Inland Empire

This weekend I went to Cinema 21 for the first time to see David Lynch's Inland Empire. First, this is a fantastic theater - it has a balcony, which I think I will utilize in March, when a restored print of Jean Renoir's The Rules of the Game plays (I'm somewhat particular about my theater seating & wouldn't usually sit as far away from the screen as the balcony requires. But I've already seen The Rules of the Game on 35mm, so I'm willing to chance it). If you go to the first showing on either Saturday or Sunday, it's $4, which is a pretty sweet friggin' deal. In lieu of the pre-show ads & "did you know"s of the chain theaters, they have this amazing red curtain in front of the screen, which was partially illuminated by stagelights on the bottom. These provided the sole source of light - but for their stark effect on the curtain, & subsequent dim reddish refraction into the theater itself, all would have been utterly shrouded in darkness. The overall effect was terribly ominous, & filled me with all sorts of anticipation - that once the curtains were moved, anything could be back there, waiting to step out into the light. I couldn't believe that the people around me were talking, that they too weren't subdued into wordless awe. Honestly, I half expected Laura Harring from Mulholland Drive to come out & do the scene set in the club Silencio. (The other half of me expected Steven Soderbergh to show up for Schizopolis redux. Okay, not really.) Actually, I swear the pre-show music was the soundtrack from that excellent film. Which is very fitting in retrospect, as I think in more than superficial ways, Inland Empire is something of a companion piece to Mulholland Drive.

Anyway, the mood was set. I was ready to be boggled. I've not missed a Lynch film at the theater since prior to 1996, which sounds impressive until you realize that he's only had three in the past 11 years. It's been five years since Mullholland Drive. I guess he's been busy with transcendental meditation (omgdavidlynch&donovanaretouringtogether) & his own brand of coffee.

This isn't a review. I'm not going to go into an in-depth analysis requiring the disclosure of plot details (ha! ha!). I didn't read anything about this before I went & I wouldn't want to spoil anything for anybody else - I appreciate knowing as little as possible about a film before I see it. But I will say the following: for the first twenty minutes I thought Inland Empire was going to blow my mind. At the 140-minute mark, I was ready to walk out.

And this morning, I can't wait to see it again.

That's the thing with Lynch's films since Lost Highway, or maybe even Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me - you can't just watch them once. Whether you like them or loathe them on first sight, you simply cannot comprehend them after a single viewing. I mean, sure, his 80s films were great. But they were highly accessible too, & comparatively easy to grasp. Compare the pop art surrealism of Blue Velvet to the dark, fetid surrealism of this film (which you can't really do if you haven't seen it, but whatever). I mean, there's no catchphrase in Inland Empire, no "PABST...BLUE...RIBBON" looneyness. This movie doesn't make a lot of sense. It's all internal. You're in somebody's mind, & the movie is as logical as somebody's mind. Which was part of my problem. See the picture above? (For the record, I would literally kill for those shoes.) That's an extremely rare long shot, for this movie. Most of the movie is shot in close up. I tried this morning to explain to my colleague why that bothered me, & why that was so hard to watch, but you know what? Every thing I said to justify my disdain just went straight toward explaining the film & actually increased my admiration. A lot of the shots are out of focus too, which bothered me far less, but has the same kind of effect.

I must also say, completely out of context, that Laura Dern's performance is devestatingly excellent.

The one opinion which I don't think time will amend is that the movie is far, far too long at 179 minutes. It's Lynch's most experimental theatrical release since Eraserhead. But guess what? Eraserhead is 89 minutes long. I've said it before, I'll say it again - experimental is great. I love it. It should, however, never ever ever be too long. This is more important for experimental film, which asks so much of its viewers, which verily demands your active participation to "create" the cinematic experience, than it is for, say, Catch Me If You Can. That film could easily have benefited from losing 30 minutes, but since it really just wanted to entertainingly suck away 160 minutes & leave the viewer marvelling at its impressive production design, the extra time was only pointless, not painful.

Generally speaking, too many filmmakers are (understandably) unable to discern when, exactly, their films reach the point of tedium, whether they be wobbly student productions or Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorsese screen-tastic, bombastic extravaganzas. Particularly if they are too closely involved in editing. Particularly if they edited the friggin' thing themselves, as I just learned Lynch did (which explains a lot). I mean, good lord, I *heart* David Lynch. His imagery is gorgeous as all get-out. & his use of sound is spectacular. Not to mention, I have a lot of patience when it comes to film. But even I was fidgeting during the last 40 minutes of this one.

In conclusion, I will steal somebody else's words. Manohla Dargis put it really well in her review of this film, when she wrote:

"Inland Empire isn’t a film to love. It is a work to admire, to puzzle through, to wrestle with. Its pleasures are fugitive, even frustrating. The first time I saw it, I was repulsed by the shivers of Lynchian sadism, a feeling doubtless informed by my adoration of the far more approachable, humanistic Mulholland Drive. On second viewing, though, Inland Empire seemed funnier, more playful and somehow heartfelt."

Besides, any movie that has a room full of hookers doing the Locomotion has to be worth seeing twice, right?

EDIT: I've totally ignored The Straight Story in discussing Lynch's films. Due to gross oversight on my part, I've actually still not yet seen it, though I've heard it's a fine picture.