topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
	Cult Those films with a following all their own.	83

New Thread about David Lynch and Inland Empire
	Topic by: woozy Posted: August 22, 2007 - 1:24 PM PDT Last Reply: September 28, 2007 - 12:12 PM PDT

author	topic: New Thread about David Lynch and Inland Empire
woozy	post #1  on August 22, 2007 - 1:24 PM PDT   ND EM NLA PIR I E // \\ // /\-------- V ^^^ | _| | |.| | | | @| | ======= / / \\___ ========/ / ==/ | WOOZY | | ========\ \ \ \
underdog	post #2  on August 22, 2007 - 2:50 PM PDT   I feel like I'm the last critic-type person to see this movie. I still haven't - maybe because of the running time. I really want to though. Both Erin and Jim have some thoughts on it that we may post on Guru soon. So... what did others think? Make heads or tales, er, tails out of it?
woozy	post #3  on August 22, 2007 - 3:19 PM PDT   > On August 22, 2007 - 2:50 PM PDT underdog wrote: > --------------------------------- It's good but it's ... weird. Over my head. But I think I'll get a bit more when I watch it a second time. I didn't realize until reading the credit's this morning that the role the Lorna Derne actress is playing has the last name "Blue", Sally Blue and that makes a *huge* difference. Don't see that it helps me much. It's good, it's about roles people play but, gah, there is no place to hold on and try to shift it into focus. Also the lines between the parralel realities are thin to non-existant this time. Read the credits. Heck maybe you should read the credits *before* seeing the movie.
woozy	post #4  on August 24, 2007 - 8:46 PM PDT   > On August 22, 2007 - 2:50 PM PDT underdog wrote: > --------------------------------- Both Erin and Jim have some thoughts on it that we may post on Guru soon. > I really hope they will soon! I'd like to see what others think. I think it was definately made with DVD in mind. By the time the wierd stuff starts happening you need the framework of vaguely mentioned in the beginning of the film but in the beginning of the film you don't know what anything means so you can't remember them when the come to pass. Okay, I'm rewatching the scenes with cuts back and forth. Watch Lorna Dern's outfits! My interpretation so far about what is going on: This isn't really a spoiler but might be but even if you read this I don't think it'll ruin any thing and make make it easier to get. ANyway, I've only rewatched the first 1/3 so if this is a spoiler it's only a spoiler about the first third. But maybe a spoiler: Laura Dern plays an actress Nicki Grace. She also plays Susan Blue a character in a movie that is played by Nicki Grace. I think every now and then Susan (the character in the movie) begins to get hints that she is in a movie and starts remembering things about Nicki. I haven't rewatched enough to figure out what actually happens in the movie but there is one scene (57 minutes into Inland Empire) where she, Susan (the character), makes love to Billy in Smithy's house and starts "breaking character" and starts talking as Nicky. She mentions when she was filming a scene where she was picking up Billie's groceries she started remembering things. The film cuts to the scene where Susan's picking up groceries and she's wearing an outfight we had seen Nicky wearing twenty minutes earlier when Devon (the actor playing Billy) asks her to dinner. In the earlier scene where Devon asks Nicky to dinner, the director complains about the noise of a car outside. I think this is the car Susan, the movie character, was parking in the scene the were filming. (They are filming the scene where Susan picks up the groceries which will see later at about 1 hour). Back to the scene where Susan is picking up the groceries she wanders into a room and ends up on the back lot of the film and looking through a window actually sees the actress who plays her (Nicki) in a scene we had seen 40 minutes ago. In the scene we had had seen 40 minutes ago, the director was talking to Nicky and Devon about the scenes that take place in Smithy's house. They wouldn't talk about "the love scene" (of course) but there's an earlier scene that sets up their characters (Susan and Billy). The directors assistant says he hears someone. So, you get this? the character Susan has wandered straight out of her world onto a movie set where she sees the actress who plays her reading a scene. Then the director's assistant hears her. The actor who plays her lover Billie comes toward her and she runs away into the set of Smithy's house. Now she's back in her world in Smithy's house. She see's the actor who plays Billy through the and she shouts "Billy". The actor though is in the actors world and can't see her or enter Smithy's house because in the scene way back 40 minutes ago only the door and window and not the interior of Smithy's house had been built. To make matters weirder, in the scene 20 minutes ago when they were filming the market scene, the director hers both the noise of a car (Susans car in the market which we see 20 minutes later) *and* a clicking sound of Devon rattling Smithy's door which we had scene both 20 minutes previous and 20 minutes later. I think the grocery scene took place the day *after* the love scene but Susan talked about it during the love scene because she remembered as Nicky that they had filmed it the day before the love scene. The scene with the groceries occured in Susans universe and the same time Devon explored the scenery in Nicky's universe. I think.
woozy	post #5  on August 24, 2007 - 10:49 PM PDT   Arrgh! It's going to require a third watching!
woozy	post #6  on August 28, 2007 - 7:59 PM PDT   *sigh* shuffles feet... I was hoping someone would comment on my clever ASCII art... was going to watch it a third time... kinda want to figure out the "I'm a whore" character and the nine girls. (Greek Chorus? Muses?) But maybe I should give it a rest and move on to other movies in my queue. IMDB has a few discussions about it but IMDB folks aren't as smart as us GCers, right?
Cinenaut	post #7  on September 15, 2007 - 2:10 PM PDT   I just finished watching it. 1) Why Dorothy Lamour? 2) David Lynch should do a musical. 3) Time to update the Scary Rabbit List.
woozy	post #8  on September 15, 2007 - 4:04 PM PDT   > On September 15, 2007 - 2:10 PM PDT Cinenaut wrote: > --------------------------------- > I just finished watching it. > > 1) Why Dorothy Lamour? Some web page pointed out that Dorothy Lamour has two stars on the walk of fame; one for movies and one for radio. Also Dorothy Lamour is an anagram for "Oh Old Mortuary" and "Your mortal hod" and "old hut room ray" (a smithee's house not visible from a room sound like a hut and ray is the light through the window). Dorothy Lamour = Gift of Love??? > 2) David Lynch should do a musical. Yes, he should. > 3) Time to update the Scary Rabbit List. > --------------------------------- Yes, it is. Although the first time I watched it, I thought they were donkey heads like in "a midsummer night's dream".
woozy	post #9  on September 17, 2007 - 12:33 AM PDT   Cinenaut, you should rent the Bonus Disk. It has one hour and fourteen minutes of deleted scenes and they .... clarify absolutely nothing. But they add a *lot* of information including: A scene with the polish girl and the phantom where the phantom sells her a watch and she says she heard that watches will change her luck. A scene with Nicki lying on the floor talking to Devon while having a conversation with a polish voice in her head asking if she remembers and Nicki saying she didn't kill anyone because she "doesn't know where it was" and doesn't know where she is and while another Laura Dern character (sue?) watches and the rabbit people say "There is something hear and Devon is irritated and unsupportive. A very long scene with the down and out "I'm a whore" character talking to Mr. K. talking about how she's living with her sister and good for nothing brother in law and has a shelf in a dingy refrigerator, how her mother lost her hand in a corn on the cob holder factory accident, how she sleeps in her sister's bed but it's her lamp that always goes with her and in has a red shade but used to have a floral shade, and how she was forty-one in 1960 and doesn't know what happened to the years. A scene where Nicki is talking to a friend who had the same experience that Sue/Nicki have of meeting a guy named Billy and walking from a familiar place to a hallway and finding she doesn't know where she is and everything has been changed as though it is a different place. An argument between working-class Laura (Sue?) and her husband about shoes that moved from a bedroom to the living room though neither know how and Sue says she's quitting her job because she is pregnant. Clarifies nothing but I think Lorna Dern is channeling many characters all with similar stories more than just Nicki and Sue and even other women characters. The I'm a whore character tells her story and we see it in the life of the working class character but I don't think the two characters were ever the same even though they both have the same life and events. Likewise the movie Nicki is filming starts with the story of Sue who starts as a character a cut above working class Laura (and a cut below Nicki) but ends being the I'm a whore character. There's a strange deleted scene where I'm a all the characters and all the sets (smithee's house, Nicki's house, the street in poland) are superimposed and all are claiming that everyplace has changed to a new place. (i.e. sue is seeing smithee's house while I'm a whore says it's a place she's never seen before and she did not recogonize the street. Is that the same house as the first visitor who told the story about the boy going through a door?) Strange film.
Cinenaut	post #10  on September 18, 2007 - 4:58 PM PDT   I was only able to watch it 1.75 times, due to time constraints, so I'm still pretty clueless. Heh heh. I did enjoy it, but it is very strange of course. From reading some reviews I was afraid it would be totally impenetrable and unenjoyable, but I didn't find that to be the case. Some sequences are way overdone (I could have done with less scenes of Susan screaming "Billy!"), but overall I was left with the usual sense of Lynchian unease and mystery and the feeling I could almost put the puzzle pieces together.
woozy	post #11  on September 18, 2007 - 5:56 PM PDT   > On September 18, 2007 - 4:58 PM PDT Cinenaut wrote: > --------------------------------- but overall I was left with the usual sense of Lynchian unease and mystery and the feeling I could almost put the puzzle pieces together. > > --------------------------------- Almost but not quite, eh? I had the same problem the first couple times watching this as I had with "Lost Highway" in that after about an hour the first story (Nicki and the film) just seemed to disappear entirely and you don't know where it went and the there's a new story (Laura the battered street walker who seemed to have come from nowhere).
Cinenaut	post #12  on September 18, 2007 - 7:21 PM PDT   > On September 18, 2007 - 5:56 PM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > Almost but not quite, eh? > > I had the same problem the first couple times watching this as I had with "Lost Highway" in that after about an hour the first story (Nicki and the film) just seemed to disappear entirely and you don't know where it went and the there's a new story (Laura the battered street walker who seemed to have come from nowhere). > --------------------------------- But she turned out to be the character in the film, who, come to think of it, must have really hit upon some hard times during the course of that movie. Inland Empire is one heck of a crazy Möbius strip of a movie, that's for sure.
woozy	post #13  on September 25, 2007 - 12:38 PM PDT   Fourth watching and it's still opaque. Got a bit more of the Polish story this time. I think "the story" occurs three of four times but is slightly different each time. e.g. in the polish story its the wife who can't have children and in the working class story its the husband. It's the working class story and the Sue story that is persisting on confusing me. >>> >>>The film cuts to the scene where Susan's picking up groceries and she's wearing an outfight we had seen Nicky wearing twenty minutes earlier >>> Well, I'm dead wrong about that! They were completely different outfits. Just both green. My inability to recognize faces is costing me. I didn't recognize Krimp as the phantom until I read it on the internet. I saw them as utterly different actors until I was told they were the same. I think the husbands were all played by the same actor? (Dimpled chin? largish ears? rectangular face?) Haven't figured out the husbands' story. Especially as the polish story doesn't seem to have a Devon/Billy in it. And the working class story it's hard to tell whether the wife is or is not Susan. And Laura Dern seems to be both the wife and the other woman in the whore on the street story. The deleted scenes watched immediately after the movie don't seem to help. They simply don't fit anything known. Maybe I'll watch it again in a year or so. I think it was really good, but I think Mullholland Drive and the Lost Highway were cleaner.
Cinenaut	post #14  on September 25, 2007 - 10:05 PM PDT   > On September 25, 2007 - 12:38 PM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > I think it was really good, but I think Mullholland Drive and the Lost Highway were cleaner. > --------------------------------- I agree! You watched it four times!? It's kind of a relief to know that even if I'd watched it 2 times instead of 1.75 times, I probably wouldn't be that much wiser. I'm definitely glad I saw it and it definitely gave me my David Lynch fix.
woozy	post #15  on September 26, 2007 - 12:30 AM PDT   > On September 25, 2007 - 10:05 PM PDT Cinenaut wrote: > > It's kind of a relief to know that even if I'd watched it 2 times instead of 1.75 times, I probably wouldn't be that much wiser. I'm definitely glad I saw it and it definitely gave me my David Lynch fix. > Each time I watch it I think I see more. I think I'm hoping I'll get the final story. Course there isn't a final story so it's probably faulty. I mean, Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway had stories. Still haven't figure what the "story" of this one is. Of course it might not actually have one. Shaky's not around so he can't tell me who is the "key" to understanding the story. Wouldn't mind hearing his take on it. I don't know what the LB tatoo is.
Cinenaut	post #16  on September 27, 2007 - 1:32 PM PDT   Isn't it amazing that we're the only two people to have seen this movie, Woozy? > On September 26, 2007 - 12:30 AM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > I don't know what the LB tatoo is. > --------------------------------- I don't either. It kind of startled me to see that so late in the film. The forums I glanced at didn't have any convincing theories, either.
woozy	post #17  on September 27, 2007 - 2:35 PM PDT   > On September 27, 2007 - 1:32 PM PDT Cinenaut wrote: > --------------------------------- > Isn't it amazing that we're the only two people to have seen this movie, Woozy? > Only two to talk about it at any rate. > > The forums I glanced at didn't have any convincing theories, either. > From our perspective we see it upside down and it has a red line crossing it out. So does it mean "No more blue tomorrows"? That's pretty lame even for me! actually upside down it could be a "not 87". But what significance could "87" be. The original movie was called "vier sieben" (four seven) and the "lost room" was 47. I thought it might be a pun on "vier" = "fear" but then what would be "seiben"? Mmmm, there's a scene in the rabbit room where the room is flooded with red light, there's a flame in the corner and the female rabbit comes out holding to lights above her head, and the image of the third rabbit appears. I think the flame in the corner is the cigarette burning through silk. Don't those tatoos usually indicate that the barer has served time?
Cinenaut	post #18  on September 28, 2007 - 8:02 AM PDT   > On September 27, 2007 - 2:35 PM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > Mmmm, there's a scene in the rabbit room where the room is flooded with red light, there's a flame in the corner and the female rabbit comes out holding to lights above her head, and the image of the third rabbit appears. I think the flame in the corner is the cigarette burning through silk. > --------------------------------- Wow! Why didn't I think of that! Of course. Does that particular method of divination have any basis in non-Lynchian reality, I wonder? > On September 27, 2007 - 2:35 PM PDT woozy also wrote: > --------------------------------- > Don't those tatoos usually indicate that the barer has served time? > --------------------------------- That is an excellent thought. That particular Suzie certainly seemed like she'd have served time.
woozy	post #19  on September 28, 2007 - 12:12 PM PDT   > Does that particular method of divination have any basis in non-Lynchian reality, I wonder? > Don't think so. Looking through holes is a common Lynch metaphor of seeing other worlds, looking through a camera/projector lens. Cigarettes, as anyone who has stayed in a cheap motel knows, leave very small and precise holes. Burning holes with a cigarette through silk, I think is just kinda sensual and tactile and a combination of exotic and practical.