Inland Empire

Before writing about Inland Empire, I thought I'd listen to Mark Kermode's review, because I was sure it would be a terrible pan and it would give me something to react against. Turns out that Mark Kermode loved it, reconfirming the fact that Mark Kermode is the most brilliant film reviewer working. If your movie taste is at all similar to my own, I highly recommend checking out Kermode's podcast, which is informative, often dead-on, and very entertaining in a posh british sort of way. Good stuff.

But yes, back to David Lynch's magnum opus. Inland Empire is three hours long, shot with dv, more or less completely lacking a coherent plot, and it's fan-fucking-tastic. If you expect your cinematic experiences to 'make sense,' 'tell a coherent story,' or 'follow a three-act plot structure,' then I'm afraid you might find Inland Empire a bit of a disappointment. For an aspiring filmmaker like myself, this film was, in the first, a testament to the fact that you don't need high production values or fancy equipment to make a great film. Of course, this fact is also apparent in the early work of directors like Robert Rodriguez and John Cassavetes, but it is quite rare to see a successful and established director take the skills acquired from years of filmmaking and apply them back to a super low-budget format. The results are . . . inspiring, to say the least.

All of the classic Lynch tropes are there -- powerful sound design, strange and deformed characters, red velvet curtains . . . and the themes of changing identities, the distance between what you see and what you think you see, etc are continued and explored further. In a David Lynch movie, and especially in Inland Empire, 'continuity editing' is often just a ruse, and you are made constantly aware that the normal assumptions the brain automatically makes to link shots and scenery together simply don't apply. As this is something I'm quite interested in exploring in my own work, I find it incredibly exciting to see such a fascinating and established director playing in these ways.

Perhaps one of the greatest things about a Lynch movie (made more so by the incredibly scope of Inland Empire) is that, upon leaving, there are several hours during which the entire world looks like it has been cut straight out of one of his films. He has an eye for the bizarre that surrounds us, the strange that emerges readily from the mundane it hides so loosely behind. Part of the appeal of his films is that they give us the chance to see the world through his hyper-sensitive eyes, which make the every-day so exciting and strange.

No, it is obviously not for everyone. If you haven't liked his previous work, there is no way you'll like the new one. I expected overindulgent nonsensical ramble, and would have been happy with that. I was surprised, however, to find the film much less overindulgent and nonsensical than I had anticipated. Still, for three hours without a coherent linear plot, you have to be a fan to start. Which I am, and made more so now. It's good fun . . . the dance sequences are amazing.

The excitement for me, is this: I can watch The Last King of Scotland and be amazed, and say that's a great film, fantastic, incredible. But the actors, the production value, the on-location shooting, all mean it is only something I can watch and enjoy. I can't imagine being a part of anything like that, or, obviously, making something like that. With Inland Empire, not only is it fantastic, beautiful, good actors, multiple locations, etc . . . but it is not so out of reach either. It isn't just amazing, it's also inspiring. It gives me some ideas to work toward. Which is why, though I would say that Last King of Scotland is a better film, I am more grateful for having seen Inland Empire, because it offers more nourishment.