1175 Inland Empire

[Noiretirc]

Ok.

So when I see:

"New HD digital master, made from the 4K restoration supervised by director David Lynch,.."

Does this mean that Lynch himself is fine with this process? I thought the low-res digital video shooting of this meant a great deal to Lynch. "More room to dream" etc etc. Has he backtracked somewhat?

[tenia]

The process has been detailed in March, a few posts up.
Though it's been upscaled to 4k, it still remains a SD upscale and it seems that they ensured it's still look fugly and doesn't have any "false details" generated by the upscale (though, funnily enough, some people on the Internet are complaining about the lack of a UHD release as those who have caught it in theaters are saying that the movie greatly benefits from the remastering; but how exactly, since they tried to ensure it offers no additional details or precision ?).

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

Ok.

So when I see:

"New HD digital master, made from the 4K restoration supervised by director David Lynch,.."

Does this mean that Lynch himself is fine with this process? I thought the low-res digital video shooting of this meant a great deal to Lynch. "More room to dream" etc etc. Has he backtracked somewhat?

Yes, he is. He was involved and he's very happy: https://www.indiewire.com/2022/04/david ... 234716407/

I like that the journalist refers to Lynch actually being excited about the original digital format that he's now altering significantly. Personally, I don't think that this is different from all Manns, Friedkins, etc. going back and altering the look of their movies because "this is definitely the way they should have looked if it was possible when they were made". There are a lot of examples on YouTube of upscaling og colorizing old movies, and to me it looks "exciting" in an unnatural, digital way.

[Noiretirc]

Ok. Thanks.

I'm thrilled when great works of art are updated/enhanced in some relevant way. And when the creator of said art is excited about such altering/improvements, then let's all have a fresh look from a new angle. The original DVD is still out there, for reference.

My bedlam/backtracking posts were perhaps premature!

[tenia]

The question mark to me remains the general idea of trying to maintain the look of something willingly shot to look bad while still wanting to make it look cinematic, which it'll never look like because there just isn't the material in each frame to do so.

Going all the way to 4k makes little technical sense in such a context, they could have gone to HD only or to 8k with the exact same state of mind but also likely an equivalent result.

In any case, the tech details are definitely focusing on keeping its original lack of detail as an explanation for its sea-saw of upscale-downscale process, which seems totally contradictory with what Lynch is stating here, and it's hard to understand if it's because there indeed is a gap between the objective and the workflow used to achieve it, or because there is a misunderstanding between the appeal of doing a 4k master and what can actually be achieved with such material.

Anyway, we'll see in a few months how it actually looks on disc, but the few caps posted a few pages back just looked like a low-rez master digitally filtered, which is exactly what the workflow would lead me to expect, but certain doesn't match any other claim.

[Roger Ryan]

Correct me if I'm wrong here (and, I agree, that the back-and-forth upscale/downscale approach to the restoration is very confusing), but wasn't the avoidance of going back to the original camera files a way to not have to regrade every shot as Lynch had done when editing the film originally? Also, it seems pretty clear to me that Lynch's embrace of the low-rez home video look came about because he started using that format for tests, then realized he could have more freedom to experiment (extending the shooting schedule, working without a finished script ahead of time) and lower the budget by sticking with the format. It was this aspect that appealed to him at the time, not necessarily that he fell in love with cheap video ugliness for it's own sake. As it is, apart from a sequence or two, Lynch does everything he can in the film to disguise the visual limitations of the format (favoring close-ups, layering images, careful lighting). It doesn't surprise me that, given the opportunity to "improve" the picture quality through new technology, he would want to.

As to the lost "Quinoa" extra: the main appeal of that bonus feature is Lynch telling his story about traveling through Yugoslavia in the mid-60s and seeing these "frog-moths" one night. I know he recounts the same story in his "Room To Dream" book. While I can't remember where that story appears in the book, if it's included in the excerpt on this new Criterion release, then it may have made the "Quinoa" extra seem redundant.

[dadaistnun]

As to the lost "Quinoa" extra: the main appeal of that bonus feature is Lynch telling his story about traveling through Yugoslavia in the mid-60s and seeing these "frog-moths" one night. I know he recounts the same story in his "Room To Dream" book. While I can't remember where that story appears in the book, if it's included in the excerpt on this new Criterion release, then it may have made the "Quinoa" extra seem redundant.

Surely the inspiration for the creature in The Return Part 8. I'm hoping they still manage to add this to the release. Regarding where the story appears in the book, the audiobook differs considerably from the text, usually expanding on thoughts or going off on tangents (at least the Lynch portions do, McKenna's might follow the text more faithfully, I can't recall), and is well worth picking up.

Agreed, too, that having the original Rabbits episodes would seem to be a no-brainer addition, especially as the re-edit included on previous disc releases is missing the Rebekah Del Rio episode. I wonder if the lack of these here is due to technical or poor source issue.

[therewillbeblus]

Rabbits would be such an obvious extra benefit of picking up a special edition boutique release, that it’s bluntly illogical not to put it on. Maybe that’s the basis of its strange exclusion, a meta joke where Lynch is rendering the design of the release itself as just as nonsensical as the film

[nowhereisaplace]

Would Criterion ever release an expansive DavidLynch.com box set, featuring Rabbits and Dumbland along with all the other shorts in their original context? I have trouble envisioning it, but it would make an interesting set!

[therewillbeblus]

I've said it before, but I can't envision Criterion ever releasing Dumbland, especially in a world where the nuanced satire would be undercut by audiences taking the juvenile humor at face value. The ratio of people who would be happy vs deeply offended doesn't work out in favor of risk management

It would be pretty funny if they were saving it for The Straight Story tho

[hearthesilence]

...apart from a sequence or two, Lynch does everything he can in the film to disguise the visual limitations of the format (favoring close-ups, layering images, careful lighting)...

Actually some of those deep focus close-ups probably exposed the limitations of the camera more than anything else. IIRC there were a few moments where it looked like the autofocus was kicking in, but I have to check again to be sure. The first time I saw this film, it was hard to accept it as anything but an unfortunate mistake since I couldn't recall any close-ups in his previous films that focused on the background like that (at least when there's no characters in the background, just furniture or a general exterior) but eventually I was able to buy into it as another element that made the film look even more surreal.

[Roger Ryan]

...apart from a sequence or two, Lynch does everything he can in the film to disguise the visual limitations of the format (favoring close-ups, layering images, careful lighting)...

... IIRC there were a few moments where it looked like the autofocus was kicking in, but I have to check again to be sure. The first time I saw this film, it was hard to accept it as anything but an unfortunate mistake...

Yeah, I'm including some of those auto-focus issues where the face in the foreground is out of focus (most of the early Grace Zabriskie scene, for example) in my critique of "a sequence or two". Fortunately, I felt that those kind of issues were not predominant throughout the three-hour running time.

[pistolwink]

I remember feeling like such things were all part of the hallucinatory quality of the film -- the film disorienting our visual perception as well as any sense of a stable story world.

[hearthesilence]

I remember feeling like such things were all part of the hallucinatory quality of the film -- the film disorienting our visual perception as well as any sense of a stable story world.

Pretty much. It reminds me of the famous out-of-focus close-up of Sinatra in The Manchurian Candidate - Frankenheimer talks about it in his commentary, but when they filmed that, it was accidentally left out-of-focus. They tried to re-shoot, but Sinatra's performance simply wasn't as good in the re-takes. So much to his own displeasure, Frankenheimer told the editor to keep the out-of-focus take, saying it was still the "best" one. Frankenheimer then recalls how much praise he got for that decision because the close-up was also Laurence Harvey's POV and certain critics called it a brilliant way of showing how his character's perspective had been distorted or confused. I haven't looked for those particular reviews myself, but given the rest of the film, that mistake does work in that way and I think Frankenheimer made the right call. Same with Inland Empire - even if a re-shoot was proposed, I wouldn't say it was necessary because ultimately those shots still work within the film's own world/vision.

[DeprongMori]

Official word re: “Rabbits” and “Quinoa”

Happy to hear that you're looking forward to our upcoming INLAND EMPIRE release!

Please note that INLAND EMPIRE, like all our David Lynch titles, is a director-approved release and we work closely with him to determine what supplements make the cut. We think you'll be pleased with the final product and the extensive special features that are included. As you may have already noticed, this edition has an entirely new transfer and two new audio mixes, as well as two docs and a new conversation that weren’t on the previous release. We are very happy with how it all turned out.

We appreciate your feedback but QUINOA and RABBITS will not be part of this release. It's not a given that our version of a release will include all previous supplements, so we recommend holding on to previously purchased DVDs, when applicable.

I hope this is helpful! Happy Holidays,
Jon Mulvaney

[criterionsnob]

Beaver

[Rupert Pupkin]

this looks good to me. I can't tell if this is a digipack or finally, in the end, a Scanavo.
At blu-ray.com this is announced as a digipack like the previous D.Lynch. So ?

[dwk]

It is a Scanavo case.

[pistolwink]

the color in the new version looks notably less saturated than the previous blu-ray.

[Finch]

It's particularly obvious in that shot of Laura Dern at the talk show. I saw IE theatrically but I can't recall whether the colors of the Optimum or the Criterion are more faithful but personally I prefer the look of the Criterion. I remember the late John Neff who was partially involved with IE at the time of filming went to see the restoration at a local Portland theater and actually walked out at some point because he thought the new audio mix was terrible.

[cdnchris]

this looks good to me. I can't tell if this is a digipack or finally, in the end, a Scanavo.
At blu-ray.com this is announced as a digipack like the previous D.Lynch. So ?

I'll be putting up pictures this evening but it is a Scanavo case.

[Finch]

The film is getting a UK BD of the new restoration from Studio Canal in June; right now, the only thing listed is the "more things that happened" feature.

[colinr0380]

I think that may be the first time that "More Things That Happened" has been properly released on disc in the UK. I know it was not on the initial UK Studio Canal DVD.

[PfR73]

I received this release last night from my flash sale order and have had a chance to check some things compared to the DVD release.

- The "More Things That Happened" deleted scenes are missing subtitles for some Polish dialogue. There is a scene about 30 minutes in where Laura Dern is laying on the floor talking on the phone and there is a disembodied voice speaking in Polish. The DVD release had forced subtitles that translated the Polish, but the Criterion release has no subtitles at all.
- The DVD had an additonal deleted scene of another Laura Dern monologue to the silent interrogator as an Easter Egg on Disc 1; this deleted scene is not included on the Criterion release.
- As previously mentioned, the "Quinoa" interview and "Inland Empire Stories" interview/documentary are not included on the new release, nor are the stills gallery or 3 original trailers; the trailer on the Criterion release is a re-release trailer. (It's a shame "Inland Empire Stories" was not carried over as I think it contains the most memorable moment from any Lynch interview ever).

Also of note, the original standalone DVD release of Lynch (One) had several bonus features comprised of various additional footage/outtakes/Lynch talks, none of which are carried over here.
And during the production of Inland Empire, Avid released a promotional DVD called Room to Dream: David Lynch and the Independent Filmmaker. This disc had a 22 minute featurette on David Lynch shooting & editing a scene from Inland Empire with Stanley Kamel, Emily Stofle, & Kristen Kerr, which wasn't used in the final film. This deleted scene is also included on the Avid promo disc, and is not included in the deleted scenes on any other release.

[therewillbeblus]

Thanks for the rundown - is there a source where one could find the Polish translation and/or missing monologue transcripts?