I am not a fan of Lynch, but I am always interested in his work. Almost all of his films cause internal dissonance in me and it is very difficult to evaluate his creations. Sometimes I find it more interesting to read about his films on forums than to watch the movie itself (as I did with Inner Empire). And, perhaps, if I became more interested in the person of Lynch, I would understand better his love for rabbits and what they symbolize.
This film (or rather a sketch series) left a very vague feeling in me. It seemed interesting to watch, but as always nothing is unclear. I feel good about films where you have to get to something yourself, understand something and so on, but in this film and some other Lynch films, I think the director himself does not understand what he is shooting (this is like his comment that Laura Palmer never existed - understand what you want, viewers).
So how do you see this series? Like a parody of sitcoms in which Lynch just laughed at the viewers and creators of such conveyor belts? How do you write about family life? Like something deeper and more mysterious? Like the nonsense that was written in a notebook under the influence of psychotropic substances? (it was very similar, by the way, especially in the solo series of Jack, Jane and Susie, I think they just said words there at random).
We made the assumption that all the characters’ phrases in each series (not counting “solars”) are not linear, but in a jumbled order, if this is indeed the case, then this is an interesting move, I even sat with a notebook and recorded their “dialogue” to restore the logic from the conversation ( if most Lynch films have it at all).
In general, the film will definitely come to the fans of the director, and I, as a simple viewer, was curious to watch and nothing more.
4 out of 10
David Lynch’s “Rabbits” is to some extent a standard, and to some extent an absolutely unique avant-garde schizophrenic farce. Every little action or word makes absolutely no sense when viewed from one angle, but it immediately appears, look at everything from a different angle. The funniest thing is that Rabbits doesn’t force the viewer to compose any complex linguistic constructs, putting words in a certain order, as it might seem at first. The meaning of each phrase or word is simple: it is a description. Not a narrative, but a description. The action is circular: it does not move forward, but is at the same stage of development. All spoken phrases and words must be visualized to form a picture before your eyes. Every phrase and word is a stroke of the painter’s brush. Putting together all the strokes, we get a picture.
Some directors are able to convey content through the form, Lynch narrates through the description. Descriptive. Shooting always comes from one angle. A still camera. The action takes place in a single room where there are three rabbits. Sometimes you hear voice-over laughter, the presence of which can be interpreted as a parody on the sitcom (Lynch likes to mock pop culture), as well as a kind of deus ex machina, where the same laughter and mysterious calls to the characters are the tricks of some almighty higher power, perhaps even the viewer – an independent subject watching from the outside.
Human souls trapped in the bodies of rabbits who are forced to experience the same life over and over again, trapped within four walls. That sounds scary. There's endless rain outside. Purgatory, hell or whatever, is a mystery. For what such merits the souls of people were locked in the bodies of rabbits is also a mystery. Dialogues and monologues only show that they have witnessed, and perhaps directly or indirectly participated in, some brutal murder. Most of the replicas are a description of the decaying body, as well as everything related to the incident. Additional details. All the action takes place under the psychedelic soundtrack of Angelo Badalamenti, constantly composer David Lynch, author of the famous soundtrack to his own “Twin Peaks” and many other films. In addition to the barely audible behind-the-scenes music inserted by the ambient, as well as rare phrases and voiceovers, there is a dead silence that also acts as a saspiens.
The eight-part short (48 minutes) turns into a typically lynchy abstract-unsaid story, the meaning of which is packaged in a rather nonlinear and disparate description of the situation. Metaphorical and allegorical in such projects is always at the level - after all, the deep meaning, as you know, if you want, can be found in absolutely any artistic work, and any banality hidden behind the turmoil, take for something high-content. Lynch is one of the rare avant-garde artists who can make sure that the original meaning was in the unreal plot, and huge opportunities for viewers to build theories of varying degrees of depth and delusion.
I heard that noise too.
- It was a man in a green coat.
- I always wondered who I was.
In one small green room are three humanoid rabbits: Jack, Jane and Susie. One strokes, the other sits on the couch, the third either enters the room or leaves it. From time to time, each of them has a dialogue with each other, but it turns out that each of the rabbits talks about their own, and this dialogue is confusing. Sometimes a demon comes to them, sometimes each of them sings an unrhymed song about "room and blood", and a strange noise is heard behind the room. But Rabbits are waiting for something, they are afraid of something and constantly remember something terrible, which is the cause of everything that happens.
Rabbits is a set of small sketches (a total of 8 series), lasting 5-6 minutes each. I would call this short one of the most “brain-bending” projects of the master and would put it on a par with “Head-Lastik”, but unlike “Head”, or other similar films of the director, the mystery of “Rabbits” is just in the dialogue, because nothing else (except the spirit) is supernatural.
The phrases of the characters are built so that the dialogues completely contradict each other, and it turns out a real mess, but this is not the case. In fact, the question about the weather, the rabbit can answer in the next series, or the dialogue about the phone can suddenly continue through two episodes, and only revision, as well as the subsequent deep analysis, you can understand the meaning of what is happening, which seems not much simple. What are these rabbits? Why the Rabbits? The personification of human vice through the eyes of Lynch? What room is this? Purgatory, where the characters are forced to repeat the same actions constantly (knocking on the door and the subsequent check, what is behind it), seeming to them simple routine (no wonder Jack complains of memory loss)? Perhaps so, but what does it have to do with heroes?
And dialogue, it turns out, is a simple attempt to “reach out to the opponent”, but the fact is that none of the rabbits listen to each other, and each thinks about his own. Jack thinks of the guy in the green coat, Susie tries to remember herself, and Jane is constantly listening. They're all locked up, they're trying to figure out what and how, but it's all just a "closed" circle, and maybe they'll never get an answer.
The atmosphere here to match Lynch paintings: dark, mysterious, and in its alluring, forcing time after time to plunge headlong into this crazy world, which is supported by various, and sometimes frightening sounds (stomping, knocking, hum of the ferry), as well as frightening and gloomy composition Badalamenti (possibly taken from “Twin Peaks”).
Believe me, this movie is not for everyone. Perhaps the unsophisticated viewer will find it quite empty and meaningless, and accustomed when the meaning is conveyed to him, like a child, the viewer will not like the film, and he will never in his life return to the endless cycle of Rabbits. But “Rabbits” is just another cinematic mystery, solving which you can understand not only the meaning of everything, but also what Lynch is trying to tell us. You will not see such films anywhere.
Damn it, how stupid it is to think that this sitcom does not make sense! “Rabbits” is a mosaic that can only be assembled by a true fan of David Lynch and puzzles.
In many mythologies, three rabbits (namely three!) signify a connection with the afterlife, dead souls. I bet Lynch knew that. His love for various legends has no end. So Susie, Jane and Jack are the people who died in this room, in their new guise, the rabbits who have lost their memory, trying to remember why they died. Phrases that pop up now and then seem incoherent only at first. On full viewing, the chain converges: fire, hunting, treason, gallows. And rain, endless rain. When the main characters are on the wrong path, give out real stupid phrases (like Susan "And?"), then there is laughter behind the scenes. When the thoughts are right, bright, applause is heard.
The actions of rabbits mean a lot too: Jack always walks in the door, apparently the last one to die. Susie always runs an iron (cause of the fire?), and Jane? Jane's sitting. Well, why? Same thing.
I feel that violent death is involved here: a stain of blood, opened, sharp, knife, blood, cold.
I won’t say anything else, I’m only halfway through the road.
Lynch is a genius with brains. Wonderful.
David Lynch once again made it clear how lazy and predictable I am in terms of solving his cinematic puzzles. In fact, I'm not trying to solve anything at all, even though I know what to do. I just follow the atmosphere of the film, all the incomprehensible what is happening there, and get some aesthetic pleasure.
After watching Rabbits, I didn’t understand anything but a dog crawling on its belly. Every hero of this surreal picture tells about it. At the beginning, it seemed that “Rabbits” is a parody of society, which is engaged in the household, then reads something meaningless, then comes from work. They are rabbits because they like to breed like humans. It's like Lynch makes fun of people like that.
After watching the movie, I went to the movie page to see what other viewers thought. Thank you very much to the user under the nickname "Miles Dyson" for giving the clue. I don’t know where this person came from, but it sheds light on a lot of things in a completely unexpected way. Read his review better - it is a hundred times more useful.
And I... And I just fell in love with the director again for making it so messy. After all, at least some part of the solution lies on the surface, we just notice only the first plot layer, images, pictures, and do not think at all what can mean everything. We are confused by the costumes of rabbits, phrases out of place, imaginary dullness of time. However, it is filmed atmospheric, bright, wonderful!
There is a lot to worry about. In our world, accustomed to lapping with a spoon, it is extremely useful.
I came across this completely by accident, and started watching only because of the funny name. Who would have thought it would be the worst thing I’ve seen in my life? Nobody.
Meanwhile, Rabbits is a natural sitcom. Or, rather, a parody of him? 8 episodes of 5-7 minutes each. Same set. Same heroes. "Audience laugh behind the scenes" is available. Only here this "laughter" sometimes slips goosebumps. You don’t even know how to smile or not smile.
You play the first episode and you realize you don't understand anything. Extremely long pauses filled with silence. Rabbits that carry seemingly completely incoherent nonsense, scraps of sentences, a fan of meaningless words. But somehow you don't turn it off. You keep watching, feeling something behind the screen pulling you in and you can't tell what it is. Sometimes you're so scared that you want to look away because there's no pee to look at ... rabbits? Or what happens next? Or just looking into a void that has something in it? Or maybe all together.
And then something amazing happens. With each new episode, the picture becomes clearer in your head. It feels like you're starting to understand something. The incoherent speech of rabbits becomes meaningful. At this very moment, you suddenly begin to doubt yourself. Doubting rabbits. They're trying to express something. To express something so terrible that there are no words for it. This is a broken puzzle that you can try to somehow assemble in your head and perhaps assemble it correctly, or perhaps not.
And I have absolutely no idea why I want to watch it again. It's very incomprehensible. It's very specific. And it's definitely not going to please everyone.