Skip to main content

It's a story that happened yesterday, but I know it's tomorrow.


Inland Empire
(2006)

David Lynch’s last feature film (to date) begins in typically Lynchian fashion; a scratchy record plays, subtitled Polish is heard. Figures are seen in a hotel room, their faces blurred; one of them, a woman (a prostitute), is then seen crying as she watches a peculiar “sitcom” involving the domestic lives of characters with rabbit heads. The music on the soundtrack suggests the kind of melancholy Julee Cruise evoked in decades past, while the eerie sound effects are the director’s calling card.

Even more than the most obscure of the filmmaker’s previous pictures, there appears to be an almost willful attempt this time to elude any grasp of what is going on. This is most evident in the rejection of a tangible narrative line. For the first third or so, there appears to be an identifiable theme. Laura Dern’s Hollywood star is visited by a gypsy woman (Grace Zabriskie) who proves to be typically unnerving and semi-threatening. There are strange shifts in perspective and time. Zabriskie informs Dern that she has the part she wants, before this is announced to Dern, and Dern sees “herself” talking with friends on a sofa across the room.

As scenes unfold, Lynch makes it unclear whether what we are experiencing relates to Dern or the role she is playing in director Jeremy Irons’ film. In addition, we learn that the film is a remake of a Polish film (47), based on an old folk tale, which went unfinished when the leads were murdered. Entering into the storyline is Dern’s jealous and threatening husband and Justin Theroux’s lothario male lead.

Many of the early scenes have a sense of the surreal fracturing perspective and reality that are signature Lynch; one memorable moment has Dern walk in on the other side of the stage, only to realise that she represents the noise and intrusion that caused a disturbance some days earlier. One can’t help but think of The Shining in the references to urban myths, significant numbers and confusing architectural geography. But the problem this time is that Lynch’s choices become increasingly random. Not in a pleasurable way, but in one that causes the film itself to lose overall cohesion. And, at three hours, it just goes on… and on… and on…

Dern is outstanding, an actress who, possibly due to insubstantial roles, I had never paid much attention to before. And Justin Theroux, in his second film with Lynch, brings some much-needed charisma to the screen (tellingly, he is absent for most of the second half). Harry Dean Stanton makes a brief impression but the rest of the known actors are in blink-and-you’ll-miss-them appearances (Diane Ladd, William H Macy, Julia Ormond, Mary Steenburgen).

There’s clearly an extent to which this is a meditation on the beast that is Hollywood and the fakery and artifice of its function; the blurring of lines between playing a role and becoming it, to the point that no one is sure what the truth is (so picking up from Mulholland Dr.). At around the halfway mark events appear to veer off into a succession of abstracted encounters concerning Polish types and prostitutes and Polish prostitutes. And then Lynch brings it back round to his main theme. Eventually.

But there’s no sense of discipline here, something that could be found in even his most oblique earlier work (Lost Highway). It’s almost as if he didn’t have a finished script (he didn’t). There’s a point where a disturbing scene or image or sound no longer has any impact because you are no longer engaged.

There’s little doubt that the restrictions of finance frequently add to the unsettling nature of what we are seeing. There is a raw quality resulting from the choice of hi-def photography that creates immediacy and a verité sense. But it also results in an absence of the beautiful and seductive qualities that vied with the darkness and distortion in his previous works.

It’s almost as the freedom of a micro-budget (filmed on hi-def) caused Lynch to think, “Fuck it!” (I’m sure he would have been much more polite) and decide to be as inscrutable and unyielding as possible. Apparently Lynch is has referred audiences to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad with the following quote:

We are like the spider. We weave our life and then move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe.

Which is all very well as a guiding principle behind a piece of work, but a lofty idea doesn’t automatically translate successfully. 

There can be a tendency for those who don’t speak glowingly of a celebrated work or auteur to be dismissed with, “You just don’t get it”. And may be that’s so in this case. I don’t know; perhaps I will revisit this one in time and do an about turn. The director’s work is particularly ripe for re-evaluations and fresh perspectives. But, right now, Inland Empire is a bit of a chore. One with flashes of the genius that made Lynch so invigorating but without the guiding principles that made him compelling.

*** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for