Inland Empire (2006) ***
I first saw Inland Empire (2006) in its original limited theatrical run at the Brattle Theatre. I was very excited to see it—a new David Lynch film in the cinema! While I appreciated aspects of it, unfortunately, I didn’t love it. I bought the DVD in 2007, watched it a second time, and still didn’t love it. Now I’ve seen the film a third time, via The Criterion Collection’s Blu-ray…and I still don’t love it.
Most of all, I hated the cheap SD Mini DV look (the first time Lynch shot a feature film digitally). Criterion claims that Lynch made “visionary” use of the format but I don't totally agree. There's a film called Black Night, released one year before IE, which was also shot on video and which is very Lynchian (and Kafkaesque) that I think made better use of the video format (I hope that film receives a Blu-ray release some day, I remember really enjoying it). Despite the weird but interesting remastering process for the Criterion BD—which does make the film a bit less ugly—I still don't love the look.
Laura Dern certainly gives an all-in performance but, unlike in all of Lynch’s other films, I find it difficult to connect with any character in IE due to the lack of development and the stilted acting. Also, I enjoyed Rabbits (2002), but the inclusion of those short films in IE always felt a bit shoehorned to me.
Lynch repeats a lot of imagery and techniques from his previous work. In IE though, it feels like he's imitating his own style. All the exciting things about Eraserhead (1977) (review), Blue Velvet (1986) (review), Wild At Heart (1990) (review), Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992) (review), Lost Highway (1997), and Mulholland Drive (2001) (review) here feel more like a chore.
I’ve noticed that people younger than myself (particularly on Letterboxd) love this film, but I’ve never been able to fully connect with it. A lot of folks think IE is a masterpiece, but to me it’s always felt rambling, like a student thesis project or a short film you’d see at a film festival, expanded to three hours. It was shot without a finished script, largely on a scene by scene basis and it's very apparent—it’s Lynch’s least cohesive effort. I love Lynch’s surrealism, his dream logic. I love his abstract, nonlinear style. I don’t need to fully understand his films to appreciate them, but it’s difficult to articulate exactly why this one doesn’t thrill me.
I legitimately think that if Lynch had shot IE on film, with a cinematographer, chopped off 30 – 45 minutes, and included Angelo Badalamenti on the score that I’d like it a lot more. There is no denying that parts of it are fascinating and captivating (and terrifying and hilarious), but as a whole it remains a frustrating film (and my least favorite Lynch).
Comments
Post a Comment