| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 17:22:40
(warning: possible mild spoilers, though this film is pretty much spoiler-proof)
I finally got the chance to see David Lynch's new film, Inland Empire yesterday... and in one of Chicago's most legendary theaters, no less! The film is playing at the city's venerable Music Box Theatre, which is truly lovely and which features an old-fashioned pipe organ. The theater's organist treated the (somewhat sparse) afternoon audience to a medley of old favorites, including "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" and "Let It Snow," before the main feature. The theater could not have been a better setting for a Lynch picture. The organ music was highly reminiscent of the Fats Waller tunes used in Eraserhead, and the theater's gorgeous red curtain -- which lifted slowly and dramatically to reveal the silver screen -- looked like something from one of Lynch's technicolor extravaganzas of the 1980s and 1990s.
(Two caveats about the Music Box: (1) they made the audience wait outside in the cold for a long time before the show and (2) the theater itself did not seem to be particularly well-heated. I kept my heavy winter coat -- and gloves! -- on during Inland Empire's three-hour running time. The Music Box is scheduled to show Rocky Horror in February, which I believe will result in several cases of hypothermia for the film's fishnet-clad fans.)
As for the movie itself, I can say that it's David Lynch at his David Lynchiest. If you take that as a compliment, it's a compliment. If you take that as a condemnation, it's a condemnation. It depends on how you feel about his earlier pictures, since this one takes the most idiosyncratic elements of them and carries them to their outermost extremes. If you stormed out of Lost Highway or Mulholland Dr. complaining that they didn't make any sense and that Lynch just "stole" two precious hours of your time, stay far away from Inland Empire. Mulholland angered and alienated a lot of viewers, and Inland Empire will certainly not appease them. I believe Inland Empire is Lynch's screwiest picture yet and the one furthest away from conventional, linear, coherent film storytelling. There are elements of plot in it, mostly involving an affair between a vain actor (Justin Theroux) and a troubled actress (Laura Dern) who has a possessive, domineering husband. But for my money, they could have shown the reels out of order without substantially changing the filmgoing experience. That's the kind of movie this is.
Inland Empire makes Eraserhead look like kitchen-sink realism. It's incomprehensible, unfollowable, and uncategorizable. Were it not for Lynch's name and the presence of a few well-known performers like Laura Dern and Jeremy Irons, the film would be absolutely, profoundly unmarketable. I doubt if the film will have any audience beyond the Lynch faithful. Who else is going to sit through three hours of this stuff?
Having said all that, I will say that I really enjoyed Inland Empire and would definitely see it again. The real draw of the film is Laura Dern's phenomenal, remarkably versatile performance. She gets to do a little bit of everything here and experiment with any number of different looks throughout the course of the movie. Perhaps her best scene is one in which she delivers a long monologue about gouging a man's eye out. Lynch veteran Harry Dean Stanton gives a standout performance here, too, and there's a remarkable scene late in the film in which a young Asian actress (whose name I did not catch) tells a badly injured Dern a rambling yet fascinating story, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Dern's character is bleeding to death. Visuals-wise, I'm not as sold on the grainy, somewhat washed-out look of digital video as Lynch apparently is, though my eyes adjusted to it over the course of three hours. I might have advised Lynch to pare the film down to a lean two hours, concentrate on some of the more compelling elements (more bunnies! more dancing hookers!) and reshoot some of the pivotal sequences on film stock. But part of the beauty of Inland Empire is the opportunity to see an artist do exactly what he wants in exactly the way he wants to do it. Would I want a steady diet of this? No. Should other directors follow Lynch's lead? Probably not. But it's exhilirating and necessary to watch an artist like Lynch even attempt to pull something like this off occasionally. |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 04/20/2007 : 04:13:36
Once she threw away the desk read and ventured behind the flats, all bets were forever off.
That's as cogent a summary of the flick as I'm able.
P.S.: I rather enjoyed it. |
| turrell |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 17:05:15
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
This was my first time actually attending a movie in Chicago. I've lived most of my life in Michigan, and I live now in the Northwest 'burbs of Chicago and normally see movies in a conventional multiplex at a shopping center. (I think I saw A Dirty Shame on its opening day in Chicago, but that was in a regular theater, too.)
Let me ask: was the Music Box always this drafty inside? They should call it the Ice Box! I can say, though, that it didn't interfere with watching the movie at all. On the contrary. Parts of the movie are filmed (and set, I guess) in Poland, so the chilly atmosphere in the theater was quite appropriate.
But it's a lovely place, touched with an indefinable magic. When I first walked into the main theater, I gasped audibly. How wonderful it would be to see movies in this kind of atmosphere all the time. In comparing the Music Box to a modern cineplex, I think the only real advantage of the latter (besides having central heat) is the multi-tiered, arena-style seating which now seems to be the norm and which neatly solves the problem of having someone's head block your view of the screen. Otherwise, in terms of aesthetics, it's no contest. It's amazing how the theater itself can enhance the filmgoing experience.
Its always been that way and I suppose on a particularly cold day if would feel more that way. I was in college in Evanston in the late 80's and early 90's before independent films were shown in mainstreaqm theaters as they are often done now. We used to go to the music box - I saw Cinema Paradiso there which was just perfect because the film and theater have that similar grand old style. |
| demonic |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 02:33:58
Oh boy. Well I've seen it, and I concur. Lynch at his most extreme, and most definitely not for the mainstream masses. In fact I was surprised the audience I watched it with managed to get through to the end without a single walk-out. I say that, although how anyone could walk out of a movie so eye-poppingly bizarre and compellingly scary I don't know; you have to assume anyone paying the entrance fee has at least some idea of what they are getting themselves into.
I don't think it entirely worked - it is too long and there are stretches in the middle when the oddness turned off my brain for short periods rather than keep me engaged on some level. The grainy digital worked particularly well for its immediacy and hallucinatory elements, and I loved the dark corridors of the studio/Sue's house - it was several steps further on from Lost Highway's creeping around the Madison's home - just darker and scarier - it was hard to see what was in the shadows. There was one amazing shot of Laura Dern near the end of the film as she walked out of the shadows around a corner that made my hair stand on end. Elsewhere it looked a bit rubbish.
Dern - seriously good. What on earth happened where she didn't get any acting nominations for that work?? It blows other performances I've seen this year out of the water for intensity and range.
And a great collection of familiar faces (and voices - those bunnies!) from previous Lynch films. Love Harry Dean Stanton, and he's very funny in this.
What happened? Well, I don't have a clue. Actually, I have some ideas but they are half formed, and I don't really think there's much benefit in trying to work out a film this intentionally abstract. For what it's worth here are some thoughts to ponder or discard - most of this hinges on the "curse" of the original film script. The Polish section of the film seemed to be a reference to the original attempt to make the "Blue Tomorrows" script that ended in the murder of the leads. By playing this character (Sue), Nikki enters the world of Sue and end up playing the role for real, somehow crossing over into the past/fiction through the door of Sue's home on the set, finally saving the girl trapped in the hotel room watching the whole thing unfold her TV set, who may have been the original actress of Sue's role or the basis of the Sue character from the Polish folk-tale. Nikki frees her from her purgatory where she can rejoin her family. Of course there's lots of Sue's journey through the middle of the film that is just "the film" being made (the prostitutes cover both eras - both as characters in the script and as a Greek chorus of sorts). It seems unlikely at first as the story we see being filmed is a brightly lit Southern American adultery tale and ends with Sue with a screwdriver stuck in her on Hollywood and Vine. We discover that it is actually the end of the script though from the homeless woman quoting the film title and the return to the studio after her "death". After that Nikki continues to be drawn to solve the mystery and re-enters the fiction/past by following clues from her experience - the number 47, 9.45, the green coated man, AXXONN etc.
As I say, all that is sort of beside the point I think. It's the experience of the cinematography and sound design that make it so watchable, as well as Laura Dern's performance of course; all in all a fascinating and creepy experiment on the fiction of Hollywood. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 03:30:32
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I loved reading your review, Joe. I saw the flick at NYFF, as I documented here, but I'm particularly interested in the views of fwiffers who have actually seen it, as have you.
Thanks. Glad you liked the review. Your previous post about the film was very accurate and fair.
I'm also sort of hoping that this thread attracts a few other people who have actually seen Inland Empire because I'd like to hear some other intepretations of the film. It's obviously not a conventional, linear narrative, but it's hardly a plotless experimental film either.
My initial impression: this is David Lynch's version of what used to be called a "woman's picture." The tagline for the film, after all, is "A Woman in Trouble." I see the film as being about the attempts by men to control and dominate women. The movie's main villain seems to be Laura Dern's powerful, possessive, apparently violence-prone husband. The flashback scenes in Poland seem to be running parallel to the main action... and I'm guessing that they're supposed to take place many decades ago. (The 1930s before the war?) Essentially, in 1930s Poland we have a man trying to dominate/control/imprison a woman, and in 2007 Los Angeles, we have Laura Dern trapped in this horrible marriage to a controlling jerk. The movie Dern's character is making is based on a Polish folktale, which suggests a parallel between the LA and Poland stories. There are many scenes with modern-day hookers, and I think we see some scenes of hookers in Poland, too. The prostitution motif illustrates the theme of men trying to "control" or "own" women. But the movie is not simply about the victimization of women by men. It's about the resilience of women in the face of attempted male domination. (The strongest characters in the movie are all women. I can't remember any real positive male characters.) The way I see it, Laura Dern's character triumphs over her male oppressor. But is Dern just one specific woman or is she Womankind? Her manner of dressing, her way of speaking, and her socio-economic state seem to change drastically throughout the film, changing from one scene to the next. It's like that song, "I'm Every Woman."
I realize that I haven't yet tackled the subject of the bunny rabbit people. Or that weird guy with the mouth full of batteries. (I think those were batteries. They looked like batteries to me.) Give me time. I've only seen the movie once.
|
| randall |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 04:10:17
I loved reading your review, Joe. I saw the flick at NYFF, as I documented here, but I'm particularly interested in the views of fwiffers who have actually seen it, as have you. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 06:30:11
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
This was my first time actually attending a movie in Chicago. I've lived most of my life in Michigan, and I live now in the Northwest 'burbs of Chicago and normally see movies in a conventional multiplex at a shopping center. (I think I saw A Dirty Shame on its opening day in Chicago, but that was in a regular theater, too.)
Let me ask: was the Music Box always this drafty inside? They should call it the Ice Box! I can say, though, that it didn't interfere with watching the movie at all. On the contrary. Parts of the movie are filmed (and set, I guess) in Poland, so the chilly atmosphere in the theater was quite appropriate.
But it's a lovely place, touched with an indefinable magic. When I first walked into the main theater, I gasped audibly. How wonderful it would be to see movies in this kind of atmosphere all the time. In comparing the Music Box to a modern cineplex, I think the only real advantage of the latter (besides having central heat) is the multi-tiered, arena-style seating which now seems to be the norm and which neatly solves the problem of having someone's head block your view of the screen. Otherwise, in terms of aesthetics, it's no contest. It's amazing how the theater itself can enhance the filmgoing experience.
It has been a long time, but you should know that to begin with, the Music Box was considered one of Chicago's nicest small movie theatres and then slowly it became a real dump. Neighborhoods changing, and all that. It was the theatre my father used to go to when he was a kid - he lived not far from there on Stratford, and moved back to the area with my step-Mother. I remember going there once as a kid after synagogue for a birthday outing - but that was June so I don't believe it was cold. I heard that they refurbished it but I never had a chance to go inside after the renovation - even though my father moved back to his old childhood building in the 80s with my step-mother.
But I remember the Granada (correctly,apparently) really well, which was bigger than the Music Box, and it was pretty draughty. Damned beautiful building and a true shame when they tore it down.
|
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 01/28/2007 : 20:55:55
This was my first time actually attending a movie in Chicago. I've lived most of my life in Michigan, and I live now in the Northwest 'burbs of Chicago and normally see movies in a conventional multiplex at a shopping center. (I think I saw A Dirty Shame on its opening day in Chicago, but that was in a regular theater, too.)
Let me ask: was the Music Box always this drafty inside? They should call it the Ice Box! I can say, though, that it didn't interfere with watching the movie at all. On the contrary. Parts of the movie are filmed (and set, I guess) in Poland, so the chilly atmosphere in the theater was quite appropriate.
But it's a lovely place, touched with an indefinable magic. When I first walked into the main theater, I gasped audibly. How wonderful it would be to see movies in this kind of atmosphere all the time. In comparing the Music Box to a modern cineplex, I think the only real advantage of the latter (besides having central heat) is the multi-tiered, arena-style seating which now seems to be the norm and which neatly solves the problem of having someone's head block your view of the screen. Otherwise, in terms of aesthetics, it's no contest. It's amazing how the theater itself can enhance the filmgoing experience. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 01/28/2007 : 06:59:54
All I can say is - Ah... The Music Box Theatre! Memories, memories!
(But what was the name of the theatre at the Sheridan Road "S" Curve that was changed into that stupid mall and office for Loyola? Wasn't that the Grenada? That had a full sized organ and was such a beautiful theatre. I always thought it a shame they took it down.)
|
| demonic |
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 21:21:01
Thanks for the summary Joe. I'm a fan of Lynch and follow wherever he decides to lead - looking forward to it.  |
|
|
