Inland Empire

[Russ]

You know, I could have sworn there used to be an old Inland Empire thread (and Mods, if there is, feel free to merge); maybe it was at the old site.

I’ve recently given it a third viewing. As most of you know, I’m as big a Lynch “fanboy” as there is ‘round these parts. I wasn’t exactly surprised to see how it has risen in my estimation with this most recent viewing. I no longer hesitate to throw around the M word when offering my thoughts; in fact, there’s no question in my mind that this is Lynch’s most accomplished (and personal) work to date.

Personal in the sense that what we see on-screen is truly the work of someone with no restraint other than of his own accord: someone free to see an artistic vision through to its conclusion without outside influence or manipulation. I don’t have a problem with the two most frequent criticisms (the ugliness of the digital video format and the film’s incomprehensibility) and I think my latest viewing helped me understand exactly why.

I don’t find the nature of cheap digital video inherently ugly, especially when viewed in light of how much freedom it afforded Lynch and what he was able to accomplish with it. It certainly doesn’t detract from his strengths in art design and soundscaping. I find many of the shots beautiful in a different manner than the richness of film, and for different reasons. It has to do with the absence of the obstructions and limitations that I think Lynch associates with film. I realize I’m in the minority when I state that I find the loss of the beautiful images associated with his pre-DV work is more than compensated for by some equally beautiful imagery that may have been possible only with this experimentation in a different format.

I’ve given a fair amount of thought as to exactly what Inland Empire is “about.” That seems to be the qualifier on which people instinctively attempt to label and judge this (and all) film. Inland Empire seems to be a film about everything and nothing. Dreams. Nightmares. Loss. Despair. Confusion. Alternate realities. Shifting paradigms. Metaphysical portals. The unforgiving, ugly side of Hollywood: emptiness, deception, broken dreams, moral and cultural decay. But ultimately, I think, Inland Empire is a film about empathy and nothing more. A woman in trouble, indeed.

For many, analyzing Inland Empire is frustrating because of some inner desire to connect it to the artist’s previous work. For a large part of Lynch’s career, his films have been subject to intense scrutiny born from the template of each preceding film. The general perception is of it being a mystery that needs to be solved; some people are turned off when all they see is a riddle with no solution. I don’t think that is the film’s intent nor its raison d’être.

Here’s how I see it: plotwise, there is a cursed Polish film, called 4/7, in which both lead actors were apparently murdered by jealous spouses. Some part of this curse seemingly keeps the “murdered” lead actress in a state of limbo, inhabiting the confines of a purgatory for all eternity, until, some time later, when a remake of the film is attempted. This remake, called On High in Blue Tomorrows, thrusts lead actress Laura Dern into the role of some sort of redemptive doppelganger/saviour, putting her through hell and back before she is able to remove the curse by killing the embodiment of evil (“The Phantom”, who is a euphemism for jealous/ controlling men, men who sin, aka “Sinnerman”) and providing salvation and freedom to the original actress and herself (woman/women in trouble). In a Christ-like parallel, “she (Dern) “dies” for her (Polish actress) sins”. To try to explain it any further or look for “hidden meanings”, while possibly fun, could easily prove to be an exercise in futility and simply invoke a law of diminishing returns.

Simply put, I think I actually enjoy the familiarity I’ve developed with IE more than any other of his work, not because of thematic differences (there are none) or differences of a technical nature (which is what I think most people have issues with). I feel like Lynch has done something that, previously, he just couldn’t have accomplished: a true cinematic equivalent of the dreamstate. A psychic fugue for the ages.

[D_Davis]

great thoughts man.

I need to see this again. I've only watched it t home, from start to finish, once. Other times I watch bits and pieces.

While I, too, love the film, I've encountered numerous people who do not, and claim that it is more like Lynch doing a parody of Lynch.

While I understand this criticism, and have used it towards other things before, I have to ask:

Is it a self parody, or is it truly a reduction of the essence of all the things that make Lynch, Lynch?

Where is the line drawn?

[Russ]

Is it a self parody, or is it truly a reduction of the essence of all the things that make Lynch, Lynch?

Where is the line drawn?

I suppose some might view it as self-parody because they consider it to be a pale imitation of what’s come before. I’ve heard the phrase, “David Lynch’s Greatest Hits” used in both a complimentary and a derogatory sense. I think this sentiment is born out of impatience on the part of some viewers. The best advice I could give anyone who had never seen IE would be to try to treat the experience as something akin to a self-deprivation isolation tank: something in which you’re willing to completely immerse yourself. I’m not saying, “turn off your brain” but rather to try to just enjoy the ordeal vicariously. People are hesitant to do that because they may feel that they might miss a clue, a piece of the puzzle, which in regards to IE is, in my humble opinion, totally inappropriate.

I especially don’t view it as a reduction of the essence of Lynch; quite the opposite, actually: to me it’s an expansion of everything he’s heretofore only hinted at in previous films. The jealous, murderous thoughts of a controlling husband from Lost Highway combined with the vulnerability of women drawn like moths to the superficial, yet highly toxic, glow of Hollywood in Mulholland Dr. don’t even begin to convey everything bubbling under the intricate surface of Inland Empire.

Where do I draw the line? Simply put, I draw the line at how it makes me feel. Watching IE I feel invigorated, impaired, dispirited, drained, perplexed, upbeat, sometimes all at the same time. But in this case, I think, patience is the key to any tangible reward.

[Spinal]

I had the chance to see this again in 35mm last night. It was my first time seeing it since it opened in theaters over a decade ago. I would echo the appraisal Russ made many years ago. This is a film that is every bit as accomplished as the universally-acclaimed Mulholland Dr., and is perhaps even more impressive for the way it commits completely to its unique sense of logic and sustains the feeling of a vivid nightmare over the course of 180 minutes.

Perhaps more than any other Lynch film, this is a movie that really benefits greatly from being seen in a theater. At the very least, I think it absolutely demands being seen in an environment where the viewer can shut out the outside world and surrender. The film is complex, but far from impenetrable. The basic facts of the scenario are easy to grasp: there is an actress working on a script with a dark past, she loses her grasp on reality as her life and the script begin to overlap, she fears that she is being hunted by someone who wishes her harm, and she's right.

There was a lot of talk around the premiere about how Lynch put the film together without starting with a conventional script. I think that perhaps created a feeling of suspicion from people who like to run with the notion that Lynch is just looking to pull one over on the audience. Even I wondered after my first viewing if there wasn't some excess indulgence to be trimmed here. I didn't think that this time. The film is relentlessly entertaining. Each scene provides more information about the core mysteries, if not explicit answers. No matter how he got there, the final product is a marvel of structural ingenuity. All that, and the acting is as uniformly good as any Lynch feature, with Laura Dern in a class by herself.

There's no other film like it, even in the David Lynch library.

[D_Davis]

+5.

[Russ]

I had forgotten all about this old thread (thanks for the bump, Spinal). Like you, I too saw it in the intimate setting of a small theater. Your thoughts say everything I tried to convey, and more.


patience is the key to any tangible reward.

Wow. I now see the relevance of this observation in regard to the season-long Dougie experience that culminated in the brilliance of Part 16 of Twin Peaks - The Return.

[Spinal]

Absolutely. As I watched the movie last night, I kept thinking about the Monica Bellucci scene from the current series, which I won't quote here. But it was clear that the same idea was inspiration for Inland Empire, especially the climax.

[Skitch]

I'm baffled by love of this film. I only watched it once, and it was chore to stay awake, so take my non-memory with a grain of salt. As I recall it was some weird/cool scenes of dialogue mixed with completely nonsensical blurry handheld running-down-alleys scenes that went on way, WAY too long. I suppose I should give it another shot, but my memory says it was so incoherent its not worth the time. And I don't mean incoherent in that Lynchian sort of way, I mean incoherent in that "this is random nonsense" type of incoherent.

At least with Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive one could apply the "dreamlike" label and make leaps in logic to attempt to decipher what is going on. With this it just felt like Lynch was fucking with me to see if I would buy this as art.

[megladon8]

Just rewatched Mulholland Dr. for the first time in nearly a decade.

That movie is brilliant. Perfection from start to finish.

Need to rewatch IE soon.

[D_Davis]

Inland Empire is something else.

I wish I could have the opportunity to see it in the theater again, because it is a film that demands full attention. And it is also a film that can very easily slip into the background while watching it in a less-than-perfect setting.

Whenever I watch it at home, I have a hard time staying awake for the whole thing. Same thing with 2001. These are films I will often watch in pieces, but doing so does neither film justice. They are monolithic entities that need to be consumed in a single sitting.

Seeing IE the first time in the theater was a mesmerizing and haunting experience. I absolutely love Lynch when he's at his weirdest and darkest. I don't even really need the balance of his humor and drama to offset the weird and the dark. IE takes all of his weirdest and darkest tendencies and stylistic flourishes, and combines them into an UBER FILM.

After I finish up rewatching all of QT's films, I think I'll tackle Lynch's filmography.