criterionforum.org

Michael wrote:Back to IE, I finally revisited it when it came to Miami Beach very recently. My feelings remain the same. It's way too long. It could've benifitted from tighter editing. It's not anywhere near as seductive as Mulholland Dr. It does have some moments of brilliance but not enough to stand up to the likes of Mulholland Dr. and The Elephant Man (both are utterly beautiful in every aspect) and even Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (which contains some of the most raw and emotional direction I've experienced).

I agree with you to a point. I do think that Inland Empire was a little too long and it didn't have the beauty of any of his previous work. But I think that IE is more of a point to be made, I think that he just loved being able to do whatever he wanted to do and that let him slip a little. I think if he were to make another film under these circumstances it'd be much better. But of the grainy look of IE I think that, again, Lynch was just having fun with it, making something very raw and organic almost. Aside from the visual quality I think there were some particularly great shots, especially around Grace Zabriskie's early scenes. That said I do think it is something of a masterpiece.

With regards to Dune I think it has some certain aspects of merit, mainly Machlachlan's performance which I thought was quite nice and the ambition of the piece. With all the cheesy sci-fi at the time, I think just looking back visually, for me Dune and Blade Runner stand out (not to say they are narratively of the same quality). I just can't help thinking what Jodorowsky's Dune would have looked like...

I'm glad Jodorowsky's didn't get to butcher the book. I think he ended his script with Paul turning into the planet.

For those who cannot wait for the release date, DVDPacific is shipping this movie out early. I pre-ordered mine yesterday and got shipping confirmation this morning.

The cost is $17.97, by the way.

This is definitely one of the creepiest movies I have ever seen. The last half-hour blew my mind.

This is definitely one of the creepiest movies I have ever seen. The last half-hour blew my mind.

Absolutely. Not only INLAND EMPIRE is one of the scariest films I've seen, it contains an amazing range of emotions. I'm really looking forward to reevaluating the film in the comfort of my own sofa.

Michael wrote:I'm really looking forward to reevaluating the film in the comfort of my own sofa.

I'm actually not looking forward to watching it at home, only because seeing it in a crumbling, musty theater with three other people in the audience was one of the best movie-going experiences of my life and seems so appropriate to the film. I think I may have to save it for a brutally cold, dark winter day.

I'm actually not looking forward to watching it at home, only because seeing it in a crumbling, musty theater with three other people in the audience was one of the best movie-going experiences of my life and seems so appropriate to the film. I think I may have to save it for a brutally cold, dark winter day.

I don't blame you but it's great to hear that crumbling, musty theaters still stand (how appropriate for films like INLAND EMPIRE!). I can't seem to find one anymore. When I was 11, I saw Eraserhead at midnight in an once-adult theater that had wallpapers peeling off, tons of water stains everywhere, sticky floors... amazing movie-going experience!

I think I might have been in that crumbling theater with you, Matt, watching this bizarre Lynch movie. As an aside, the best cold weather experience I've had in that theater was watching Satantango with the "heat" going out every half hour and feeling that it was the perfect experience for that film.

DVD Beaver review

Also, Best Buy reportedly has this out a few days early at many stores.

souvenir wrote:DVD Beaver review

And once again, Gary misses the point entirely:

Tooze wrote:I suppose there must be a certain amount of artistic leeway for digital video but regardless in comparison to most new stuff we review on DVDBeaver - this looks like crap. Certainly I'll wager it was this way theatrically and I have no doubt the dual-layered DVD faithfully is representing the finished product. Digital Video has definite benefits for direction and production but has a long way to go to equal the cleanliness and sharpness of, say, 35mm.

To just say that about all "digital video" is really excessive. Of course Gary doesn't want to turn it into a technical discussion of various formats, but Inland Empire, from a technical standpoint, could've been produced 10 years ago at least. Cameras are evolving so quickly right now that even something a year old, from a technical image quality standpoint, already looks somewhat outdated. We are going to start seeing digital films very soon now that will challenge the technical superiority of 35mm - that's a guarantee.

domino harvey wrote:Could you fill me in on the point too, because those caps make it look even worse than I was prepared for

the worse it looks, the worse your surroundings, the worse you feel... the better the experience. I first saw this a week ago. I watched a dvd rip that was decoded to avi, then encoded back to dvd, with burned in italian subtitles, so I have no idea what the polish people were saying. It was really hot and I was sitting on a leather couch, which my back stuck to from sweat. the fan was moving, but it stopped just short of me every time. I also drank a lot before and was in a state of near blackout for some of it. I loved it. I would like you all to watch this in some uncomfortable setting, feeling terrible as well, and then tell your tale here.

If someone wants to encode the whole 3 hours into a YouTube-quality Flash video and try watching that, it could yield some interesting insights probably. Or at least every other reviewer calling it a "YouTube nightmare" has sold me on the idea.

I definitely look forward to viewing #2 in another week or so, along with 'some more things that happened.'

souvenir wrote:DVD Beaver review

according to DVDBeaver IE was directed by France/Poland/US 2006!

I don't know if this has been posted (as I haven't read the whole thread--I saw it in a shitty theatre too but was still somewhat let down) but here's an exclusive interview from amazon.

"Film, at least for me, is dead. I never wanna go back. Even thinking about it now ... makes me feel weak, and sick! And um... so, let's just think digitally."

Matt wrote:

souvenir wrote:DVD Beaver review

And once again, Gary misses the point entirely:

Tooze wrote:I suppose there must be a certain amount of artistic leeway for digital video but regardless in comparison to most new stuff we review on DVDBeaver - this looks like crap. Certainly I'll wager it was this way theatrically and I have no doubt the dual-layered DVD faithfully is representing the finished product. Digital Video has definite benefits for direction and production but has a long way to go to equal the cleanliness and sharpness of, say, 35mm.

What does Gary mean by "most new stuff". Does he mean recent films in general or recent films shot on DV (such as Apocalypto and Miami Vice)? Just trying to make sense of what Gary's trying to compare. Does he just not like DV.. is that all he's just saying?

Comparing to DV, film is slicker however DV is unique in some ways.. it feels a lot more intimate that film could never reach that extent and I think that's why Lynch prefers DV more and also because it's cheaper and permits more flexibility. Since Lynch has always love the "industrial" look and DV probably offers him the kind of look he has been trying to capture in motion throughout his career.

It sounds like he means new films - DV or not.

If you look through Lynch's gallery of photography (I have some of his books), you will see that DV is perfect for him. The hazy, smoky, muddy look. And somtime distorted images that I think DV achieves better than film.

Michael wrote:If you look through Lynch's gallery of photography (I have some of his books), you will see that DV is perfect for him. The hazy, smoky, muddy look. And somtime distorted images that I think DV achieves better than film.

that may be so, but his "films" are beautiful in every way (imagine seeing Eraserhead on DV... it wouldn't have that timeless quality to it)
his lighting was always pitch-perfect and his film-look was flawless (especially something like Mulholland Dr. or Lost Highway)

I still don't understand why vagina wall hole chick's monologue is subtitled.

Barmy wrote:I still don't understand why vagina wall hole chick's monologue is subtitled.

because it's borderline hard to understand... and Lynch loves to subtitle stuff that is border-line like that (like Twin Peaks... I know what the Midget is saying... but there are subtitles)

that may be so, but his "films" are beautiful in every way (imagine seeing Eraserhead on DV... it wouldn't have that timeless quality to it)
his lighting was always pitch-perfect and his film-look was flawless (especially something like Mulholland Dr. or Lost Highway)

Elsewhere on this thread, I mentioned I'm very in love with Mulholland Dr. which I think is the best American film of the last decade or two (but again I still need to watch INLAND EMPIRE a few more times). You're absolutely right about Lynch's wonderfully precise and beautiful "film-look". However Lynch working with DV now seems to be very logical and I'm really excited that he's still discovering and expanding his vision and it just makes sense at least to me that DV appeals to him at this moment...if you look at his recent work in still photography (not from around the time he made Blue Velvet and the next couple of films), it carries this cold, mysterious, hazy, creepy, muddy feel to it. Surely, "film" can be this way but I think Lynch realized that DV can make everything feel upfront intimate and realistic (imagine seeing Dancer in the Dark in "film" instead of DV).

But you know what, I can imagine Eraserhead in DV and I think it'd be even be more striking and creepy and just as beautiful in its way of painting the bleak industrial environment.

miless wrote:because it's borderline hard to understand... and Lynch loves to subtitle stuff that is border-line like that (like Twin Peaks... I know what the Midget is saying... but there are subtitles)

But not in the Bang Bang bar sequence from Fire Walk With Me?

(imagine seeing Eraserhead on DV... it wouldn't have that timeless quality to it)

What is it about DV that doesn't give films a timeless quality? I'm curious.

Has Lynch explained the reason why film is dead to him and also why he prefers DV?

Michael wrote:What is it about DV that doesn't give films a timeless quality? I'm curious.

Has Lynch explained the reason why film is dead to him and also why he prefers DV?

the fact that it looks as if Eraserhead could have been made anytime between 1945 and now (when my dad first saw it in the theaters in the early 80's, someone told him that it was "a surrealist art film from the forties" and he believed it for years until he saw Blue Velvet and realized that it was by the same guy)... whereas the DV (and the quality of its use in Inland Empire, especially) dates the film. Imagine a Cocteau or Tarkovsky film shot on DV. There's something about the film emulsion that makes light dance (at least when done in certain ways)
I'm not saying that Lynch should go back to film, as he should do whatever he wants (especially if it allows him more projects).
I'm just saying that certain things benefit from being on film, and others on a digital medium.