Sean Axmaker talks to David Lynch about digital video in general, and the new DVD of "Inland Empire" in particular, over at MSN Movies:
You have, of course, never done a commentary track, but the "Stories" section of the "Inland Empire" disc could almost be a stand-alone commentary because you talk about so many things around the film.I'm waiting for my DVD of "Inland Empire" to arrive. (I almost always watch them at night, with the lights off, on a 55" Sony LCD projection HDTV with surround sound.)I believe talking is OK separate from a thing, but a commentary track that goes along through a film, I think, is maybe the worst possible thing a person could do. From then on, the film is seen in terms of the memory of that commentary and it changes things forever.
You have about 70 minutes of deleted footage in the "More Things That Happened" section and you've edited them so they play like their own dreamlike film.
Right. There are things in "More Things That Happened" that give a feeling that could be like a brother or sister to the film. It's like if you know a family, but you haven't met the sister yet. You go over to Ohio and meet the sister, and it adds more to the feeling of the whole family.
In the "Stories" section of the "Inland Empire" supplements, you go on a rant about people watching movies on their phones. So how do you feel about the huge explosion of home theater?
I feel great about the home theater. It's so hopeful. It's a counterpart to the telephone experience, or the computer screen, but a lot of people are going to see their films on computers and phones and they will think they saw the films, but they will not have seen the film. And that's a sadness, as I say in "Stories," that's a real sadness. It's very hard to sink into a world when the picture is so small. I hope that the home-theater big screens at home will be something they embrace so they can feel and think in the world -- not have all this distraction around it.
Even if you haven't seen Lynch's latest magnum opus ("Twin Peaks" was similarly big and deep), you can still check out my review, which was written as a sort of "Viewers' Guide to 'Inland Empire,'" suggesting various ways of looking at it. A synopsis would be impossible, anyway...
I haven't bought DVDs in ages because I use Netflix instead, but I saw the Inland Empire DVD at the store the other day... man, I gotta have it....
I'd consider myself a Lynch fan, but I've yet to get through this film. I started watching the other day, but didn't get that far in. It all seems quite pointless, just mannered weirdness for no real reason. Lynch paid for this film himself, so obviously he can't make it as ridiculous and self-indulgent as he wants.
The rabbit sitcom if anything just put me off, and scenes that followed of characters either looking confused or terrified, combined with the obligitory low rumbling sounds Lynch loves so much. And everyone talking in that slow, cryptic way people always do in Lynch's films.
Lynch seems to only be able to write two types of characters, one is the protagonist who wanders around looking confused and bewildered. The other is the menacing weirdos who do all sorts of crazy shit and talk nonsense. These two types of characters are found in all his work except The Elephant Man, Dune and The Straight Story, which aren't fully "Lynch" films.
I will watch the whole thing before I fully make up my mind. This just seems like an excercise in being as forcefully weird and confusing as possible, rather like Lost Highway. It seems to lack the emotional undercurrent and the elegance and virtuoso control of mood and atmosphere that makes Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet so great.
So far it kind of feels like a director self-conciously going through the motions of his own style. And with no studio or producer or anyone to say "wait a minute...maybe thats not such a great idea..." An Artist with total freedom often just sprawls off into incoherent self-indulgence.
"All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream"
-Edgar Allan Poe
INLAND EMPIRE is unlike any film I have seen before, or will likely see again-this coming from someone who is a diehard, loyal Lynch fan.
The best way I can describe this film is if someone placed a camera directly into Laura Dern’s brain and filmed her dreams. I have never seen a film that has come this close to resembling an actual dream. There is almost no plot to the film. Events fall out of sequence, and often repeat themselves. Characters will appear out of nowhere, then disappear. Dern’s character will find herself in different places (sometimes two places at once). Indeed, she will often seem like a different character entirely. Like a dream, actions fall out of sequence, the only constant being a tone of unease throughout the film.
Positives: It’s almost ludicrous to compliment this film for being original. Like his best work, there are moments that are absurdly funny-and others that are downright scary. There are also moments where Lynch’s unique genius shines through-one scene in particular will haunt me for a long time: Late in the film, a character “dies” (note the quotes) on Hollywood Boulevard, but is comforted by 3 homeless people during his/her final moments. The scene starts off absurd, but soon becomes incredibly moving and powerful. It is one of the best scenes he has ever filmed and no who sees it will ever forget it. The other main positive: Laura Dern. She should have been nominated for an Academy Award for this role. Not only does she run the full gamut of emotions, but she plays roughly three or four different characters in this movie (all part of the same person).
Negatives: I can’t recommend this movie to someone has never seen a Lynch movie before, or does not like his previous work. It is just too extreme, not to mention long (nearly 3 hours). Anyone who is not patient or ready for the challenge will become exasperated and give up. To put it another way, if you are not ready for a 3 hour film with no plot, yet features scenes such as 1) a TV sitcom, complete with canned laughter, in which all the characters are dressed like rabbits (no, I’m not kidding) or 2) a group of hookers doing the “The Locomotion,” then this film is not for you. Other negatives: though this film is more extreme than Mulholland Drive (which is saying something), I feel that MD is the better film, and that he repeats himself in a way. Dramatic shifts in time and place, sobbing women, mysterious men in suits, darkly lit rooms with sparse furniture and characters who seem to be two or three people at once were all seen in Mulholland Drive-and used to greater effect.
I guess the best way to describe INLAND EMPIRE is as follows: usually, the “cousin” of movies is literature, be it stories or plays. There is usually a story to tell and a plot to follow, from beginning, middle to end. INLAND EMPIRE is not such a film: it is more akin to looking at a painting or sculpture-the meaning comes more from the immediate visual experience rather than from the story. Some unique (and great) films, share this trait: Bergman’s Persona, Kubrick’s 2001, Tati’s Playtime, Richard Linklaetter’s Waking Life and Lynch’s own Eraserhead to name a few. INLAND EMPIRE is clearly one of them.
Would I see it again? I will, but not very soon. I rarely say this about movies, but this one was mentally and psychologically draining. I hope this review did not seem to negative, but it is clearly not a film for everyone. Still, I am very glad that I saw it and would watch it with someone game.
I was, I think understandably, a little uneasy about watching "Inland Empire"; I mean, three hours of something that nearly everyone refers to as indescribable? It seemed a little daunting, and I was concerned that I would react as unfavorably to it as I did to "Eraserhead." I didn't. I had a strange sensation while watching it--I found myself completely adrift at times (especially after the first hour), but it did not matter at all, not a whit. I understood what I could, what I wanted to, and that was enough. Everything else, maybe I didn't grasp it completely, but, in my core, I could feel what was taking place even if I didn't know what was taking place. I'm not sure that I could say that about any other film I've ever seen, and that, for me, makes "Inland" a remarkable achievement--even if I don't think it's as great as "Mulholland Drive" (my favorite film of the decade thus far and likely to remain in that position).
When I finished watching "Inland," I could not stop thinking about it, about the way it worked on me. As I said, the film operated in a way that was, I guess, unconscious--part of me (a part of me which I am unaccustomed to using, at least in a waking state) sussed out what was taking place but couldn't put it into words--and I wonder how on earth Lynch did it, or even if he did it.
It would be nice if everyone could afford a giant screen home theatre system. One that not only shows you the whole world, but separates the sound as the filmmaker intended it...if we could afford it.
It's funny. He's adverse to watching a film via cell phone (which I don't think I could personally do) but I find the quality of image produced by cell phone to be quite dreamlike, almost as if it were a memory out of my own little brain. I've fallen in love with that image, and am considering using it it some point myself. I would think Lynch might have the same appreciation with his love for degraded video quality.
I was lucky enough to see "Inland Empire" in the theater here in Tucson a few months ago.
After reading the linked-to article, I immediately rushed to Amazon and ordered the DVD.
Mr. Emerson, I don't know if I can afford to read your blog...