free counter with statistics INLAND EMPIRE | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

INLAND-EMPIRE.jpg


This Whole World’s Wild at Heart and Weird on Top

INLAND EMPIRE / Jeremy C. Fox

Film Reviews | December 11, 2006 | Comments (25)


Is David Lynch a genius or simply a freak provocateur? Throughout his career, he has tested the patience of his audience with forays into the bizarre and the achingly banal, demanding that we peer beneath surfaces and (usually) richly rewarding those of us with the patience to play his game and the receptivity to discern and interpret his clues. His willful obscurity has spawned a devoted cult, and legions of the faithful pore over his movies, memorize every interview, and rearrange the deliberately nonsensical dialogue of his short films hoping to find hidden meanings, convinced that Lynch holds some dark secret about human existence, or perhaps the recipe for a soufflĂ© that never falls, even if you let the oven door slam. There is, of course, a flip side: the folks who find Lynch pretentious, repetitive, and concerned with images and themes more for their shock value than for any more complex meaning they might hold. They see no merit in digging through the red herrings to get at Lynch’s true intent, whatever it may be — it can, in any case, only ever be speculative, since he’s famously mum on the subject. With Lynch’s latest project, INLAND EMPIRE (yes, he prefers the all-caps), both sides of the argument will have ample fodder: It is at once his most complexly evocative and most thoroughly impenetrable — not to say self-indulgent — feature since Eraserhead, if not of his entire career. Those who found Lost Highway or Mulholland Dr. difficult to parse are really screwed with this one.

INLAND EMPIRE is 172 minutes of exhausting, patience-shredding, yet continually intriguing filmmaking, a work that will divide fans and critics and probably lead to a few isolated instances of marital discord. It has a linear narrative, of sorts, only in the first of its nearly three hours; after that we are treated to a long (so long) series of elliptical scenes of questionable purpose and debatable interest. It opens with a few abstracted images of common objects, then moves on to a kinky sexual assignation (between a couple whose faces are inexplicably blurred) in what appears to be a Polish hotel room, then to a sitcom parody featuring a trio of rabbit people who make terse, non-sequitur statements while a laugh track responds on cue, though nothing funny has been said. (This last is a variation on Lynch’s series of Rabbits short films.) This is followed by 45 minutes or an hour (our sense of time becomes skewed) of relatively straightforward narrative about recognizably human characters who are then plunged for nearly two hours into a disjointed, hallucinatory montage of scenes that jump back and forth between Poland, Southern California, and someplace inside Lynch’s head, with several different sets of characters introduced and some those characters alternating between different roles and different realities. Having seen the movie only once, I remain optimistic that there is indeed some point being made here, some plot (actually at least three of them) being explored, but I’m damned if I can say exactly what it is.

This much I know for sure: In the movie’s linear story, Laura Dern plays Nikki Grace, an actress who hopes to give her idling career a much-needed jumpstart by playing the female lead in a deep-fried melodrama called On High in Blue Tomorrows, starring the popular Devin Berk (Justin Theroux). Set in the early-20th-century South, the film features their characters, Susan Blue and Billy Side, in an adulterous affair that threatens both their marriages and their lives. Their characters’ situation is echoed in reality, as Devin is a notorious pussyhound and Nikki, though ostensibly happily married, is vulnerable to his charms. As the sexual tension between them grows and Nikki’s husband becomes increasingly suspicious, Nikki begins to lose her connection to reality, or perhaps to slide between realities, increasingly identifying with her character, often unsure whether she is Susan or Nikki or just where she is either geographically or temporally. When she finds herself pulled backward through time into earlier events in her own life, she begins a nightmare journey that takes her to all the aforementioned places and a few others besides, and we in the audience can only observe as she passes through sequences that make no sense to her and less to us.

With INLAND EMPIRE, Lynch for the first time began shooting without a finished script, writing new scenes continually throughout shooting, with no more than a vague sense of how they might connect. He shot the movie on digital video — another first — allowing him to shoot very long takes and to work continuously, spontaneously, improvising and capturing images as they occurred to him. Watching it, we get the sense that perhaps this is the most unmediated glimpse we’ve yet gotten into Lynch’s psyche, with certain ideas and images recurring incessantly and intermingling at random. Throughout Nikki’s journey, there are many of the familiar Lynchian tropes, including mesmerizingly bizarre imagery; dated popular music used for both allusive and absurdist purposes; intentionally stiff or overblown acting; the dark side of Hollywood glamour; a lurid, perverse sexuality; and a brunette woman who serves as a sort of double for the blonde Nikki. (This relationship is central, and I have my own, half-formed theory about exactly what it is and how it relates to the movie’s other events, but I think it’s best to let other viewers work out their own.) Much of this will be catnip to Lynch’s diehard fans, but the movie keeps us at such a distance that it’s difficult to become invested in any of it. We can’t connect to anything that’s happening because we never fully understand what is happening or how it relates to anything else. Still, thinking back over it all, I can’t help wanting to see it again — all three hours — to try with fresh eyes to see how the pieces fit, even though I only intermittently enjoyed it the first time. And that, I suppose, is evidence of a certain kind of genius.

Jeremy C. Fox is a founding critic of Pajiba and a member of the Online Film Critics Society.You may email him at jeremycfox[at]gmail.com.

ofcs.gif


The Kids are Alright | Pajiba Love 12/12/06



Comments

Nice review, I'm still on the fence about Lynch's genius.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at December 13, 2006 12:17 AM

Call him pretentious, call him a genius, call him whatever you want... either way, I just find his movies intriguing to watch. I think it's fun to debate about whether or not there are hidden meanings throughout something that could just be the random twistings of some guy's mind.

I really like Lynch's stuff and will most definately be seeing this one. I only hope that there is at least one scene as haunting as the one in Mulholland Dr: the a cappella Spanish version of Roy Orbison's crying in the lub Silencio. It gets me every time.

But I digress. INLAND EMPIRE should be good.

Posted by: Lyric at December 13, 2006 1:38 AM

I've yet to see the movie, but please, let us know your theory of the relationship of the double blonde. My favorite things with deep and murky Lunch films (Mullholand dr.) is to see critics duke it out as to whoat it means.

I actually think you avoided the quesion here, describing what we saw, but never attempting to attach meaning. Yes, we're each to take away our own meanings, there's no one point of view, unlike, say, Steve Zallian (to pick a simple director of the moment) but thank god for that. But I'd like to know what you took away from this film. To say "Yeah, lynch's weird, haven't quite figured it out yet - kinda does the reader a disservice.

Posted by: Iguana Boy at December 13, 2006 2:13 AM

Worse then Eraserhead?????

THAT I've got to see for myself.

IF they run it in a theatre in Amsterdam, that is..
(Sigh).

And I.Boy,
Methinks letting the future viewers make it up for themselves is actually very good, instead of filling your brain with the revieuwers own ideas. Especially with Lynch.
I'm curious also, sure, but now we can make up our own mind instead of first thinking if the reviewer was 'right' or 'wrong'.

Keep Pajiba'n!!

Posted by: Magiel at December 13, 2006 9:04 AM

Hey Magiel, even if they don't show it you can console yourself by remembering that you live in the coolest city on the planet. I wish I was there right now.

Posted by: jbrader at December 13, 2006 1:24 PM

The coolest city on the planet? I thought that was Waltham, Massachusetts. Shit.

But seriously. Lynch... I don't know. I feel like I've lost my grip on him. Loved Blue Velvet, loved Wild at Heart, absolutely freaking adore and worship Twin Peaks (the series, not that vomitorium of a movie). Enjoyed, albeit uncomfortably, Mulholland Drive. But... maybe I've grown too mainstream. I dunno. This has netflix written all over it.

Posted by: TK at December 13, 2006 1:34 PM

But how did it look? From what I have read Lynch used a consumer end camera and was working as his own cinematographer, so I was curious as to how that all pulled together in the visual sense of things.

Posted by: missmle at December 13, 2006 3:35 PM

i just can't bring myself to give a shit about lynch. i fall firmly into 'he's a pretentious bore who churns out self-indulgent tripe' camp.

sorry.

Posted by: blah,whatever at December 13, 2006 4:54 PM

I'm with you on Lynch TK, which probably means I'll watch all 172 minutes and then turn to my wife and ask "What the fuck was that????"

Posted by: Chris at December 13, 2006 5:35 PM

I made the mistake of getting really, really stoned before seeing Lost Highway, and when that guy impaled his forehead on the corner of the coffee table, I got the giggle fits.

That being said, I tend to fall in the "pretentious" camp with David Lynch. Trying to dissect his movies for any sort of meaning is akin to scanning the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic for shreds of prophecy.

Posted by: Craig at December 14, 2006 10:43 AM

Chris, right there with you. Except our wives are obviously very different. Because I'd watch all 172 minutes, then turn and say, "What the f-- honey? Hey, wake up!"

Posted by: TK at December 14, 2006 11:32 AM

Mr. Lynch is cooler than all of you faggots put together.

Posted by: Joey Joe Joe at December 14, 2006 11:53 AM

Woah!! Where did that come from?

Posted by: AM at December 14, 2006 12:29 PM

I must admit I'm on the fence regarding Mr. Lynch's work. I sat through "Dune" when it first came out, and thought he was an asshole for stinking up a perfectly excellent novel (Baron Harkonnen was a pedophile and a sensualist, but NO WAY was he a poor dresser!). Then I watched "Eraserhead" at the request of a coworker, who wanted me to explain the film to his wife. After watching it, and some careful consideration, I characterized the movie as "one man's search for love and meaning in a stark post-industrial world."

She accepted that, by the way.

"Twin Peaks?" Damn fine coffee, but a very convoluted series. Liked it kinda/sorta.

Posted by: The Wanderer at December 14, 2006 5:25 PM

From the darkest recesses of David Lynch's mind...or from some offended panty-wuss Lynch fanboy who takes casual criticism personally.

Posted by: smatt584 at December 14, 2006 5:29 PM

The strange thing about David Lynch is that, no matter how much I absolutely hated Eraserhead, I still keep coming back to it. Don't get me wrong, I love love love Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks, and most of the rest of his work, but even if I hate it, it stays with me.

Maybe he is only about images, the shallow surface of our existence. Or maybe he's just fascinated with himself. Who knows. And every time I wish he would just fucking explain what was actually supposed to happen, I have to remind myself that that's not the point. Again, not that I know what the point it.

Anyways, this post is kind of like one of his films. I have no idea where I'm going. I just love David Lynch. He's exciting and strange and that's what's best about movies to me.

Posted by: Rachael at December 14, 2006 6:27 PM

Those interested in exploring 1. Lynch's use of plot /lack of plot and 2. possible superficiality in images should read David Foster Wallace's detailed essay from "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again." This first is addressed directly and the second tangentially. However, I would posit that in a medium that is essentially constructed of images the question of something being aesthetically superficial is a faulty question. It's answers don't actually reveal real principles. To argue this would require a pretty Joyce-an rant which I will forgo and is explored pretty thoroughly in "The Substance of Style" by Virginia Postrel.

Posted by: Austin at December 15, 2006 1:10 AM

I still want my 2 1/2 hours back for Mulholland Drive.

Lynch owes me.

Posted by: Everyman at December 21, 2006 9:22 AM

You failed to mention his two best films -- "The Elephant Man" and "The Straight Story." If those movies don't reduce you to tears, you have no soul..

Posted by: growler at December 21, 2006 11:07 AM

Just read Lynch's new book, Catching the Big Fish. What an eye-opener. The dude has been meditating for 30 years and credits meditation with his creatvivty. Can you believe it? Meditation! If you love Lynch, you'll probably love this book

Posted by: steven at January 3, 2007 10:56 AM

I can't stand reviews like this that waste paragraphs by sequentially recounting the movie scene by scene. Boring.

Posted by: todd rip at January 5, 2007 7:49 PM

Watching this movie was like reading someone's thousand page dream journal. The night I went, people seemed to enjoy it though. Even though I'm sure none of them had absolutely no idea what the hell was going on for 3 long hours, their endurance and patience probably made them feel more intelligent. Good for them I suppose. I for one prefer Elephant Man.

Posted by: brian at January 5, 2007 8:03 PM

I'm one of the lunatic-fringe, obsessed with Lynch sorts and own and watch all of his films frequently. They don't "make me feel more intellegent." They're just fun, and creatively inspiring. I'll have to travel 200 miles to see EMPIRE, but it'll be well worth it to me. I guess that will make me feel "dedicated". Good for me.

Posted by: Danbo at January 7, 2007 2:50 PM

I hereby return to Everyman his 2 1/2 hours. I hope they don't take place in the drooling years.

I don't like all of Lynch (unfunny bunnies? doesn't sound promising) but to me, liking is almost irrelevent, any more than I "like" all my own dreams. Mullholland Drive was a dream within a dream within a dream.

Posted by: Janis at January 8, 2007 12:33 AM

I saw it at the Music Box in Chicago with my friend, a theatre that's nifty except for the fact that the hardness of the chairs will make your ass hurt for days, and the sound is WAY too fucking loud. When it was over we kind of ogled each other in disbelief. "What...just...happened?" We came up with an INLAND EMPIRE drinking game.

The rabbits: Two shots
Music and dancing: One shot
"Look at me and tell me if you've seen me before.": Three shots
Nikki screams: One shot
A distorted closeup of someone's face: Two shots
Train sounds: One shot

Posted by: Amelia at March 3, 2007 6:36 PM