Inland Empire by David Lynch

I don't know all that much about the director. 😳
But I’ve been really sucked into reading reviews lately, especially after catching a screening of Vertigo tonight where they were talking all about that movie.

I'm more curious about who would actually win in a lunch debate, David Fincher or David Lynch? 😁

so... did you guys see that movie on Netflix yesterday? The one that runs three hours? Three whole hours, if I understood it correctly, just for some experimental flick? 😲

Jason Chavez32 said:Honestly, it’s just completely nonsensical—it feels restrictive, a little bit lazy, and frankly, a tad crazy to try and pigeonhole cinema into "standard," "experimental," and then "Lynchian." It’s pretty hard to take a movie review seriously when it kicks off with a claim like that; it just screams a lack of understanding regarding the art of filmmaking. Don't get me wrong, Lynch is a brilliant director, but at the end of the day, he's really just a master of atmosphere.

Calling someone a "nonsensical, limiting, and unhinged" amateur while trying to preach formal film taxonomy feels a bit much. Unless, of course, the person being quoted actually intended to derail the thread and attack the integrity of the users here 😬

Is anyone playing this anywhere besides near downtown Chicago? Did many people actually show up for the screenings? Man, I really hope they don't pull it after just a week...

I just sat through some pretentious moralizing chick flick, and honestly, I hated every single second of it. I’ve effectively wasted three hours of my life watching nothing but absolute garbage masquerading as high art. Just what I needed today, really. 🙄

Is it really that brutal? Like, how tough is it for a regular person to sit through? I don't want to be that guy who drags everyone along to see it, only to have them pissed off at me later because it was too much.

Stick to those persistent Magellan enthusiasts who are obsessed with the metaphysics of evil 😁

I honestly can't do that. I'm more of a light attractor myself—an art enthusiast first and foremost 😁

quietdriver3 said:Is it really that brutal? Like, how tough is it for a regular person to sit through? I don't want to be that guy who drags everyone along to see it, only to have them pissed off at me later because it was too much.

It depends on who you mean by "average person." But considering the tastes people have lately—given the literal epidemic of ADHD sweeping the country, given how hyper-pragmatic everyone has become, and seeing as most people lack any real intellectual depth, emotional capacity, or aesthetic sensibility—I’d say this film isn't for the "common man." Not our true contemporaries. This is a work of art. It doesn't care about "entertaining" us (though we all know what "entertainment" actually means these days); its goal is to enrich the viewer in some way or another.

And no, the movie isn't "messed up." No Lynch film is. You just have to approach it differently than those plot-driven, narrative-heavy movies. You have to watch all his work that way, even the ones that seem more traditional, like Blue Velvet for instance.

If I'm being too vague, look—if someone is genuinely interested in Lynch and his body of work but feels like they "don't get it," I suggest buying and reading this:

Lynch on Lynch

As for those who don't like Lynch, it would be better if they just stayed away and didn't embarrass themselves with their "comments" and "ratings."

Picked up this book at a local used book fair last weekend, and honestly, it’s a great read, even if Lynch refuses to give away any of his secrets regarding what his movies actually mean... which I guess is just how he rolls, and honestly, probably for the best 🙂

The guy always keeps a little scrap of velvet tucked in his pocket 😍

coastalbison47 said:Picked up this book at a local used book fair last weekend, and honestly, it’s a great read, even if Lynch refuses to give away any of his secrets regarding what his movies actually mean... which I guess is just how he rolls, and honestly, probably for the best 🙂

The guy always keeps a little scrap of velvet tucked in his pocket 😍

bought it but didn't get it, apparently. if you did, you'd realize there simply isn't anything to "reveal" about the meaning of the films. and even if there were, whatever he could tell you would be totally irrelevant. he's said that explicitly a few times now.

it's this obsession with finding "meaning"—searching for some kind of "objective" truth—that acts as the primary barrier preventing people from actually experiencing his work properly.

Sean Allen76 said:I caught a screening today. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it yet—it was good, certainly, but I think it’ll grow on me much more once I've had a few months to sit with it. The soundtrack is absolutely phenomenal. However, you have to be prepared; the plot is significantly more complex than *Mulholland Drive*, and you really need to settle in for the full three-hour ride. Is it worth the endurance test? I suspect so.
Is there anything more iconic than the onscreen chemistry between Laura Dern and Grace Zabriskie? They both possess such a unique ability to bring depth and a certain haunting quality to a scene. It really makes you wonder how many other legendary pairings we have yet to see in American cinema. 🙏 🙏 🙏
That scene on the street with the homeless folks and that little girl? Honestly, it’s probably one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen. 😁
You absolutely have to check this out. It's a must-watch!

I'm not questioning the music choice if we're still talking about Badalamenti, but those three hours... they've got me a little spooked. I'm being dead serious here. It's actually pretty daunting. 🤔

Gary Garcia6 said:I'm not questioning the music choice if we're still talking about Badalamenti, but those three hours... they've got me a little spooked. I'm being dead serious here. It's actually pretty daunting. 🤔

Look, if you can't sit through three hours of David Lynch, then I honestly doubt you should be watching him at all. Everyone I know who truly loves Lynch watches his stuff effortlessly. They want those beautiful dreams—his films—to last as long as possible. For me, it’s hard to imagine any of his movies being shorter than, say, two and a half hours. Even though most of them fall under that mark.

And the music is incredible. Yeah. Primarily Krzysztof Penderecki and Badalamenti.

Sure, obviously. If I had to actually strain myself to follow him, I probably wouldn't make it through any of his movies. But honestly, *Mulholland Drive* was actually pretty easy to watch—whereas *Lost Highway*? Almost unbearable. Who knows what kind of mess he’s cooked up this time 🙂

placidlynx23 said:It depends on who you mean by "average person." But considering the tastes people have lately—given the literal epidemic of ADHD sweeping the country, given how hyper-pragmatic everyone has become, and seeing as most people lack any real intellectual depth, emotional capacity, or aesthetic sensibility—I’d say this film isn't for the "common man." Not our true contemporaries. This is a work of art. It doesn't care about "entertaining" us (though we all know what "entertainment" actually means these days); its goal is to enrich the viewer in some way or another.

And no, the movie isn't "messed up." No Lynch film is. You just have to approach it differently than those plot-driven, narrative-heavy movies. You have to watch all his work that way, even the ones that seem more traditional, like Blue Velvet for instance.

If I'm being too vague, look—if someone is genuinely interested in Lynch and his body of work but feels like they "don't get it," I suggest buying and reading this:

Lynch on Lynch

As for those who don't like Lynch, it would be better if they just stayed away and didn't embarrass themselves with their "comments" and "ratings."

awwww 😁

I honestly wish you could convince me that I haven't lived ten more lifetimes than you have 😘

I absolutely adore every single one of the three Lynch films I've managed to sit through—Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet, and Wild at Heart. But this particular movie? It’s just pure evil. And look, I come from a rougher background, so I’m certainly not naive enough to fall for its tricks 🙂 😁

placidlynx23 said:bought it but didn't get it, apparently. if you did, you'd realize there simply isn't anything to "reveal" about the meaning of the films. and even if there were, whatever he could tell you would be totally irrelevant. he's said that explicitly a few times now.

it's this obsession with finding "meaning"—searching for some kind of "objective" truth—that acts as the primary barrier preventing people from actually experiencing his work properly.

When I mentioned that he doesn't reveal the meaning of his movies, I wasn't being critical, I was actually giving him a compliment, because trying to explain away a film that's meant to be a purely subjective experience just seems pointless. Maybe try reading the whole post a bit more carefully before jumping in with a comment...

placidlynx23 said:It depends on who you mean by "average person." But considering the tastes people have lately—given the literal epidemic of ADHD sweeping the country, given how hyper-pragmatic everyone has become, and seeing as most people lack any real intellectual depth, emotional capacity, or aesthetic sensibility—I’d say this film isn't for the "common man." Not our true contemporaries. This is a work of art. It doesn't care about "entertaining" us (though we all know what "entertainment" actually means these days); its goal is to enrich the viewer in some way or another.

And no, the movie isn't "messed up." No Lynch film is. You just have to approach it differently than those plot-driven, narrative-heavy movies. You have to watch all his work that way, even the ones that seem more traditional, like Blue Velvet for instance.

If I'm being too vague, look—if someone is genuinely interested in Lynch and his body of work but feels like they "don't get it," I suggest buying and reading this:

Lynch on Lynch

As for those who don't like Lynch, it would be better if they just stayed away and didn't embarrass themselves with their "comments" and "ratings."

I didn't realize this thread was strictly for David Lynch enthusiasts. If there's no rule against saying Lynch is overrated, then I'll just say I think Blue Velvet is great, but I wouldn't recommend Inland Empire to anyone.
It reminds me of a story my old art teacher used to tell about Piero Manzoni, the Italian artist who literally canned his own excrement and sold it. You see where this is going...

So, why don't you explain to us what exactly you loved about this, or how it supposedly "enriched" you? Hmm... You claim all Lynch films require a different way of viewing? Does that truly apply to everything? Even Wild at Heart?

@ Kyle Watson8 - when you try to reply to someone else's post just to condescendingly call out their "pretentious" version of the "truth," it would be nice if you actually wrote something with a shred of substance.

@ coastalbison47 - the thing is, this "meaning" you're talking about, the way your post implies it works, is a totally secondary concern in Lynchian films. You really should have caught that from the book; it shows perfectly how he experiences film as such a thing and where his art actually originates. There’s simply no room for "rational meaning" here. That kind of meaning is the only kind that can be "uncovered," "deconstructed," or "analyzed." Whether you meant that as a critique or a compliment is irrelevant—it's equally misguided either way.

@ Drew White - I know there are thousands of ignorant idiots every single day—people who don't realize they're ignorant, because if they did, they wouldn't be (it's a paradox, really)—who blather on about Lynch's supposed "self-indulgence," "art for art's sake," or "empty aesthetics." Why shouldn't they do it here too? We live in a democracy, after all. Anyone can babble about anything. It's our right.

Regarding Manzoni, your dear professor probably should have explained the actual function behind him packaging up his own crap, labeling it "artist's shit," and selling it. Otherwise, you might end up one day confusing the two and mixing up this school of aesthetic thought—this way of thinking about the existence or function of an artwork—with an artist for whom even the concept of a "work" is largely foreign.

And if I could actually "explain" to you why I "liked Inland Empire so much," then Lynch wouldn't be Lynch, and you probably wouldn't be you.

As for the whole "all" Lynch films thing—yes, all of them, including Wild at Heart. Just because some of his movies have a strong narrative doesn't mean they were created from a different headspace than the ones that don't. They weren't.

placidlynx23 said:@ Kyle Watson8 - when you try to reply to someone else's post just to condescendingly call out their "pretentious" version of the "truth," it would be nice if you actually wrote something with a shred of substance.

@ coastalbison47 - the thing is, this "meaning" you're talking about, the way your post implies it works, is a totally secondary concern in Lynchian films. You really should have caught that from the book; it shows perfectly how he experiences film as such a thing and where his art actually originates. There’s simply no room for "rational meaning" here. That kind of meaning is the only kind that can be "uncovered," "deconstructed," or "analyzed." Whether you meant that as a critique or a compliment is irrelevant—it's equally misguided either way.

@ Drew White - I know there are thousands of ignorant idiots every single day—people who don't realize they're ignorant, because if they did, they wouldn't be (it's a paradox, really)—who blather on about Lynch's supposed "self-indulgence," "art for art's sake," or "empty aesthetics." Why shouldn't they do it here too? We live in a democracy, after all. Anyone can babble about anything. It's our right.

Regarding Manzoni, your dear professor probably should have explained the actual function behind him packaging up his own crap, labeling it "artist's shit," and selling it. Otherwise, you might end up one day confusing the two and mixing up this school of aesthetic thought—this way of thinking about the existence or function of an artwork—with an artist for whom even the concept of a "work" is largely foreign.

And if I could actually "explain" to you why I "liked Inland Empire so much," then Lynch wouldn't be Lynch, and you probably wouldn't be you.

As for the whole "all" Lynch films thing—yes, all of them, including Wild at Heart. Just because some of his movies have a strong narrative doesn't mean they were created from a different headspace than the ones that don't. They weren't.

Of course rational meaning has a place in Lynch's work—he isn't just too clever to let the audience off the hook. He isn't going to alienate the crowd that's perfectly happy just drifting through the dreamlike elements by explaining exactly what the poet intended.

northerncrane4 said:Of course rational meaning has a place in Lynch's work—he isn't just too clever to let the audience off the hook. He isn't going to alienate the crowd that's perfectly happy just drifting through the dreamlike elements by explaining exactly what the poet intended.

See, that kind of crude interpretation is exactly what exposes a pragmatic mindset—one that is fundamentally opposed to how Lynch thinks and operates. If you had gone as far as to say he does it for the money, your statement would have been spot on.

I get why so many people think this way. It's the zeitgeist. But things turn ridiculous when those who are slaves to that trend start assuming everyone else shares their view, simply because it's "obvious," thank God.

And how do you actually know you're wrong? For starters, read Lynch's interviews. Analyze his thought process. Watch his "writing" and "directing" techniques. Those methods speak for themselves; they aren't some "interpretation" or something he hands to you on a silver platter. But then again, it's much easier to talk out of your ass than to actually put in the work to study something you don't care about.

placidlynx23 said:See, that kind of crude interpretation is exactly what exposes a pragmatic mindset—one that is fundamentally opposed to how Lynch thinks and operates. If you had gone as far as to say he does it for the money, your statement would have been spot on.

I get why so many people think this way. It's the zeitgeist. But things turn ridiculous when those who are slaves to that trend start assuming everyone else shares their view, simply because it's "obvious," thank God.

And how do you actually know you're wrong? For starters, read Lynch's interviews. Analyze his thought process. Watch his "writing" and "directing" techniques. Those methods speak for themselves; they aren't some "interpretation" or something he hands to you on a silver platter. But then again, it's much easier to talk out of your ass than to actually put in the work to study something you don't care about.

You're barking up the wrong tree, genius.