Sat through it once. Like MULHOLLAND DR., a puzzle movie that isn’t worth the effort to get to the bottom of it.
Wait for this one:
“A piece of shit & Lynch’s best movie”
most people, even those who did not enjoy Inland, like myself (which he had stuck with films like the straight story where oddness meshed with convention very well) , are willing to admit that it was made by a great director and on that basis was at least worth watching.
I would say the most divisive films on here would be Peter Jackson, Kevin Smith or M Night Shymalan films because those directors have sooo many fans on this site yet the films are either not talked about (people must love them since so many fans are people ashamed to stand up for them?) or insulted, yet (again) these directors have more fans then Victor Fleming or Andy Warhol, for example.
uuummm, i think i’m indifferent…interesting but i wouldn’t call it garbage, seriously…it’s not like watching a Zack Snyder film…
i watched it on a free premiere 2 years ago if i recall the date, the audience was pretty pumped up and Dern’s claustrophobic ether didn’t prevent me to “enjoy” (considering joy here is one’s antidote to intelligentsia, hehe) and rather value the dream within a dream within a past storyline element…
i still prefer Blue Velvet and Eraserhead over Inland, even though it gains points due to the Lost Highway Part II reminiscence…
I’ll add a word: abysmal. The effort required to plumb this thing doesn’t result in enough of a payout on the back end. However, I do appreciate the con. I can’t imagine ever- ever- sitting through it again. Having a tooth scaling would be preferable. I do love the song “Polish Poem”, though. Chrysta Bell. Lovely voice. Haunting words. And yet, and yet, with editing I believe there is a movie there. A pretty good one. Definitely not three hours long.
I bet if Lynch, in his memoirs, the chapter about Inland Empire, said that it was a meaningless fuck up – that wouldn’t change anyone’s opinion.
For the record, I remember thinking: “Lynch is up to something here.”
That’s as far as I got.
I didn’t bother to figure out what any of it meant, and that might be why I liked it so much. It was an exciting ride.
double post
Yeah, if your expectations are low enough, you’re never gonna be disappointed.
Inland Empire, like Eraserhead, like his earlier short films, is the artist’s subjective experience not expressed through any widely-accepted system of symbols.
Lacan used to define reality as that part of our experience which resists symbolization. So in a sense Inland Empire is the Real before it has become part of culture, before it is shared with others.I think the beautiful part of the movie comes after the credits start rolling and we begin sharing or thoughts on it — making it part of culture.
What I regret is that, unlike the densely atmospheric Eraserhead, this film film does not create any feeling, does not make you emotionally involved. It was intentional, most probably. But it’s like watching somebody’s dream, while you are not in it.
David Lynch’s movies between 1980 and 2001 (or those that I have seen) are like pretty recognizable pop-art pictures painted over a dream — with some occasional outbursts of the unconscious. Now that the dreamworld stand exposed again, it is interesting to see what has become of it after all these years.
I would probably enjoy IE more if I could get some hints from Lynch within the film about what is going on that are are not as enigmatic as the film is. I’ve read different interpretations here and elsewhere about what IE is about, but without a little help from Lynch, all that, for me, adds up to speculation. I was left down a few rabbit holes, but I sort of expect that from Lynch. I appreciate Lynch’s work, even if I don’t get it at first, or, if ever.
It’s interesting that a lot of people mention the ‘puzzle’ element of both Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire. I never view Lynch films in this way. When I watch a David Lynch film I feel I’m being invited into his head to watch one of his dreams. I don’t expect to be able to make sense of everything I see, and I don’t try to. I tend to let it wash over me, and just ‘experience’ the film. I saw Inland Empire as Lynch’s most successful attempt at filming his dreams, whereas Mulholland Drive seemed much more traditional, restrained, and ‘polished’ – not qualities Lynch is necessarily famous for.
The first time I saw Inland Empire, I thought it a mess, having several storylines that didn’t seem to connect in any meaningful way. I even wrote a rather scathing review of it. Then, I started reading and participating in discussions of the film on site, in some of these threads:
Contrary to Popular Belief…It’s OK to Hate Inland Empire
Your Interpretation of this Film
I re-watched the film, paying very careful attention to it, and taking in the comments of others. I completely re-evaluated the film, and turned my own negative opinion around. Although the film still has flaws for me, I now believe it is a film that is as carefully constructed in its own way as say Last Year at Marienbad. It has a far more intricate cinematic structure than Lynch’s earlier Mulholland Drive – which was complex enough.
It is an experimental film – in no way a straight-forward narrative. Of course, it is a gigantic puzzle-box of a film, and has many layers of possible interpretation. Like Last Year at Marienbad, or similar type films, it won’t appeal to those who refuse to try and analyze what is going on and then just throw up their hands in disgust.
I believe that Lynch’s use of the Penderecki score, use of dark framing and sets, use of a parallel Polish film-within-the-film, all give the willing viewer ample opportunity for piecing it together. Of course, there is no right or ultimate interpretation. In any case, Lynch won’t reveal any. But to just dismiss this film as nothing but a mess – which was close to my own initial reaction – is just turning a blind eye to a director who is not afraid to push the boundaries of filmmaking in this last decade.
I now think it is a unique work of uncompromising vision and does reward further re-watching. On a site such as this, one would expect a little more sympathy for the attempt, at least, to provide us something well outside of mainstream fare. To dismiss it as just nonsense is not really worthy of those on this site, where critical thinking is supposed to play a part in how we look at film.
i agree with those who say people are often too rational when watching a film. especially an avant-garde (or avant-garde influenced) film. they want it to be a puzzle, which means something that they can solve and wrap up in a nice neat little box. if they cant solve it, they feel angry and cheated.
reminds me of the hitchcock book by truffaut, where he talks about the audience always wanting to be smart and one step ahead of the director. i prefer to let my directors lead. especially a director like lynch, who i admire a lot. that being said, i still have yet to see “inland”.
You must have had people earnestly say to you, “hey, I had a weird dream last night..”, right? What do you do? Me, my eyes glaze over. Dreams, without some attempt at interpretation are just %r5\8)k"x@l^+d!8>/…Material for art, perhaps, but not the art itself.
But it’s like watching somebody’s dream, while you are not in it.
Truthfully, how much fun is that?
I certainly wouldn’t call Mulholland Drive “traditional” or “restrained”. As for being “polished”, that might be because Lynch chose film as opposed to a consumer grade digital camera?
I really skillful director will lead you to your own experience.
The problem with IE is that, as both Rumplesink and dAvril maybe suggesting, the film is leading to Lynch’s personal experience or dream.
…and personal hacking from Maya Deren…
And why is it so difficult for some to accept that, indeed, a good amount of critical thinking may have lead them to a different conclusion? Why presume that not enough, if any, critical thinking has taken place? Or is what really desired is that critical thinking become the cat chasing its own tail? Not permitting a conclusion to be reached until entropy wears it down?
KJ – Dreams, without some attempt at interpretation are just %r5\8)k"x@l^+d!8>/
Indeed !
%r5\8)k"x@l^+d!8>/ is not something I care to share, unless one can explain the significance of sharing it.@KJ
Truthfully, how much fun is that?
Not too much fun, but at least it did not have elements that stylistically or ideologically killed each-other. So it was a liable avan-garde experiment and I even came up with a logical explanation for it.
A really skillful director will lead you to your own experience.
A-ha! But that’s probably one of the main aims of this film: the idea might be to explore how you will be trying to account for this experience!
I’ve tried twice to make it through Inland Empire and failed both times, which is very unusual for me. I’m a bit ashamed of the fact, but the film literally makes me queasy. That’ not a value judgment, just a fact, like motion sickness.
When I say I like to let Lynch films wash over me, that’s not exactly the case. It kind of is but not quite. I don’t try to solve puzzles in films as a rule – I follow the events but don’t try to put two and two together unless the director doesn’t give me the answer at the end of a film. If that’s the case then I’ll go and have a think about what it all meant after I’ve watched it.
I do believe there are a few comprehensible storylines operating in Inland Empire, but they’re maybe not as explicitly presented as in other narrative films – maybe even not explicit enough to ever adequately explain what exactly is going on. To me though, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There’s plenty of room to speculate – Bob’s comparison to Last Year In Marienbad I think is apt because it presents the same kind of (possibly unsolvable) puzzle as Inland Empire.
It seems to me that rather than presenting say a murder, or an affair, or a kidnapping I think Lynch prefers trying to present the feeling of a murder having happened or someone having had an affair or that someone was kidnapped, without actually showing the event explicitly. Obviously this can lead to some confusion if the films events are to be taken at face value – but I honestly don’t think that was the intention.
@Robert
Imagine (for the sake of a purely theoretical discussion) you are married to a woman of a Central European background, who sometimes feels like a lady and sometimes like a whore, and sometimes thinks of her great-great-parents in the 19th century Poland (or was it Lithuania), and sometimes dreams of Jeremy Irons, and she has all sorts of contradictory feelings during each one day. And that’s true with most people most of the time, I think. So how are you to construct a coherent picture of her personality in your mind? If you fail, would that mean you are not able to communicate with that person?
That’s something this film gives you to think about. How are we going to construct a coherent picture of the artist’s personality? Maybe we are not, maybe we’re going to walk out of the theater in the middle. Then it should make you think why you came in the first place.
That’s pure concept art.
It seems to me that rather than presenting say a murder, or an affair, or a kidnapping I think Lynch prefers trying to present the feeling of a murder having happened or someone having had an affair or that someone was kidnapped, without actually showing the event explicitly.
Lynch working the interstices? That’s what struck me after I saw it. I’ve given that some thought.
Inland Empire seems to me the filmic equivalent of impressionism in painting.
Edit: the idea might be to explore how you will be trying to account for this experience!
@ dAvril
Okay, and Joe’s point is well taken.
You get back what you put into it and a consensus around an analysis isn’t necessary.
If we are talking about the medium, someone needs to point out the advances IE made for/to the medium of film.
“Inland Empire seems to me the filmic equivalent of impressionism in painting.”
as much as i don’t support or ignore Inland at the same time, that film is definitely WAY BEHIND impressionism…
Inland Empire seems to me the filmic equivalent of impressionism in painting
But only when you’re standing much too close to the picture.
McBean
“A masterpiece”
“A piece of shit”
“Lynch’s best movie”
“Unwatchable”
These are all quotes from people on this site. Is there a more divisive film on here? For every two Mulholland Drives there’s an Inland Empire waiting to pounce. This seems to be a film you either love or loathe. Why does it elicit such strong reactions from people I wonder?
I’m going to give it a re-watch soon. Is there anyone here who had a strong negative or positive reaction to the film that has since changed their mind on re-watching? What’s everyone’s general thoughts on the film now that it’s been around for a few years?