Inland Empire

An actress's perception of reality becomes increasingly distorted as she finds herself falling for her co-star in a remake of an unfinished Polish production that was supposedly cursed.

David Lynch is an inspiration for those who want to do their own thing. He started with some creepy, surreal short films, moved on to the bizarre "Eraserhead" and has made numerous strange films since, seemingly with little regard for what critics or box office receipts say. While he has done some stories that border on normal, there is always an element of the bizarre, and trying to make sense of a plot in a Lynch film is an intellectual landmine. I fell in love with Lynch after seeing "Lost Highway" and "Twin Peaks", but find it hard to justify my love.

"Inland Empire" continues the madness. Opening with a beautiful shot of a record player in black and white, then of a couple making love... we are soon greeted by a family of anthropomorphized rabbits, and two gentlemen having a discussion in some foreign language, apparently Polish. How any of these things are connected is unclear thus far, and that is only the first ten minutes of a three hour film. How well they make sense by the end is hard to say.

The film goes "normal" after that, through we enter a world with odd camera angles, mismatched close-ups, and conversations that do not flow... a murder accusation, an agent on the telephone... and all words spoken in an unusual manner. Almost in an amateur way, but clearly professionals trying to be amateur, with emotions not matching the events. And then there is William H. Macy as an announcer...

On top of already being a lengthy and interesting film, the DVD comes with a second disc with several hours of supplemental material. My only complaint is that, despite all this, the film only has subtitles available in French. I like subtitles. Maybe I am in the minority, but as a visual learner, I follow a story better when I can read along. And I cannot read French well.

Lynch veteran Laura Dern stars (and co-produces), which is beneficial to the film, because she knows exactly what sort of weirdness Lynch is looking for. I think the film fails, or at least falls short, though. The running time is a bit too long and it is hard to stay focused for this length. Also, the film just does not seem to have enough. While starting out strong, it gets slow and monotonously as it carries on, and any intelligent point hidden in there is missed by the audience's boredom. I appreciated the inclusion of the randomness, such as the "Locomotion", but of all the Lynch films I have seen (which is many) this is my least favorite.

If you must see every David Lynch film, see this film. If you can survive without that goal, do not see this film. I cannot recommend it to anyone except his biggest fans because everyone else will be lost, bored and leave with a lower opinion of the man than he deserves.

I first saw "Inland Empire" in early 2007 and opted not to write about it mainly because I really didn't know how I felt about the film (or video, if you're into semantics) after I saw it. I went to the late night show, was almost certainly inebriated, went with a group of friends (at this point I still had a social life), and remember little about the screening except that I enjoyed the film and appreciated it on some level or the other. Well, I'm glad I didn't attempt to write about "Inland Empire" based on that viewing because my feelings are drastically different this time around. What I found to be a fascinatingly incomprehensible nightmare-on-video the first time I saw it, what I found to be an extremely nonsensical film overall, I now feel is one of the most important and greatest artistic works of the decade, and nowhere near as flawed and incomprehensible as I initially thought. I'm not going to attempt an analysis of the film, greater minds have done that already, so I'll stick to a simple review of it.

Perhaps "Inland Empire" does recycle elements of Lynch's previous work. I find it a less powerful experience than his 2001 masterpiece "Mulholland Dr." which with every viewing comes closer to toppling "Vertigo", my favorite film since I first saw it at age 12 or 13. I do think the video is used badly at some points in the film. It's a testament to Lynch's skill as director and cinematographer (and camera operator) that he was able to achieve this sort of thing with a dated, mediocre digital camera, but on rare occasions in the film, particularly during outdoor daytime shots, the poor quality of the camera itself isn't conquered by Lynch's creativity and skill in using it as well as it can possibly be used. However, other than that very small problem I really struggle to find anything I would cut out of the film. Considering its length, that's really something. In fact, I'm dying to see "More Things that Happened", one of the DVD extras which features over seventy minutes of footage shot for the project and not included in the final cut of the film. The film is, surprisingly for something shot with such primitive digital technology, formally elegant and consistently well-shot. What would Van Gogh have done with a set of cheap crayons and color pencils? The film makes fascinating use of color and light, and boasts possibly the best use of close-ups since Leone. These are even uglier, in a good way.

The most common criticism of "Inland Empire" seems to be that it's a total mess, a bunch of nonsensical weird goings-on strung together and put out for pseudo-intellectuals to dissect in their setting of choice (the average pseudo-intellectual favors either the internet or the great coffee shop which isn't a chain... yet, the cool pseudo-intellectuals enjoy the sort of bar which frequently doubles as an art gallery, but that's besides the point). This is both true and untrue, and I suspect the more times I see the film the more I'll see it as untrue. Where the truth of these claims lies, mostly, is in the fact that, as a fellow IMDb user notes, the film doesn't just shun narrative tradition but acts as if such a thing never existed. However, to say there are no themes or emotions being expressed, to say there are no stories being told in the film, seems to me not a matter of opinion but simply incorrect, and indicates an extraordinarily narrow-minded and simplistic view of cinema as a form of linear storytelling and nothing else.

While it does not have a 'plot', "Inland Empire" has a story. In fact it has several stories to tell, including that of actress Nikki Grace (Laura Dern), that of a battered housewife (Laura Dern), and that of a hooker working Hollywood boulevard (Laura Dern). There's also a giant rabbit sitcom and a Polish prostitute. Most of these strands start out relatively linearly and the film is mostly overall quite easy to follow for more than an hour of its running time, standard Lynch surrealism excepted. The film grows gradually more bizarre as the stories interact and occasionally merge with each other, the themes they have in common becoming clearer in some instances and less clear in others. The narratives all have great payoff as the film draws to a close. I didn't understand everything in "Inland Empire" and I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to, but it's really not even close to being the sort of deliberately distancing, deliberately obscure sort of thing Godard sometimes does. It doesn't mistake obfuscation for art.

I can safely say I can't recall one dream I've had which didn't do exactly what "Inland Empire" did: start out as a linear narrative and then spiral out of control (my dream last night about Kirk and Spock's love lives in Starfleet turning into a spectacular time travel government conspiracy Tribble-centric crossover with "Star Wars" and "Lost" being just one example). The brilliance of Lynch's work here is that he was able to capture that and to control it, to explore themes with it, to express emotions with it. That's rare talent, that's rare skill at work. It doesn't hurt that his is a more interesting and freakish mind than most of ours. "Inland Empire" doesn't seek to tell a simple, straightforward story. Criticizing it for not doing so indicates either misunderstanding or a narrow-minded view of cinema. As a formal experiment and as an overall achievement "Inland Empire" is up there with Lynch's very best and as a result with the very best of cinema in general.

For those who felt Lynch's last film, Mulholland Dr., was too easy, I present to you Inland Empire. The director takes the whole dream (or nightmare) narrative a step further and makes the narrative even more fragmented and impossible to follow. There might not really be much of a narrative at all. The recognizable plot begins with Laura Dern as an aging actress, having spent a while as a housewife, trying to re-enter the movie industry. She wins a role and, during filming, she starts to fall for her co-lead (Justin Theroux). Which is strange, given that the film is about a straying housewife. Soon, real life and screen life become completely blurred, until the actress only exists in her fictional life. Maybe. God knows at this point. The film becomes completely incomprehensible by any conventional standards. Which doesn't in any way mean that it's worthless. Like all Lynch films, Inland Empire is deeply hypnotic, often haunting and occasionally downright scary. I wish there were a little more sense to it so I could connect a bit more. And the fact that the film runs for nearly three hours; it's easy to get restless. I think a good number of people are going to find this to be Lynch's folly. It is disappointing, especially as we've waited five years since Mulholland Dr., probably his best film, but there are a few of Lynch's movies that I like less than this.

I saw this during a period of extreme emotional stress, probably the best possible mode. It was also surrounded by my listening to "Big Fish," Lynch's book, read by himself. The contrast is astonishing: Lynch's banal aphorisms in the book with rich, multilayered cinematic literacy in the film. Yet another lesson in relative articulation and the notion that an artist often is the worst authority on himself.

Let's have no mistake: this film is important. I place it on my list as one of the two films of 2006 that you must see.

There's a lot to say about this. I think I'll let others comment on Dern's attunements, and the general notion of the story having to do with guilt and sexual desire.

I'll comment only on two aspects which struck me. The first was how Polish this movie is. Its Polish within the story of course: a good half of the action involves Poles. The plot device is a Polish curse that somehow bends time and causality. And there are some Polish locations as well.

But the thing is shot using Kieslowski's mannerisms. Its a peculiar style that to my knowledge no one else has used. It focuses on two motions: that of the environment as space which governs and changes. And that of the characters in motion, but situated in the spaces. With Kieslowski, he literally splits these in the writer's mind by having his writing partner handle the noir bits, the controlling fate, and he handling the independently sprouting human seeds within. Lynch handles both sides by imposing schizophrenia.

But its Polish in other ways too. The actor as Golem. The environment as interleaved worlds, each creating the others by being. Its a Kabbalistic concept. Both are characteristically Polish, usually associated with Polish Jews, but more deeply Polish. You can see how Lynch understands this because he quotes "The Saragossa Manuscript," a Polish film about interweaving of kabbalistic worlds and the causal confusion that it brings.

The second thing is how he exploits this merger of folded narrative -- where actors write new worlds; layered emanations where worlds spawn others -- not parallel but linked in generative fate; geometric cosmology in which each act creates symmetries we encounter elsewhere.

He does all this by elaborating on the symmetries of cause. Ordinarily something causes something else, never backwards. Here it IS backwards, forwards, sideways -- all the eight dimensions that an advanced student of the Maharishi knows... causal symmetries that have a geometry that doesn't quite merge with the geometry of causality. Oddly, the story does make sense if you simply relax the causality a bit -- its much more accessible than the "Twin Peaks" meander.

I guess I should say that this is after the manner of the structure of "Finnegans Wake." Its not as elaborate of course. It didn't take 17 years and the deliberate intent of conflating all metaphors. But it is placed in a dream logic, a softening of the walls and hinges of what we make up as the logic of real life. Its Joycean through and through and not -- as some would say -- "surreal" as if anything not real is bent reality.

I know of a few filmmakers who can work with these notions: Medem, Greenaway, Madden, Ruiz. This is the most delicate and focused I've seen in a long, long while. You really must spend time with it. You must.

Here's a serious piece of advice though. See Lynch's "Rabbits" episodes first, separately, ideally a week or so ahead. Take them in as a standalone piece, a remarkable piece of film. Some of it is in this film, excerpted, extended, reshot and literally entered by all the Dern characters. But you'd be better having that anchor before starting this tempestvoyage.

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.

Whenever I saw Mullholland Drive I enjoyed it because it was such an experience but yet had much for me to try and figure out – as hard as it was to do so. Funny then to watch Inland Empire and think that in the future, if it continues this way, that we will look back on Lynch's earlier films as his pre-weird period, which is strange when you watch Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet etc. However this is the place we now find ourselves with Inland Empire, a film that not only shuns narrative tradition but behaves as if such a thing has never existed. And to watch the film, well, you just need to accept this and deal with the fact that if you have even a slight grasp on the story then you should consider yourself lucky.

If you can accept this then the film is flawed genius; however if you cannot accept this then the film is a shambles that will make you hate it almost as soon as you realise you will not be able to get to the bottom of it just by watching it tonight. The funny thing is that both camps are right in their comments on this film because it is at once brilliant and terrible – Jonathon Ross summed it up surprisingly well when he said it was a "work of genius – I think" because the impression left on me was just this.

On one hand the film is almost impossible to follow and it is not just a glib remark to say that this does make Mullholland Drive feel like an episode of Eastenders in regards accessibility. The plot starts out as a mystery but pretty much disappears into a series of semi-connected fantasy (?) sequences where characters complete switch worlds and identities, terrifying characters loom large but yet are invisible to the viewer and a sitcom featuring rabbits is watched by a girl crying in her room. There is little here to help the viewer and there is simply no foundation for you to put one foot one and say "right, no matter what happens I know I am on firm ground here"; the film doesn't pull the rug from under the viewer – there is simply never a rug to begin with. To many viewers this will be the end of discussion but for my money I already suspected this would be the case and what I actually came for was the experience.

In this area the film is both brilliant but yet flawed. It is brilliant because it literally does feel like you are falling through worlds of dreams. Lynch manages to shoot his scenes with the air of them being slightly (or totally) unreal. The effect is completely unnerving and an example of the power of cinema that he can move the viewer into such a place mentally that even a static shot of three people dressed as rabbits is quite terrifying. It is a skill he is famous for and he shows no sign of losing it. As an experience I found it engaging to a point and, unfortunately, that point was not 180 minutes. It is ironic to praise the film for its freewheeling experience but yet criticise it for being undisciplined but yet here we are because it does feel very much like a film where Lynch needed someone to say "look, you need to make it as tight as it is exhilarating".

Nobody said this I think and as a result it outstays its welcome at times and the dips are just that much more pronounced. Fortunately it is not consistent but it does come and the conclusion of the film is worth staying for. Not narratively you understand (even though the threads do come together) but some terrifying scenes give way to closing credits of beautiful women dancing to Nina Simone's Sinnerman; does it make sense? Well no, but again it is all about the experience and in this regard it is fairly consistent. Another reason for seeing it is a performance from Laura Dern that only begs the question why she didn't manage to get an Oscar nomination. OK it was a tough year for actresses with Cruz, Mirren, Dench and Streep filling out the list but for my money Dern is as good if not better than all of them. Lynch plays out so much confusion and emotion in her face, with this making some scenes a story without a single word being said. Given how hard it is to understand what is happening in the script, it makes Dern's convincing performance all the more impressive. Below her nobody is as good but everyone does suit the material and Lynch's approach.

Of course aside from Dern, the star is Lynch and his fans will come to this way the same Bruce Willis' fans come to a film because he is in it. His direction, editing and cinematography is masterful, which only really leaves his writing. Superficially he does fall down but yet he also produces a flow he understands as well as some brilliant specific moments – a line where a black homeless woman says "It's OK, you dying is all" is a wonderfully insightful remark that is all the more impacting for the throwaway delivery of it, a matter-of-fact summary of life on the streets in a tiny part of a bigger film.

Overall then this is an impressive film that is as brilliantly bewildering as it is frustrating. Some will find meaning but the vast majority will be best served to treat it as an experience rather than a "film" as one would expect from any other director. Even on this basis it is not perfect and is easily too long to sustain but in this regard it is still worth seeing. Not sure if it is entirely enjoyable but for sure it is an experience I'm glad I had.