The Sens(ibility) of Inland Empire

Just a few weeks ago I got to catch the premiere of David Lynch's new film Inland Empire at the New York Film Festival. After waiting in life for forty minutes at Lincoln Center...voila we had scored $10 tickets to a movie that, at that time had yet to find a U.S. distributor and was more or less considered the hottest ticket at the Festival.

So, to be fair I missed the first forty minutes due to a last minute meeting but for a movie that finished up at 172 minutes, and was fairly incomprehensible in the 132 minutes that I did catch I don't feel like I missed out on much. Was it amazing and mind blowing you ask? Is Lynch's foray into DV opening up the medium? Was he able to outdo the weirdness that was cowboy and the midget from Mulholland Drive? Shockingly, the answer to all of these questions is yes, and while I'm not sure I saw a good movie or a movie that I enjoyed I did get to see David Lynch, Laura Dern, and Justin Theroux a mere 10 feet in front of me!

As for the movie I'm not sure I could or want to try break it down narratively. I'm more interested in the questions it raised for me more generally. One of the interesting questions that cropped up during the Q&A after the movie was whether the film could come together in a coherent form for the viewer? To which Lynch (rather charmingly I thought) responded "Of course". I now actually believe he sees his visions as pretty clear and comprehensible, which I suppose any artist would; otherwise why bother conveying it. He did mention that there was a dream logic at work, and loose a term as that is I think it's an apt one for the narrative disjunction in his films. The one thing we can all confidently say about our dreams is that something is threading them together, we just can't always articulate what that is.

As a viewer I wonder what to do with a film like Inland Empire that has a couple of identifiable themes (simultaneous seduction and ephemerality of Hollywood, subjection and objectification of women) but it's not really clear what he's doing with them. In this case Laura Dern plays multiple characters who start and end with dreams of success in Hollywood. In between are a slew of characters that stumble in and out of her life and her dreams with a couple of male characters being exceptionally crude and offensive. One thing I question consistently with a director like Lynch, who clearly aims to break new aesthetic ground in cinema is how the audience should treat the final project? Is it a piece in a larger artistic endeavor or can we pick it apart on its own merits and failures? I think this is especially important because we are always looking for people to push boundaries and make something new, but I think the key here is relevance. I'm not sure he always achieves it.

As far as form goes the quality of DV is pretty weak. Although there were a plethora of interesting shots, set pieces, and music the overall look of it was pretty grainy and mottled. However, both Laura Dern and Justin Theroux talked about the kind of freedom they enjoyed as actors, because the camera was always rolling, and they didn't have to reshoot from multiple angles. I could see this being a really great tool for directors and actors alike, and changing the medium for those very reasons.

I will just say that despite how confusing I find Lynch his influence is undeniable. After watching a few episodes of Lost recently it's clear how much it benefitted from Twin Peaks.

~The end.