Okay, here's my new thoughts.

Having a new Lynch film back in my life last year has been a beyond-than-amazing experience. I got the DVD as soon as it came out, I think I saw the film (counting the theatre viewings) like 3 or 4 times and I'll surely give it more chances to hypnotise me again in the future, even though it is almost the least digestible film he's made ever and that keeps me from watching it over and over like I did with other of his films (MD first of all, but also LH, Blue Velvet, FWWM, Wild at Heart).

By the way, now that Lynch seems to have found the way of making films in a less depressing and life-sucking way with the invention of Digital video recording, why doesn't he start writing something new. I mean, writing it, not improvising! Okay, the first time it was about finding a way to vent from all those years he couldn't eactly do what he really wanted. But he shouldn't forget that what made him so renowned among us are the movies made those years! I think he should do something a little bit more narrative, you know, plot-driven. Something more compact. You can always be experimental with the visual style even with a thick and juicy plot. Doesn't anybody agree with me on that?

I'm just wondering what he is up to, you know. And with David, you really don't know what he'll be up to next project. He's always so unpredictable. Anyway, even though IE looks like something truly new, as a matter of fact, it isn't. It's a jam made of all the things he's been doing for over thirty years. I think it's time he gives us something he's never... ever done before!

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

"Every day holds a new beginning and every hour holds the promise of an Invitation to Love." 

That god damn trailer's more popular than Uncle's Day in a whorehouse!

That's exactly the point. Maybe it's 'little repetition' like you said, but two in a row gets kind of boring after a while. I'm getting this idea right now, after what you've said.
Maybe MD's experience was so overwhelming (both in bad and good ways) for Lynch, that he maybe had to sort of erase that experience and repeat it creating something similar, that found its roots in the same places, but eventually got way beyond everything he had made before, because this time he had no limits.

And that brings me to a new idea of mine, which is kind of induced by the system and conservative:

Maybe I like Lynch's movies on film more than his new DV total freedom world Opus because the greatness of those other projects resided in the limits and boundaries he had to face during the process of film-making. The fact is I really don't know where the man's headed right now, artistically speaking and I'm afraid I won't have the Lynch I like anymore.

A certainty for me is that Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, Fire walk with me, Lost Highway, The Straight Story and Mulholland Dr. started living in me since the very first time I saw them. Inland Empire does not even live with me. It's astounding, unique, but very few scenes can be played by themselves in my mind without putting the DVD in the player. You understand?

I think the main reason is because it's just too difficult to figure, too long to remember it in detail, it's like a stuffed turkey you don't even know whatt's in it, you just taste it and you think it's good enough to like it. I stopped trying to figure it out at my second theatre viewing of it 'cause it's evident to me that it can't be deconstructed liked the others could. Maybe someone did it, but it's not the way I feel about this movie. I think IE is about a general feeling, not a detail feeling like MD can be.

That said, IE is less beloved.

That's why I'd like to see something new and decide wether Lynch has lost his way or if I've just grown accustomed to his old way of making films and dislike the new one.

Another thing. This is almost a blasphemy for me to say, but... It's kind of really bad luck, for him and us, that Lynch right now is a 61 year old fella who has just begun to have the freedom he feels he needs. I mean, this thing happened after three decades he decided to embark on the directing experience. There are such things as 'artistic retirement', you know, and also other and more important things... like death, that are inevitable. So, what's he gonna do right now? I think the next step for him to take is really really really really really really really really really really really really really really important for us, fans. I hope he doesn't slip up!

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

I don't see this at all. As much as I love Inland Empire, almost every character, motif and image can pretty clearly be traced to another part of his oeuvre.

• A woman in trouble - check (take your pick)

• Strange and evil characters with mystical or symbolic control over other people/situations - check (Eraserhead, Twin Peaks, Lost Highway and Mulholland dr.)

• A place is really another place, a character is really another character - check (Lost Highway, Mulholland dr.)

I could go on and on. Heck, there are even red drapes!

I loved Inland Empire. I've seen it three times so far, and I plan on seeing it again soon (loved the More Things... scenes too). But there is a distinct possibility that he might disappear up his own ass if he doesn't change his direction pretty soon. IE worked because it's extreme, because it takes the motifs we already know in a slightly different direction - the scene on Hollywood and Vine, for instance, was amazing and felt somehow new - but I felt Ballerina and the one just circulating as Absurda were complete wastes of time. Rabbits, on the other hand, worked because it was aesthetically "impure" Lynch, because it dealt with genres we know in a way we didn't know.

He should either (1) try something new on his own; (2) get a collaborator on the writing stage (after all, we're in this place (and not, say, welcometolumberton.com) because of a tv series to a large extent made by Mark Frost); (3) make Ronnie Rocket.

And he shouldn't listen to me. ;)

"What credit card do you want to put that on?"
"Caash, prease."

It's funny you feel like IE "doesn't live with you" Mr. Silencio, because more than any other film I've seen, that movie relates to my way of thinking... watching it many moments reminded me of my own ideas and feelings I've gotten at points in my own life, and since I've seen it, I've noticed things that happen to me that remind me of this movie... maybe my love of it is partly a personal thing. I do think the film connects with the way I think, so I didn't consider it to be a "difficult" film like many do, though I can see why they would. It seems oddly realistic to me, in a way. I also loved the DV, it gave an incredibly unique, fascinating, and beautiful look. Some people thought MD was too glossy, and it was probably a good idea for Lynch to change his way of expressing beauty. Also I think all of Lynch's films are best understood from "general" feelings... it's tempting to think that analyzing details in his films will give them extra meaning (a feeling that is particularly hard to get rid of if you start watching with Twin Peaks, as I did), but after about half a year or so of watching his films, I realized that this isn't really the case: I personally have found that watching for details and thinking about them in MD, LH, and FWWM is really frustrating and doesn't help you understand the film at all. I've found that after figuring out the film's meaning (or what it means to you) in general terms based on intuition (which I've found I can normally do with a single viewing), the little things just fall into place as part of the film's world. Also, yes Lynch did reprise some character types (kind of), and maybe one or two motifs, which barely appear, in IE, but I found that it gave me a very different feeling, and very different kinds of ideas from what his other films did... I just find it very different in look, tone, and feel from his other works... I'm not trying to see it doesn't possess some typical Lynch traits, but those are basic personal things he can never rid himself of, not repetition of his previous films (as LH and MD are), at least in my view, since I found that very little of his old imagery and way of expressing things remained. I don't expect to convince you though 12rainbow, just stating my opinion. I saw MD as a summary of the old, and IE as the beginning of a new phase.

PS: A great deal of Lynch's shorts have been a waste of time (though there are a few good ones), so I wouldn't worry about how those short films relate to the quality of his future features. He's just not particularly good at making short films.

That god damn trailer's more popular than Uncle's Day in a whorehouse!

I agree that INLAND EMPIRE is a personal subjective experience. It is all the more special IMO because it is Lynch's most personal work, so if you do go along for the ride, you are riding along in the same buggy as him. If you are waiting for a film that exactly fits your own preferences and expectations then you will be waiting a long time.

Every time I put on the DVD and see the simple 'Studio Canal Presents...' it brings me bcak to the excitement and atmosphere of the theatre in Dublin when I first seen it. It blew my mind right from the word go. I agree with LWAPOM's posts in another thread that whilst it may not be his best film, it is probably his most important, even more so than Blue Velvet.

Good post. (I assume it was directed at me and not 12Rainbow who hasn't posted in this thread...)

I think the point where we disagree is the "basic personal things he can never rid himself of". I don't believe red drapes is so personal that he needs it - there's no law saying Lynch should have them in his films, even if they only show up during one scene.

I think IE is both the start of something new and the culmination of motifs that shows up in almost all his work. IE is definitely up there for me among his greatest work. I just hope there's less old and more new in his next film because I think he's pushing his motifs beyond what's good. It's been amazing - up until and including this point. But I would prefer if he did something different next time. Rabbits felt new. The scenes on Hollywood & Vine felt new. I think a collaborator could do him good, but with his recent militant DIY-ness I don't see that happening.

Lynch owes nothing to me as a fan, but I hope he surprises me next time around - and that's not criticism of Inland Empire.

"What credit card do you want to put that on?"
"Caash, prease."

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

I think I agree with you completely. I really can't connect to IE at all. My personal favorite is LH, but I also like MD and FWWM a great deal. All three of those are kind of crazy and disjointed, but somehow grounded in a narrative you can mostly grasp. IE has nothing to hold onto, it seems like every scene is trying to out-strange the previous one, and none of them feel real. I can't care about the characters because they keep changing. Part of the problem, I think, is that much of that stuff was intended for separate projects: Rabbits, the "southern" Laura Dern stuff. It feels slapped together. I like Rabbits on it's own, but I really don't think it works in the movie at all. There are flashes of the old Lynch, but if he keeps making movies like IE, I'm going to give up. The DV looks horrendous, at least use a good quality DV camera. Also, I think the music was lacking. Of course Angelo couldn't do any music, the thing was slapped together, no planning.

I'm all for giving Mark Frost credit for the narrative drive of TP, but from what I've heard, essentially every great moment from that show was Lynch's idea. The red room, bob, the giant, etc. is all Lynch. Take that stuff out and you have an average cop show with quirky characters. He didn't follow the scripts and apparently people got mad, but his episodes were the best of the series.  Maybe someone needs to hold him back a bit, give his work some structure, then he can add the magic.

For me, I have to watch TP from beginning to end. Most of the show is set in the boring real world, and I want to go to the red room, and waiting for it to come only makes it more satisfying when I get there. I can't watch the red room scenes out of context. They need the banal stuff to support them. I guess I feel like IE is one long red room sequence, with no real world drama to back it up, nothing to care about.

Sorry to ramble so much, I just identified strongly with what you were saying. 

Well, you are comparing a very particular and experimental movie with a series.

Lynch cannot be tamed, that's for sure. I wasn't suggesting any of the things you said.

Let's say, even if the example is not very suitable, that what I'm feeling right now for IE is sort of the same I felt for Tarantino's Kill Bill and Death Proof. I was quite entertained, but they didn't strike me as  Reservoir dogs, Pulp fiction and Jackie Brown did.

Anyway, one of these days I'm gonna watch the DVD again. Chances are that I'll come back here saying that what I wrote in this thread was bullshit and that now I got the greatness of the movie. I don't know... Maybe right now it's a moment of detachment and my next viewing will probably make me feel different. This is surely one of those films that needs to be watched zillion times and every time it will tell you new things.

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

That god damn trailer's more popular than Uncle's Day in a whorehouse!

I was making a possibly strained analogy, trying to explain in TP terms what I wanted out of IE.

My point was that I agree with what you said, and then I added my own thoughts. I wasn't claiming that you agree with everything or anything that I was saying.

Lost Highway is cold, but it's not the coldness of IE that bothers me. I don't even think that IE is cold. IE has no clear storyline that I can get into, and the weird stuff isn't even as good as his past efforts in that realm.  

So this is why my ears were burning! No, I haven't posted in this thread. Maybe the confusion came out of me generally taking the "it's not supposed to make sense" stance in every other thread. So here's my contribution. (I'm just using LWAPOM's quote as a jumpoff point.) Skip to the bottom if you don't feel like reading this.

Superficial is what Lynch films are all about, because aesthetics (I'm thinking about German Expressionism which is the style David identifies with) are all about surfaces-- looking at something that makes you respond; ugly, beautiful or both, as we usually get with Lynch. Inland Empire is heavy on the ugly aesthetics. (DV is ugly, that's why he likes it.) All Lynch films are "all surface." Like everyone's mentioned, we give them the degree of meaning that we do in part because of our interpretations, but mostly because of our intuitive reactions to the artifice. Inland Empire is the most superficial because it's all based on those responses.

Generally, people look at the most traditional/unified films as the most satisfying. The more dream codes leading nowhere that there are the MORE superficial/surface oriented it is. But Eraserhead, BV, WAH and LH are just as concerned with surface as IE. We all like the artifice here.

351927 mentioned "all the great moments" in Twin Peaks being owed to Lynch, and it's true. That's how he wanted it, with no solution to the mystery, just an exploration of the ripple effect of a dead girl through this town. The show used superficial soap opera devices (superficial because we can all recognize what they are; the narrative style, the music cues, the cliches) and a whole lotta sensory stuff. Surface is what makes it so different. If you think about it, making a detective story that just throws all the cards up in the air and lets the clues just pop up on their own is pretty "surface." His whole tagline on the show: "Call it what you want, a mood, a feeling" is a reference to surface (moods, feelings.)

FWWM was very superficial; all raw emotion and codes and the natural beauty and small town coziness of TP.

A lot of us are bored with Blue Velvet because we're jaded to it's surfaces (sex, violence, fear, darkness.) Remember that the title was chosen because it refers to a pretty, opaque surface. Dorothy's son and husband, Frank and their history are all sacrificed for these surfaces.
I personally don't think the well of dark stories will ever run dry, small town America or Hollywood, but there's got to be something more interesting going on than Laura Dern making faces.

What I want out of Lynch is a better balance of coherence and codes, beauty and ugliness-- something with more aesthetic range.

 it is my experience that coming into a film(especially a lynch film) with wants and expectations only leaves you open to two reactions, disappointment(the film didnt satisfy my wants) or satisfaction(i saw what i wanted to(or even surpassed my expectations). id rather have more going on inside me than those two emotional states when i take the time to watch a film. and as far as surface, or superficiality, unless we are talking about fantasy, i do not see that concept as an over arching lynchian theme at all. i mean, INLAND EMPIRE? the title says it all. we are in the film, not outside. of course that is a comment on the superficial, but not much more. AND THE ENDING! never has there been a more positive denoument to a lynch film, save possibly straight story(tho that is more bittersweet) than in IE. i cried joyously at the ending. other lynch works get to me too, but i dont believe ive cried out of pure joy and wonderment until IE. AND THEN THE CREDITS! all surface? i just cant see it that way.

I'm using "superficial" in the Postmodern sense. There's negative connotation with the word when we talk about, oh, say someone's personality. But IE is very much superficial movie, when you're talking critical theory. It's how you can have a mysterious emotional response from the disconnected images on the screen.  Your associations are the only thing that give it "depth."  That's what my last post was about.

Thanks for giving form to my thoughts and feelings on the topic better than I could have.

That god damn trailer's more popular than Uncle's Day in a whorehouse!

But it all comes back to Lynch as somebody who makes moving paintings. The images are incredibly beautiful and that in itself is enough for me. I'm also quite happy to piece together the images and create a narrative, even if it isn't a very coherent one!

A couple of years ago I went to an exhibition of Frida Kahlo's paintings at the Tate Modern in London. I've seen reproductions of My Birth hundreds of times but when I saw the actual painting I almost burst into tears. My bottom lip was trembling! It was just one image with no context and no explanation of what was happening but my reaction to it was instant, and complex. Of all the films, books, music and paintings I've experienced in my life it's the only time I've encountered anything that's had such an air of loneliness about it. It was worse because the painting was hanging in the middle of a huge, empty, white wall.

When I went to Lynch's The Air Is On Fire exhibition in Paris earlier this year I spent most of my time looking at the paintings. The reproductions don't do them justice. The texture and the scale are amazing. Bob Finds Himself In A World For Which He Has No Understanding stunned me. I have no idea what it's about but I still had a strong emotional response to it.

The films are no different. My brain pieces together the images, music and dialogue but my emotional response it instant and happens before I've even had time to piece together the narrative. The best example, off the top of my head, is the scene where Betty and Rita watch Rebekah Del Rio sing in Mulholland Drive. I loved it without any explanation and without it having any real context.

By the time a DL film ends I could have had fifty different responses to what I've just seen and that's before I've had time to piece together what was actually happening. What I take from DL's films isn't necessarily a beginning, a middle and an end, it's a series of responses. With INLAND EMPIRE I felt (roughly) anticipation, mystery, tension, trauma and then relief/happiness. I'm still not sure what it's about but it was a satisfying experience all the same. It had an emotional beginning, a middle and an end (for me anyway) even if it didn't have a narrative one.

I was just using your post as a jumpoff, like I said, not trying to twist your words.

Thanks, JVCSCant.

Booth- pretty much, lol. I personally don't think he's hiding behind obscurity, I think it's a deliberate, contrived style that allows each viewer to define everything himself.

Something I actually found similar between LH and IE is the use of dark space in the frame. I saw both in the theater and kept thinking through most of both, "I'm squinting, I can't see. Someone hit a light!" I know this started with Eraserhead, with painting the walls black. This gives everything a sense of anxiety- like the strobes in TP. Anyway, it's an effective effect.

p.s. You know when Laura Dern is really upset in Blue Velvet and her face twists up? I always feel like she's chewing up the scenery there.  So, um, yeah, I hope DL's next movie is Laura Dern free.

What do you think, guys, will DL make another full-length, distributed film? Will he get the funding?