He wasn't in it for very long and I think that was his only line.

Some people on the imdb board thought he was Jake Gyllenhall but you have to allow for a certain amount of idiocy over there obviously...

Strangely, another character in that same scene is played by Jerry Stahl, writer of episode 11 of Twin Peaks. How's that for useless trivia?

I don't think Austin looks like Jake Gyllenhaal at all. And why would he be in IE? Granted, William H. Macy is there for one line, but still. The stupidity on the imdb boards drives me mental. 

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

Evenreven, a better reply to your points. -- I think Mark Frost has been the best co-writer Lynch has worked with. Someone who doesn't let non-narrative take over proceedings. Whilst no doubt Bob Engels is a good writer, with FWWM maybe he indulged DL overall. After all Lynch had final say. I have read the script yes. That in and of itself points to the fundamental flaw of FWWM, interesting and great at times film that it is. Why did they write such a long script? No film can run 4 or 5 hours! Did they consider that it might no get picked up for cinema distribution properly and then it could be a two-part movie on cable tv or something? I have no idea.

Mark Frost didn't want to do a prequel so he parted company with DL at that stage. I would have gone for a sequel myself.

I think what I like best about Twin Peaks and how it works is the mystery and detection that make up a large part of it. As the series progressed that became less and less of a key point. Instead, less than thrilling storylines took over and inexplicable forces came to the fore. I preferred the simple detection and forensic investigation, perhaps tempered by Cooper's intuitive slant on things and his interest in dreams and so forth. Rather than an interior thing, these dream-like elements became exteriorised in the second season. The idea of the woods being harbour to some kind of force and all that malarkey.

Within FWWM Lynch made any supernatural forces entirely inexplicable again wouldn't you say? The whole idea of the Blue Rose case was some kind of metaphor for an investigation into a murky underworld of evil and corruption. Some kind of unknowable but perhaps something that can be felt. The intuition thing. However, the Laura Palmer storyline was the basis for the whole film so we didn't get too much of the detectives, sadly.

I know what you're saying but I would disagree on the way in which you say FWWM is ABOUT incest, drugs, and rape. I know they feature as central points on which the film hinges but in my view the film is not an exploration of them in any depth. There are films that deal with incest in more depth. The film does, on the other hand, convey a mood of terror and anguish.

Overall though I hope Lynch moves in a direction to make something as outwardly conventional looking as the Twin Peaks pilot for his next project. Something with a laid back eerie feeling, some detective work or something like that. Wouldn't it be great if Lynch made a film (a really good one on a par with Blue Velvet) and had Kyle Maclachlan appear for a scene or two as Cooper. Perhaps some might say that could unhinge a whole film, but surely Lynch likes to be daring.

I don't know, it seems strange how Lynch has not worked with Kyle since Twin Peaks too...curious. The character of Cooper was such a strong and iconic one it almost seems perverse of Lynch not to return to him in some way or other. That's what I mean by 'lack of respect' - Lynch seems too in thrall sometimes to a mood or just 'working on a project' and not thinking what might be wholly worthwhile. Will people rewatch INLAND EMPIRE as much as they do TWIN PEAKS in twenty years time? I doubt it. It just isn't as entertaining, and that's down to scripting amongst many other things.

Blue Velvet - Probably Lynch's best. And not because it's not "weird".

Blue Velvet isn't weird ???

That scene in Ben's apartment was the weirdest thing I'd ever seen at the time the movie was new. Best scene in the film, too.

Blue Velvet is very weird.

That's one reason it's such a great movie.

Mulholland Drive - Did not like it.

You probibly didn't understand it - It's one of my favorite Lynch films - Try watching it with the understanding that the first 3/4 of the movie is a dream, and the dream ends when the cowboy wakes her up.i

Do you think if FWWM had a better reception Twin Peaks may have continued in some form?

I didn't realise it until reading Tp3's post but I definitely like the supernatural elements of TP, as in Bob, Little Mike and the Red Room but I like to think of them as something in the mind, maybe even as a collective unconscious but once an actual location was set for the Lodges the idea became less attractive to me. Also, I totally agree with Tp3, in that I would just love Lynch to do something that was a straight narrative even if it did have something weird pervading it. He hasn't done something like this for over 15 years now, barring The Straight Story, which although I liked I know I may find it hard to watch again.

 Tbh though, with Lynch embracing DV as he has it seems like a step away from the direction I want him to be going in. Since I first fell in love with Lynch's direction in Blue Velvet, he has been getting stranger and stranger, perhaps trying to recapture what he had in Eraserhead, which I didn't much like anyway, and along the way to INLAND EMPIRE, I've loved what he's done, but with IE he went too far for me, and I just can't see him coming back.

I would like to see Lynch do something reasonably conventional (not however along the lines of The Straight Story though to be honest) - however, just because he's changed to DV that doesn't mean he will now make only more films LIKE INLAND EMPIRE, does it? DV format automatically dictates that the film will be almost entirely incomprehensible and just random crap all flung together? I  am being deliberately flippant here, I liked INLAND EMPIRE as an experiment. I like it as a film, but if anything it wasn't really weird enough for me!

I agree about the supernatural elements being a part of the mind somehow too, though. Situating a specific sight for entry into the Black Lodge seems Doctor Who territory really.

Does anyone know what Lynch might make next? I can't see him making another film akin to INLAND EMPIRE. That film seemed like a final full stop on the 'woman in trouble' idea running through FIRE WALK WITH ME, MULHOLLAND DR. and then IE. Just the ending sequence overjoyed me because it seemed a deliberate celebration of those three films, in the presence of Dern, Laura Harring and the Laura Palmer esque blonde with the jumping monkey. Of course the lumberjack sawing wood was there too. Brilliant scene, perhaps one of the best in the whole film. I also loved the barbeque scene...

I didn't really dig watching Laura D walking down dark corridors in houses and factories for about 45 minutes of the entire films' length though. Maybe I just don't get the whole corridor thing or something. Are others fond of the whole corridor thang?

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

The corridor scenes help convey the sense that it is a journey into the darkest parts of the mind? In my view you could just show the 'darkest parts of the mind' on the screen and that would be enough, surely you don't need long scenes of nothing really happening?

It is fairly clear what the story of INLAND EMPIRE is? I must have missed something because I have pretty much no idea what the film is about, unless it is just a depiction of a psychotic episode. I hope it's more  than that personally...I find the mystery of it the best part.

Things in INLAND EMPIRE I have no clue about but still enjoy in the mysterious sense of their inclusion despite no clear 'point' to them -

The Phantom - I don't understand who he is, etc

'I am looking for an opening' - what does this mean? I have no idea, but it sounds and feels very intriguing!

The Barbeque scene - what is the meaning of the search for the toilet paper. It can't have any, but I like it because its just absurd and funny.

The Lost Girl - I don't see her as a metaphor or anything like that, I see her as a real person, or an actress in a soap opera. I love her voice and her beauty but I have no idea really what point she plays in the film, other than being a kind of angel for Nikki - akin to the angels in Fire Walk with Me.

The scene in the woods - what is going on here?

The final scenes - Nikki reaches a point of freedom and enlightenment? I don't really understand it but there's a benevolent, loving feeling. Kind of 'All you need is Love' - despite the horrors shown previously.

---

If you can tell me the simple story of INLAND EMPIRE and who the Phantom is then I would be appreciative certainly since you claim to understand it.

TWIN PEAKS is more entertaining than BLUE VELVET but more people talk about BV? Maybe within film circles, BV is seen as a classic of course compared to TP. TP was primarily a tv show, FWWM has possibly not been seen by as many film lovers as BV and/or its more watchable to a casual viewer than FWWM too. Without having any knowledge of TP, FWWM is fairly inaccesible to the average viewer if they're looking for a story to follow. If they like strange horror films then alls fine and dandy.

I didn't precisely say that it would be good if Lynch went back to something that he did that proved successful.

My point was that his most accomplished work seems to arise from when he is reigned in by a driving narrative that has a mystery and sense of intrigue that will lead to some kind of revelation. Also its possibly most effective, Lynch's style, when grounded in a fairly everyday world. Hollywood and the actor's life is not an everyday world in any sense. Twin Peaks was. Lumberton was too. I couldn't feel any real understanding of Fred Madison's world. I could with Betty's in Mulholland Dr. though, even though it was about an actor ostensibly. There was some sense there of normality, or a tainted world, tainted by fear and jealousy.

Thinking of say, the Pilot of Twin Peaks, it was set in a recognisable world. That made Lynch's slow-paced and sometime endearingly eccentric characters more endearing than if it was set in Hollywood or on a set of a tv show. You could say INLAND EMPIRE is like a serious three hour version of some of ON THE AIR! I actually quite liked ON THE AIR though, finding it pretty funny.

With the pilot of TWIN PEAKS, there was a sense of strangeness somewhere amidst a portrayal of a recognisable civilisation. In INLAND EMPIRE I don't identify with the world depicted.

With the pilot of TP it feels like a good meal followed by a small dessert (whatever kind of pie you like) INLAND EMPIRE feels like a large rich cheescake, mushy and sickly on the senses.

Laura was a patient of mine & Profeeta, in terms of you saying you feel INLAND EMPIRE is Lynch's best work so far...I'd agree in some ways. It's his best in terms of pure unadulterated stuff going on that doesn't make much overall sense or seem to fit into any given idea.

I've read how Lynch says he wrote the whole thing bit by bit, a page or so at a time, finding afterwards that it all fitted together in a surprising way. In his book he talks of this in terms of the unified field idea.

Couldn't you just say everything has a kind of unity or oneness though? You could just film allsorts of random stuff going on that interests you and for you personally it will make some kind of sense and others will conjure their own sense out of it. However, I'd rather watch a film based on a script that was written as a whole, with a guiding plot that intrigues and keeps me entertained.

INLAND EMPIRE definitely entertained me for a while but then Lynch just drops certain ideas and moves the story on regardless. Like the Phantom saying 'I'm looking for an opening, do you understand?' - well I don't understand really, because Lynch never returns to this idea further on. It's all just bits and pieces that are fine on their own but as a whole seem a mish mash, to me anyway.

 The thing is that I don't see it like that at all. Sure it seems complicated & fragmented, and as I watched it the first time I thought there's just not at all sense to make out of it. Still I liked it because of the mood, the feeling and the sense of mystery it gave me. I would have been happy with just that but on a second viewing I also started to "get it".

 I do understand that you would like to have more plot-oriented and, say, linear Lynch film that would still have that sense of mystery in it. I think that to deliver it's themes, a film does not always have to have a straight-forward plot. Sometimes it's even better to not have one.

I've seen INLAND EMPIRE a few times now and I never 'got' it. I actually don't feel there's all that much to get. It is just simply about a 'woman in trouble' - it does what it says on the can.

I don't want to disagree with you for the sake of argument but I do feel genuinely that I can't say IE is the masterpiece you claim it is. Please elaborate in terms of how, on the second viewing, you got the film...

Some questions in terms of your answer - can you give me some idea what's going on - ?

 -What does all of the Polish activity have to do with Nikki?

 -Why is the scene in the woods in the film - what does it achieve? Why does the man who comes out of the metal hut look uncannily like Lynch? Why does he throw a cup on the floor?

 -What is the whole watch idea about - you can see a much longer scene of this on the 2nd disc of the US DVD release between the Phantom and the Lost Girl.

 That's enough questions for now. I asked a load higher up this page in previous posts but no one who claims to love the film as a MASTERPIECE has deigned to shine any light on them.

 Do you just stand in awe of the film because it is so inexplicable and quite obviously makes hardly any sense at all?

 You also say its sometimes better for films not to even have a plot. Well, you've got to give a reason for that...I may as well as just say ALL films MUST have a clear plotline. Do you mean like Andy Warhol's experiment of filming the Empire State Building or someone sleeping?

 Have you seen the film STALKER? You could say that has a hard to grasp plot but it still goes somewhere within its broad limits. It does limit itself though in terms of location and mood. INLAND EMPIRE does too but I really have no idea what to make of the whole. I get parts, not the whole. You could say the film is just a bunch of short films slammed together hence the lack of any central core. Thus it feels a bit hollow.

I think you really need, in terms of Lynch's experimental side, a core of understanding for a plot to surround. Like in TWIN PEAKS the plot basically was an investigation into Laura Palmer's murder. Eveything rotated around that. Just having 'a woman in trouble' isn't enough to sustain a 3 hour film for me anyway. In BLUE VELVET the core could be said to be 'Jeffrey's investigation into Dorothy's life and the kidnap of her son - and all that entails' - any number of intriguing and atmospheric scenes surround that central guiding point. MULHOLLAND DR. had as its core a murder again, really. We may have wondered who and what exactly was going on in terms of any murder or its ramifications but the core was still there...

 The core of INLAND EMPIRE just seemed diffused through many different elements, it was like being a kid in a candy store with all sorts of different things to taste, but in the end it was just overwhelming. Rabbits? The Phantom? On High in Blue Tomorrows? Nikki's different personas. The whole Polish AXXON N thing...a

I've seen INLAND EMPIRE a few times now and I never 'got' it. I actually don't feel there's all that much to get. It is just simply about a 'woman in trouble' - it does what it says on the can.

I don't want to disagree with you for the sake of argument but I do feel genuinely that I can't say IE is the masterpiece you claim it is. Please elaborate in terms of how, on the second viewing, you got the film...

Some questions in terms of your answer - can you give me some idea what's going on - ?

 -What does all of the Polish activity have to do with Nikki?

 -Why is the scene in the woods in the film - what does it achieve? Why does the man who comes out of the metal hut look uncannily like Lynch? Why does he throw a cup on the floor?

 -What is the whole watch idea about - you can see a much longer scene of this on the 2nd disc of the US DVD release between the Phantom and the Lost Girl.

 That's enough questions for now. I asked a load higher up this page in previous posts but no one who claims to love the film as a MASTERPIECE has deigned to shine any light on them.

 Do you just stand in awe of the film because it is so inexplicable and quite obviously makes hardly any sense at all?

 You also say its sometimes better for films not to even have a plot. Well, you've got to give a reason for that...I may as well as just say ALL films MUST have a clear plotline. Do you mean like Andy Warhol's experiment of filming the Empire State Building or someone sleeping?

 Have you seen the film STALKER? You could say that has a hard to grasp plot but it still goes somewhere within its broad limits. It does limit itself though in terms of location and mood. INLAND EMPIRE does too but I really have no idea what to make of the whole. I get parts, not the whole. You could say the film is just a bunch of short films slammed together hence the lack of any central core. Thus it feels a bit hollow.

I think you really need, in terms of Lynch's experimental side, a core of understanding for a plot to surround. Like in TWIN PEAKS the plot basically was an investigation into Laura Palmer's murder. Eveything rotated around that. Just having 'a woman in trouble' isn't enough to sustain a 3 hour film for me anyway. In BLUE VELVET the core could be said to be 'Jeffrey's investigation into Dorothy's life and the kidnap of her son - and all that entails' - any number of intriguing and atmospheric scenes surround that central guiding point. MULHOLLAND DR. had as its core a murder again, really. We may have wondered who and what exactly was going on in terms of any murder or its ramifications but the core was still there...

 The core of INLAND EMPIRE just seemed diffused through many different elements, it was like being a kid in a candy store with all sorts of different things to taste, but in the end it was just overwhelming. Rabbits? The Phantom? On High in Blue Tomorrows? Nikki's different personas. The whole Polish AXXON N thing...a

I've seen INLAND EMPIRE a few times now and I never 'got' it. I actually don't feel there's all that much to get. It is just simply about a 'woman in trouble' - it does what it says on the can.

I don't want to disagree with you for the sake of argument but I do feel genuinely that I can't say IE is the masterpiece you claim it is. Please elaborate in terms of how, on the second viewing, you got the film...

Some questions in terms of your answer - can you give me some idea what's going on - ?

 -What does all of the Polish activity have to do with Nikki?

 -Why is the scene in the woods in the film - what does it achieve? Why does the man who comes out of the metal hut look uncannily like Lynch? Why does he throw a cup on the floor?

 -What is the whole watch idea about - you can see a much longer scene of this on the 2nd disc of the US DVD release between the Phantom and the Lost Girl.

 That's enough questions for now. I asked a load higher up this page in previous posts but no one who claims to love the film as a MASTERPIECE has deigned to shine any light on them.

 Do you just stand in awe of the film because it is so inexplicable and quite obviously makes hardly any sense at all?

 You also say its sometimes better for films not to even have a plot. Well, you've got to give a reason for that...I may as well as just say ALL films MUST have a clear plotline. Do you mean like Andy Warhol's experiment of filming the Empire State Building or someone sleeping?

 Have you seen the film STALKER? You could say that has a hard to grasp plot but it still goes somewhere within its broad limits. It does limit itself though in terms of location and mood. INLAND EMPIRE does too but I really have no idea what to make of the whole. I get parts, not the whole. You could say the film is just a bunch of short films slammed together hence the lack of any central core. Thus it feels a bit hollow.

I think you really need, in terms of Lynch's experimental side, a core of understanding for a plot to surround. Like in TWIN PEAKS the plot basically was an investigation into Laura Palmer's murder. Eveything rotated around that. Just having 'a woman in trouble' isn't enough to sustain a 3 hour film for me anyway. In BLUE VELVET the core could be said to be 'Jeffrey's investigation into Dorothy's life and the kidnap of her son - and all that entails' - any number of intriguing and atmospheric scenes surround that central guiding point. MULHOLLAND DR. had as its core a murder again, really. We may have wondered who and what exactly was going on in terms of any murder or its ramifications but the core was still there...

 The core of INLAND EMPIRE just seemed diffused through many different elements, it was like being a kid in a candy store with all sorts of different things to taste, but in the end it was just overwhelming. Rabbits? The Phantom? On High in Blue Tomorrows? Nikki's different personas. The whole Polish AXXON N thing...an apple without a core, a tree without roots almost...makes me think of that plant being wheeled onto the stage in ERASERHEAD in fact...

I'm pretty certain that Lynch's writing on INLAND EMPIRE is not up there with The Wasteland as far as literarture is concerned. But then IE is not a poem...

Just a thought, but reading a recent interview with Lynch it seems he's doing a documentary on his Transcendental Meditation tour.

How long will it be until his next film though, I wonder? There were five years between the releases of MULHOLLAND DR and INLAND EMPIRE here in the UK, late 2001 and early 2007. Nearly six years even. So judging by that his next film will be out here in 2011 maybe?

I really hope he gets going on something quicker than that. Surely that will be the case with his new medium (digital) and its quicker turnaround...?

Well I hope so.

Lastly, I watched the Region 1 (American) release of INLAND EMPIRE on dvd and the Lynch documentary with it.

---Did anyone else notice that Lynch on some occasions in this docu came across as bad tempered? This is not the Lynch I was expecting. Maybe he's not as perfect as people make him out to be.

Maybe this temper of his and the strain of making films at his age accounts for the long time between films?

It's weird. The more I watch IE, the more it starts to come together for me. Slowly, and difficultly.

On my first viewing, I just enjoyed how it looked and sounded. The second time, I was angry that all these different vignettes were randomly thrown together (though More Things That Happened illuminated some of it.) Now I'm sure it's the most creatively structured thing Lynch has given us, more equally planted in the real world and the dream/supernatural world than MD or LH.

I'm going to think about it some more then join check out what the Dugpa kids have to say. tp3, I feel your pain. It asks a lot of the viewer. The plot to IE is almost like lumpy cake batter that got thrown in an oven at high altitude and taken out too early. However, I'm nearly certain all the ingredients are there. Like you said, it's overwhelming, and we're going to have to focus and really dig into it. I'm starting with the Susan scenes.

When I get closer to a solution I'll write about it here.

The script of Inland Empire may not be on a par with TS Eliot's poetry, no, indeed. One would be hard-pushed indeed to equal the literary brilliance of one of our great poets. However, I should very much like to point out that the two works have a similar structure. The Waste Land is arranged as a series of apparently unconnected fragments, written in a wide variety of different poetic styles. They deal with different characters in different situations. However, some of the characters bear similarities and effectively "merge together" into a single archetype. For instance, Phlebas the Phonecian and the Smyrna Merchant are different aspects of a single concept. The male characters all merge together into a symbolic male. Likewise, the female characters. Finally, the male and female symbols merge into the hermaphrodite Tiresias. When in was published, in about 1922, The Waste Land was a experimental poem, and nothing quite like it had been seen before.

Inland Empire is likewise fragmentary in terms of its large scale structure. I think that most people would agree that Inland Empire is a very experimental film, in a way, even more experimental than Eraserhead. There has never been a film quite like it! Personally, I see this as a positive attribute. Inland Empire has many different styles within it: modern day Los Angeles, the Deep South, Poland at some unspecified point in the past, the 1950s-style sitcom, radio play, record, the pop music dance routine, etc, etc. The different fragments in their different styles together constitute a kind of mosaic.

But as you say, film and poetry are different media. But I like to think that Inland Empire has a certain poetic quality to it... Just a thought.