Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

cheap nice DVDs available at http://www.dvdbestonline.com

It's down to lack of new DL material. Snootworld has been snuffed out (on IMDB) so it looks like TM classes and lectures and various lifetime achievement awards....not very stimulating. But perhaps DL feels the same. He spends more time on art projects and TM than movies (from outside appearances, we can't know what discussions are going on in private). Part of me thinks this is a great shame and he sould have a free hand to direct another 20 films....but I wouldn't go and see any of them if they were like INLAND EMPIRE. He needs an editor and - hate to say it - he needs a studio on his back telling him he has to give us a story with a pretty understandable plot in well under 2 hours (MD, BV, FWWM, SS).

I don't think it is going to happen - just digital films by subscription or on overpriced dvds for fans from now on. Ah well...

We have to remember that being a filmmaker is a huge physical, as well as mental, effort and that Lynch turns 65 in January and at De Laurentiis’ funeral this week was certainly looking every one of those years.  I personally would be happy if Lynch - the artist - could produce another couple of "Inland Empires" before a graceful retirement.

Online-Inquirer

Hmmm.... I don't think it takes 10 years to recover from a 12 month project. The truth is that studios see what a bloody mess DL makes when he doesn't have an editor/script collaborator and don't want to touch him. I don't blame them. He isn't going to do anything more than remake IE or such tosh unless he has someone to bring him new ideas. If he was creative in filmmaking terms he could get shorts out via his website or on DVD. He could work at his own speed, use the goodwill of star actors etc. but he doesn't do it. The budgets (now he works digitally) are well within possibility but he doesn't do it because he prefers talking about TM, Booth has it right. 

The sad truth is that DL has screwed up any chance of a studio backed big feature because of the IE fiasco and he has run out of ideas. The tagline for IE should have been "It's about a director in trouble"....
 

This is clearly a matter of taste, but this is a forum dedicated to the work of the artist David Lynch - Inland Empire tosh?  That's not my view.  Is Eraserhead also tosh?  I think IE is the cloest film in spirit to Eraserhead that Lynch has made and as an art film (which had the studio support of Canal+ because the French have a huge respect for 'auteur' cinema) Inland Empire is extremely refreshing. 

So, I think what we have here is a conflict of taste, Lynch had a period of 'ultra cool' movie making in the 1990s but don't forget that he started from an art school background funded by the AFI and made Eraserhead and as such he is being true to himself as an artist by making films like IE.  Anyway, I don't disagree that TM for my money does not appear to be a particularly positive influence on David Lynch as a creative artist lately and I said as much recently in the closing paragraph in a blog on my site http://www.online-inquirer.com/cinema/david-lynch/

Online-Inquirer

I'm also with Exy on this, INLAND EMPIRE my favourite film by Lynch and one of my joint 3 faviourite films of all time. Dismissing so casually and saying it ruined everything is your opinion, fine, but some of us hold IE up as nothing short of incredible. I think it's his most cohesive work to date and I'm not saying that to try make a point. I think my argument would lay with where you state that because of it's length it should be treated like any other film in terms of criticism. IE isn't like any other film and really cannot be treated as such. It's akin to comparing Lou Reed's 'Metal Machine' and Miley Cyrus' 'Hannah Montana Forever' simply based on the fact they both contain musical notes and are on CD. Lynch's intention on IE is not to be a conventional film, it's an entirely different beast.

H Montana,

Firstly, I'm no newcomer to the Gazette, I've be around with my current ID since 2006 and I was around before that as well.  So, you don't have to tell me it's primarily about TP.  However, I said that this forum, perhaps I ought to have said 'fora', is concerned with David Lynch in distinction to TP, so let's "Talk about all things Lynch" which clearly includes 'Inland Empire'.

I wasn't slating you for holding your opinion about 'IE', you're entitled to it, but it's only your opinion.  To say I'm "wrong on all accounts" just because I hold a differing opinion is a pretty poor debating technique.  Whether you like it or not I happen to think that 'IE' is a great art film and I rank it very highly in Lynch's canon of work and I stand by my comparing it in intent to 'EH' because it is totally abstract whereas 'MD' primarily as a pilot for a commercial TV network is much more conventionally plotted for at least for first 90 minutes, but again you are entitled to your own views.

Cheers

Exy

Online-Inquirer

 Okay, I'll take it point by point why I personally disagree, although I'd note I'm not out trying to convince people why I think it's great.

 1. I couldn't care less which films critics and fans say it's great. I feel it's a masterpiece. Same as I think 'At The Club' by Kenicke beats anything Radiohead put out in the 90's - most people would call me an idiot for that, but sod them, I'll happily be running round them on the dancefloor screaming along to 'Nightlife' covered in glitter and be having a way better time while they mope around looking forelorn to 'Karma Police' (incidentally I do like Radiohead, I just feel they're overated). So what I think only matters to me: IE is a masterpiece and I think anyone is wrong who says otherwise, same as you think that I'm wrong to claim it is. If you really want to get into it though I live in England and our 2 most famous film reviewers, Mark Kermode & Johnathan Ross, loved it (you can find some reviews they did on youtube).

2. Holding IE up to a set of standards set by other films is simply not possible, I don't believe you can even use the same critical framework you can use for the majority of films. I know you think differently but I just honestly don't see how you can apply the language of other films to this - and IE knows this, it's playing along to it's own beat, it couldn't care less about the rules. The reasons why I feel IE is Lynch's best and most cohesive work are thus:

- I feel it's possibly the cloest he has got to his 'vision' for something. For me great art is when something is better than it has to be (see: Picasso, Abba, Carroll's Alice books, 1944-1960 Billy Wilder, Melies, Roald Dahl's childrens books, post-Swordfishtrombone Tom Waits, 'Les Vampire' by Louis Feuillade, Anais Nin). I feel IE is basically Lynch unloading his subconcious across the screen - I think part of his remit was to strip everything back, he's stopped needing a studio so why not get rid of everything the studio asks for? Abandon the notion of structured story, formal characterisation, etc. As such I believe it's his purest, most honest and cohesive film. I don't use the word cohesive lightly with IE - it has it's own logic, it's just dream logic. It's the same reason I mentioned above, you can't hold it up to other films, this is about dream atmosphere, not concious logic. You need to compare this to something  like 'Last Year In Marienbad' or 'Celine & Juliet Go Boating' but even then it's a stretch. Lynch is trying to create a new type of film for a digital, youtube world - expanding his Lynchnet work and making something that reflects the disparate strands of how we now experience culture - and then filtering it through a dream. I feel he makes something that exceeds what it needs to be.

 3. I think a portion of Lynch's fans do like it. Some don't. I really don't like Wild at Heart & Lost Highway (there's bits I like, but for the most part I find them boring).

I have to say that I'm on Montana's side in this discussion. I can accept that some people genuinely love IE (for some reason or another) but if there's one movie in Lynch's body of work which I suspect of really being an emperor with no clothes on it's this one. Ever since the first reviews appeared I've had an uneasy feeling that people were projecting their own expectations and hype on the movie rather than evaluating it on its own terms. Saying that IE is Lynch's most cohesive film is truly stupifying to me.

In my opinion, it is boring, it is too long, it is too convoluted, and most of all, it is extremely ugly looking. As a "horror" film, I concede that it is somewhat succesful at what it aims to achieve and IE is certainly moving closer to what actual dreams/nightmares may look like, but in the process Lynch seems to have abandoned what made his earlier films "work". I feel no urge to investigate the mysteries of IE, its characters, its themes. I'm just not drawn to it, in fact I'm quite repelled by it.

That said, I don't really mind David Lynch experimenting and at this point, I'm not sure we even "need" a new Lynch movie. His work so far has been quite impressive already and there's not much point in making the same movie twice. I think Mulholland Drive was a very (very) good "best-of" to cap his career. Anything else is just a bonus for me, so I'm not really complaining.

Alice, I am very sympathetic to your points. I understand the Surrealist practice of automatic writing and so forth. At its best it creates great art but only through craft. If you think of the best of Dali’s paintings, they are brilliant yet crafted visions. Chien Andalou is fantastically watchable. Probably because it had a script and a co-director. (Am I right in thinking the IE script had little relation to the film? I thought I read that somewhere.)

** EDIT **

Kermode says "visually it's really extraordinary, Laura Dern gives a great performance, a very limited audience" - which is along with what I said. No mention of it being even a good DL film. As for Ross - he famously never even saw half the films he "reviewed".

*** 

It is not enough to open the subconscious – you need to articulate it well. Lynch is not pretentious but he is undisciplined. When he allows his vision and chance operate it can be amazing (use of BOB and Cooper’s dream in TP) but it has to be directed and set in some sort of context. IE had so many contexts and lines that  even his most devoted followers find it difficult to concentrate.

I am the ideal audience for IE: I have an art background, I know about Lynch’s art and films, I read Robbe-Grillet. For pleasure. And I thought IE was poor. It wasn’t even close to being a good film. I had such high hopes when I heard he was filming in Poland and getting out of his comfort zone but aside from the Polish street scenes  the best things in IE were all old (Rabbits, cigarette hole, etc).

I don’t want DL’s subconscious – I want a film with characters and decent pacing and humour. I’m not some sap who wants something commercial (I thought that was the biggest weakness of TP). I’m willing to try something new and non-linear but he needs an editor. Sure, any director has a duty to his vision but he needs to remember his craft. He could do that with EH and produced something amazing. It is beautifully paced, full of characters and humour and is touching and entertaining and says some insightful things about human relationships. With IE he had almost a free hand and he made a confused film. He only has himself to blame and yes, I am going to criticise him personally for it.

Yes, DL has the right to kill his own career but I reserve the right to be pissed off about it - because I kind of hoped he might make more films. Because I like his films. Most of them.

Fair points Sourdust & Montana. I think I'm accrediting the wrong review to Kermode, it must be either his podcast review or his personal website review - he's on record (somewhere) as loving it. But yeah, Ross is useless .

I think the best way to explain it for me, which is something you'll appreciate - I love late Picasso it feels like all his life's work is in those paintings, all his lessons, his obsessions and it's on the precipice of almost collapsing under it's own weight like a black hole but just pulls back and creates something staggering. But once again I know a lot of people aren't that keen on his late period.

AR, I understand, I do. I love complex art and think late Picasso is shamefully underrated. It is wonderful when an artist can distill his vision in a late style. But I don't think DL managed it with IE. Distillation requires purification and reduction. If IE had been found in its current state as an editing print and DL dead at the editing desk I would be up there with you saying the rough cut showed potential for being a fascinating late work. If we think of it as rough cut then I am willing to cut it some slack but the fact DL let such a baggy confused film out is really disheartening...

I think we are not so far apart on this after all...

and I miss his dialogue! Now we just have characters with monologues or talking across each other. Remember the dialogue from BV, TP pilot, even the little of it in EH? Humour, quirkiness, emotion. No, I don't want DL to be upbeat or cheerful but I want characters and conversations not speeches.....

"Mr Lynch, I'm ready for my transcendental meditation now. I need it."

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, I think we both know what his intentions with it were (well as much as anyone can) I think I liked the execution, whereas you didn't. Not much difference, just taste. I'm happy for me, sad for anyone that doesn't like it cause it'd a shame they didn't get a film from DL that they liked.

Booth: Yes I believe they are both self professed fanboys (I'm not sure about the American edition but Kermode is on the UK 2 disc IE special edition doing an interview with Lynch if memory serves me correctly). That said I still think IE splits Lynch fanboys.

Taking it back the to the original post - I think what I said previously about IE is why I feel we probably aren't going to see a full length fiction film from Lynch for some time (although from what I've read some people may argue TM falls into fiction). Like it or not IE compressed so much of the imagery and themes Lynch has been working towards since the start of his career it feels like a moment of closure, I really cannot see where Lynch would go next, it felt like he was on a trajectory to make IE. As we've got no films coming interest will dwindle.

I don't see as strong a dislike for IE over at Dugpa.

Online-Inquirer

QUOTE:Hi Exy and Alice I 100% respect your admiration for IE. We all have our favourite films. But while I think anyone can fairly say that they enjoy IE most and like IE most and admire it, that person is on shaky ground when they describe IE as „great“ or a „masterpiece“. Name some critics or even general film fans who are not DL fans who put IE in their top 10 films, hell, even their top 50 films. No, I don’t believe greatness is decided by plebicite or that a film has to be entirely comprehensible to be an enjoyable experience. If you want to say „I think IE is DL’s best film” then fine but if you want to use universal standards such “a great film full-stop/period” then it must pass scrutiny of that other films go through. Sorry but you can’t expect critical standards (not just for critics but for general viewers and fans) to change for one film because you like it. My boredom tolerance threshold is pretty high. I’ll spend 3 hours at an art installation. I watched 6 hours of Shoah and was utterly gripped. I watched DL’s short films and would do so again. Shovelling 5 years of ideas and images and previously made work (Rabbits, which, incidentally, I really like in IE and as seperates) doesn’t make a film the summation of your abilities. DL is a complex and great director but even the best painter restricts his palette in a single picture. Ask yourself these questions: Why didn’t general film critics rate it highly? Why don’t general film watchers  admire IE? Why don’t many DL fans (who approached it with open minds and respect and willingness to try new things) think IE is a great/good/watchable film? Exy, if you think that a film about a woman in trouble in Hollywood facing various psychic challenges in variety of situations intercut with scenes of other characters who may or may not be related to the woman’s predicament does not fairly summarise IE and MD then….. Laura Dern can do good work and much as I felt sorry for the woman/women at the centre of IE, I didn’t want to watch her because I didn’t care enough about her. Henry and the Baby; Jeffrey, Dorothy and Frank; Cooper, Laura, Leland and BOB – my God! What amazing characters we’ll never forget. Why get involved with a character when you know that in 20min she will be whisked away to a completely different location and situation? To sum up (apologies for writing so long): if IE fans insist on using the words “great” (by anyone’s standards) and “masterpiece” then us doubters will ask you to explain those statements. No one will ever argue with your right to like IE most but when you start using terms of general acclaim then the rest of us will ask you to explain those claims by general standards. No exceptions. If IE fandom isn’t to become a cult then you guys are going to have to explain to us why IE is so great. There isn’t any other film by DL that generates this kind of mentality. Come out of your bunker, guys! The weather’s lovely out here! Monty

Thanks for motivating me Monty . . . . .

http://www.online-inquirer.com/cinema/inland-empire/

Cheers

Exy

Online-Inquirer