Inland Empire by David Lynch

ruggedjackal46 said: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.

He works with a real concept and a vision—he's just such a genius that it's enough... they force you to think because he captures raw emotion, and since he feels so much, you end up living through it while watching!

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...

Every single Lynch film serves as "proof" of whatever was running through his head during creation. Then again, any piece of auteur cinema is essentially evidence of the artist's psyche—so, are we really just debating the fundamental definitions of an artist and their work here? 😕

Nicholas Walker3 said:Look, I’ll say it again—that production book (not sure if you’ve ever actually laid eyes on one!) is proof enough of how much is planned out before execution. Not having one is a dead giveaway that they're just winging it.

A shooting script isn't some manifesto for a director's "vision"—it’s a technical document designed for logistics. Its sole purpose is to ensure the crew knows exactly what the shots look like for that day, how many camera positions we're dealing with, and how much time we need for set and lighting resets. What exactly are you imagining—that every shot in the script includes a deep dive into the director's psychological intent or how a specific frame contributes to the film's overarching themes? That's just not how the job works. 😕😕😕

Nicholas Walker3 said:He works with a real concept and a vision—he's just such a genius that it's enough... they force you to think because he captures raw emotion, and since he feels so much, you end up living through it while watching!

Right. So he has this grand concept and idea, and then he shows up on set and—poof—suddenly tells Dennis Hopper to just grab an oxygen mask and start breathing into it?

They make you think because they capture what they're actually feeling, and since they feel so much, you end up living through it while watching the movie!

Well, I mean, sedlar also films what he feels, and he feels plenty too, forcing the audience to experience it along with him. Does that make the two of them equals?

northerncrane4 said:Every single Lynch film serves as "proof" of whatever was running through his head during creation. Then again, any piece of auteur cinema is essentially evidence of the artist's psyche—so, are we really just debating the fundamental definitions of an artist and their work here? 😕

A shooting script isn't some manifesto for a director's "vision"—it’s a technical document designed for logistics. Its sole purpose is to ensure the crew knows exactly what the shots look like for that day, how many camera positions we're dealing with, and how much time we need for set and lighting resets. What exactly are you imagining—that every shot in the script includes a deep dive into the director's psychological intent or how a specific frame contributes to the film's overarching themes? That's just not how the job works. 😕😕😕

Well, I think it's both—I mean, with many scripts, if a director gets fired, the movie ends up being "directed" by someone else... but with Lynch, that just doesn't work. He's the only one who can truly finish his vision, and you can really feel that!

ruggedjackal46 said:Right. So he has this grand concept and idea, and then he shows up on set and—poof—suddenly tells Dennis Hopper to just grab an oxygen mask and start breathing into it?

They make you think because they capture what they're actually feeling, and since they feel so much, you end up living through it while watching the movie!

Well, I mean, sedlar also films what he feels, and he feels plenty too, forcing the audience to experience it along with him. Does that make the two of them equals?

Exactly—I already mentioned checking out the supplement on TP regarding how they filmed that sandwich biting scene, which makes a few things about Lynch way clearer... but since I hate repeating myself—and honestly, if my posts aren't being read or understood—I'm just calling it quits on this debate!

Nicholas Walker3 said:Well, I think it's both—I mean, with many scripts, if a director gets fired, the movie ends up being "directed" by someone else... but with Lynch, that just doesn't work. He's the only one who can truly finish his vision, and you can really feel that!

Look, "directing" a film—especially an auteur project—isn't just about sketching out a storyboard, handing it off to the crew, throwing on a baseball cap, sitting behind a monitor, and waiting for them to shoot exactly what you drew, for God's sake!

Nicholas Walker3 said:Exactly—I already mentioned checking out the supplement on TP regarding how they filmed that sandwich biting scene, which makes a few things about Lynch way clearer... but since I hate repeating myself—and honestly, if my posts aren't being read or understood—I'm just calling it quits on this debate!

So, let me get this straight: a breathing mask just happened to be lying around, Lynch found it, and went, "Hey, Dennis, you want to breathe through this in one of the scenes?"

There is a massive difference between improvising an entire movie and improvising a single scene involving a sandwich.

If you're giving up on the discussion, I’d suggest you spend your time reading "Lynch o Lynch" instead.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, let me get this straight: a breathing mask just happened to be lying around, Lynch found it, and went, "Hey, Dennis, you want to breathe through this in one of the scenes?"

There is a massive difference between improvising an entire movie and improvising a single scene involving a sandwich.

If you're giving up on the discussion, I’d suggest you spend your time reading "Lynch o Lynch" instead.

That’s just how a lot of people imagine it works—but it’s not. You show up to the set, see a bridge already built, and then the director turns to the special effects lead and says, "Alright, blow this thing up today!"—as if it actually functions like that. I don't follow. Bulajic directed it—but honestly, rarely does any director in the world get to touch a marshal's legacy like that. Carte blanche. And they’ve got the most powerful military on the planet backing them up—not to mention the sheer scale of it.

If you want any hope of improvising on a film set, you first need to be as prepared as a heavyweight boxer training for the Olympics under Castro's regime.

It’s just this general mystification of art, isn't it? Like, you actually have to prepare and learn the ropes for almost any other job, but not when you're painting a canvas or writing a novel or filming a movie. Apparently, you just show up, get hit by some drug-like trance, and suddenly everything flows. As if Dostoevsky started writing about a crime and halfway through decided, "You know what? Let's make it about the punishment too." It's nonsense. 😁

And regarding Bulajic, it wasn't just that he had a massive budget and an entire army at his disposal; there was zero pressure on him to actually deliver a decent film. I mean, the guy had Yul Brynner playing a miner working for the Government—when you've got that kind of leverage, you can basically do whatever you want. 😁

Look, I make movies, so I actually know what I’m talking about—I've spent plenty of time watching behind-the-scenes features to see how people work, including how Lynch does things... but you two are either trivializing my points or you just don't get what I'm getting at, so I'm calling it quits on this debate. Regardless, there's a massive gulf between standard filmmaking and the way Lynch operates!

To truly improvise on a set, you have to be talented; someone who over-prepares isn't really improvising... and honestly, that's the core of everything I've been saying! That's exactly what sets Lynch apart from most other creators—and I'm definitely not talking about those "technician" directors...

Nicholas Walker3 said:Look, I make movies, so I actually know what I’m talking about—I've spent plenty of time watching behind-the-scenes features to see how people work, including how Lynch does things... but you two are either trivializing my points or you just don't get what I'm getting at, so I'm calling it quits on this debate. Regardless, there's a massive gulf between standard filmmaking and the way Lynch operates!

To truly improvise on a set, you have to be talented; someone who over-prepares isn't really improvising... and honestly, that's the core of everything I've been saying! That's exactly what sets Lynch apart from most other creators—and I'm definitely not talking about those "technician" directors...

Look, I don't make movies—so frankly, I have no idea what I'm talking about. 🤷

Nicholas Walker3 said:To improvise on a film set, you actually have to be talented—the kind of person who over-prepares is the one who doesn't need to wing it... which is basically the entire point of my writing.

😲 If that’s what you’ve been preaching this entire time, then forgive me—you’re talking nonsense. To even stand on a film set as a director, you have to be better prepared than the rest of the crew combined. Sure, if an idea hits you mid-shoot that elevates your initial vision, that’s great—but showing up unprepared and playing the "Great Artist" who just creates magic on the fly? That privilege is reserved strictly for legends like Vinko Grubišić.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, let me get this straight: a breathing mask just happened to be lying around, Lynch found it, and went, "Hey, Dennis, you want to breathe through this in one of the scenes?"

There is a massive difference between improvising an entire movie and improvising a single scene involving a sandwich.

If you're giving up on the discussion, I’d suggest you spend your time reading "Lynch o Lynch" instead.

Or, if you want to be more accurate—and honestly, more sensible regarding this thread—it's better phrased as "Linč o Linču."

It’s pretty interesting how you managed to dismiss people with actual hands-on experience in just two days—unlike yourself, who only knows the theory from books. Don't you see that some things just can't be learned through reading alone?

northerncrane4 said:Every single Lynch film serves as "proof" of whatever was running through his head during creation. Then again, any piece of auteur cinema is essentially evidence of the artist's psyche—so, are we really just debating the fundamental definitions of an artist and their work here? 😕

A shooting script isn't some manifesto for a director's "vision"—it’s a technical document designed for logistics. Its sole purpose is to ensure the crew knows exactly what the shots look like for that day, how many camera positions we're dealing with, and how much time we need for set and lighting resets. What exactly are you imagining—that every shot in the script includes a deep dive into the director's psychological intent or how a specific frame contributes to the film's overarching themes? That's just not how the job works. 😕😕😕

I've always wondered, though—whose work is it really, the artist's?😕🤔

🤷

Regarding this whole debate about Lynch—and whether we can interpret works where even the creator admits things aren't entirely clear to him—the answer is quite simple: of course we can! It isn’t a requirement for the author to have a crystal-clear grasp of what their work represents. In fact, no one holds the absolute truth, not even the creator themselves, so there is certainly no single "master key" for decoding anything. Moreover, sometimes an author might even mislead themselves—thinking they are conveying one thing while everyone else sees something entirely different unfolding on screen. To put it briefly, certainty is a myth; just because someone asserts, interprets, or claims something is true doesn't make it so. The only real commonality among all works of art is that they are expressed through pre-existing patterns—namely, the human spirit and such. Because of this, anyone can interpret a work, perhaps even to the point where they clarify the actual meaning to the author himself... naturally, even then, there is no guarantee that this interpretation is the ultimate reality, but in the absence of a better explanation, we settle for it temporarily... until someone else comes along, dismantles the old reading, and offers a new, superior one... and waits for the next person to tear that one down too. That is the beauty of dialectics.

So, yes, it is entirely possible to provide a rational explanation for Lynchian films, regardless of what Lynch himself might have intended.

northerncrane4—could you help me make sense of the hypocrisy on this forum? It feels like some people get their posts deleted just for using a smiley face, while others don't... is there a double standard going on where mocking someone is fine, but actually agreeing with them via a simple emoji gets flagged? I’ve had my own agreement suppressed so many times just by using a smile to show I'm on board with an opinion!

Anyway, I never said Lynch can't be explained—it's more that we can never truly know what his actual target was! Rational explanations work pretty much anywhere, and I don't think he's an idiot who would film something that lacks any kind of logic!

Nicholas Walker3 said:northerncrane4—could you help me make sense of the hypocrisy on this forum? It feels like some people get their posts deleted just for using a smiley face, while others don't... is there a double standard going on where mocking someone is fine, but actually agreeing with them via a simple emoji gets flagged? I’ve had my own agreement suppressed so many times just by using a smile to show I'm on board with an opinion!

Anyway, I never said Lynch can't be explained—it's more that we can never truly know what his actual target was! Rational explanations work pretty much anywhere, and I don't think he's an idiot who would film something that lacks any kind of logic!

There’s no hypocrisy involved. Every single post consisting solely of a smiley—including the one you're targeting and several previous ones regarding your own statement that you apparently missed—gets removed. The only issue is the forum's occasional technical glitches, which cause some users to push back against moderator actions. This forces the mods to wait for the system to stabilize, during which time they sometimes overlook tasks they set earlier. It's quite simple. If you have more questions about this, please send them via PM—they have nothing to do with this specific topic.

Here is what David Lynch himself says regarding the idea that his films can only be truly understood by him:

A film should stand on its own. It's absurd if a filmmaker needs to say what a film means in words. The world in the film is a created one, and people sometimes love going into that world. For them that world is real. And if people find out certain things about how something was done, or how this means this or that means that, the next time they see the film, these things enter into the experience. And then the film becomes different. I think it's so precious and important to maintain that world and not say certain things that could break the experience.
You don't need anything outside of the work. There have been a lot of great books written, and the authors are long since dead, and you can't dig them up. But you've got that book, and a book can make you dream and make you think about things.
People sometimes say they have trouble understanding a film, but I think they un-derstand much more than they realize. Because we're all blessed with intuition—we really have the gift of intuiting things.
Someone might say, I don't understand music; but most people experience music emotionally and would agree that music is an abstraction. You don't need to put music into words right away—you just listen.
Cinema is a lot like music. It can be very abstract, but people have a yearning to make intellectual sense of it, to put it right into words. And when they can't do that, it feels frustrating. But they can come up with an explanation from within, if they just allow it. If they started talking to their friends, soon they would see things—what something is and what something isn't. And they might agree with their friends or argue with their friends—but how could they agree or argue if they don't already know? The interesting thing is, they really do know more than they think. And by voicing what they know, it becomes clearer. And when they see something, they could try to clarify that a little more and, again, go back and forth with a friend. And they would come to some conclusion. And that would be valid.

"Catching The Big Fish", David Lynch

My final literature recommendation for anyone trying to wrap their head around Lynch. (Though the old man is a bit senile—he doesn't always remember what's sitting right behind him on the shelf. 😳)

Better late than never, Mark. I'm talking about myself here. My new DVD sat on the shelf for a couple of years because you have to carve out specific time to sit down for three hours of David Lynch. It requires dedication. I finally just grabbed a digital copy and watched it on my laptop while traveling abroad.
I see people were fighting it up there—let them fight. Personally, I think Lynch went a bit overboard with the runtime. The rabbits felt unnecessary, and he leans way too hard into the LSD vibes and whatever else. Still, the movie is interesting. I wouldn't say I "get" it, though; it gets lost in abstraction and over-experimentation. But hey, that's David Lynch. If he didn't do that, he wouldn't be who he is. The most logical theory to me is that Laura Dern is just an actress who gets lost in translation and starts becoming her character.
Also, someone mentioned Lynch improvises. I suspect there's some truth to that. It feels like he throws certain scenes in based on a vibe rather than a rigid plan formulated when he isn't on LSD. 😁
Anyway, that doesn't mean he shows up to the set unprepared. It just means he has enough experience that he doesn't show up like a student teacher on his first day. Once you actually know what you're doing, improvisation becomes easy. Plus, he uses the same crew almost every time. Grace Zabriskie, Laura Dern, Harry Dean Stanton, the late Jack Nance, Justin Theroux, Mary Sweeney, Johanna Ray, Angela Badalamenti...
When you've worked with people that long, you don't need to explain every little detail. The crew already knows the drill.

I’m telling you, I highly recommend looking into more of the stuff that actually went down