• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film: Inland Empire (David Lynch)

Rate this movie

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/1star.gif[/img]

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/2stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/3stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/4stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/5stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 10 50.0%

  • Total voters
    20
L2R said:
Lynch gives his eloquent and precise thoughts on product placement.
just watched my dvd. not nearly as funny as the first time but just as freaky as ever.

not sure how alcohol affected it.
I thought his attitude on product placement was a little ironic considering he has Theroux drop the slogan for David Lynch's Signature Coffee; albeit it made me smile, and it's nowhere near the same as plotting a movie around product placement, which is what he's really responding to. He has another very funny little outburst like the one in that interview on the 2nd disc DVD regarding kids watching movies on their cellphones. It's impossible to tell when Lynch, as a person, is being consciously self-parodic, acting like the way he writes comedy bits for his characters, and when maybe he's just off on a tangent. Both possibilities are believable, though I think more often it's the former.

Alcohol dulls the senses. Of all the movies you could watch while drinking, "Inland Empire" probably suffers the most from it. As I referenced earlier, while discussing the detriment of viewing films on cellphones Lynch gives the example of the just barely audible wind noise, followed by a loud noise, that begins "Inland Empire". There is no way you can be receptive to the feeling created by that contrast on a "f-f-fucking phone!!". In a movie whose greatest virtues turn on subtle contrasts and delicately crafted sound design, if anything, sense-enhancing psychedelics should be consumed beforehand, not alcohol. Hope you have a healthy heart though; it will try leaping out of your chest.
 
true that, but alas, my psychedelic days are behind me.
 
L2R said:
lynch gives his eloquent and concise thoughts on product placement
:D
14.gif

hahaha that's fantastic =D
 
guys, keep the flirtatious remarks in the flirtatious thread.

i'm there'd be one somewhere in the lounge
 
perhaps a little


so, is there anything specific that you didn't like about inland empire?
 
it seems like digital is the best thing that could have happened to him. makes sense that he'll be a little self indulgent at first, but the pay-off is so worth it.

this is imo, quite obviously, the fullest realization of his vision. you can feel his presence pervading it. the moods and scenes he's crafted with the new found freedom are unbelievable. that old camp/stagey aspect is gone and his voice as an auteur is really shining through. he's able to take you so much deeper into the psychology and sentiment of things.

i like his hollywood stuff as much as the next person, but this is really exciting. probably the most personal and visceral thing he's done since eraserhead. totally revitalized.
 
lynch's character is certainly flakey and vague (at best), but perhaps those traits are what grants him these emotive visual cues that he translates to film so well

i also became slightly dissalusioned when i found out that he shoot on his whims, but hey, the stuff works. i'm still amazed that he manages to get a whole crew to follow his whims without too much drama.
 
imo "that" is creating abstract and subjective pieces of art which stimulate an audience into the enjoyable yet futile endeavour of attempting to gain a clear and objective understanding.


very much like life itself! :D
 
Bought the DVD of this last weekend...I'm reserving to watch it this Saturday. I may be a bit intoxicated before doing so...it will be so worth it ;)
 
^ You might want to choose your substances wisely. Everybody is different, but when it comes to a David Lynch abstraction I prefer to be buzzed on opiates. On psychedelics I would be too worried about being ADD and trying out my new headphones or playing legos. Be sure to let us know what you thought about it, in any event.
 
Compared to Mulholand Drive or Blue Velvet it sucked. I thought it was long and boring.
 
Totally impenetrable and self-indulgent waffle.

The key Lynchian elements are there: characters being transported to other locations or realities; incomprehensible language; juxtaposed reactions; delayed delivery of responses; monotonous enunciation; cross-over between dream and reality; psychological symbolism, yadda, yadda, yadda... but it's missing the same tantalising promise that previous films have offered: that if you stick with it, you'll be rewarded with something deeper.

It's not that I didn't enjoy it (I thought Dern was mesmerising and gave a performance of vulnerable beauty that distracted me from the fact that it was running close to a three-hour film) but I couldn't escape the fact that this covered old territory. Empty rooms with the lights turned on.... ooooh spooky! Watching yourself in another reality.... hmmmm, how symbolic! Maybe if I sat through the film another three times and thought about it enough, I'll discover that the film is actually about the projected dream of somebody's ancestor with a split personality who was looking at her reflection in a mirror when she suffered a cerebral haemorrhage while watching a film about the same subject... or maybe I'll have wasted 12 hours of my life?

I think at least 20 minutes could have been shaved off by simply removing the longing stares of people between lines. Of course, this would remove a Lynchian element... but one that I think has probably become something of a parody. Ooooooh... people staring and looking confused... this must be significant! Somebody find me a beret so I can appear intellectual! :D On a similar line, the overuse of close-ups is a fairly cheap tactic to intensify the film and loses its impact less than a third of the way through. I can understand why its needed, given that the supporting cast don't have opportunity to make an impact through their delivery, but it's entirely overbaked.

The decision to use digital video is an interesting development, but the early 20 minutes of the film contained too much hand-held work that didn't particularly work, nor was it particularly well handled. Felt highly experimental (in an amateurish "let's see what I can do with this camera" way, rather than a "but Lynch is experimental" way) and was quite nausea-inducing. As a result of being shot in DV, the film lacked the dripping visual beauty of previous efforts. While I accept that this shift allows for a creepier effect (cue comments including the words "stark" and "bare"), and probably reduced post-production costs, it doesn't really do that much for the audience experience or the delivery of an abstract message. Apart from making it cheaper.

Interesting, but far from living up to the gratuitous praise it's had.
 
It's totally self-indulgent, but I would stop short of comparing it to a breakfast item :)D)

Then again, there are those of us that honestly like to hear David Lynch talk through his chosen medium, even if he is rambling. It was definitely not put together in the sense that Mulholland Drive was, but I enjoyed it as a sort of hypnotic drug delivered through reel. It gave me my fix, personally, and provided more than enough of what I keep coming back for every time.

Everything is overhyped, though. I try to ignore it all - and preferably wait a long, long time before watching a film like this so that I don't have that unnecessary context surrounding it floating through my head.
 
I think I figured out this film

I'd like to revise my opinion of this film. I watched it twice within the last 3 days and I really thought some of the acting was kind of corny as well as some of the dialogue. I'm not afraid to criticize David Lynch. After seeing Wild at Heart I almost pooped my pants with rage, for instance.

Inland Empire, now that the hype has died down, is definitely a mediocre Lynch film and not very creative. It felt like he just took a bunch of his favorite elements and mashed them together without really trying to build up that abstract suspense and subsequent ecstasy you get when you watch something like eraserhead or mulholland drive. However, I do believe there was a method to Lynch's madness and after watching Inland Empire a few times I think I've figured out a lot of it.

Here is my unabashed and long interpretation of the underlying logic in Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire:

NSFW:
Generally, everyone of interest in the movie (Inland Empire) is trading identities with everyone else all the time. Unlike his prior mind fuck flicks, time is not circular whatsoever - all of this stuff is happening in whatever time is available (for reasons which will be explained below) but it only seems like circular time because sometimes the characters in the film find themselves shifting from reality to reality seemingly at random, and may even find themselves looking at themselves for this very reason in the third person - they are not that person when they see themselves in the third person, however - at least not at that instant. The feeling of surprised recognition is amplified amongst the victims of Inland Empire's reality relative to Mulholland drive but the element is basically the same. The characters remember too much about who they really are or too little about who they are supposed to be, in other words, for too long into their shift from one body to the next.

Every troubled character in Inland Empire is either a revenge victim or out for revenge. In Mulholland Drive they made the revenge plot obvious but in Inland Empire they basically had a hundred Mulholland Drive revenge scenarios going on all at once. The red herring that I think Lynch accidentally put in there is that the story is solely about the lawyer husband's revenge for his actress wife cheating on him with her co-star.

In Mulholland Drive you sort of see how the underground market for this kind of magical revenge functions. Someone gets pissed and they not only want to get back at the person but they also want to reverse the tragedy that happened so that everything is either how it was before or how it "should be." Obviously, this would require them to not remember a lot of things.

The problem with this magical service is that the process is not perfect. It can't be because there are too many variables that can't be predicted. The human mind, for instance, can not be relied upon to accept the morphing of reality without some trauma. There will be troublesome memories that seem so real but can't be - like when you wake up from a nightmare and still feel like you're in that place for thirty minutes even after you're awake.

Another big problem is that, not unlike energy in our real universe, the souls involved in this process can neither be created nor destroyed - so there is an issue of scarcity to deal with for the entity in charge of sorting everyone into their proper place. It is not easy because of all of the unpredictable variables of the world (i.e. the human mind, accidents which can not be controlled because they involve things like thunderstorms, random car crashes, etc.). The process of the entity fixing things so that everything works out eventually is what the film Inland Empire (and Mulholland Drive) is entirely composed of. You don't get to see all of the hard work that the entity in charge has to do, but you see it in the form of the confusion the characters face due to the entity trying different solutions over and over again. This is the element that makes the film unpopular: everyone wants to see the man behind the curtain and David Lynch, while perfectly aware of his omission, just shows Dorothy's perception of this Oz. No ultimate guiding force is ever revealed, but its effects are studied in the only means the human mind can comprehend: the five senses. Much how physicists will never find a "motive" for the universe's existence despite the obvious human craving for it (in the form of religion and faith), the characters in Lynch's film are simply incapable of seeing outside of what their human capabilities allow them to - and also much like scientists, they give up on the why and eventually focus on the what and how. This is their means of redemption or damnation - they either adapt to the rules of their new world or they sit in a state of limbo forever, trapped in the machine that was created when they became entangled in their respective psychoses (growing stronger with each struggle for the "why") .

As an audience, we only get to see the effects of this of course because we ourselves are incapable of seeing any such mechanism that allows for this kind of twisted reality to function. Therefore, it seems illogical to us. For one, we can not fathom a human mind being manipulated to be in multiple places at once, and we can not understand something that can rewind, fast forward, cut, paste, and slowdown time in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. These things violate both identity and causality, yet they exist on the screen and are in fact very real to the characters.

Even to the magical entity in control of these things, the situation is not cut and dry. There is no "easy button" despite all of the powers available to him or her. The entity did not choose who would become involved in the web, much like a district attorney does not choose who commits a crime - they are sent to his or her office. And in the case of Inland Empire, too many are sent at once and the entity's work becomes more difficult. If it moves one soul, then another soul must be moved as well to make room for it due to the limited capacity (no energy can be created or destroyed) apparent in the film. Everyone of interest (i.e. those seeking justice of some sort) have to be traded amongst each other if they are to switch identities in the course of the entity's effort to create an equilibrium. If something goes wrong with a solution that is out of the entity's control, then it must continue to move the pieces of the puzzle around. Much of the confusion amongst the characters arises because the entity is playing chess at times instead of checkers. In Mulholland Drive, the situation was simple like checkers. A single case was showcased in that film, the case of the woman who wanted revenge against her teasing, mean-spirited lover. A simple problem happened that was beyond the entity's control: a car crash. The entity is bugged by all of this, but it knows by now that there is never a cut and dry case - not even when it's just two people.

Eventually, in Inland Empire, when things get too complicated for any sort of master plan to have the hope of being formed, the entity kills an ant with a sledgehammer by just creating a heaven for all of the trapped characters, be they deserving of it or not. However, there is some sense of justice involved because once this heaven is created, the entity decides to move on to the next case load and leave the trapped souls to find its location on their own. The entity leaves clues here and there, but it is up to the trapped souls to adapt to their environment and find it. In Inland Empire, the women all find their heaven - and the reason you can tell it was a quick patch by the entity is that they're all together. Quarantined, if you will, because altogether their individual cases combined with the constraints the entity is bound by were too much to fix all at once.

There are really two stories going on in both films: 1.) the confusion of the characters we see - the only characters we are logically capable of understanding and perceiving, and 2.) The confusion of the entity and his or her struggle to fix things as demanded.

The point is related to science, I believe. David Lynch is telling us that even if we did see the man behind the curtain pulling the strings, and his logic was explained, he himself would still not be able to answer the "why" question about his constraints. He only knows they are there and focuses on the practicality of "how" and "what" and pulls his strings the best way he knows how. Despite the completely different realities that the humans and the entity are exposed to, there is a symbiotic relationship. The spectrum of human emotion is struggled to be understood by the entity, for instance, as is evidenced by his vicarious enjoyment of The Wizard of Oz as a microcosm of the redemption that people apparently demand from the man pulling the strings. The entity, while indescribable and incapable of being fathomed directly due to our limited human senses, seeks to bring the Dorothys of the world back home under constraints that allow for some relatively supernatural manipulation but are limited just as we as humans are limited in our own world despite all of our seemingly supernatural powers when perceived by ants in an ant farm.


imo.
 
Last edited:
Top