MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

17 December 2006

So I saw Inland Empire this weekend. (some spoilers) [More:]Well, like the film's plot can be spoiled.

I veered between wanting to walk out on it and thinking that it's his best movie. But whatever the case, David Lynch has lost his goddamn mind. Scattered comments:

--The guy next to me in the theater became increasingly irritated as time passed. The movie's three hours, and at about the ninety-minute mark he started to shift around restlessly in his chair, mumbling, "Fuck. What a piece of shit. Fuck." Every once in a while an image like a chicken gratuitously running across the screen would set him off. People started to walk out on it here and there after two hours.

--I do not like his use of digital video. There are shots in it that it seems he couldn't have gotten otherwise, but there are so many shots in it that made me think, "This would have looked so much better if he'd shot it on film." Lynch movies are so good with color (Mulholland Dr., especially), and the same techniques he uses here don't come off as well. I think it'll actually look better on DVD than it does in a theater.

--Most of the music is from Penderecki.

--The scenes with people in rabbit suits are the best parts, and in general the first hour holds together well enough, though it seems like something of a retread of Mulholland Dr. The end credits are entertaining.

--Laura Dern gives the best performance she's ever given in a Lynch movie.

--I'm not sure that repeated viewing of the movie would yield the impression that it makes sense, and I'd argue that even Mulholland Dr. and Lost Highway make a kind of narrative sense. At least Lynch's weirder movies give you a way in near the end, a key that'll unlock new meanings in successive viewings. I don't get that sense here. There are things and people that will be familiar to you if you've seen other Lynch movies--red curtains; Grace Zabriskie acting crazy; etc. But it never really comes together, and if you've seen those things in other movies, not much new comes of them here.

I think I want to see it again at some point (to be fair to it, my mind keeps drifting back to the movie, which is at least a sign that it's at least an interesting movie, if not exactly good). But not now, and not without a stiff drink in hand.
But whatever the case, David Lynch has lost his goddamn mind.

This is news? He lost it years and years ago.

I think it was Lynch that I'm remembering saying this, but I remember some very interesting interview or another talking about film, and how it wasn't required to actually tell a story. It's perfectly acceptable to paint textures, feelings or emotions with film without resorting to mechanical, rigid plotlines or providing a happy ending, or any ending at all.

I've always tried to approach Lynch's films with this in mind. Just open up wide and say Aaah and enjoy the show. Or be terrified, or confused, or emotionally turmoiled or what have you.

Like imbibing in strong psychedelic drugs, you just kind of have to let go and realize that not everything is going to make a lick of sense, have a purpose, be meaningful or even communicative.

Things in general don't have to have purpose or meaning - and this is something most people find especially terrifying - or liberating.

Somewhere in here, if anywhere, would be where you would find the so-called genius of David Lynch.
posted by loquacious 17 December | 13:45
I so want to see this it isn't even funny
posted by matteo 17 December | 14:14
I want to see it, too. I'm going alone this time, after nearly being murdered by my partner after we saw Mulholland Dr in the theater.
posted by BoringPostcards 17 December | 18:58
I think it was Lynch that I'm remembering saying this, but I remember some very interesting interview or another talking about film, and how it wasn't required to actually tell a story. It's perfectly acceptable to paint textures, feelings or emotions with film without resorting to mechanical, rigid plotlines or providing a happy ending, or any ending at all.

The thing is, though, that I've always seen Lynch's films as conventionally structured--it's really just the film language he uses that's unconventional. There are a couple of cases where he seems to pull something out of the fire (again, Mulholland Dr.), but he's always seemed to me to have a somewhat old-fashioned sensibility, despite the surrealism for which he's known.

Trust me when I say that everyone in the audience was a card-carrying Lynch devotee, and the general reaction was that this movie is a whole 'nother level of crazy. The first hour or so is as weird as Lynch's previously weirdest stuff, and then it gets weirder after that. It might be best to approach it with the frame of mind that you'd bring to an exhibit of a video installation in a museum, rather than a feature film.

Also, large stretches of Inland Empire are, unfortunately, boring and repetitive. Most of the movie is made up of extreme close-ups of faces. Many of those are of Laura Dern with a puzzled expression on her face--furrowed brow; tilted head; slightly parted lips.

As for whether Inland Empire will see a wider release outside its NYC/LA run--it doesn't look likely, since Lynch is distributing it himself (the friend of mine who got me the ticket said that scalpers were selling them for $75). Rhino is putting it out on DVD in June, though, and as I said I think it'll look better on DVD than in a 35mm transfer.
posted by Prospero 18 December | 09:15
God, I can't wait to see this film...

it seems like something of a retread of Mulholland Dr.

Which was a retread of Lost Highway. I think he's just found the film he wants to make, and is set on remaking it.

Are the Rabbits sections new, or has he just dropped in (some of) the existing 9 episodes of the sitcom?
posted by jack_mo 18 December | 10:14
Arghhh!

I am one of those card-carrying Lynch fans. I just happened to see this in Slate and there is some discussion on the bunny thing, jack_mo.

I cannot wait to see it myself, although as BoringPostcards, I will have to go on my own. The two people I dragged with me to Mulholland Dr, avoid all my movie suggestions now. Oh well.
posted by carmina 18 December | 10:53
Are the Rabbits sections new, or has he just dropped in (some of) the existing 9 episodes of the sitcom?

I haven't seen the Rabbits sitcom yet, so I don't know. The same actors do the voices of the rabbits, though.

Oh--and the website for the movie says there'll be January showings in Austin, Chicago, Seattle, Washington DC, and San Francisco.
posted by Prospero 18 December | 10:55
the friend of mine who got me the ticket said that scalpers were selling them for $75

Please tell me you are not in NY. Please?!
posted by carmina 18 December | 11:00
Please tell me you are not in NY. Please?!

I went to see it at the IFC Center in NYC, last Friday evening. My friend who lives in Brooklyn bought the tickets about a week beforehand, and I came in from Jersey.

But I did just go to movietickets.com, and they've got tickets available for showings today and tomorrow. I think its two-week NYC run ends on Tuesday.
posted by Prospero 18 December | 11:08
thanks, P.
posted by carmina 18 December | 11:18
I don't wish to alarm anyone, but there are many people shopping. || Help a foodie noob out here.

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN