Alright, let's get serious for a second:
ruggedjackal46 said:Is it tomorrow already? 😬
Anyway, I find that woman at the start of the film—the one watching everything unfold on TV—really fascinating. I'm starting to think the entire story is actually about her own issues and frustrations, which she just projects onto this "normal," "happy" actress. I might dive deeper into that later, but my brain is currently lacking both the time and the focus for it.
👍
northerncrane4 said:Watched it.
There’s this whole school of thought claiming you should just "feel" Lynch's films rather than try to understand them. To me, that feels like the path of least resistance—I think his work has enough narrative structure that you can't just dismiss it as a series of random associations. Personally, I find it much more interesting to deconstruct the cognitive mechanics that allow that mosaic to take shape.
When looking at "Inland Empire," it seems to me the initial impulse behind such a project was the director's attempt to grasp the mental state of the film actress. This fits perfectly with how the plot begins—at the moment filming starts within the movie, the sense of cause and effect breaks down, mirroring the actress's own loss of self as she transforms into a film character. The actual process of filmmaking—which is inherently non-chronological—drives the disjointed nature of "Inland Empire" all the way to that final frame, where the actress has completely lost her identity and the character begins to live its own life.
Hmm.
It's actually a shame the theater screening doesn't start around 9:30 PM and run until after midnight; that would have made the concept feel complete.
🙏 🙏 🙏 👍 👍 👍
Damn, let me think about that for a second.
But seriously, for real though:
Honestly, this thread has been hands down the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this entire forum. Seriously, thanks for the laughs, everyone!
Human stupidity is brilliant in its own way, but honestly, northerncrane4's sarcastic remarks are even more brilliant—even if they’re painfully true.
He shakes it just enough so they don't get too used to it. 👍
Look, it's obvious this thread is all about Lynch's latest film, so let's just lean into it and talk about that:
My expectations were pretty standard, but honestly, the movie just didn't blow me away.
I’ve only ever seen Mulholland Drive from Lynch's filmography, and man, he jumped straight to my favorite directors and that movie became one of my absolute favorites. The first time I watched it, I didn't really get it, but I loved it anyway. The second time around, things started clicking, and I was still loving every second. By the third time? I finally realized I was making a huge mistake by trying to "figure it out." Now, I just sit back and soak in the brilliance.
I'm a bit conflicted about Inland Empire. To be honest, I didn't really vibe with it on my first watch, and I don't think I even fully grasped what was happening. I’m definitely going to revisit it—I have a feeling it’ll land much better the second time around—but for now, it just missed the mark for me.
I don't want this to just turn into a bunch of likes and dislikes. I’m actually going to try and put some effort into explaining things for once:
First off, the movie is way too long. Lynch's fantasies—if you want to call those weird fever dreams that—could easily be squeezed into a tight 30 or 45 minutes. I honestly felt like I lost about half an hour near the end. Sure, the finale lands well enough, but once a Lynch film starts dragging, you're already losing the battle. If it gets boring, it's not working.
Anyway, I don't know what his deal is, but those close-ups irritated me almost as much as Boorman's long takes in "liberation." I guess when it comes to pacing, I’m just a classic guy who prefers a moderate dose of everything. Those shots really bugged me during UC.
The long takes don't really sit right with me either. Like, okay, one lady says this, the other lady says that, and the camera should just cut back to the first lady instead of lingering for an extra second or two every single time. Maybe some people dig it, but not me.
And the camerawork? Man, it just looks so off. When I think back to "silencia" and that gorgeous, crystal-clear imagery—that magical vibe still gives me chills. UC was full of these "dirty" shots (probably caused by that camera we were talking about earlier; look, I'm no expert on technical specs /not that I'm an expert on the stuff I *am* talking about, but I feel qualified enough to have an opinion here/), and that just doesn't work for me with Lynch. I get that the atmosphere is miles away from MD (even though some parts are actually almost identical), but it still feels wrong.
I won't even touch the plot because I didn't understand a damn thing, and I'm not going to rave about the acting; nothing really clicked for me.
All in all, the "Zodiac" I watched yesterday left a much, much stronger impression on me.
And I'm guessing tomorrow's "Satyricon" will be the same story.
Also, one more thing: northerncrane4's posts are absolutely brilliant, but he doles them out so sparingly. It would be awesome if we got more. That whole idea about the actress didn't make sense to me at all initially, but now suddenly everything looks much better.
Just so other users can enjoy some high-quality posts too, I'm adding a quote from ruggedjackal4 above, hoping he's found his focus again and has plenty of time to finish explaining his theory.
So, yeah, that's about it for now. Thanks again for this hilarious thread.
Later
