criterionforum.org

Faux Hulot wrote:Seeing it for the first time in a theater, I fell asleep briefly a few times (which is a comment on my work schedule, not the movie itself) and I daresay the slipping in and out of dreamstate may well have enhanced the experience.

It really does. I have yet to see the movie in a fully conscious state, so I'm interested to see what I missed - and what I only imagined.

DVD Times review of the Optimum R2 (which doesn't offer the deleted scenes on the R1).

Anybody know how many different covers there are for the R1 DVD?

These are the two cover images served up by most online retailers:

1. 2.

I got the second one from DVD Pacific.

I saw this one at Best Buy today, and somebody at the film's IMDb board posted a link to this one, which is similar to the UK release (and probably my favorite). Anybody know of any others?

Michael B. Scrutchin wrote:Anybody know of any others?

Mine is like the first picture, only it has the '2-Disk Special Edition' banner on it.

Well, I live in Jersey and saw one at Best Buy today completely different from all the above... I guess this is a choice by Lynch? Certainly it couldn't have slipped by him, as I'm sure he controlled every aspect of the release...

Michael B. Scrutchin wrote:Anybody know how many different covers there are for the R1 DVD?

I saw this one at Best Buy today, and somebody at the film's IMDb board posted a link to this one, which is similar to the UK release (and probably my favorite). Anybody know of any others?

At my local Best Buy, they had two covers, the first one and this one; I bought the first one, but the image at the bottom is extremely dark, not at all like the brighter color blue shown in your first image.

I didn't know it was coming out today (thought it was next week), and actually jumped for joy in the store when I saw it. Is that weird? Also, I decided to put it off until I could get the funds to buy all the David Lynch movies and have a festival. I bought Mon Oncle and The Vanishing instead.

I just watched this.

It kept occurring to me while watching that this movie is dangerous, in the same way that I imagine hypnosis/regression therapy must be dangerous. It felt like I was going too deep to recover. Doors were constantly being opened and shut, surely symbolic.

But the end was such an emotional release, and reminded me of Von Sydow "coming home" in The Seventh Seal. Until I realized that, in the words of IE's protagonist, "I don't know which came first." Still, it was beautiful and unexpected. Then the credits scene seemed to shatter that feeling, like that pervasive "badness" of the previous 3 hours was back.

Incredible.

This may be a common feeling but I haven't seen it expressed before: Lynch often approaches the familiar areas of interior scenes from different directions, or through hallways, so that we may not immediately know where we are, but when we see that familiar area we realize we just saw what was down that hallway he had not shown us earlier. This creates the impression--to me, at least--that in those rooms we do not see, something is happening. For example, I get the distinct feeling in Mulholland Dr that if the camera were to peek into a room in Betty's aunt's apartment early in the film, we would glimpse something happening that is revealed later in the film. Anyway, it's a strange phenomenon--due in part, no doubt, to the fact that Lynch's timelines are always so confused--and might just be in my head.

Stagger Lee wrote:For example, I get the distinct feeling in Mulholland Dr that if the camera were to peek into a room in Betty's aunt's apartment early in the film, we would glimpse something happening that is revealed later in the film. Anyway, it's a strange phenomenon--due in part, no doubt, to the fact that Lynch's timelines are always so confused--and might just be in my head.

Very similar to the hotel in Lost Highway as well!

I was at Borders yesterday & all of their copies had "Free Poster Inside" stickers on them. Later I was at Best Buy & though they had the same cover as Borders (this one), they didn't have the free poster. My copy just arrived from Amazon; no poster, but I did get my favorite cover of the ones shown (the one with Dern on top and the Lost Girl screaming on the bottom). Still prefer the original monochromatic one sheet, though.

First time I can remember seeing 'disc' with a 'k' on DVD packaging.. Maybe this could be taken as a hint that none of this really happens the way it's portrayed and we're basically joining Laura Dern as she goes on a three hour ketamine bender?

Instead of distributing the film in a dozen different packagings, Lynch should distribute a dozen slightly different versions of the film.

Maybe he did? :-$ :-$

dadaistnun wrote:Still prefer the original monochromatic one sheet, though.

Virgin megastore UK has that as an exclusive sleeve.

Beaver comparison of R1 and R2.

Given that it continues the discussion on this thread, it's worth repeating Pete's excellent response to Gary's dismissal of the capacity of DV:

[quote]As Gary has pointed out below, the nature of digitally-recorded footage means that the picture quality of ‘Inland Empire' is in many respects inferior to that of traditionally-filmed productions.

However, this is no bad thing. The grainy DV of ‘Inland Empire' is the perfect marriage of message and medium. As Lynch himself states on one of the Region 2 disc's extras:

“We all love film: so much, it's so beautiful. And I really respect [cinematographers] for getting better and better and better images. But what it comes down to is to getting the image – whatever it is – that is true to that idea.â€

foggy eyes wrote:

In ‘Inland Empire' – as far as I can tell – Lynch's idea is to lay bare the protagonist's psyche and to involve the viewer as closely as possible in her breakdown. Anything other than the immediacy and simplicity of digital video would defeat this. Rather than bringing us close to the subject, traditional film footage brings with it distance. To a lesser or greater degree, film implies DPs; it implies set-ups; it implies lighting; it implies grips, focus operators and technicians; and, most of all, it implies premeditation. All of which stand as barriers in the way of a more profound connection between actor and viewer; the type of connection that digital video can – and ‘Inland Empire' does – succeed in delivering.

Because we are witnessing such a perfect marriage of tone, ruptured narrative and formal style here, I wonder whether it is the sheer barefaced directness of DV (rather than a loss of clarity or resolution) that some have found so alarming. Looked at from this perspective, the digital medium's potential is thrilling.

It's an interesting approach, but one could say exactly the opposite just as easily: the warmth and clarity of film brings us closer to the protagonist than cool and grainy DV. I'm not keen on essentializing the effects of media. Film can be cool and distancing as much as it can be immediate, intimate, or warm. The same with DV or oil paint or graphite or any other visual medium.

Lynch, as a painter, sculptor, and furniture maker, knows to choose the right medium for the expression of his ideas. He was going for spontaneity and intimacy with INLAND EMPIRE, but it is DV's flexibility that allows for this, not anything inherent in its images. He could have used high-end DV equipment and gotten very close to the kinds of images he had in Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr., but that would have required careful lighting and setups. His choices of a particular outdated "prosumer" camera among any of the other cameras he could have operated himself and of a reliance on natural/non-film lighting are the key artistic choices, not the choice of DV over film.

That's very interesting, and most filmmakers don't account for that. Filmmakers should treat the camera like a paint brush. Lynch is one of the few filmmakers (Orson Welles is one) who treats the film like a painting, picking up his painbrush when he feels like it. He adds little details by filming completely new shots and scenes, and with DV, it's cheap,, and with the extra money, can assemble a crew and sets to film what he wants.

For those not a member of his site, it's a great investment. Lynch loves the fact he can film when he pretty much feels like it, and makes short films out of installing "Rings of Sorrow" to prevent squirrels from taken food from his bird feeder, accompanied with a poem about squirrels above and birds below.

Not too man filmmakers can achieve being a succesful true independent, and from the money hes made in the past, and his talent, he's done it.

The "Lynch 2" documentary on this is pure gold. I can't wait to see the feature-length version it is presumably extracted from.

dadaistnun wrote:The "Lynch 2" documentary on this is pure gold. I can't wait to see the feature-length version it is presumably extracted from.

To hear Lynch say "Okay, you've seen crazy bitches like this all night" is the best reason to watch it.

The opening title with the record and needle image is so powerful. I really thought I was going to explode with that. Such a perfect opening.

Not that I'm out looking to shatter the gorgeous enigma of INLAND EMPIRE but a friend guided me to this interpretation which I found quite interesting.

Thanks for that link. Very interesting, and it helps to clarify a few of the thoughts I also had about the film (although not nearly as in-depth as his analysis).

And I agree with what he wrote about Lynch's most moving scene, that specific scene. That makes IE one of the most spiritual films I've seen. I was so moved with a remarkable sense of serenity by that scene and I couldn't even understand or explain why until that interpretation helped to clarify.

Aploogies if this has been linked before: GreenCine interview

Inland Empire explained:

Spoiler

There's fast areas and slow areas. That goes back to the thing of the duck. The duck is an example of that. The bill of the duck is sort of in the middle of fast and slow. It's a little bit fast, and when it hits the head it slows down and the feathers there are very small and it's not completely slow, and it fills out and starts going down into this "S" curve and the feathers get bigger and then it goes into the body, which is a very large, slow area, not a lot of stuff happening. And then it goes into the legs and feet and it's faster and the texture of the legs and feet remind you of the bill, so your eye goes back and you take the trip again. The eye of the duck is the fastest, the most detailed, a gleaming little jewel, and I always thought, what a perfect place to put that, in the middle of the head. It's just a perfect size frame. If you put it in the body, it would get lost. It just wouldn't be framed right. If you put it on the leg, it would be too fast an area for the eye to really bring it out. On the bill, it would be ridiculous.

Holy shit, it's all clear to me now!!!!!!!!

Creative Intelligence at work.