Friday, August 03, 2007
Inland Empire
According to the Commonsense Nihilist, David Lynch's Inland Empire is a masterpiece; bloody good news, and I can't wait to see it.UPDATE
Billy didn't think nearly so much of it.
...
People in rabbit suits remind me of Donnie Darko, that most vague and
troublesome of flims. What do I mean? In addition to the original theatrical release (which I hated the first time, and loved the second), and the DVD release which gave you the expanded and changed (to some to an unnacceptable degree) director's cut, there is now available a three-DVD version out which includes the theatrical and director's version, as well as a further DVD of extraneous nonsense.Sometimes I think I should just give up trying to make sense of all this and get me a Frank the Bunny talking action figure.
...
NP: Pavement - The Killing Moon (Friday farce)
comments:
I've just updated my post with this:
The criticisms of this film seem to revolve around it being incoherent. I am not impressed by this argument. It's like hassling punk rock for not having concept albums and 20-minute virtuoso guitar solos. I reckon this film is very coherent. It hangs together very well, but does so on its own terms.
I am convinced that the main character is you, the viewer. You need to play your part and put it together in your head. My main evidence for this is the woman at the start and end who is watching tv in a hotel room. She is a surrogate version of you, just as Nikki is a surrogate version of her and Sue is a surrogate version of Nikki.
If you go looking for conventional narrative and conventional characters to relate to, you will be disappointed. It's like those Russian dolls or fractal geometry – a reiteration of the same shape on different scales. It also helps to be familiar with Lynch's other work, the significance of red curtains and strobe lights etc. And, of course, he's using classic avant-garde techniques, so it probably helps to be familiar with them too.
Post a Comment
The criticisms of this film seem to revolve around it being incoherent. I am not impressed by this argument. It's like hassling punk rock for not having concept albums and 20-minute virtuoso guitar solos. I reckon this film is very coherent. It hangs together very well, but does so on its own terms.
I am convinced that the main character is you, the viewer. You need to play your part and put it together in your head. My main evidence for this is the woman at the start and end who is watching tv in a hotel room. She is a surrogate version of you, just as Nikki is a surrogate version of her and Sue is a surrogate version of Nikki.
If you go looking for conventional narrative and conventional characters to relate to, you will be disappointed. It's like those Russian dolls or fractal geometry – a reiteration of the same shape on different scales. It also helps to be familiar with Lynch's other work, the significance of red curtains and strobe lights etc. And, of course, he's using classic avant-garde techniques, so it probably helps to be familiar with them too.
