Inland Empire by David Lynch

Jessica Nguyen85 said:It really does warm my heart to come across something like this. 😍

I feel like Jason Gonzalez7 is playing with this sort of dual message here. It’s almost as if they're trying to say, in this infinite present moment, "this is how I experience the film," while simultaneously setting the stage for something else. It's not just that the movie "allows" you to find something deeper, broader, or entirely unknown after a second, third, or nth viewing. It isn't quite that. It’s more like the film anticipates it.

Just a quick thought on the whole idea of film symbolism. No matter how much a viewer tries to stay objective, it’s almost impossible not to start layering in commentary based on everything we’re currently seeing in cinema today. Honestly, I’m pretty sure that as soon as Jason Gonzalez7 wrote that part about the four symbolic frameworks, she realized just how limiting that description actually is—though, for what it's worth, I completely agree with her list. I haven't quite figured out yet how this specific film manages to strike at that cognitive veil we carry between the external world and infinity (see the signature). 😉 But hold on—let's take it slow. First comes the revolution, then comes the formalization.

It’s honestly wild. When I sat down to watch this, I didn't expect anything like it. I wasn't even sure a movie like this could actually be made—let alone that it could actually function. But then there’s Lynch. He just pulls something like this off. To be honest, it kind of left me feeling disgusted by "normal" movies. I just hope that, like any true genius, he stays around long enough to drop something else in a few years. Who knows.

Lynch: Cheese is made. from Milk.
Guy: Oh, I see what's happening here.

🙏 😁

Jessica Nguyen85, thanks for reading me so well. 😉
And you guessed right, I'm actually processing and refining exactly what I wrote in my head.
Personally, if you read between the lines of my post, I think that cognitive barrier is hidden within that "click" that happens when you engage in projection during any narrative work—something that feels both sequential and timeless at once.
It's especially true during the acting process, when you actually become the character you're interpreting. If we consider that everything around us is a narrative construct governed by symbolic Law (oh, Lacan, oh, not Lacan!), then the point becomes clear.

But still, I really need to rewatch the film! I don't believe this is the only way to explain it...

Jason Gonzalez7 said:Jessica Nguyen85, thanks for reading me so well. 😉
And you guessed right, I'm actually processing and refining exactly what I wrote in my head.
Personally, if you read between the lines of my post, I think that cognitive barrier is hidden within that "click" that happens when you engage in projection during any narrative work—something that feels both sequential and timeless at once.
It's especially true during the acting process, when you actually become the character you're interpreting. If we consider that everything around us is a narrative construct governed by symbolic Law (oh, Lacan, oh, not Lacan!), then the point becomes clear.

But still, I really need to rewatch the film! I don't believe this is the only way to explain it...

Man, I think I need an explanation for your explanation :Olić: 😳 😬

My bad. I was trying too hard to sound important, when I could have just said this much more simply...
I was just trying to stay consistent with his way of talking...

Jason Gonzalez7 said:My bad. I was trying too hard to sound important, when I could have just said this much more simply...
I was just trying to stay consistent with his way of talking...

Or maybe I'm just being dense.🤣

I don't know.
I feel like this is really a movie about movies—about the whole act of storytelling and reading.
That’s why that scene where she enters the room full of rabbits feels like its own kind of resolution; those rabbits represent a masked, unreachable consciousness, the very source of the story and the experience itself.

And if we consider how they are both disguised and unknowable, we end up right back at Lacan—sorry...

Jason Gonzalez7 said:I don't know.
I feel like this is really a movie about movies—about the whole act of storytelling and reading.
That’s why that scene where she enters the room full of rabbits feels like its own kind of resolution; those rabbits represent a masked, unreachable consciousness, the very source of the story and the experience itself.

And if we consider how they are both disguised and unknowable, we end up right back at Lacan—sorry...

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm not sure what the deal is with the rabbits, and I've never heard of Lacan. 😬

But hey, just tell me one thing: how does it stack up against Mulholland Drive?

...Jason Gonzalez7, I’m reading your stuff and honestly, I’m loving it—even though I haven't actually sat through a single 🙂 film of yours yet. Are you actually deep into this psychoanalytic school of thought, or is that just your go-to toolkit whenever you're dissecting Lynch? 🙂 Personally, I always find it pretty fascinating when people try to read a movie through—or maybe just over—the lens of psychoanalysis (I once caught a lecture on Maya Deren that was heavily leaned on Lacan and it was 👍), but that whole approach feels a bit foreign to me, so I'm curious...🙂

Larry Martin11 said:...Jason Gonzalez7, I’m reading your stuff and honestly, I’m loving it—even though I haven't actually sat through a single 🙂 film of yours yet. Are you actually deep into this psychoanalytic school of thought, or is that just your go-to toolkit whenever you're dissecting Lynch? 🙂 Personally, I always find it pretty fascinating when people try to read a movie through—or maybe just over—the lens of psychoanalysis (I once caught a lecture on Maya Deren that was heavily leaned on Lacan and it was 👍), but that whole approach feels a bit foreign to me, so I'm curious...🙂

Larry Martin11, my issue is simply that I studied philosophy 😬
I’d suggest checking out a book by an American film scholar named Aldo Pasquola: Don Juan's Midnight Mirror—you'll love it. It's a study of about 7 or 8 films, I can't recall the exact number right now... but it's great.
And Zizek isn't bad either; he interprets films using Lacanian theory, which is very interesting and down-to-earth.

And yes, I am closely aligned with psychoanalysis, but also with semiology, narratology, cultural anthropology, historicism...
No joke 😬
Ugh, now I'm acting important again, sorry everyone. I'm heading out...

...Oh, don't worry about that—it’s actually great. Philosophy is a fascinating field of study 🙂 😍 and even for those of us who didn't major in it—since we all tend to look at things through different lenses anyway—reading film analyses like this is always a treat. So, you are more than welcome here; feel free to drop by whenever you like 🙂

...Yeah, Zizek is interesting, but he can definitely overdo it sometimes (honestly, his take on the Coppola Conversation gave me more of a laugh than any actual insight 🙂), and let's be real—his habit of reviewing movies straight "from his head" (basically without actually watching them) isn't exactly a new revelation... 🙂 I'll have to track down some Paquol, thanks for the tip—I've read a few of his pieces before, and if I recall correctly, there was even a book released, though I never bothered looking for it 🙂

Yeah, you're definitely right; most people just bring up Zizek to back up their own arguments.
I actually got my hands on Pasquol's book personally, and I think it had a really small print run. I remember spotting it once at the Božidar Adžija library, but it should be available at the Library of Congress too.

I have to say, I really appreciate Jason Gonzalez7's take on the film. Hopefully, you’ll get around to a rewatch soon. 😁

By the way, since we're talking about Zizek, you should head over to the local library on June 24th.

EDIT: It's either Pasquol or Paquol.

EDIT2: Just checked—Don Juan's Midnight Mirror is available at NSB (or maybe NSK); I doubt you'll find it anywhere else unless you hit up an antique shop. You might be able to pick it up in 🙂New Orleans, naturally...

Jose Chase2 said:I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm not sure what the deal is with the rabbits, and I've never heard of Lacan. 😬

But hey, just tell me one thing: how does it stack up against Mulholland Drive?

Look, I always cite Mulholland Drive as one of my absolute all-time favorites, but this one? This is one of those films with a real message 🙂—it's all about that internal damnation and the sheer impossibility of escape, that kind of shit. 😁

To go along with the symbolism in the film, I’d throw in one more moment...
I'd love to hear from those of you who've actually sat through this one.
It’s about those spirits—or whatever kind of entities they are—and how tightly they're tethered to our world, their constant circling, that sense of being trapped...
I’m talking about the number 47, which the lead actress manages to untangle, ultimately triggering the liberation of evil.
Do you remember the story about the boy and the girl?

here 😲 goes my attempt at a 😲

I should probably report that ever since I watched the film, I've been plagued by incredibly vivid nightmares. The first night, it was this scene with kids on dirt bikes crashing into my yard and running over one of them until they died 😁, and then last night, I dreamed that some "them" arrived to decontaminate the whole area, stripping us of everything—our house, our dogs, just everything 🙂. To top it off, my dad actually told me we need to move out to California; any guesses where the Inland Empire is?

The last time I was hunted by these kinds of horrific nightmares was when I got too deep into studying those satanic images hanging on the wall back in Apple 😁

My apologies for the off-topic rambling, but I’m genuinely curious if anyone else has had similar experiences. Also... am I going to die anytime soon? 😁

The film sucks. 🙂
People are out here writing paragraphs about every little detail, but you're all just ignoring the fact that the movie is garbage. You're trying to save your precious director by grasping at these profound nonsense ideas instead of just admitting it’s bad, exhausting, and over. Even the legends mess up sometimes.

Sure, the close-ups of faces inches away from the lens are cool. The rabbits are cool. The Polish stuff is cool. And yeah, the atmosphere works.

But if this thing was thirty minutes long instead of three hours, it would actually be a hell of a lot better.

I just finished watching the film, walked through my front door, and immediately flipped on every single light in the house. I have no idea how I’m supposed to sleep now, and honestly, if I do manage to drift off, I just hope I don't dream about anything at all. As for what I actually thought of it... I think I need some time to sort through my thoughts before I can make sense of them.

Great vibes. Just drags on too long...

Man... I haven't even gotten around to watching Inland Empire yet (it totally reminds me of Inner Space, haha), but I can tell you right now—I have massive respect for Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks. Both have such a distinct cinematic vibe; the first one feels so much like the 80s, while the second captures that 90s energy perfectly. They’re both just one-of-a-kind. Surrealism? Yeah, look, I'm not exactly a fan of everything Lynch does—especially that Tarantino-esque stuff in Wild at Heart—and I'll admit I struggle with how some of his films leave things hanging (call it my own lack of insight if you want, whatever). It just sucks to me when flashy stylistic choices take center stage over the actual story. Maybe that's the case with Inner Space too, who knows? We'll see...

I suppose I shouldn't really complain since it actually made its way to theaters
but the screening times for 👎
well, having them at 9 PM this past week seemed like a solid choice
I mean, at least they didn't pull it from the schedule after just one week

northerncrane4 said:He didn't mean it literally; otherwise, it would be a stretch to use the adjective Tarantino's to describe a Lynch film.

Fair enough, I agree, but if it makes sense in his own head, let him write it...