David Lynch returned to the Great Pacific Northwest Wednesday night for two screenings of his three-hour "Inland Empire" (at 7:30 and midnight), bringing with him to Seattle a fresh, hot shipment of David Lynch Coffee. That's good coffee! (Packaging tagline -- from "Inland Empire," it turns out: "It's all in the beans, and I'm just full of beans.") Just a few blocks away, in the Pike Place Market, was a little shop where I used to get my beans, when I first became a serious coffee-drinker in college. It's still there, and it's still called Starbuck's, but I hear there are more of them now.
I went to the early show. (When it was 9:45 I probably thought it was after midnight.) Lynch began by introducing a cellist who performed a brief improvisational piece "to set a mood." Then Lynch read a short verse:
We are like the spider.
We weave our life and then move along in it.
We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream.
This is true for the entire universe.
-- Upanishads
And then "Inland Empire" hit the big Cinerama screen (in the theater where I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in its original release, when I was 10). I won't say much more about the movie now (I just finished a longer piece that will run next week), but the local crowd went wild when a lumberjack appeared. We live in the land of "Twin Peaks" here, you know. Lynch spent some of his formative years growing up in Spokane, on the other side of the Cascades, in what Washingtonians refer to as the Inland Empire (though most people associate the term with California).
After the movie, Lynch took questions from the audience. Most of them were pretty lame (as is usually the case at these sorts of events), but nothing fazed Lynch, who was gentle, gracious and folksy. He was most passionate when talking about finding "the idea" for whatever he was trying to create, and working and working to realize it. With actors, he said, he likes to bring them in for a rehearsal of one scene -- any scene. (This process is shown in an early scene in "Inland Empire," which was reportedly filmed over the space of a couple years without any finished script. Lynch would shoot when he decided he had an idea for something he wanted to shoot.) The actors would read it and, "if it wasn't perfect" -- and Lynch admitted it rarely is, the first time through -- they would talk. Then rehearse some more. Then talk some more. And so on until he felt they'd brought the scene around to where it was serving "the idea."
He spoke similarly of music and sound, which he feels are -- or should be -- inseparable from the images. (Lynch did the sound design and wrote some music for "Inland Empire," but credits composer Angelo Badalamenti with introducing him to "the world of music.") He finds or writes or creates the music first, and then spends a lot of time and effort and experimentation getting the sounds and images to combine catalytically.
Lynch was enthusiastic about his experience shooting with a small digital camera (the Sony PD-150), and said he began using it to make shorts for his web site. After he'd made a few, he started thinking about them in terms of a larger framework story, and by then he was "already locked into" the digital format. He said he loved the freedom it allowed him (wait till you see the close-ups he goes for -- he coulda poked somebody's eye out!). Sure, he said, this format (it's NOT high-definition like, say, "Miami Vice") doesn't have the quality of film, but it has its own qualities, its own textures. And, Lynch said, it was so easy to push and to tweak at will to get the effects he wanted. Best of all, he didn't have to stop the actors to re-load the camera after every ten minutes of exposed film. He could keep things going for 40 minutes (sometimes shooting with three cameras simultaneously), which he thought allowed for interesting things to happen that might not have happened otherwise.
A questioner noted that characters in David Lynch movies are often subjected to great anguish and trauma. He asked Lynch what was the worst he'd ever been hurt -- physically, the fellow clarified. After a long pause, Lynch told a story about his childhood in Spokane. His family was visiting another family, and they had a punching-bag snowman with sand in the bottom. Another boy hit the snowman, which knocked over young David, who gashed his head on the moulding around the doorway. Lynch said he remembers being adamant about not wanting to get stitches, but doesn't recall what happened.
Someone observed that Laura Dern uses a touch-tone phone in "Inland Empire," perhaps the first non-rotary telephone in the Lynch oevre. Lynch suggested that, perhaps, with this movie, he was slowly moving into the 20th century. Or did he say 21st?
Lynch's new book is called "Catching the Big Fish: Meditation, Consciousness, and Creativity." He said the first step in the creative process for him was letting go of negativity, which then allowed creativity to flow in. Somebody asked if "Inland Empire" was itself a big fish.
"'Inland Empire' is a whale," said Lynch, "with a lot of smaller fish swimming around inside it."
One woman posed the most succinct question of the evening: "What is the movie about?" (This, it should be pointed out, was after she'd just seen it.)
Lynch said: "It's on the poster."
(Updated with the actual Upanishads verse 1/23/07.)
Can't wait to hear your thoughts. I've seen the movie three times so far (maybe a fourth this weekend, depending on how my schoolwork sorts itself out...), and believe it to be rapidly approaching my all-time top ten (which, for a young cinephile like myself, isn't as meaningful a list as it sounds, but nonetheless...).
Straaaaaaannnnnnnge what looove doooessss.
And Grace Zabriskie is GOD!
"Brutal f***ing murder!"
I was there at Scarecrow for the autograph session!
Anyhoo, this was the second time I've met Mr. Lynch (the first was at U-Dub for that transcendental meditation thingy). And it was just really cool that this time I actually had a short conversation with him.
Jim: Thanks for your report from the INLAND EMPIRE Q&A. I'll be attending my own this evening in San Rafael. It will be my second screening, as I caught the film at the Palm Springs International; but, I've a gut feeling this will be one of those I have to chew on for some time to come. I look forward to your thoughts on the film.
i was at the screening, too. thought the film was great. didn't even notice that it was nearly 3 hours. i wasn't a big fan of the digital, though. more specifically, the handheld stuff. but the lighting was pretty stellar (who knew there were so many shades of grey leading up to pitch black?). wish i had stood up to ask him if he made that squarish lamp that was sitting on the dresser, but i'm pretty sure he did.
Lynch said: "It's on the poster."
That's so perfectly cool.
Jim,
Until recently, Roger Ebert has famously detested anything created by David Lynch. You seem to be an admirer. Have you ever had any conversations with Mr. Ebert concerning the merits of Lynch’s work?
Joe: I don't recall any particulars, but I seem to remember discussing our differing opinions about the nature of Isabella Rossellini's performance in "Blue Velvet" (which isn't even one of my favorite Lynch films; I thought it was watered down with too much tongue-in-cheek campiness, but I didn't agree that Lynch had abused his actress on screen). We were both at Telluride the year it premiered there.
Roger did a fascinating interview with Lynch in 1986, after his famous pan of "Blue Velvet, which you may want to check out.
Sounds great. Is there such a thing as mover's remorse? I've been hit with it a few times in the past month but this is the biggest dagger.
I got my copy of "Catching The Big Fish" signed last night here in the Bay Area and was hoping to go to the San Rafael screening but time wouldn't allow me to get across the bridge with enough wiggle room to get a good spot in the rush tix line. I'm kinda bummed but I figure I've waited this long I can wait some more and not kill myself trying to see a movie...
Still: want to see it a-s-a-fucking-p.
As for the book signing, it was colored by a lot of idiot questions, too, like the ever-bold "If it's not too personal, would you tell us your mantra?" Lynch had a good response about it being an inward process (not outward/verbal) so it satisfied the dude but still, there were people in line around me talking about the film projects they were working on and how they were "trying to do a BABEL-type thing and tie everything together in the end." I'm glad I'm a patient young man. Otherwise, I'd have tried to tie something around her vocal chords...
Awesome. Thanks for the reply!
I've got tickets to see it in Chicago next week, where Lynch will be at two sceenings (both of which sold out online very quickly.) I'm excited, if apprehensive about the amount of time I'll need to get there before the screening. Last week at midnight at the same theatre there was a block and a half line for a sing-a-long episode of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. I can't judge the show, not having seen it, but if that many people are willing to line up at 11pm for a midnight screening of a 20-40 minute television show, I don't want to think about when people will show up for this.
(Side note: Lynch's trailer for Inland Empire alone gives me chills of greatness.)
Joe,
Jim is right - Ebert's interview with Lynch is incredible, and there's a second one he did with Lynch after "Mulholland Drive" came out (which Ebert loved).
Jim! Stupid questions abound at such Q&A's, but it's not so much the stupid questions that bother me, it's the ones in which the askee pretends to be above the question he/she is asking, or they ask in such a way that they already know the answer, that it should be obvious, that just wish to sound intelligent. I went to a Guillermo Del Toro Q&A recently at the Arclight in LA, and one of the fellows in the front row began "I detest using such words, but how do you feel about all the buzz." I mean come on! If you don't like using such words, don't use it. "How do you like all the positive attention/reaction." So many other ways to say it. Thankfully Del Toro was gracious enough and incredibly charismatic to take such lame brain remarks and turn them into Q&A gold.
Joe, I don't think Roger Ebert has detested everything by David Lynch... he gave "Mulholland Drive" four stars, declaring that "at last his experiment doesn't shatter the test tubes". He also gave four stars to Lynch's most accessible film, "The Straight Story". I think "Blue Velvet" is really the only Lynch film Ebert has notably "detested", he's merely disliked others, such as "Lost Highway". Sorry to seem like a nit-picker, but your statement just didn't seem fair given the evidence.
Ebert also liked Straight Story--but really, it could have stopped after "Walt Disney Picture presents - - A David Lynch Film" and I woulda been happy.
Clark,
If you reread my original post, you'll see that I wrote, "Until recently, Roger Ebert has famously detested..." I am aware that he has given four star reviews to both 'The Straight Story' and 'Mulholland Drive.' However, every single Lynch film before ‘The Straight Story’ was given a negative review. (I can’t find a review for ‘Eraserhead’ or ‘Fire Walk With Me’ so might be wrong about those.) Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “detest” to describe a two star review, but the praise for Lynch has been few and far between.
For example, in his review of ‘The Elephant Man,’ Ebert notes the philosophy is “shallow”, that Lynch’s direction is merely “competent” and “he gives us an inexcusable opening scene... and an equally idiotic closing scene.”
On "Wild at Heart" he writes, "There is something inside of me that resists the films of David Lynch.... At the end of (the film), I was angry." He concludes the review by stating that Lynch "makes dishonest movies like this one."
Anyway, sorry to nitpick your own nitpicking, but hey, isn't that what the internet's for?
Regarding stupid Q&A sessions, I attended a screening for Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" here in San Francisco three months ago. Questions included "What the hell was that?" and "Are you a Satanic worshipper?" Ugh.
I saw Crispin Glover here in Seattle, and was quite impressed with his ability to take a terrible question and wring an interesting answer out of it. He was much better at this than David Lynch, but then again, he's also a lot more willing to discuss his own work.
My 2nd favorite kind of Q&A question after the above mentioned "statment" question (seemingly the people just want to hear themselves talk) is the impersonal "When is ______ coming out on DVD" or some other question that they could easily find the answer to online, and furthermore, they should, by now, realize that directors and actors have little control over such matters anyway. Even if the filmmaker has an answer, it's not going to be very interesting.
One thing that ate up a lot of the Q&A time at the Lynch screening was people prefacing their questions with a deluge of fawning. Sweet at first maybe, but every person felt they needed to tell him how big a fan they were and how much they liked the movie, and really, these things are kind of a given seeing as how they threw down $20 and scored tickets to a show that sold out pretty fast.
I somehow overlooked your stated 2001 connection until just now. I'm lucky enough to have seen my favorite of all films on the big screen (at the glorious Ziegfeld in New York, no less...), but not at the same place as Inland Empire (that was at the IFC Center, all three times!). They do have an very intimate connection in my mind, however, mainly in that both have been among the pivotal cinematic experiences of my life (quite seriously, I look at my theatrical 2001 deflowering as *the* moment of my cinephile existence to date). I feel like I could watch either movie every day for the rest of my life, and neither would begin to get old or redundant in the slightest.