1175 Inland Empire

[Nothing]

Lynch's films are not written the way you assume they are written: like a regular screenplay. They are, to repeat myself, cobbled together out of various ideas... the process is exactly the same, and not bound to come out any different whether the words or the editing structures it.

This, to me, is a huge miscomprehension of the cinematic process. On the page, a writer can change things 15 times a minute, not only cutting and pasting, but revising, rethinking, continuing, returning, rejecting, responding to new inspiration, etc. Forget Lynch for a moment - I can't imagine any writer simply being struck with the entire, detailed concept for their novel or screenplay in a single blinding instant. As you concede, there is no real time limit on this process, the amounts of money expended are minimal (only the writer's time) and the writer can continue, pretty much, until the work feels complete. A director, by comparison, would have to be shooting (and re-shooting) a film for 15 years for the picture editing process to even approximate this. In any case, there is little evidence that Lynch reshot much of anything at all on Inland Empire, rather he kept on rolling and experimenting, trying to find a placing and a shape for the things he liked, things that were already fixed on tape. So it isn't the same at all.

One also has to consider the aesthetic issue, which is major. Due to the length and randomness of the production concept, Lynch was led into using consumer DV and fixing the lighting himself, whereas the same amount of money could doubtless have been utilised to shoot one (two? three?) conventionally scheduled 35mm works with far greater aesthetic value. If you're doubting this, just go and re-watch the first 45 minutes of Lost Highway again, in a cinema if possible.

Are you just being difficult when you say you "don't see the relevance" of filming one's unedited dreams and fantasies to the discussion of self-indulgence?

You're falsely associating Lynch's tapping of the subconscious, which has always played a part in his work, with the specific problems of Inland Empire.

Mulholland Drive was written the way it was, actually, because Lynch was not happy with the final product and wanted to do more with it. Far from being a flaw, the best sequence in the movie, Club Silencio (to say nothing of the lesbian sex scene--although that already has its own thread) was part of the reshoot, and was inspired solely by hearing Rebekah del Rio sing Crying in the studio one day.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't think that having a TV pilot rejected by a major US television network in the wake of the Columbine massacre, then receiving a surprise approach from a French sales agent to come up with a new ending and turn it into a theatrical feature film, is part of Lynch's usual creative process...

Absolutely, the Club Silencio is the best thing in the film. But it goes further than that - it wipes away into irrelevence what has come before. Paradoxically, if the film ended there, in a truly post-modern slight of hand, we might actually have something of substance, but the 'what really happened' expose that follows is frustratingly trite, a sorry attempt to pull conventional narrative meaning and purpose out of thin air at the last minute.

Lost Highway is actually based around a similar idea to the one Lynch uses to tie the Mulholland Drive footage together (and a variant rears it's head in Inland Empire too): a (wo)man 'in trouble', lost either in his subconscious, or in some kind of metaphysical netherworld, encoutering noirish archetypes who represent different facets of his own personality, hiding from a reality / crime that he cannot consciously come to terms with. Except that, in Lost Highway, the pages are all quite clearly from the same book. There is a careful balancing of the ambiguities so that the film feels complete and, yet, no one reading can entirely dominate, no one reality is explicitly 'real'.

If he were really as unconcerned with the whole as you say, he would hardly have left out those scenes (some of which were very good).

Studio Canal were already livid at the length/quality of the movie as it is. If you remember, they began to block festival screenings after the distaster at Venice, until Lynch eventually agreed to re-purchase the US rights himself, rather than edit down the film. For the record, I believe Lynch showed rare integrity in doing this, handing back what must have been a substantial (unspecified) amount of money rather than compromise artistically.

he's been doing TM since before he made Eraserhead

Oh absolutely, but he used to keep it to himself. The last few years have seen a shifting of priorities, if one can call it that.

An exception is of course the switch to DV, but complaining about that is as reasonable as saying Lynch lost his way when he turned from B&W to colour.

That's a false analogy because almost everything about a consumer DV camera, from the quality of the (single, zoom) lens, the size of the CCD (very little control over depth of field), the latitude, the limited manual functions and, of course, the resolution, is a quantifiable step down in comparison to a decent 16mm film camera, let alone 35mm. Intentional or not, an overexposed consumer DV daylight exterior is still an overexposed consumer DV daylight exterior, not only is it ugly but there is no originality to it, we can find this 'look' in abundance on You Tube. As with all DV movies, the look of the film tends to improve in low-light / low-contrast situations.

I'm not saying that the film is a cop-out. I don't question the integrity of the intentions, even though I do question some of the core choices. I'd still rather see this than, say, Babel, and it's really a shame (and a sign of the times) that Lynch was forced to self-distribute. I do hope that, if he must use digital in future, he will at least gravitate towards the RED (and maybe hire a cinematographer).

I suggest you read Lynch on Lynch.

Sure, I read Lynch on Lynch (and Chion and Nochimson) back in the 90s, they're all worth a look.

[Mr Sausage]

This, to me, is a huge miscomprehension of the cinematic process. On the page, a writer can change things 15 times a minute, not only cutting and pasting, but revising, rethinking, continuing, returning, rejecting, responding to new inspiration, etc. Forget Lynch for a moment - I can't imagine any writer simply being struck with the entire, detailed concept for their novel or screenplay in a single blinding instant. As you concede, there is no real time limit on this process, the amounts of money expended are minimal (only the writer's time) and the writer can continue, pretty much, until the work feels complete. A director, by comparison, would have to be shooting (and re-shooting) a film for 15 years for the picture editing process to even approximate this. In any case, there is little evidence that Lynch reshot much of anything at all on Inland Empire, rather he kept on rolling and experimenting, trying to find a placing and a shape for the things he liked, things that were already fixed on tape. So it isn't the same at all.

*sigh* In your other posts you kept returning to the idea of having a preplanned structure, an organization from the start. I've been attempting to point out that Lynch does not work that way when writing a script: he finds his structures as he goes along based on random idea-catching (hell, he didn't even know what Eraserhead was trying to do until he read a random passage in the Bible one day). The only difference with IE was that he shot the ideas as they came to him, rather than storing them for future use on paper. Lynch is an intuitive director, so it is enough for him to feel the ideas are coming from a similar space, and are the result of the mood he is living within, to make an organized movie; it does not need a laborious planning stage. The mental/ creative process is, again, the same; it was only shot along with its writing. If Lynch did not reshoot anything, that would be because at this point in his life he's not going to be sloppy about capturing his idea exactly as they came to him.

One also has to consider the aesthetic issue, which is major. Due to the length and randomness of the production concept, Lynch was led into using consumer DV and fixing the lighting himself, whereas the same amount of money could doubtless have been utilised to shoot one (two? three?) conventionally scheduled 35mm works with far greater aesthetic value. If you're doubting this, just go and re-watch the first 45 minutes of Lost Highway again, in a cinema if possible.

You're being disengenuous by implying that Lynch was using DV as a last resort, as tho' it were the result of things outside of his control and not part of his conscious artistic desire. His use of DV was not forced, but a real desire to work with the texture of DV, which he clearly loves. I'm getting tired of dealing with your prejudices on this matter.

You're falsely associating Lynch's tapping of the subconscious, which has always played a part in his work, with the specific problems of Inland Empire.

This statement, so far as I can see, has no meaning. And its reckless use of Freudian concepts doesn't help.

But it goes further than that - it wipes away into irrelevence what has come before.

Here the discussion becomes about your assumptions and prejudices, not Lynch's. Lynch would never believe a dream was so insignificant that it would explain an entire movie away. For Lynch, dreams are significant places of mystery and darkness; and in their possibility for abstraction, they can explain a character or a situation more deeply than a conscious waking reality. Lynch has been dealing with dreamlike imagery and atmospheres for so long now that it's a logical extension to actually have a movie that takes place almost entirely within a dream. I would expect someone who loves FWWM to understand this, or do you stop paying attention during Laura's wonderful dream sequence in that film?

Lost Highway is actually based around a similar idea to the one Lynch uses to tie the Mulholland Drive footage together (and a variant rears it's head in Inland Empire too): a (wo)man 'in trouble', lost either in his subconscious, or in some kind of metaphysical netherworld, encoutering noirish archetypes who represent different facets of his own personality, hiding from a reality / crime that he cannot consciously come to terms with. Except that, in Lost Highway, the pages are all quite clearly from the same book. There is a careful balancing of the ambiguities so that the film feels complete and, yet, no one reading can entirely dominate, no one reality is explicitly 'real'.

You're kidding right? The second half of Lost Highway is deliberately a whole different genre, with its own seperate tropes and visual designs. There's a deliberate stylistic contradiction in that movie. The whole point is that the pieces are not "clearly from the same book," because in fact the main character has broken entirely from the world. I agree the thing makes a very complete whole, but that is implicit and far from being clear, especially on first viewing. Anyway Lost Highway is a more closed and unified movie than most of Lynch's films, something I attribute to the influence of Barry Gifford, who was less likely to leave deliberate open ends. (Of course you'll know from reading Lynch on Lynch that David came up with the entire first half of the movie up to where Fred is punched by the cop, complete and whole and probably ready to be shot that moment, while riding in the car one night with Mary Sweeney).

Studio Canal were already livid at the length/quality of the movie as it is. If you remember, they began to block festival screenings after the distaster at Venice, until Lynch eventually agreed to re-purchase the US rights himself, rather than edit down the film. For the record, I believe Lynch showed rare integrity in doing this, handing back what must have been a substantial (unspecified) amount of money rather than compromise artistically.

The only reason I can figure for telling me this was just to say a major studio didn't like it, and that there was a "disaster at Venice," as tho' it made any difference to me.

That's a false analogy because almost everything about a consumer DV camera, from the quality of the (single, zoom) lens, the size of the CCD (very little control over depth of field), the latitude, the limited manual functions and, of course, the resolution, is a quantifiable step down in comparison to a decent 16mm film camera, let alone 35mm. Intentional or not, an overexposed consumer DV daylight exterior is still an overexposed consumer DV daylight exterior, not only is it ugly but there is no originality to it, we can find this 'look' in abundance on You Tube. As with all DV movies, the look of the film tends to improve in low-light / low-contrast situations.

So it's a false analogy merely because you don't like how DV looks? Explain that to me. I already explained to you that the switch to DV was a switch to a different cinematic texture, much like the switch to colour from B&W was a switch to a different filmic texture. Would you accept a complaint that Lynch lost his way from someone who has a prejudice against colour films and believes that B&W is a far superior film aesthetic? Would you accept the critique that Lynch found his way by switching to colour from B&W by someone who thinks B&W an inferior and technologically unsophisticated/dated film aesthetic? Of course not. Well, now you see why I cannot accept your criticism, because it boils down to an unaccountable and unarguable prejudice that has nothing at all to do with the way the film uses these elements, and everything to do with a blanket, universal, a priori dislike.

[Michael]

Bravissimo, mr sausage.

[Anonymous]

INLAND EMPIRE is a really good movie.

I like it.

And stuff.

Seriously though, it will be exciting to see this thread in 10-20 years time. Lynch may indeed be a pioneer in his use of DV here. I will argue until my last breath that what he has done here, with DV, perfectly compliments the movie that he has created. Imagine this movie filmed just like Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive, if you can.

[swo17]

Sorry, but speculating how you, I, or anyone else will feel about a particular film many years down the road is just about the least productive exercise on which one can embark. Isn't it enough to just really, really, really, really, really like something right right now? If this argument actually worked, we wouldn't even be talking about Inland Empire right now, because instead we'd be focusing our time on the 50+ page threads for Gremlins 2 and Temple of Doom, applauding the new Criterion 3-disc editions of these films, and reminiscing on how prescient 12-year old me had been in forecasting their significance in the 21st century film landscape.

[colinr0380]

(Of course you'll know from reading Lynch on Lynch that David came up with the entire first half of the movie up to where Fred is punched by the cop, complete and whole and probably ready to be shot that moment, while riding in the car one night with Mary Sweeney).

Isn't there also that story Michael Anderson relates in one of the Twin Peaks sets about being in a car with Lynch driving when they get cut up by another rude driver. Anderson remarked that Lynch was taking this event remarkably calmy to which he turned to him and said "No, I'm not. I really want to catch up with that guy and destroy him, but....I haven't the time!"

Then Anderson said when she saw Lost Highway a similar scene played out with Robert Loggia's character dealing out a savage beating to the other driver! I think that, along with the discovery of Frank in Twin Peaks, is another great example of Lynch adding those details into his films. It could also be a way of expunging 'dark thoughts' by putting them in your film and getting the bad guy to beat up the other driver, no matter how justified we might think he was to do so!

I can kind of understand where Nothing is coming from, even though I don't agree with him - I guess it all depends on how much you are willing to play along with his more recent films or whether you feel that Lynch is doing trademarked 'weird' stuff, secure in the knowledge that his fans will love it, whatever it is. I have to admit to not being too interested in the wacky Lynch interview stuff, and won't be joining a transcendental meditation 'cult' any time soon, but I really like his films - something that surprises me since I wouldn't have classed myself as a particularly big Lynch fan until recently but chatting on this forum inspired me to think a lot about his work, about whether it was just obscurantism or something more profound. I think I'd lean more towards Mr_Sausage's point of view on this, though I'd understand why casual viewers might have a harsher judgment.

I suppose it also comes down to whether you like a story that was shaped into a film or film that was then shaped into a story. To me either approach is valid and either can result in 'random', 'rambling' and 'indulgent' final products if seen by an unsympathetic audience.

[foliagecop]

Wouldn't it be appropriately Lynchian if Nothing and Mr_sausage turned out to be one and the same?

[Quot]

Wouldn't it be appropriately Lynchian if Nothing and Mr_sausage turned out to be one and the same?

Only if the dog with no tail finds a severed ear in the empty lot behind Winky's.

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

If this argument actually worked, we wouldn't even be talking about Inland Empire right now, because instead we'd be focusing our time on the 50+ page threads for Gremlins 2 and Temple of Doom, applauding the new Criterion 3-disc editions of these films, and reminiscing on how prescient 12-year old me had been in forecasting their significance in the 21st century film landscape.

Sir, you offend me! Gremlins 2 is sacred text.

Pistols at dawn.

The rest of your statement I completely agree with. I like this forum mainly because we're able to have a reasonable intelligent discussion about almost anything. Skuj, you need to step up and be a little more elaborate in why you liked/disliked a film. Its not enough to just ask people to talk; you gotta bring it!

That being said, I haven't seen Inland Empire. I really find Lynch's films entertaining (and in the case of a few, like Dune and Wild at Heart, intolerable), but from little I've seen of it, it seems to something of a reverse side of the coin to Eraserhead and Elephant Man, which to me are perfect examples (and I'm getting into Armond White mode here...) of the way film itself (re: using film- not that they had any other choice really) is a way to reflect morality upon the characters. Lynch's film work for me on the level of commenting upon the medium itself. I know he'd laugh at notions like that, but it helps me enjoy his films better.[/i]

[swo17]

For the record, I still love Gremlins 2. I just no longer consider it the greatest film ever made. Can you agree to that?

So yeah, someone bring us back on topic now please.

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

For the record, I still love Gremlins 2. I just no longer consider it the greatest film ever made. Can you agree to that?

I spose...

Does anyone have any specific comments on Jeremy Irons' performance? He's one of my main impetuses for seeing this, one of my absolute favorite actors, but I've never heard anything mentioned about him and IE.

[Mr Sausage]

For the record, I still love Gremlins 2. I just no longer consider it the greatest film ever made. Can you agree to that?

I spose...

Does anyone have any specific comments on Jeremy Irons' performance? He's one of my main impetuses for seeing this, one of my absolute favorite actors, but I've never heard anything mentioned about him and IE.

He has a minor role, and disappears from the film for large chunks of time. Your eyes will be fixed on Laura Dern most of the time, anyway.

[Nothing]

In your other posts you kept returning to the idea of having a preplanned structure, an organization from the start. I've been attempting to point out that Lynch does not work that way when writing a script.

In which case, I should have been more specific. I meant having a pre-planned structure in place before beginning to commit images/sounds/actors/words to celluloid/tape.

What Lynch actually said back in the 90s, btw: "I get all kinds of different ideas and feelings. If I'm lucky, they start organizing themselves into a story".

I would maintain that he is actually describing a fairly normal creative writing process here. Fassbinder reeling off The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant in a single 5 hour stretch on a transatlantic flight I would describe as far more unusual.

His use of DV was not forced, but a real desire to work with the texture of DV, which he clearly loves.

Financially speaking, it was not an option for him to shoot for 2 years on and off using a 35mm crew. He decided to value the production process that he so enjoyed over the format/quality, and has stated as much in interviews. He also wanted to incorporate some footage originally intended for the website that had already been shot on DV. Yes, he has also stated in interviews some of the things he likes about the format. In other words, a combination of factors led to the choice, it was neither a purely financial, not a purely artistic, decision.

I'm getting tired of dealing with your prejudices on this matter... it's a false analogy merely because you don't like how DV looks?

Christ, just go and read a paper on lens optics or something...

If cheap consumer DV cameras with shitty fixed lens, low resolution and crap latitude are so great, why are no commercial/professional films using the format anymore? Why is 35mm still so common? Why have all the digital folk been switching to Red/Viper? Why had Lynch himself said that he would use HD next time?

Of course, you can shoot on a Fisherprice camera or a mobile phone if you want to, but please don't pretend it is anything more than a gimmick, with severe technical and artistic limitations. As I have explained already, because consumer DV cameras are so limited, films shot with these cameras all end up with the same look, the same depth of field, the same exposure problems, the same lens faults. All of these 'raw effects' that people are quick to champion in Inland Empire can be found in thousands of student shorts and underground films from the past decade. But, of course, this is part of the appeal for many - if a Lynch film can look like this then the barriers between 'professional', 'amateur' and 'schoolboy' have already been broken, the 'revolution of consumer content' must already be with us... Sony and You Tube will happily cash your check.

Lynch would never believe a dream was so insignificant that it would explain an entire movie away.

I didn't say explain away, I said wipe away. In the manner that a dream fades from the consciousness shortly after waking. It is the final phase of Mulholland Drive that attempts to explain things, and it is this phase of the film that I feel is poorly conceived. Inland Empire never attempts this kind of explanation, to it's credit.

Do you stop paying attention during Laura's wonderful dream sequence in (FWWM)?

Again and again, you miss the essential point. The dream sequences in FWWM (and Lost Highway, etc) were written with the intention of speaking about the psychological/metaphysical realities of the characters in the narrative, "they can explain a character or a situation more deeply than a conscious waking reality", as you put it. In Mulholland Drive & Inland Empire, Lynch starts to do something different entirely: he takes footage shot for another purpose (or without any clear purpose at all) and tries to structure it into a dream sequence in the editing room. I just wish he'd start writing and shooting excellent films again.

[Mr Sausage]

Christ, just go and read a paper on lens optics or something...

Once again you mistake me for caring about the technical qualities of DV.

If cheap consumer DV cameras with shitty fixed lens, low resolution and crap latitude are so great, why are no commercial/professional films using the format anymore? Why is 35mm still so common? Why have all the digital folk been switching to Red/Viper

More misplaced questions assuming I care about the camera itself and the use or non-use of it outside of IE. I don't care, and I don't appreciate your condescending rhetorical questions. Now let me ask you to, please, stop belabouring the point. I got your objections to the look of DV the first time. The DV look of IE has never reduced the impact of the movie for me, so I see no purpose in further discussing the apparent ugliness or uniformity of the format.

I didn't say explain away, I said wipe away. In the manner that a dream fades from the consciousness shortly after waking. It is the final phase of Mulholland Drive that attempts to explain things, and it is this phase of the film that I feel is poorly conceived.

Fair enough, although I always saw both parts--dream and reality--as a give and take, both necessary not only to the final significance of the movie, but also essential to the tragedy of it. The structure of MD is not far off from many other conventional works that deal with a character whose idealisations/illusions are shattered, and who ends in degradation. Lynch takes a more original approach by presenting the illusions of the character within the abstract world of a dream, in effect a world constructed entirely out of illusion, and thus one that takes us more fully within the deluded character's mentality. The significance is not altered nor wiped away by it being a dream, since any examination of illusory ideals ends up implying a kind of waking-dream or fantasy crumbling into a reality.

Again and again, you miss the essential point. The dream sequences in FWWM (and Lost Highway, etc) were written with the intention of speaking about the psychological/metaphysical realities of the characters in the narrative, "they can explain a character or a situation more deeply than a conscious waking reality", as you put it. In Mulholland Drive & Inland Empire, Lynch starts to do something different entirely: he takes footage shot for another purpose (or without any clear purpose at all) and tries to structure it into a dream sequence in the editing room.

How can I be missing the essential point when that very point, at least that I have been trying to impress, is that the long dream in MD does indeed speak "about the psychological/metaphysical realities of the characters in the narrative." I very specifically implied the dreams in both films were doing the same thing. But you are really hung up on whether or not they were initially intended to do so, not realising that such matters are entirely inconsequential next to the actual pragmatic effect of the piece.

[Nothing]

You are really hung up on whether or not they were initially intended to do so, not realising that such matters are entirely inconsequential next to the actual pragmatic effect of the piece.

No, I was disappointed by both Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire and have identified this to be the core problem (along with the DV cinematography in the latter). I'd still rather watch either of these films again than The Straight Story, of course

[Murdoch]

I just watched this and holy shit what a truly beautiful experience. This film has cemented me as a fan of Lynch and I look forward to re-watching Mulholland Drive, a film which I was ambivalent toward but now feel I am ready to revisit. Lynch's use of space and close-ups give this film an overtone of claustrophobia and alienation that I don't think I will be able to get out of my head for many weeks to come. When I first heard how it was filmed I was apprehensive to the use of DV , but now seeing it I cannot imagine it filmed any other way; the style created a visually raw first-hand account of Dern's spiraling journey that was on the verge of being some kind of surreal documentary. IL was menacing, gorgeous, disturbing, and devastating all at once, I loved Dern, and Theroux once again proved that he is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood. I haven't laughed as hard as I did when Stanton was on the screen in quite a while.

[flyonthewall2983]

Watched it last night. I have to say I was quite intrigued and impressed with what I saw. Laura Dern did the impossible by being in nearly every scene in a 3-hour movie, and never getting tired of her performance. The stuff with the private eye in particular was engaging in and of itself. That said, there was about 50 percent of it that went over my head, and half of it was stuff that I didn't mind*. I really liked the end credit sequence, a kind of Lynchian curtain call with most of the characters laughing and enjoying themselves.

*I haven't read much of this thread as is so far, but has anyone given a good explanation of how the Rabbits footage fits in with the story?

[hearthesilence]

Lincoln Center is screening this in December, and it's listed as a 35mm print.

Has anyone seen this projected in 35mm? I'm wondering how it looks in that format - sometimes a good transfer of standard def video to 35mm can at least make things 'move' like cinema rather than home video. (The original run of Hoop Dreams comes to mind, but to be fair that was on Beta tapes, not DV.)

[Cde.]

The 35mm print still very much looks and moves like video.

[ianthemovie]

If you're asking whether it's worth seeing the film projected theatrically, I would definitely say yes. It won't look lustrous or even particularly beautiful much of the time, but the experience of seeing this on a large screen, uninterrupted for three hours, is pretty remarkable. (I've seen it on 35mm twice: once when it first came out and again a couple of years ago at the Harvard Film Archive. The latter time I was so rattled by it that I felt uneasy all the way home.) It's easy to get lost in the world of this film on video, but it's so much more involving--and terrifying!--in a theater.

[FrauBlucher]

Janus tweeted this pic about an hour ago... More Lynch

[johnnysnatchclub7]

INLAND EMPIRE?! Yes!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Big Ben]

Laura Dern did a an interview a few months ago where she talked very briefly about Inland Empire and that it "was coming from Criterion or something." This discussion revolved around a filmed monologue or something she did with the implication that the initial test or whatever would be on the disc. Rabbits too would no doubt be on there as well.

[swo17]

I quite like the Ballerina short on the original DVD as well

[hearthesilence]

Laura Dern did a an interview a few months ago where she talked very briefly about Inland Empire and that it "was coming from Criterion or something." This discussion revolved a filmed monologue or something she did with the implication that the initial test or whatever would be on the disc. Rabbits too would no doubt be on there as well.

Man, wish I had known - I just bought the UK BD a few months ago!