inlandempireldern1.jpgDavid Lynch has never been a man of conventions. In fact, even when we were all used to Lynch making odd films and shows, he went and made a Disney film. But for his latest film, INLAND EMPIRE, Lynch has taken his most drastic step, and ditched 35mm cameras, instead experimenting with consumer mini-DV cameras and writing each of the film’s scenes the day before shooting.

INLAND EMPIRE feels akin to Eraserhead in many ways. Unlike Lynch’s other movies, which usually start with a relatively normal narrative structure that gradually tears apart, Lynch’s first and latest both instantly delve into the weird, and barely pop up for air. From what I gathered from my first viewing, after an introduction involving a prostitute and a foreign woman watching a dead-pan sitcom of a trio of rabbits, we seem to kick in to a story of Sue, an actress (played by Laura Dern), who is making a comeback feature. A strange Polish woman enters her house with an ominous tale. Seemingly unphased, Sue starts work on the film with director Kingsley (Jeremey Irons) and co-star Devon (Justin Theroux), only to discover a supposed curse in the script. That equates to about 10 minutes of the film, the rest turns into a blur of creepy imagery and sounds, with Sue’s personality seemingly blending with her character, a prostitute, and god knows what else.

On a technical level, I can only applaud Lynch. It’s about time an established director has cast aside film and taken up digital cinema. Yes, Lucas did it years ago, but the Star Wars prequels still looked like film. Digital has a different and distinct feel, and this is the first time it has been utilised fully. Sure, it looks grainy, if not amateurish, at first, but soon Lynch’s trademark ubiquitous sense of threat takes over, and you’re sucked into the experience. And Lynch spends plenty of the movie showing off his knowledge of After Effects, with many scenes containing the kind of visual manipulation only your nightmares can conjure up.

inland_empire_girls.jpgI’m astounded by the mixed reaction to INLAND EMPIRE so far. While many critics are lauding the film, many of Lynch’s fans, including those of Mulholland Drive, are claiming that Lynch has lost it, disappeared up his own cherry-pie hole. I shouldn’t be too surprised, since Lynch’s fans have been switching sides since Lost Highway, each time claiming he has gone too far. But I personally felt that INLAND EMPIRE is similar in territory to Mulholland Drive. Both deal with the world of Hollywood as the perfect setting to bet on your ideals and lose your identity in the process. And both operate within an existence of frames, of stories within stories within stories. I won’t even hazard a guess as to which frame is within which (I.e. who is the person whose fantasies and feelings are being played out through these stories and sub-stories), but the film is imbued with meaning. And abstracting the meaning is what makes Lynch’s films so enjoyable, with an array of interpretations on offer, such as Empire’s movie-nerd’s understanding. The difference between the two films is that INLAND is even less linear than Mulholland Drive, and contains significantly less lesbianism.

One aspect of the film which may detract viewers and fans of Lynch is the unattractiveness of the film. It’s full of dark corridors with nasty figures lurking about. The film feels like the ugly sister of Mulholland Drive. And appropriately, unlike the yearning desire that permeated Mulholland Drive, the emotions associated with this film relate to infidelity, wife-beating, control, and terror. The only criticism I have of the film is that three hours is a little too long for a film of seemingly disjointed scenes, and my attention waned somewhere in the middle, until the film picked the pace up towards the final 30 minutes.

Overall, though, I found the film compelling. It’s deeply disturbing and visually dark, with sublime moments of terror. It’s a movie I’ll definitely revisit over and over in an effort to comprehend. And, it is certainly the way forward for someone like Lynch, whose films are not known to be profitable. Which means that we could see a new Golden Age of art house cinema, produced on minimal budgets but feeling as valid in the cinema as any million-dollar feature.

INLAND EMPIRE is touring the US city by city, as Lynch is distributing the film himself. Check out the film’s website for the release schedule.


Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to Del.icio.us Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to digg Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to FURL Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to blinklist Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to My-Tuts Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to reddit Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to Feed Me Links! Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to Technorati Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to Yahoo My Web Add 'There’s Method to the Madness of INLAND EMPIRE' to Newsvine 



4 Comments so far »
  1.  

    ChillyWilly said

    March 18 2007 @ 9:59 am

    Great post. I’m a fan of INLAND EMPIRE and will watch it several more times to take it all of the Lynch-made madness and trying to make my own sense of what’s going on.

  2.  

    INLAND EMPIRE DVD Review: Made for TV? » Screenhead.com - So much in Love with Movies said

    September 9 2007 @ 10:54 am

    [...] of writing, there’s not much I can add about the film or its meaning since my theatrical review of the film. The aloof story remains the same. It’s something about a woman in trouble (okay, [...]

  3.  

    David Lynch To Catch Fish for Next Film » Screenhead said

    May 15 2008 @ 11:02 am

    [...] David Lynch is one of the best filmmakers around. Like him or not, he is one of the last living directors to have a distinct, recognisable style, from Eraserhead to Twin Peaks, and even to his new phase of filmmaking, using DV cameras to make arthouse flicks such as INLAND EMPIRE. [...]

  4.  

    Candace Craig said

    November 11 2008 @ 2:41 pm

    This review is one of the best I’ve read and “mostly” accurate, in my opinion. I have watched Inland numerous times now, and I am still intrigued. However, despite the “amatuerish” look of the images (??), I like the look of it; it has some truly frightening moments, and the use of the camera animates this, especially the close-ups. What I have always found so astonishing about Lynch’s films, especially this one, and especially after hearing his own rambling and aimless commentaries in other contexts, is that this congerie of striking imagery is put together in a way that actually makes meaning, well, almost. At times it seems arbitrary and at other times, quite deliberate. And that is how I come back to his films repeatedly. They invite meaning, and yet they defy it. They are haunting and penetrate something that only surfaces from the deepest reaches of our nightmares, call it angst or some recognition of the stuff that drives anxiety attacks (unlike the childish and predictable antics of “Scream”, et al.). These terrors seem more real, even as they are surreal, and, hence, more ADULT. In a word, I can’t get enough of this film-maker.

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Name: (Required)

eMail: (Required)

Website:

Comment:


Most Popular on ScreenHead in March, 2007