criterionforum.org

I saw this tonight at NYFF.

I absolutely hate DV, but for me this is the best film of the year, and the best Lynch ever, with the possible exception of Mulholland Dr.

There is no point in reveiwing the film. And that is precisely why it is a masterpiece.

Barmy wrote:I saw this tonight at NYFF.

I absolutely hate DV, but for me this is the best film of the year, and the best Lynch ever, with the possible exception of Mulholland Dr.

There is no point in reveiwing the film. And that is precisely why it is a masterpiece.

So how do you feel about the possibilities of it getting cut? Can you see how it could be done? Are we to assume from your comment that the DV is used well?

And as to Lynch's best film: what, not Dune(which I just rewatched and had a hell of a good time doing so)?

I saw this tonight at the NYFF as well. I was really blown away by it. I've been looking around the net for discussions on it. It was a surreal nightmare that seemed to reacher deeper and deeper inside itself until the end credits began rolling.

miless wrote:

Lino wrote:Here we go. Wild at Heart all over again, just like I previously dreaded...

yeah, they're going to add fog to a scene where Willem Defoe shoots his head off?

I assume you must be joking there because I think you must know that I was refering to the fact that when WAH was premiered at Cannes (and incidentally went on to win the Palm d'Or) it had a running time of roughly 2 hours and a half, as opposed to the current 124 minute version that was subsequently made and released theatrically and on home video directly afterwards.

I cringe to see the same thing happening all over again with IE.

I assume you must be joking there because I think you must know that I was refering to the fact that when WAH was premiered at Cannes (and incidentally went on to win the Palm d'Or) it had a running time of roughly 2 hours and a half, as opposed to the current 124 minute version that was subsequently made and released theatrically and on home video directly afterwards.

Yeah, but for whatever reason, Lynch usually ends up standing by whatever cut goes theatrical, even if it's shorter than originally premiered. And everybody knows that Cannes/festival cuts do get trimmed a bit, even if it is by a full-half hour. So I would save the complaining until the 90-minute version comes out at the multiplex or whatever. But I'm sure it will be at least 2 hours? Or slightly more? Everything will be ok, lino! It's OK.

David Lynch says three-hour film not too long

By Gregg Goldstein
Mon Oct 9, 5:15 AM ET

David Lynch would like his first movie in five years to be a "summer blockbuster" that will resonate with "14-year-old girls in the Midwest."

But he knows the reality will be different for his epic fever dream "Inland Empire," which had its North American premiere at the New York Film Festival Sunday.

The three-hour film, which had its world premiere at Venice, has sharply divided critics because of its often inscrutable scenes. The Hollywood Reporter's Ray Bennett described it as "an interminable bore." It currently has no distribution, but Lynch hopes to announce plans early next week.

"Empire" begins with two interwoven stories of an actress, played by Laura Dern, who is making an onscreen comeback in a Southern melodrama she's filming called "High in Blue Tomorrows." But the film soon branches off to follow a third abused and abusive character also played by Dern.

"I figure I have at least three roles, maybe a few more," she laughed in an interview.

Each plotline deals with issues of betrayal in relationships, but the film soon veers off those tracks as it showcases musical dance sequences and dramatic episodes with actors speaking Polish. Perhaps only Lynch devotees will fully appreciate a monologue that describes a woman with both a hole in her vagina and a pet monkey that "s--ts everywhere."

The director created each scene individually before lacing them together thematically, but despite the film's winding road, he pooh-poohed talk that his film is too long.

"A time restraint is so arbitrary and kind of meaningless," he said after a press screening Friday. "This is the length that feels correct."

Sitcom-style segments featuring a family wearing rabbit heads with an oddly timed laugh track are laced throughout the film. They're adapted from "Rabbits," a series of nine shorts that Lynch showed on his website in 2002. Naomi Watts, Laura Elena Harring and Scott Coffey, who starred in Lynch's last film, 2001's "Mulholland Dr.," filmed the original shorts on a sitcom-looking set and later re-enacted their scenes on the same set for "Empire."

"Empire" was shot digitally after the director became infatuated with a Sony PD150 camera he used to create the shorts, and he has since sworn off celluloid. "For me, film is completely dead," he said. "(It) gets dirty and breaks breaks and scratches, and the equipment is so heavy. It's like swimming through cold molasses. Digital is getting better every day."

Dern started on the project by shooting a 14-page, single-spaced monologue that belongs to the character of the violent woman. She was surprised that Lynch gave her a co-producer credit, which she discovered only when she saw the completed film. "I think it came from sticking with him for three years, being part of the creative process and and giving up other projects to go on this experimental adventure," she said. "There were some scenes where it was just David, me and the camera, which made it a very financially easy way to do it."

What the film lacks in budget -- Lynch will only say it cost "under $100 million" -- it made up for in time, taking nine months to complete in the editing room. It left the director feeling a bit drained. "There's always a vacuum when you finish a film, but I have a couple of ideas," for new projects, he says. "I'd like to do some painting first."

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

I saw the film last night as well and have mixed feelings about it. I think that it is the cinematic equivalent of FINNEGANS WAKE. It took Joyce 17 years to complete that book, and he said it should take 17 years to read. This film took something like 5 years to make, so I think we must wait 5 years before properly judging it. But sitting here the next morning, I will say that I found it rather forgettable, which is so odd for a film by Lynch.

I also caught this at the NYFF. I really liked it, but I have to say that I wish that it had been shot on film. The dv looks so murky and flat.

That said, it's a really engrossing piece of work. My viewing companions seemed more perplexed by it than I was. I don't think that it was as incoherent as my friends found it, but there's a lot going on and I think I'll need a few days to organize all of my thoughts. I'm just happy to have new material from Lynch.

It could easily be cut--many of the Polish sequences could be dropped and the film would be fine. But, to me, the longer this nightmarish film is, the better. I could take 5 hours of it.

The DV is not high definition. It is very grainy and cheap looking. Again, I fucking despise DV. It is the worst thing happening in cinema today and I am shocked that now many or most of the films in NYFF are shot in DV, including films by veterans like Iosseliani.

Nevertheless, it works for this film. The haze and murk contribute to the overall nightmare atmosphere.

The closing credits sequence is perhaps the best in cinema history. A lot of mysterious things briefly referenced in the film itself show up (plus Laura Harring), and then a black chick starts belting out a fabulous soul tune with a troupe of dancers.

Laura Dern's performance is stunning--once of the best turns by an actress ever.

There can also be grain in hi def.

From Daniel Kasman:

He is the first major filmmaker in my memory to completely successfully use digital as a medium unto itself, reveling in the murk and gloom of jumping pixels and odd lighting, the eerily stutter-flicker of the slower refresh of the video catching the pulse from lights, the Godard-like overlap and uncanny slow motion of the saturated images, the strange focal effects of intense close ups that warp the space behind the face, and the sometimes faux-documentary banality of natural digital space, hanging there with utmost unreality.

Lynch shot it in mini-DV (or mini-DVCam) with a PD150? It's interesting how some directors have embraced mini-DV like Soderbergh (Full Frontal) and now Lynch, unless he shot it on mini-DVCam because I believe the PD150 can shoot on either format. I wouldn't be surprised to hear he did an offline cut on his Mac laptop with FCP.

The Invunche wrote:There can also be grain in hi def.

Yes, as Lynch clarified after today's screening, it's called "noise."

I thought it was a masterpiece through and through, and I can't wait to see it again. I was at first rubbed the wrong way by the look of the DV, but soon realized that it "fit" the subject/style.

I couldn't begin to piece together a coherent narrative without seeing this at least a few more times (no, I don't think it will take 5 years' worth of viewings). Lynch said plainly that there *is* a coherent story to be found.

Dern gave the performance of a career, and Lynch outdid himself. This is a stunning work. Can't wait to try and unravel it all as more forum members get to see it.

I don't know what film you guys saw but I saw an absolute masterpiece, perhaps Lynch's best film. I really am at a loss for words about it.

I saw it again today, and I have to say that a second viewing really blows everything wide open as far as understanding what's going on in the story. It's an absolutely brilliant piece of writing.

Another thing I noticed upon a second viewing is that the lines I laughed at were completely different. Things which seemed amusing on the first viewing are actually deadly serious warnings, and lines that seemed inconsequential are actually important indicators of the level of reality we're seeing on the screen.

denti, did I buy your wife's ticket today?

This could be very good news.

Lynch, evidently, intends to distribute IE himself in North America. If that's the case then we have little reason to fear it will be cut.

chime_on wrote:denti, did I buy your wife's ticket today?

That was me! (Assuming you're the guy who asked the question about "Rabbits")

David Lynch seemingly attracts the bizarre around him. Take a look at this baffling news:

Inland Empire Yanked From Sitges Fest

I could understand if StudioCanal (co-producer and international sales agent for Inland Empire) wanted to pull the film out of a festival because they were nervous about negative buzz hurting its distribution chances and total box office take. However, that's not the case at the Sitges Film Festival in Catalonia, as Empire was pulled from the fest lineup by StudioCanal for fear people may like it too much. Oh yes, you heard that right.

Though, since Sitges is a huge fantasy film festival in Europe, StudioCanal felt the film would play so well among hardcore Lynch fans, it would make it that much harder to persuade Lynch to cut down the pic's running time.

Was the reception as positive at the Monday screening as it was Sunday night? I was surprised no one booed -- usually when presented with "challenging" films there are unhappy campers at the NYFF.

i'd like to see it again (I was there Sunday) before I pass judgement. From the one viewing I liked Mulholand Drive better.

So far as Studio Canal wanting to cut it -- why?? Someone who hates the 3 hour IE is going to hate the 2 hour version just as much.

Ted Todorov wrote:So far as Studio Canal wanting to cut it -- why??

They obviously don't care about the artistic merit. They just want theaters to be able to squeeze in as many showings a day as possible. If distributors could force every movie to be 80 minutes long, they would. 145 minutes seems to be the cutoff point for most distributors. After that, you had better be Titanic.

But wasn't the same Studio Canal that actually financed Lynch to go back to Mulholland Drive, the (failed) TV series and make it into a (longer) featured film?

Oh, well. I don't mind they cutting it just as long as I eventually get to see the original 178 minutes cut somewhere along the line.

Lino wrote:But wasn't the same Studio Canal that actually financed Lynch to go back to Mulholland Drive, the (failed) TV series and make it into a (longer) featured film?

Yes, but not too long of a feature film. Mulholland Drive is...ding ding ding...145 minutes long.

Ding ding ding indeed! You've reached a 1000 posts! Dang!

Sorry, couldn't help it...

chaddoli wrote:I don't know what film you guys saw but I saw an absolute masterpiece, perhaps Lynch's best film. I really am at a loss for words about it.

Masterpieces tend to divide opinion, epsecially at first viewing. Give it 5 years, and most people will probably agree with you.

good review and no spoilers.

Apparently the film will be distributed in the U.S. by 518 Media. According to IMDb, their previous releases are all Herzog films: Nosferatu, Fitzcarraldo, Cobra Verde, Lessons of Darkness, Wheel of Time, and The Wild Blue Yonder. The release date given at Coming Soon is December 15.