Indeed, but it’s also okay to love it too. :o)
Touche.
Mmm, Inland Empire. Just the words make me go all warm inside.
I HATE INLAND EMPIRE. I TRULY DO. David Lynch has traded in on his reputation for weird surrealist imagery, and pulled a fast one on his fans. That movie is a garbled mess, and it blows my mind that people fawn over it as if it really means anything.
I know that saying this will incur the wrath of cinephiles all over this site. People will say I know nothing about movies and all of that junk. That’s fine. If Inland Empire is great cinema, then count me out.
Check out this thread and David Adams’ interpretation. I’m watching it now with all this in mind and it’s certainly much more coherent.
It’s probably my second least favourite Lynch film after THE STRAIGHT STORY. I just wish I could see it. The digital process that he raves about is absolutely horrible. I might like the movie more if I can actually see it one day.
A film doesn’t necessarily have to make sense to be considered good.
“popular” being a relative term, of course.
Dont: Watch he movie after watching Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart and Lost Highway
Do: Watch it after watching Mullholland Drive, Eraserhead, some films by Kenneth Anger, Stan Brakhage, and other experimental filmmakers. The film is not narrative. It’s not quite Avant Guard but it definitely ain’t narrative so if you watch it expecting a coherent story with some cool Lynchian touches you will be disappointed. It may be his finest film.
And Rumplesink, what I’ve learned from Inland Empire is that a film doesn’t necessarily have to be good to be “considered” good.
Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids.
Of course it’s okay to hate it.
It’s a movie he’s been working towards for his entire career as a filmmaker and painter, and finally someone invented an extremely sophisticated hand-held digital brush for him. Now let’s see where else he goes from here. I’ll be watching.
I love Inland Empire because it’s solidified my belief that David Lynch is now completely irrelevant and I don’t have to worry about seeing any of his movies again (that is, if he ever even makes another film).
Furthermore, I think popular opinion is far from claiming the contrary.
(Otherwise, double post)
I think I speak for about 80% of the users on this site when I say: LYNCH IS GOD.
Uh Withnail… I think you just created a whole generation of atheists.
@Withnail – I think you missed out an ‘O’ there.
LYNCH IS GOOD
and he said unto thee, “look at the world I have created for you. Now look at the film I have directed within this world. I call it Inland Empire.” And then God put his mediocrity on display for all to see and the faithful stuck with him.
@Plateau14: You obviously have an aversion to this film, but let me ask you this – if you have a gun with only one bullet in it and David Lynch is standing there beside Michael Bay what are you going to do? I rest my case.
I would go eat a sandwich.
I mean are they collaborating on a film together? Cause I’d see that.
David Lynch was a consultant on Bad Boys II.
uncredited, of course.
..that gives me an idea for a new thread…
@PLATEAU14
to quote someone from another thread:
“Does anyone ever have intelligent discussions on these boards?”
Though I do appreciate and agree with your non-violent choice regarding the inane bullet question.
Inland Empire is more of a greatest hits remix than a film. Lynch chucks narrative, and goes so far out that there is no loopy narrative mystery (Lost Highway) or puzzle to piece together (Mulholland Drive). It is a senseless barrage of sections: Laura Dern in LA as an actress, rabbits, and a polish circus horrorshow. Inland Empire is a weave of Lynchian tropes: his previous Rabbits short films, blinking lights, circular loops, doppelgangers, neuroses, female sexuality as a weapon and a vunerability, LA surface cool, rotten cores, etc.
I like it, because I love Lynch. Any film that features his regular themes in his normal-but-bordering-on-dangerous tone is great in my opinion. I think Inland Empire is one of his weaker films. For a Lynch newcomer, I’d recommend saving it for last. I’d recommend Twin Peaks or Blue Velvet first. But weak Lynch is still good film in my opinion.
The final montage set to the song “Something Is Happening” is a masterpiece of lyrical cinema.
As Lynch suggests, it helps to think of the movie as a series of “things that happened” — rather than a narrative.
Vellaem: Especially if you love Lynch, check out the link I posted earlier in this thread and read David Adams’ interpretation. I’m telling you, watching the film now after having read that I’m finding it hard not to call this film a masterpiece.
An amazing nightmare of inner turmoil.
Lynch has often said he’s constantly amazed that other filmmakers aren’t using the medium to ‘do something’. Inland Empire is Lynch doing something, and that’s not “just fucking with” us.
Given the state of mainstream film these days, Lynch might just be the most relevant American film artist working, that is if film is ever to take another step forward.
@BEN… that was me who said that on that other board.
Exactly!
MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
C(ackle)OL!
Sincerely, tell us more about what you dislike about the movie instead of repeating in various permutations that you dislike it. I’m interested to hear about that.
I never viewed it a second time. I’m looking back at a quick note I made after first seeing it in 2007:
“This puzzle is three hours of almost solid dread and an auditory experience best played at higher volumes in as dark a room as possible. I haven’t the will to piece together the clues. I have the feeling that even after immersing myself in repeated viewings, fiery forum discussions, DVD extras, documentaries, and interviews, the payoff of understanding Lynch’s latest dreamscape beyond “A woman in trouble” would be anti-climactic."
I’ll take a look at the article you referenced Josh and maybe get to acclimating once again to Lynch’s DV project.
plateau14
Just throwing this out there.