Those references come up so randomly from Dorothy and Frank respectably, but they are never explained and there's not much of a meaning that needs to be explored to them. Does anyone have any understanding why they say them?
shareI always just took Dorothy's quote "Grand Central Station" as her just uttering some kind of casual remark about how busy her apartment was with all the guests, but this is a Lynch film, so there could be underlying meaning.
shareAs happy hank said, I believe the grand central remark is in reference to all the visitors to Dorthy's apartment. The Van Gogh remark that Frank makes I think is in reference to Dorthy's husband, who has had his ear cut off.
shareYeah, It's very easy to understand.
" Super Bowl XLVIII will be most evenly-matched Super Bowl in 32 years"- AH_Fan
Easy to understand IF you know how busy Grand Central station is that it's used as a simile (in this case metaphor) and you know about Gough's self mutilation.
If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.
What do you mean IF you know how busy it is? A station called "grand" and "central" can harldy be some god forsaken rural train stop. And the stuff about Van Gogh's ear isn't exactly esoteric knowledge, either. So, yeah, should be easy.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
Knowing that 'it's used as a simile' (as in it's a commonly used simile rather than it is used here as a simile) is key, and not everyone gives a fk about some dead artists personal life, so, yeah, at very least non-native English speakers, especially teens, could be forgiven for not knowing either reference. That's a lot of posters right there. You're being a bit of a prk.
shareWhat's being a native English speaker have to do with anything? Seeing as it's enough to know what the three simple words "grand", "central" and "station" mean in order to make an educated guess (and what ELSE could she possibly have meant by it, anyway, given the context? Had the OP given the matter half a minute worth of thought, I'm sure it would have come to him, too). As for Van Gogh, just because 'some' people are ignorant, don't mean it isn't rather common knowledge generally - even everybody on this very thread seems to be getting the reference.
So I will never forgive. Ever.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
Someone asks what appears to be a sincere question about references in a movie which they don't understand. And someone replies hinting that that person must be a bit stupid for needing to ask. Sounds fair enough to me. I mean if someone doesn't get references like that they really should keep quiet about it. At very least they shouldn't be dumb enough to ask for clarification here on IMDb, right?
The question was answered, all good, and someone jumps in to say something unnecessary and a bit unkind. I jump in - foolishly - to say the OP's question was a fair question and suddenly here you are.
Yeah, you're being a bit of a prk.
A non-native English speaker and / or teen MAY have less familiarity with commonly used similies and / or little bits of Western pop culture like 'Vinnie was wacko, ha ha'. I imagine some cultures concentrate more on Gough as an artist or even don't think much of him at all, but sue me if I'm wrong there. Or maybe call the PC brigade and string me up for that assumption? How about giving a fella the benefit of the doubt, my friend. Didn't your mama ever tell you it's not nice to look down on people just because they don't know something? Or maybe she would have used the words 'ignorant people'?
I've conversed with you on here before and you're clearly an intelligent and knowledgable person, but if you don't have the maturity to understand that your comments here have been unnecessary and unkind, and the balls or ovaries to admit you're in the wrong here or at very least being a bit of a jerk, then I have no use for you.
What's it gonna be?
You an adult?
Actually, I haven said directly anything to or about the OP - besides noting that if he'd given the GCS reference a proper thought, he'd likely have figured it out himself (which is kind of the opposite of a putdown, at least as far as intelligence is concerned). Because one does not need to know it's a "commonly used simile" (I didn't know it was one, either), applying common sense and logic should suffice.
So what exactly is it that I'm "wrong" about? It's an objective observation to note that the references in question should be reasonably easy to get for most.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
You're grasping, and yr still being a prk.
The simple fact is, your comments above imply that one ought not to need to ask for help understanding the references in question, which implies that those who do ask for help are unintelligent. What stake do you have in asserting that? As for me, and my stake in this, it's simple: I think IMDb is a great place to ask questions about films and I hope that any and all sincere questions can be asked and answered without some prk trying to make those asking them feel small for doing so. Simple enough for ya?
If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.
You don't really think I'm "implying" any such thing at all - you're just deflecting from the fact that what brought me into this so-called "discussion" was your bizarre confusion over whether or not Grand Central Station might be a busy and crowded place, not anything the OP asked (and even so, my first post on this thread was hardly much aggressive or belligerent). That and your apparent agenda to vehemently defend any level of ignorance, it would seem - and that's far worse than someone having never heard of Van Gogh (not "Gough") and his ear, which is certainly conceivable and has got nothing to do with intelligence (but thanks for putting words in my mouth, anyway). And now you're just being disingenious, arguing for the sake of arguing, unable to concede that I might just be talking sense here.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
You've got me wrong, buddy - I'm being completely sincere.
I honestly do think that your jumping in to contradict my core assertion that it is not a sign of stupidity or ignorance or laziness to ask for clarification of those references is mean spirited, discouraging, unnecessary, rude, silly and a sign of a snobbish attitude. It should feel - instinctively - like something you ought to be above and I wonder whether you are in fact in a state of denial of your own motivations here.
Think about it:
1 ) I posted to defend the legitimacy of the OPs seemingly sincere question, which had been answered respectfully by two posters who had taken the OP on face value.
2 ) my post was in response to a totally unnecessary, completely useless post asserting that the answers to the OPs questions were obvious, which implies that it was rather stupid of the OP to ask them.
3 ) You jumped in with another completely useless post seeming backing the assertion of the poster that I responded to in their implying that the OPs question was indeed a bit stupid.
Now we're arguing, which is fine with me, good for my circulation in fact, but I'm getting an it bored now, and your correcting my spelling (don't forget to tell me it's 'you're') and I have no doubt given you lots of good material to work with if your really want to argue, but what if you stopped for a moment to consider whether your post was in any way necessary or helpful or illuminating or encouraging or whether you were just looking for an argument?
Like I said, I've conversed with you on this site before and I had assumed that you were bigger than that.
And, again, if you don't agree that your being at very least a bit of a jerk here - a forgivable offence many on here fall prey to from time to time, then I'm afraid I can't help you and have no further use for you.
You choose: be an adult and fess up or we'll agree to disagree and I'll never feel the need to discuss anything with you again because I'll never read anything you write again - I guess that could be a win win if you want to go that way.
Up to you.
If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.
It is you that is being a jerk here and looking for an argument - as clearly evidenced by your inability to address any of my actual points, instead preferring to wallow in your paranoid fantasies about my supposed ulterior motives and what I might be "implying". While calling all posts besides your own "unnecessary" (that Flowery guy's post may have been that, but it was also correct about the references being easy to get whereas your reply was not just unnecessary, but riddled with ridiculous reasoning).
And it wasn't just an innocuous spelling error I corrected as you've been guilty of misspelling Van Gogh as "Gough" more than once, clearly indicating it's not a typo but a matter of ignorance (no wonder that you've decided to come to defence of all manner of ignorance, then. And yes - while the OP isn't necessarily stupid, it's by all means ignorant, by definition).
It's sad that the last days of these message boards have to be spent on such pointless haggling, but apparently some folks just won't have it any other way.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
Just in case anyone's remotely interested, I put Franz on ignore.
share