-hard Lynch fans. Plus you don't have to be that well read in Nietzsche to appreciate Johnson's argument. However, for those steeped in Nietzsche, the reward is remarkable. Contrary to Matthew Norman's sophomoric (and condescending) characterization, Johnson's reading of Nietzsche is deep and intuitive, and his application - especially in his discussion of the short films - adds a dimension to Lynch missing in other analyses. I recommend it for both scholars and students, and even for people who, like Norman, seriously misread Nietzsche. (Even he gave it three stars...)

Rating:
Summary: AN INTELLIGENT LYNCH BOOK
Review: I strongly disagree with the reviewer from NY. This book is definitely NOT "pointless" though I can see why die-hard Lynch fans might get a bit miffed by Johnson's presentation of Lynch as a conservative. This book actually analyses ALL of his films from a literary perspective -- I like especially his Nietzschean slant on the early experimental films. It's not a vehicle to glorify Lynch but it certainly acknowledges his allure and his achievement. I think it's a must-read for serious students of cinema.

Rating:
Summary: pointless
Review: If you are a David Lynch fan you'll most likely hate this book as it goes to great lengths to discredit him as a true artist. By the same token, if you don't like Lynch I doubt that you'd want to pay $32.00 and waste your time reading this book to justify your lack of interest.
I love David Lynch and found this book to be misguided at best and completely idiotic at worst. (it was a gift)
I am not an Oliver Stone fan, however the idea of actually buying a book on why he's not a great filmaker seem fairly pointless.

Rating:
Summary: almost worth reading
Review: This book is pretty informative and could serve as an effective starting point for those looking to understand Lynch's work in a context broader than that of modern cinema. However, the analysis is flawed throughout by the author's misinterpretation of the premise that forms the crux of Lynch's work. The author is right to discuss Lynch from a Nietzschean perspective, though he understands Nietzsche little more than he understands Lynch; Lynch,like Nietzsche, D.H. Lawrence, and Henry Miller, proposes through his work a morality more rigorous than that of the masses, and one based not on repression but on the active principles of love and good will. Johnson could learn quite a bit by reading reactions from the numerous, now discredited, critiques aimed at Nietzsche and Lawrence, which all follow a similarly flawed line of thinking.

Rating:
Summary: A New Twist and Decent Read
Review: This is an important and unique addition to any appreciation of Lynch's work, but all this talk of Nietzsche is off-topic. The author only uses minor insights from Nietzsche's perspective on morality to shape some of his points about Lynch's early films. The book is not "seriously Nietzschean," but it is certainly not the case, as Matthew Norman writes in his reveiw, that "Johnson understands Nietzsche little more than he understands Lynch." Johnson's use of Nietzsche is appropriate and smart, but to focus on that isssue is to misread Johnson's point: that Lynch is a moralist in the typically American strain of Puritanism, a point that other writers on Lynch seem to ignore or dismiss. Johnson's argument is sharp and focused, and it seems bizarre and petty that some of the critics below misconstrue what he's trying to do. You might disagree with Johnson's premise, but the book should be read fairly and not misrepresented. It's more than a good start: it's a new perspective altogether.