VICE Reviews - Inland Empire
The New York Times review of David Lynch’s new movie is an overblown, florid affair, but it does get one thing unmistakably right. In the little bit at the end where they list why kids shouldn’t see the film (partial female nudity, bloody violence), they also cite the film’s sense of “ubiquitous menace.” That’s pretty much right on. Inland Empire is three hours of ubiquitous menace...
For this movie, shot entirely on consumer grade video, Lynch took the dreamier parts of Eraserhead, all the Black Lodge sequences from Twin Peaks, and the scary second half of Mulholland Drive and then cranked them up to ten. Next he removed almost any anchoring vestiges of plot, place, time, or reason.
There’s a bare bones set-up involving an actress (played by Laura Dern, who should win an Oscar for this but never will) who has been cast in what she soon learns is a remake of a cursed Polish film based on some ancient folk tale. The two leads of the original, unmade version were murdered. Her co-star in the remake is played by Justin Theroux, her director by Jeremy Irons, and his right hand man by Harry Dean Stanton. Getting all this? It doesn’t really matter, since we’re only really with these guys for 1/100th of the movie’s running time. The majority of this film is given up to Dern and Lynch - who were close collaborators, more than just director and star.
So the movie inevitably fractures when the film-within-a-film becomes the real film, or Dern becomes her character’s character, or her character’s character becomes her, or she suffers a psychotic rift, or the universe turns inside out. Whatever it is that occurs, the end result is that we’re plunged into the most (possibly the only) accurate cinematic depiction of a really bad nightmare ever made. It’s harsh. Some people are going to say that Inland Empire drifts, that it’s convoluted. It isn’t. It seems that Lynch had a very clear structure in mind and that all the pieces fit perfectly for him. You can feel a rhythm to this movie if you can get past the fact that it’s buried much deeper than what you’re used to. You’ll have to also get past the fact that much of Inland Empire is really, really scary. The overwhelming dread of classic Lynch is here in full force. Lots of flickering electric lights, tracking shots through creepy empty houses where god-knows-what is around the corner, and masterfully manipulated sound in which a buzz of static can be the most pants-shittingly terrifying you’ve ever heard.
What happens in Inland Empire? I don’t know. Laura Dern walks through a door in Hollywood but then it opens in Poland, and it’s not Dern anymore, or rather it is her but she’s a different person, and then there’s this whore who is watching what’s happening to Dern on a TV in a dark hotel room, and then there’s this recurring sitcom peopled by humans with enormous rabbit heads (complete with a laugh track), then there’s this weird clique of more whores who pop in and out (at one point doing a synchronized dance to “The Locomotion”), then there’s a barbecue with a troupe of travelling Eastern European circus folk, then Dern is literally crawling on her hands and knees down Hollywood Blvd, then this monstrous creature with a face that looks like it was painted on with cheap make-up pops up, etc etc etc. That may sound like a muddle, but believe me; it worked so well and was so scary that I got goose bumps just recalling it while typing up that litany of moments.
There’s no real resolution. There are no good answers at the end. There is another great dance sequence during the credits though, this one set to Nina Simone’s “Sinnerman.” Inland Empire is not movie-going like we’re used to. It’s a meditative, unpleasant, beautiful, and confusing endurance test. You should see it at least once.
PS: The only inarguable misstep in the whole thing is using some stupid Beck song really prominently on the soundtrack. Yuck.
JERRY MCPHEERSON
i am looking forward to seeing Charlotte's Web myself...xoxoxo
Posted by: gay | 11/12/2006 at 10:38
BRUTAL> Sign me up.
Posted by: worker | 11/12/2006 at 11:24
Caught the premiere in LA Saturday. Lynch is as inspired and inspirational as ever. Dennis Hopper sat in front of me, but not for the whole film. Mark Ruffalo asked an incredibly dumb question, blathering on about "how do you come up with your ideas?" and what not. My jaw slacked for a coma moment. Then it was over.
Posted by: (R!) | 11/12/2006 at 15:00
this will be the REAL best film of the year. mark my words!!!
Posted by: YES | 11/12/2006 at 16:51
Lynch is a golden god and i want his baby
Posted by: Johannes | 11/12/2006 at 17:50
isn't lynch famous for doing movies like this? i mean this is his bag! why is everyone so surprised by this..."Lynch took the dreamier parts of Eraserhead, all the Black Lodge sequences from Twin Peaks, and the scary second half of Mulholland Drive and then cranked them up to ten."
the part that made me sad, was the three hour length! alas there is no cure to a long movie. i bet weed would help every thirty minutes with this movie!
Posted by: i bet weed would help every thirty minutes with this movie! | 11/12/2006 at 22:28
Fuck yeah.
I'll be seeing this, probably a couple of times. You're in good hands with this guy.
Posted by: Rodneyoscopy | 11/12/2006 at 23:07
weed helps every thirty minutes of mostly any movie
Posted by: biatch | 12/12/2006 at 00:05
David Lynch is an Eagle Scout.
Posted by: Scott Baio | 12/12/2006 at 01:21
this sounds so deep i won't even be able to take it. deep, man. makes me feel less dumb if it's intentionally obscure.
Posted by: | 12/12/2006 at 04:37
this is the best book on lynch by a country mile, she understands and communicates his dream logic/vision/whatever beautifully:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0292755651/lynchnthedavi-20
I read this book in its entirety one day and night while cramming to write a last minute essay for a film theory class, while already being an huge fan but not really understanding why. that night I had the most lucid dreams I've ever had, like I was talking to my brain directly through dream characters. lynch shows real darkness which I think I agree is the purest way to find real light, risky though. thanks for the preview
Posted by: cunsie bradlestein | 12/12/2006 at 18:00
this movie was boring as shit and not scary at all
Posted by: peepe | 13/12/2006 at 16:04
but you didn't watch it. you watched Happy Feet with your girlfriend and then went home cooked for her and then ate and ate rinse and repeated for 50 years and then died
Posted by: cunsie bradlestein | 13/12/2006 at 17:59
I remember the first time I watched a David Lynch movie, Wild at Heart. I had to stop it to go out and smoke because it would get so intense. Been a fan ever since and can not wait to see this one.
Posted by: psa | 13/12/2006 at 20:11
Saw this movie premier in New York, and saw David Lynch talk about it. The man is brilliant, I think its his best work thus far. However I do think that it will have a smaller audience who will appreciate his endeavor.
Posted by: | 14/12/2006 at 00:31
which beck song is used?
Posted by: janie jones | 14/12/2006 at 04:27
The Beck song is Black Tambourine. It's a little bit of an odd choice, but not as jarring as the review makes it out to be. This is the best movie I have ever seen. Period.
Posted by: MrChavello | 14/12/2006 at 16:54
hahah love the comment by cunsie bradlestein, so so true, i've met so many narrow-minded people like that. can't wait to see the film
Posted by: meee | 14/12/2006 at 19:08
No, the 'Black Tamborine' usage totally took me out of the movie for the 3 minutes it played. Yucks. It's like..SCARYSCARYSCARY...oh...Beck. Um...sure. Lynch...likes Beck? Ok. SCARYSCARY calm Nina Simone dance off.
And Justin Theroux looking damn hot also took me out of the movie.
It's the best movie of the year. Yes'm.
Posted by: SuperAwesome | 15/12/2006 at 07:06
black tamborine is emblematic awful beck song... I like a couple of the sad songs from mutations and sea change but I can't think of any precedent of such a bad jaunty IPOD commerical type thing being in a lynch movie. beck is such a herb. spike jonze, beck, all those type of LA guys are herbs. they're all scientologist too, in varying degrees of awareness and proclamation.
watch Wild At Heart or Straight Story in 30 years, it'll still resonate in a hundred years. saw Being John Malcovich again a few months back and it came across precious airless and sneeringly unpleasant all told - the kind of forced eccentricity and bitterness of a nerd. I like Kaufman when michel Gondry directs the scripts, if he had made Adaptation and Being john malcovich I think they'd be better movies.
beastie boys were far better before they got involved with Jonze. Jonze went out with Sofia Coppola enough said. and his music videos suck too, compare him with chris cunningham or gondry again, or the new guy who does the klaxons vids and all Jonze's shit comes off very Wacky 90's. beck is Wacky 90's to a T, why people still take him seriously after finding out he's a scientologist, who the hell knows
Posted by: johannesburg cruyff | 15/12/2006 at 14:12
HElooooo!!! Lucky i didn't fully read to the end, because you should have put SPOILER ALERT, somewhere in there retard!
Posted by: daniel; | 16/12/2006 at 12:38
I think there were a lot of overly-inflated/overly-hyped directors in the 90's. Gondry, Jonze, Coppola, Kaufman, and Lynch all fit into that statement in some respects. So do P.T. Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, and probably Wes Anderson, as time will tell. I was thinking about P.T. Anderson the other night and wondering if anyone will actually be watching Boogie Nights in 10 years, much less Magnolia or Punch Drunk Love. In the 90's, if you were young and cynical, then that made you "edgey," and then people put up money for your work, but I feel like a lot of films from that time period, only got made because they had that shock value backing them up. I already find that rewatching some of those films is disappointing, because they had shock value, but little else behind them. Good film gets better each time you view it.
Posted by: Scott Baio | 17/12/2006 at 09:22
shut up knobhead.
PT A is rad.
Posted by: Tithouse | 17/12/2006 at 18:52
Ah, look at you all, so desperate to be different, trying so hard to look 10 times smarter than you are.
Look at your comments. Are you discussing how great the film is? Its references, its subtexts, its style?
No.
You're all saying how OMG David Lynch is teh bestest!!!!111. You know nothing, you don't understand the work and it's time for you to stop watching smart people's films in an effort to make us think you are one.
Posted by: Niggle | 18/12/2006 at 12:40
Hey Niggie, my scrotum has a "subtext," when it's slapping you in the mouth.
Posted by: Scott Baio | 18/12/2006 at 22:43