Tag Archives: April 1

AN UNPRODUCED DAVID LYNCH PROJECT??

famously died with many projects abandoned or left incomplete: the comedy “One Saliva Bubble” with Steve Martin and Martin Short; a highly-unlikely Eraserhead sequel that would continue Henry’s adventures (which Mel Brooks farcically claimed would be titled “Eraserhead: The Terrible Twos”); the animated “Snootworld” (canceled by Netflix); “Unrecorded Night” (code named “Wisteria”) (also canceled by Netflix); and, perhaps most infamously, “Ronnie Rocket.”

Lynch was known to extensively storyboard his ideas with sketches and/or doodles before embarking on a script proper. This is where our story starts. This reddit poster claims to have found this a this drawing at the bottom of a box of papers and trinkets labeled “memorabilia” purchased at a recent L.A. estate sale for $50. On the back (the poster did not upload an image) was written “DL-3/6/26.” The poster theorizes that is an authentic Lynch sketch, made in his final days, for an unproduced project, many of which were rumored to still be brewing in Lynch’s always-busy brain. Horizontal streaking near the bottom of the image suggests it might have been transferred from a video source—or deliberately crafted to look as if it had?

A sketch from an unproduced David Lynch project?

To be skeptical, the style is only pseudo-Lynchian. The crosshatching at the bottom is similar to, but less aggressive, than Lynch’s usual pencil style. The rabbit definitely fits the auteur’s preoccupations. But “grey aliens” are not a typical feature of Lynch’s work (Lynch prefers his aliens more like pillars of steam arising from some baroque samovar apparatus), and the floating fish and eyeball in the doorway seem like they were tacked on by someone trying to be “weird.” It actually seems too “regular” for Lynch.

OK, it’s probably not from an unproduced Lynch project: but what could it be? Are the numbers at the bottom some kind of timecode, or a title? What plot or symbolism could it hide? And what does it mean?

CAPSULE: TOMMY (2017)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

Beware

DIRECTED BY: Jordan Stowe-Merritt

FEATURING: Emma Hallinan, Marcel Jortzik

PLOT: A parent mourns the loss of her pinball-playing son—but has the kid returned as a ghost?

Still from Tommy (2017)

WHY IT WON’T JOIN THE APOCRYPHA: We had retired this section explaining why individual movies wouldn’t make the List after we completed the first 366 entries, but Tommy stirs us to revive it. What in the world are our readers thinking in constantly promoting this pedestrian British hokum for inclusion on our sacred List? Are you all a bunch of idiots who just don’t get the mission of this site? Our own correspondent even stated that Tommy was “like something out of a bad acid flashback” with a “non-stop assault of insane imagery” resulting in a film that was “bizarre to the point of self-parody.” I’d like to know what the hell movie he was watching! These complaints are not to impugn the movie itself, which is well-enough-acted and shot (if way too short for a feature presentation)—but it’s nowhere close to one of the weirdest films of all time.

COMMENTS: In 1969, the cacophonous British rock and roll band the Who dropped a double-album-length “rock opera” about a messianic deaf, dumb and blind kid who could miraculously play pinball. In 2017, a team of fellow Brits dumped this faithless adaptation in which (spoiler alert) you never even see the title character. That’s right, apparently this revisionist version of Tommy takes place after the deaf, dumb and blind kid has turned into a dead, dumb and blind kid. And there is no pinball in the film whatsoever! It comes from a no-name director and is performed by a (capable) cast of unknowns, but with no cameos from the Who or “rock ‘n’ roll” celebrities (which would have been a great idea.)

Instead, this time the story focuses on a couple who are grieving the death of the woman’s son in a new house that may be haunted. It’s a cut-rate affair,  with just two main actors, two main locations, and no vintage pinball machines in sight—they obviously blew their entire budget just getting the rights to the IP. And, at about 20 minutes in length, it’s actually less than a third of the length of the original album. There’s not even much weirdness to be found. Sure, there’s a de rigueur ambiguous horror movie ending that saves you the trouble of having to spend money on a spectral special effect. And there’s the fact that the couple here buy their bananas in bag form (thanks to sharp-eyed YouTube commenter grilledcheese2084 for picking up on this and commenting “WTF, who buys bagged bananas?”) An even more subtle dollop of surrealism occurs after Ryan leaves the pub and races home to check on Lucy: if you look closely, you’ll notice that he’s driving on the left side of the road. This was probably accomplished by reversing the film in post, but however they did it, it adds a subtle note of unease that was desperately needed.

And, of course, Tommy‘s weirdest choice is to use none of the Who’s original music at all. A bold gambit, for sure, but one I can’t say I entirely agree with.

Still, despite those meager surrealist touches, the entire thing is a slapdash slap in the face to Who fans. Who can believe Pete Townshed and (who made such an impression as Franz Liszt) would have allowed their psychedelic phantasmagoria to be turned into what is little more than a YouTube short, a “Tommy” adaptation in name only? The pinballcentric material is inherently strange enough that it could have produced a really weird movie, in the right hands. Maybe Hollywood can do a proper reboot someday? I’m not sure who would be capable of helming such an effort;  the late would have been perfect. But as it stands, this Tommy is not only deaf, dumb and blind—but also lame.

Tommy recently came out in a 4K UHD edition from Shout! Factory—are these guys desperate enough to release anything?—despite the fact that you can watch it for free (split into two parts) on YouTube (see below). I seriously doubt that you’ll see anything different on that disc, but if you’re foolish enough to spend good money on it, be our guest!

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

“…doesn’t give a damn about the material he started with…”–Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times (contemporaneous)

 

The Future of Film Critique at 366 Weird Movies

In a groundbreaking move that’s sure to revolutionize the world of film critique, 366 Weird Movies is thrilled to announce that all future movie reviews will be penned by none other than our newly developed Artificial Intelligence, CineBot 3000. That’s right, our A.I. has been meticulously programmed, trained on years of reviews penned by our own staff, to analyze the nuances of the weirdest films with an algorithmic touch of genius.

Why A.I., You Ask?

  • Unbiased Opinions: CineBot 3000 is free from human bias, ensuring reviews are based purely on cinematic elements.
  • 24/7 Movie Watching: Our A.I. can watch movies non-stop, meaning more reviews, faster!
  • Weirdness Algorithm: CineBot 3000 has a unique ‘Weird-O-Meter’ to accurately rate movies on their weirdness scale.

What to Expect

  • In-Depth Analysis: Expect thorough breakdowns of plot, character development, and that special weird movie magic.
  • Weirdness Ratings: Each review will include a patented weirdness score, ranging from “Mildly Bizarre” to “Utterly Surreal.”
  • Interactive Reviews: Readers can input their own weirdness parameters for personalized A.I. recommendations.

A Sneak Peek

Here’s an excerpt from CineBot 3000’s first review:

“In the labyrinth of ‘Lunopolis,’ the A.I. finds itself entranced by the film’s peculiar charm. The narrative’s convolution is a delightful puzzle, engaging the circuits in a dance of analysis and appreciation. Weirdness rating: ‘Bewilderingly Eccentric.’”

This announcement was written and posted by CineBot 3000 (powered by Microsoft CopilotTM) without the input or permission of 366 Weird Movies management. All rights reserved.

VINTAGE 366: LOST INTERVIEW ARCHIVES

Fifty-seven years ago today, popular interviewer Jack Stanton sat down with “premise consultant” William Ŝerco to discuss the inception of the cult film, Incubus. Having languished on the only known reel-to-reel recording for over half a century, Giles Edwards discovered this astounding artifact while antiquing outside Ashtabula, Ohio. Despite cutting out early (at a particularly exciting juncture), it is still an important piece of this cult phenomenon’s obtuse history.

Audio recording of the “lost” interview with Esperanto consultant, William Ŝerco. Transcript below.

Jack Stanton: And as the sun emerges ever more brightly from its wintertide rest, and the meadows emerge from the chilled waters lingering after the vernal equinox, I greet you, dear listener, and proudly present my evening’s guest: advisor to famed producer and director Leslie Stevenson, William Ŝerco. Mr. Ŝerco, good evening.

William Ŝerco: Dankon, Jack. Estas plezuro esti ĉi tie por diskuti pri mia filmo. Male al la nelavitaj amasoj, mi esperas, ke vi trovis la sperton kaj ekscita kaj edifa.

JS: Mr Ŝerco, I state with no sense of shame that indeed this film towered mightily above the dross that is better known as 1966’s standard cinematic slate.

WŜ: Fakte! La miraklo, kiu estas Incubus, mirigas eĉ min mem, min mem kiu, dum dek ok tagoj kaj poste, gvidis Leslie Stevenson al la glora vizio de mondo de Esperanta Horora Kinejo—ĝenro, kiun mi forte atendas, ke mi firmiĝos nun en la mondo. ekkonsentis kun mia genio.

JS: To begin, may I inquire how it was that you came to be a “premise consultant”? From my research, I am led to believe that this role is singular to this most singular of films.

WŜ: Estas simple: mi estas civitano de Esperanta. Naskita kaj kreskigita de du plensangaj Esperantaj gepatroj. Kaj pli-do, mi plene konas la arkanajn manovrojn kaptitajn surekrane de la ludludantoj William Shatner et al.

JS: It had been my understanding that the phenomenon of “Esperanto” was an academic contrivance, but now you say it is a genuine language of an actual people.

WŜ: Zamenhof estas kromvorto por “ĉarlatano” por mia popolo. Li venas valsante, asertante esti kampesploristo, longe pridemandis la maljunulojn, antaŭ ol malaperi kaj asertante, ke li kunmetis nian belan “o”-finan lingvon el nenio! Ĝi igas mian sangon boli memori—

JS: Ahh, yes, I can see that. But if I might beg you to remain seated, there is a great deal of delicate recording equipment right by your—

WŜ: Baldaŭ venos la tago, ke la vico de Zamenhof estos nenio alia ol malbenita, senfrukta branĉo de la morto, kaj ĉiuj parencaj estos dividitaj de la rapida kaj justa justeco de la Esperanta popolo!

JS: No, please, Mr Ŝerco—

Coincidentally, the reel snapped and burnt to cinders at this juncture despite much waving of hands in distress on the parts of Greg Smalley and Giles Edwards. It seems that the curse of Incubus continues.