If you ask me to describe the plot of Inland Empire, David Lynch’s latest, I’m going to struggle. If you’d previously seen either Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive and thought that they were weird, then you ain’t seen nothing yet.
The plot revolves around Laura Dern’s character, who’s trying to revitalise her film career with a remake of a strange Polish film, the making of which saw everyone die. Then there are excerpts from a sitcom involving people dressed as bunny rabbits wearing clothes. There are no discernable jokes, but the canned laughter makes up for it. Add in a strange coterie of hookers (I think), Jeremy Irons’ film director, Harry Dean Stanton’s strange hanger-on (can you spare some change), and you’ve got a heady mix.
Lynch has made this film on video tape – PD150s seemingly – and it does show. I thnk that that biggest criticism that I have of the film is that the camera work at times doesn’t seem that great. People drop in and out of focus depending on how the look at the camera – it’s a problem because Lynch uses some really extreme close ups and depending on whether the subject is looking face on, or in profile determines the extent to which they’re in focus. The same problem also affects scenes shot in extreme darkness where theoretically the camera should cope, but it is struggling.
The film was projected digitally when I saw it, which is fine, but if it was shot on PD150s I’m surprised. Why didn’t Lynch use an HD camera? Digital can look nice and be perfectly in focus. A good example might be Sex and Lucia which was made a few years ago now and still looks great. And obviously a lot of TV is being made in HD these days including things like Bleak House (looks good) and Torchwood (doesn’t look so good). I guess that there’s a learning curve for these new formats.
But back to the film. What to make of it? The person in front of me managed two hours of the three hour running time before eventually walking out, and plenty more people than normal availed themselves of toilet breaks. But it’s certainly worth a watch if you know what you’re going to see. I think you just need to let it wash over you. Seeing this kind of film is more of an experience than a normal cinema visit. I notice that Lynch currently has an art retrospective on display at Cartier Foundation in Paris. And to me, in some respects, this is a video installation (a phrase I hate) rather than a “normal” film.
It’s just a shame that Lynch is unlikely to reveal all, and explain his thinking on, say, a DVD commentary track. He doesn’t really believe in that sort of thing. Indeed Mulholland Drive didn’t even have chapter stops as he didn’t want people dipping in and out of the DVD. Watch the whole thing in order, or not at all is his view. Maybe we’ll get something this time around? Not just a list of clues as we had last time out.