Inland Empire by David Lynch

Justin Taylor6 said:I actually liked this movie—honestly, I found it way more engaging than Mulholland Drive.

The thing is, though, if you ask me, this isn't even really about the actress playing the part. It’s about some woman who’s torn between two worlds—one side of her wants to be this quiet little housewife, while the other side is obsessed with being rich and famous.

And frankly, that's probably just wrong. 🙂

I wouldn't say it's wrong. From what I can gather, the whole mess is actually about the woman watching Nikki on the screen (and all that other stuff).

Hey everyone—thanks to all of you for contributing to this thread. I just finished watching the movie. It’s midnight here, and honestly, there’s something deeply unsettling about knowing you guys are all out there living your lives, happy and carefree, while I'm sitting here like this. I might share some actual thoughts on the film in a month or two—until then, I really don't want to think about it.

👋

I haven't seen Inland Empire yet, but this post caught my eye and made me want to check it out.
It looks like we’re debating David Lynch here. First off, I think it’s perfectly fine if you don't like David Lynch; honestly, that feels more authentic than some pretentious, hipster snob praising him just because they want to feel superior to the masses.

Look, I'm no film scholar, and I don't bother with critics, but I experience movies in my own way.
Whether people wrap their heads around his work or not, whether they dig it or hate it, Lynch is a genius.
The feeling I had—and probably a billion other people worldwide felt too—when Twin Peaks first hit the small screen back in 1990, is something money couldn't buy. From that moment on, my perception of the world, of people, and of life itself shifted. I saw a side of reality I didn't even know existed.
As a director, Lynch works primarily through an audio-visual sensory assault. He takes disconnected ideas and weaves them into a visceral experience, layering his specific worldview onto it, and then, as an afterthought, he adds the story. That’s how I see him.
He’s a genius because in a world where everything is forced into rigid matrices and rules designed to cater to our shallowest senses, Lynch suddenly shoves something in front of us that shocks and confuses us. If we don't get the point immediately, we dismiss him as a fraud or a charlatan using movies like endless labyrinths to manipulate us. I think a lot of people look for the "point" of his films in all the wrong places, searching within the very structures that make sense to them. It’s like trying to find God by staring at your own crap; it’s just not going to happen. Sure, Lynch uses tricks, but the issue isn't his incomprehensible structures; it's our hardwired human desire for everything—in life and in cinema—to have a neat beginning, middle, climax, and end.
If that’s what you’re looking for, stay away from Lynch, because he’s looking much further beyond that. Just as we’re conditioned to listen to pop songs with a verse, bridge, and chorus, we struggle to digest different musical structures, even though those exist in classical music or the work of inventive composers who aren't afraid to break stereotypes.
So, don't shut yourself off from experiencing a Lynch film, even if it’s just through the sheer impact of its atmosphere. To me, being unable to engage with him suggests a certain shallowness—the kind of viewer who would be much happier watching some mindless action trash starring Dolph Lundgren.
Regarding Mulholland Drive and some of his other works, I think part of the problem is that he doesn't have the opportunity to make series anymore, something he managed to pull off with Twin Peaks. If Twin Peaks had been just a movie, we probably wouldn't even know about it today. But due to outside pressures, he made the series accessible enough for the average viewer, allowing the ambiguities to be cleared up later.
If Mulholland Drive had been a series, things might have been much clearer and the plot could have followed a more traditional flow. I won't claim I fully understood MD, but the film pushed me to dig a little deeper to get at least a surface-level glimpse of what the author was aiming for. For me, it wasn't something I needed to "solve"; it was an experience, and providing an experience is what Lynch gives his audience. It’s like taking a trip to the Grand Canyon; afterward, you feel something profound, and if someone asks you what the "point" was, you wouldn't know how to answer, but you’d know you experienced something real. That’s Lynch. He doesn't want to provide shallow entertainment—not that shallow entertainment is bad—but rather, he wants to force the viewer out of the stereotypes they've been stuck with since birth.
I find the characters in Twin Peaks absolutely fascinating. At first glance, someone might say they’re just a bunch of eccentric or mentally unstable people, but Lynch doesn't feed us that fake, one-dimensional caricature. He doesn't serve us the garbage that most other directors hand out on a silver platter; instead, he shows us people exactly as they truly are. We see their states of mind, their dreams, their quirks, and their fears. He shows us exactly what we discover after we've actually spent time getting to know someone. There are no fake heroes, no saints, and no pure villains—just ordinary human souls with all the madness we all carry in our heads, making up the psychological fabric of the world. To someone emotionally stunted, these characters might seem unreal, or perhaps some people have simply never met anyone real enough to realize that people REALLY ARE LIKE THIS. That is one of Lynch's magics, among many others.
That’s just how I see his style, and it doesn't have to be the definitive word—not even from Lynch himself. But the guy definitely wants us to sit there and really chew on what we're seeing and feeling.
Plus, you won't find any cheap jump scares from Lynch, like some zombie popping out of a closet or mindless gore. Instead, he gets under your skin by building this heavy sense of dread through specific settings, moody lighting, and soundscapes that just make you feel uneasy while you wait for something to happen.
And we can't overlook Badalamenti; his brilliant, original scores are what really drive home that constant paranoia, mystery, and the haunting beauty found in Lynchian cinema.
As for The Straight Story—absolute genius. It's one of his most accessible and moving pieces. Funnily enough, the actor playing the old man actually took his own life a while after the movie came out because he was battling cancer.

Nice post, Sarah Wood8. If you're looking for something else, I’d highly recommend checking out "Inland Empire".

To be honest, I've got the "Inland Empire" DVD sitting right here at home, but I just don't have the guts to sit through it again.😬

ruggedjackal46 As I have noted before:
Honestly, I have the Inland Empire DVD sitting right here at home, but I just don't have the nerve to sit through it again. 😬

What exactly do you mean by "getting prepared"? Or rather, what kind of preparation are we even talking about here? It feels like such a vague, sweeping concept to toss around without any context.

I watched this film once, then went back to it again the very next day. I ended up giving it an 8, though I honestly can't quite articulate why. If I had any say in the matter, though, I’d definitely cut those rabbits out.

I have watched every single one of this gentleman's films, with the exception of this one—until yesterday.

Inland Empire feels like the product of a mind that is either completely broken or high out of its skull. I am not suggesting Lynch himself is unstable, merely that he likely intended to craft such a "film."

there was a man i once knew ☕

Just another one in a long line of brilliant Lynchian tales!

northerncrane4 said:I haven't even bothered explaining why Lynch is good—or what I actually see in his work—let alone defending them as quality filmmaking. My only move here was questioning that ridiculous comparison between Lynch and Michael Bay. The only reason Lynch even entered this conversation is because you felt the need to signal to everyone that you don't actually enjoy his movies. To you, Lynch is "fake" while Michael Bay is the "real thing." So, because I happen to be able to decipher Lynch’s visual language—unlike you—am I just supposed to shut up? Not a chance. Besides, Michael Bay’s films don't possess even a fraction of the visual culture found in a David Lynch film. It's just that bombs aren't constantly exploding in Lynch's work, which makes it harder for self-proclaimed cinephiles like you to notice.

Look, there are actually people out there who can read the Lynchian code—so they can explain everything you need to know. It’s funny, really—how some people claim to decipher things that aren't even there, especially since Lynch himself has said countless times that he films emotions, not logical sequences or made-up plots! Apparently, there are even bigger David Lynches out there than Lynch himself.🙂

Nicholas Walker3 said:Just another one in a long line of brilliant Lynchian tales!

Look, there are actually people out there who can read the Lynchian code—so they can explain everything you need to know. It’s funny, really—how some people claim to decipher things that aren't even there, especially since Lynch himself has said countless times that he films emotions, not logical sequences or made-up plots! Apparently, there are even bigger David Lynches out there than Lynch himself.🙂

And what about it? Are emotions supposed to be meaningless? Don't they have their own sources and their own cause-and-effect?

northerncrane4 said:And what about it? Are emotions supposed to be meaningless? Don't they have their own sources and their own cause-and-effect?

Of course they do, but they’re deeply personal—there's zero chance you (or anyone else, really) can truly grasp how Lynch was feeling or what was crossing his mind during specific takes that he eventually stitches together under a single label later. Besides, I think you know that Lynch doesn't use shot lists—which is basically standard practice on any US film set—and he doesn't over-explain things to his actors. He mostly lets them shoot first, then figures out if it actually worked afterward (just look at that scene where someone is eating a sandwich in Twin Peaks if you ever get the chance). In the end, he's the only one who knows if the final product actually matches what he had in his head before cameras started rolling!

Could you please explain how you think you're "decoding" his logic?

Look, I get it—Lynch and I both aim for those gut feelings and deep thoughts—but I honestly can't wrap my head around whether what I'm thinking is actually what he intended me to feel. I’m pretty sure Lynch doesn't give a damn about audience reactions, and honestly, that’s exactly why he’s a legend and able to make such masterpieces! Besides, he’s one of those rare directors who refuses to comment on his own work—and if you ask me, there's a really good reason for that!

Nicholas Walker3 said:Of course they do, but they’re deeply personal—there's zero chance you (or anyone else, really) can truly grasp how Lynch was feeling or what was crossing his mind during specific takes that he eventually stitches together under a single label later. Besides, I think you know that Lynch doesn't use shot lists—which is basically standard practice on any US film set—and he doesn't over-explain things to his actors. He mostly lets them shoot first, then figures out if it actually worked afterward (just look at that scene where someone is eating a sandwich in Twin Peaks if you ever get the chance). In the end, he's the only one who knows if the final product actually matches what he had in his head before cameras started rolling!

Could you please explain how you think you're "decoding" his logic?

😲 Please. You can find the core idea behind any artist's work if you actually know how to look—and think.

Besides, I’ve already given a very direct response to this line of reasoning earlier in this thread:

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.

Alright, I’d love to hear what was going through Lynch's head while he was filming Inland Empire.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Alright, I’d love to hear what was going through Lynch's head while he was filming Inland Empire.

Be my guest. This topic existed long before you decided to show up.

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.

That sounds more like a plot summary than the director's actual philosophy... I'm worried that with this film, Lynch is distracting us from the underlying issues and moral decay within the film industry—and the world at large—which get forgotten because people only focus on the finished product. They're basically flashy packages that, at first glance, don't even hint at the real problems we should be discussing.

Nicholas Walker3 said:That sounds more like a plot summary than the director's actual philosophy... I'm worried that with this film, Lynch is distracting us from the underlying issues and moral decay within the film industry—and the world at large—which get forgotten because people only focus on the finished product. They're basically flashy packages that, at first glance, don't even hint at the real problems we should be discussing.

That’s just a summary of the plot—Lynch doesn't care about linear storytelling; he captures raw, personal impressions that only he can truly decode. 🙂And now I'll tell northerncrane4 straight up: you have no clue. I'm far more perceptive than you are, and I won't agree with anything you post because it's all nonsense—you're completely lost, yet you act like you're some kind of authority.

Your plot summary is so broad it could apply to pretty much any movie out there... I’m honestly worried you might not fully grasp how the filmmaking process actually works! Sure—once you've seen a film, you can give a general recap of what happened—but we’re really here to discuss what was going through Lynch's head while he was actually making it!?

Besides, Lynch himself talks about how things shift and decisions change right in the middle of production—even during those repetitive takes of the same scene... so, unless you happen to know more than Lynch does himself, that's a whole different story!?

Nicholas Walker3 said:Your plot summary is so broad it could apply to pretty much any movie out there... I’m honestly worried you might not fully grasp how the filmmaking process actually works! Sure—once you've seen a film, you can give a general recap of what happened—but we’re really here to discuss what was going through Lynch's head while he was actually making it!?

Besides, Lynch himself talks about how things shift and decisions change right in the middle of production—even during those repetitive takes of the same scene... so, unless you happen to know more than Lynch does himself, that's a whole different story!?

Exactly. My take is that Lynch was focused on the internal thought processes of a generic film actress during the production itself—how she evolves into herself, how she appears to those around her, her specific character, and finally, how the audience perceives her or the role. What's your issue with that?

Well, sure, Lynch might have had certain thoughts—and I’ve already shared what those were—but there isn't any actual "proof" regarding his exact mindset, which is my whole point... honestly, no matter how straightforward his films might seem at first glance, there just isn't one single rational explanation for them (if there even is one!)—besides, like I mentioned, looking at a production notebook (not sure if you've ever had the chance to dig into one!?) shows just how much is planned out versus how much is improvised... when that's missing, it's a dead giveaway that things are being made up on the fly...

Nicholas Walker3 said:Of course they do, but they’re deeply personal—there's zero chance you (or anyone else, really) can truly grasp how Lynch was feeling or what was crossing his mind during specific takes that he eventually stitches together under a single label later. Besides, I think you know that Lynch doesn't use shot lists—which is basically standard practice on any US film set—and he doesn't over-explain things to his actors. He mostly lets them shoot first, then figures out if it actually worked afterward (just look at that scene where someone is eating a sandwich in Twin Peaks if you ever get the chance). In the end, he's the only one who knows if the final product actually matches what he had in his head before cameras started rolling!

Could you please explain how you think you're "decoding" his logic?

If Lynch's films are strictly an expression of his own internal monologue, and if they're constructed in a way that doesn't even align with his original vision, then why on earth do these movies provoke anyone else to think at all? Based on how you've described his process, it sounds like Lynch is just making movies for himself, totally oblivious to the fact that an audience exists, working in this messy, unplanned, almost haphazard way. A process like that would only produce a coherent film that triggers specific thoughts and emotions by sheer accident. Not only is that statistically unlikely, but if you listen to his interviews, it’s pretty clear he isn't just winging it without a concept, an idea, or a plan. He knows exactly what he's trying to achieve.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Well, sure, Lynch might have had certain thoughts—and I’ve already shared what those were—but there isn't any actual "proof" regarding his exact mindset, which is my whole point... honestly, no matter how straightforward his films might seem at first glance, there just isn't one single rational explanation for them (if there even is one!)—besides, like I mentioned, looking at a production notebook (not sure if you've ever had the chance to dig into one!?) shows just how much is planned out versus how much is improvised... when that's missing, it's a dead giveaway that things are being made up on the fly...

Right, sure. I bet the producers would spend every evening asking Lynch where they were filming the next day, and he’d just spin a globe and point his finger at a random spot. Give me a break!