Inland Empire, or, David Lynch Loses His Marbles


Inland Empire

I bow to no man in my avant-gardity. My avant-gardedness? My avant-gardicity? No matter, you get my point.

I’m so avant-garde I once did a performance piece where I played Andy Warhol come back from the dead. (Some of my audience felt I was more life-like than Andy himself had ever been.)

I once directed another piece about a stripper who had an eyeball where her vagina was supposed to be. (And my mother came to see the show.)

I wrote a play about a girl bringing her new young man home to meet her parents and the play ends with the daddy shooting the boy dead. (The shooting took place offstage; one night the sound man was enjoying the show so much he forgot to press the button for the gunshot sound-effect. There was the most god-awful long pause with the daddy actor backstage waiting patiently while I frantically waved at the chuckling sound man. Finally he remembered and pressed the button. Oddly enough the audience thought the ungodly long pause was on purpose; they thought the pause was avant-garde.)

I actually listen to Trout Mask Replica several times a year, and one of my favorite box-sets is John Coltrane Live in Japan, 1965, where he and his band play “My Favorite Things” for, like, a whole day.

Avant-garde movies? Come on, I was watching Kenneth Anger and my pal Andy Warhol’s movies when you punks were in knee-britches, so we’re talking some serious avant-garde cred here, and I haven’t even mentioned the TV show I wrote (oddly short-lived) whose two leads were transsexuals.

And I’ve always dug David Lynch. I even liked Dune, even though it was long and boring. My friend Andy once said that he liked long, boring movies. So do I sometimes, and Dune was one of those long boring movies I liked. When I watched it in the theatre I somehow knew that it was okay to step outside midway and smoke a joint; I knew that when I came back inside I wouldn’t have missed much and I’d still have lots more of the movie to watch.

I’ve liked all of David Lynch’s movies, but what I liked most of his was his one TV series, Twin Peaks, especially the first season. One of the best TV shows ever, it was a stoner show in the tradition of Star Trek or Kung Fu or Murder, She Wrote that you didn’t even have to be stoned to watch.

David Lynch’s latest, Inland Empire, never came to theatres down here in Philly, so I leaped right on it when it came out on DVD, shoving aside a couple of skinny art students to grab the last tag on the display shelf. It’s a two-disc edition, one disc for the three-hour movie, one for special features.

I knew ahead of time that the movie was going to be long, I knew it was going to be weird, I knew that Lynch had shot it on cheap video. None of that bothered me. It was the new Lynch and I was ready to see David just let it rip.

I even asked my friend, the Meeg, to watch the movie with me, knowing that all her favorite movies star Kari Wuhrer. But even the Meeg has watched most of Lynch’s movies, and she was a big fan of Twin Peaks too, so she was willing to give it a shot, even if Kari Wuhrer wasn’t in it.

I hate reviews that just go through the plot of the movie, thereby spoiling half the fun for anyone who might actually go and see the movie, but I’ll slightly break my own rule here by just mentioning that the first scene of Inland Empire begins with a single-set-up scene of three actors dressed as — well, I’m not going to say what animal they’re costumed as, because that would be a spoiler, so I’ll just say it’s a certain small hoppy animal with long ears. So we’re watching this scene, the Meeg and I, and the animal people say some things, nothing worth repeating, and a laugh track comes on now and then, even though nobody says anything funny, which is pretty avant-garde. The whole scene was pretty avant-garde, actually. It was also really long, and not fun-long, it was boring long, like standing in the subway car when the power goes out, and you wait, and wait, and wait. That kind of boring. And definitely no sight of Kari Wuhrer, so I said to the Meeg, “We can put something else on.”

So we put on a re-run of Still Standing.

Later that night though, and the next night, and the night after that, I dove again (alone) into the mysteries of Inland Empire. It actually got better after the (first) animal people scene (which did finally end, or get cut away from, to return, again and again, like that fear of inadequacy that hammers you repeatedly each time you sit down to write your masterpiece). A plot lurches into view with Laura Dern playing some kind of fantastically rich movie star, complete with Jeeves-ish butler. Grace Zabriskie (an actress so avant-garde she was named after an Antonioni movie), who plays weird women in all of David Lynch’s shows, bangs on Laura Dern’s door. Laura lets her in for a chat, and, sure enough, Zabriskie’s character turns out to be a weird woman. This scene wasn’t so boring, and I thought, okay, this movie might be good.

And then you even get more plot. Laura starts making a movie, even though I think the weird woman told her not to, with Justin Theroux playing the guy movie star, and the great Jeremy Irons playing the movie director. I love all these actors, and I even dug it that Jeremy Irons plays the director even though he looks ten times the movie star that poor Justin Theroux will ever look, through no fault at all of Justin Theroux’s. I think Justin Theroux is great, but it’s funny, he’s one of those good actors who can play a movie star really well, but he himself will never actually be a movie star.

Which I guess is Laura Dern’s case, too, She’s never been a star, but you can believe her when she plays a star.

But here I have to say something which is very delicate. Laura Dern is no great beauty, but she’s not ugly, and Lynch makes her look really ugly in this movie. I’m old-school in some forgotten gentlemanly ways, despite my hardened avant-gardism, and I like it when directors make their stars look good. Unless the character is supposed to be plain or ugly or the Elephant man, do the actor or actress and us a favor, make them look good. Poor Laura Dern. I’m sure she loved getting the lead in another David Lynch movie, but, boy, does Lynch make her look rough. She looks like one of the women in the background of an old Spiderman comic back when Steve Ditko drew it, one of the extras who are always screaming, “Look! It’s Dr. Octopus!”

So you have a set-up. An actress and an actor and a director set out to make a movie. There’s this bit of foreboding plot element here that I won’t go into (but I will mention to any of you theatre people out there that it’s just a little like the legend about “the Scottish play”).

But then after about an hour Lynch seems to dispense with what little plot has been suggested.

The animal people return. More than once.

A band of slutty-looking young women show up. I perked up a bit here, but they were kind of rough-looking too when you got right down to it. They looked a little like those girls who say, “Call now!” on those late-night commercials, except these girls weren’t so funny. None of them were as hot as Kari Wuhrer, either

The slutty girls turn up a few more times and one time one of them lifts her top up and bares her breasts, and this is where I really had to say, “Okay, David, I know what’s going on here. You’re a guy, I’m a guy. And we both know you had that chick flash her breasts just because you wanted to see them yourself and you knew you could get away with it, because everybody will just say it’s David being avant-garde, and not just another old perv with a cheap video camera.”

After about an hour-and-a-half, I really was tempted to switch to the “special features” disc. I loved the special features for Eraserhead, and I would love to see a David Lynch movie which is nothing but special features. And then the DVD release could have a whole extra disc of special features about the movie that was nothing but special features. Somehow I knew that the special features for Inland Empire would be about a dozen times more fun than the movie they were the special features for. But I didn’t switch discs, I hung with it for about another hour.

This was the third night I had been watching, or trying to watch, this movie.

I turned it off and watched some of The Sisters with Bette Davis on TMC, then I finally passed out.

The DVD was due back at the video store today. I took it back. I sort of wanted to try watching the rest of it, and I still would really like to see the special features one day. Just not enough to pay the late fee.

(This has been another Newcritcs exclusive; go to my place for more avant-gardiferousness.)

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
Grace: The Celluloid Princess
Live-Blogging Mad Men: Here Is New York?

Readers

Adverts

Liberal Prose

Featured book:


Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

Great review! This movie shoots like a rocket to the bottom of my list!

No, seriously, I’ll probably give it a shot, and see how it goes.

BTW, wouldn’t it be better if Lynch did as you suggest and released a movie consisting entirely of special features, but on the DVD the extra disc is the actual movie that nobody’s even seen yet? That would be pretty Lynchian.

I’m with Kevin. Errrrrrrrrr-zzzzzzzz bwooaw! (Rocket crashing sound)

I used to love David Lynch movies. But, I’m over “getting weird” for weird sake.

There are just too many good movies I’ve missed to even think about renting this now.

I’m old-school in some forgotten gentlemanly ways, despite my hardened avant-gardism

Why doesn’t that surprise me, hater?

Your avant-gardacity is ovahwhelming!

When Isabella Rossellini in Wild at Heart posed in front of a dark background with out-of-focus flames in the corner of the frame, wagging her tongue while looking directly into, and walking straight towards, the camera, and instead of looking shocking, creepy, or cool, it just looked dumb, then I understood that David Lynch was only human. I’ve seen and enjoyed a lot of his work since, and imagine I will again, but he’s one of those artists who never seems to step back, look at what he’s created, and say to himself, “This was an interesting idea, but does it actually work?

I’ve blown hot and cold on David Lynch over the years, myself. And largely stopped seeing his movies. But I recently caught Mulholland Drive and liked it very much so I’ll check it out. It can’t be worse than The Devil Wears Prada.

Oh, no, Jason, it’s much worse than Devil Wears Prada.

Now, Meeg, don’t rush to judgment; after all, you only saw the hoppy-people scene. (Or one of them.)

I love Kevin’s idea of releasing the special features first and then putting the feature film in as the DVD bonus disc. I’m tempted to go out and go into debt on a cheap video camera myself.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading about Lynch, a couple of interview books and his slim little volume, “Catching the Big Fish” and I bought the DVD as soon it came out. Lynch is guided by the belief in a ‘unified field’ where all things are connected–it’s part of the TM philosophy to which he is fully committed. Bunnies and street people, gypsies and actors, it’s all a manifestation of the unified field. That’s what leads to something like Inland Empire. He’s satisfied with the connections he makes between the elements of the picture and believes that the thing works because it has an internal structure in which he is confident. Exasperatingly formless, certainly, and I would never try to win anyone over to this movie. Having said that, I enjoyed Inland Empire. I watched it without struggling to interpret, just as I would listen to music. There’s a do-it yourself-kit aspect to his work that Lynch acknowledges unapologetically. It’s kind of what he’s shooting at.
estiv: “he’s one of those artists who never seems to step back, look at what he’s created…” He just is not interested in pleasing the audience when he’s making something. He’s pretty self absorbed and goes with his gut. Sounds like the President…maybe George Bush would have been my favorite director–Ed Wood, John Ford and David Lynch rolled up in one…or maybe I’ve just lost my marbles, too…

Great review, Dan–presented in a way that makes me trust your judgment absolutely, almost like tapping into that “unified field theory.” For me, this review’s a huge help, because I admire artists who aren’t afraid to fail all out of proportion. So if I can fast-forward through those–I’m going to scream if this subway car doesn’t start moving, really scream, so that some authorities will at least cart me off to a different scene, a different prison, I’ll gladly zip through a Lynch movie for one or two brilliant flashes among the murky nonsense. And while I claim no avant-garde cred, some nonsense, you know, good nonsense, amuses me more than perfect sense. For example, I loved Muholland Drive. Thanks for the extra info, OutofContext, especially because it makes good sense. Still, it seems harsh to equate a weird, erratic, film maker with George Bush.
So Lynch doesn’t care enough about his audience: who dies? Maybe no one, except that Lynch must use cheap video and can’t quite get together the lighting and angles that make women beautiful.

I liked the Robert Downey films in college - they showed Putney Swope and Greaser’s Palace as midnight shows. We used to get very stoned before the midnight show. I’ve often wondered what I’d think of Swope today - older and not stoned. I already know what I think of Greaser’s Palace - UNWATCHABLE.

As far as Lynch is concerned, like you, I thought season 1 of Twin Peaks was as brilliant. I’ve heard he and Mark Frost deliberately brought the show downhill after the first 7 episodes - but I didn’t get the joke.

Funny that you mentioned Star Trek and Kung Fu as I count them just as you do.

Did you catch The Straight Story? Not exactly avant garde - but a good flick.

Viscount,
I remember loving Bob Downey’s “Chafed Elbows” back in my own college days.

And, yeah, “The Straight Story” was a good movie.

But did Lynch and Frost deliberately bring down “Twin Peaks”? Why the hell would they do that?

But did Lynch and Frost deliberately bring down “Twin Peaks”? I had heard / read some allusions to them getting bored with the show and deliberately trying to alienate the audience after the resolution of Laura Palmer’s murder - and fed up with the constraints that go along with a network prime-time show. I can’t find any references to that on the ‘net - so mabye it wasn’t true, or maybe the dancing dwarf told me in a dream.

Mulholland Drive is still the best thing I’ve seen this decade, instinctual, moving, self-referential in the best sense. Inland Empire is, as one critic put it, a You-Tube nightmare, too long, taxing, and as far as I’m concerned, beautiful. But, like OOC i am not out to convert anyone to Lynch’s wavelength. IE comes closer to mapping the processes of (distressed)thought (from the inside) better than anything I’ve seen, and Laura Dern holds all these personae (shards, really) in place expertly, until the rabbits upstage her.

I really liked Mulholland Drive, too, and I think I’m almost ready to watch it again for the third or fourth time. I’m honestly glad that Sean and Out of Context enjoyed Inland Empire; to me it’s really boring and absurd to try to convince someone else either to like or dislike a work of art; it’s much more fun just to talk about why you did or didn’t like it, or what it was about the work that you did or didn’t like (of course not saying anything at all is always good, too).

I forgot to mention specifically how good I thought Laura Dern was in the movie. But I didn’t get that sense of beauty from Inland Empire, a sense that I got even from a movie filled with seemingly horrific images like Eraserhead, and, I hate to say this, because I wonder if I’m being a total fuddy-duddy, but I wonder if the cheap video quality is a big reason for this. Lynch’s work on film always had such a beautiful and rich visual quality, no matter how nightmarish the images were.

And it’s not just that video looks crappier than film. I know Lynch loved the freedom and speed that shooting on video gave him, but, y’know, freedom is not a always a good thing for an artist. Because, sure, you can set up a shot and shoot it on video in ten minutes, whereas if you’re working with film your set-up may take an hour or two or more, and you’re paying for every frame of film you expose, and you’re paying a cast and crew for every second you’re setting up and shooting the shot, but just possibly the greater time and expense and hassle of working with film is going to make you think a little bit more about what you’re shooting. Or maybe not.

Viscount…I don’t believe Lynch sabotaged Twin Peaks. I’ve read that he feels the switch from Thursdays to Saturdays and the fact that they were forced to reveal Laura Palmer’s killer by the network killed the show. He says he hated leaving the world of Twin Peaks, hence the feature he made, Fire Walk With Me.

Dan, you may be right by too much freedom (just like having too much money to make a picture can ruin it). What’s going on here is an unrestrained move to personal vision. Lynch is an absolute believer in the director as auteur. There’s no question it’s self-indulgent and I don’t think he would reject that characterization. He thinks the path to the universal is through the self. He’s running with it.

You’re right about the cinematographic beauty of his previous work, but I like the lo-res, too (of course, I use 110 film for my photography). It’s an odd change for him, though, because one of the things he complained about in working with TV was the low and varied quality. The fact that every viewer’s tv would have different brightness, tint and contrast really bothered him.

I’m going to toss out a cockamamie theory here, (and I think I first heard it ages ago, maybe from Borges, or maybe the dancing dwarf whispered it into my ear) and it’s that artists more often that not create real art not because of any theories they have going in to create the art, but despite these theories.