Inland Empire, like much of the work of cult filmmaker David Lynch, is cinema in its purest sense; i.e. a trip into the unknown; filled with horror and wonder, pain and emotion, riddled with riddles and worlds within worlds and question-marks that weave in and out of layers of self-reflexive nightmare, drama and imagination. If you're familiar with Lynch's previous work, specifically his loose trilogy of psychological metamorphosis films - Fire Walk with Me (1992), Lost Highway (1997) and Mulholland Drive (2001) - then you'll already have a vague understanding of what to expect from Inland Empire and how to best interpret its seemingly formless and meandering plot. I use the word knowingly, as many of the most vocal criticisms of Inland Empire centre on its overall lack of focus compared to the preceding Mulholland Drive or his earlier works such as and The Elephant Man (1981), Blue Velvet (1986) and Wild at Heart (1990).
However, this is clearly a deliberate decision on Lynch's part and as thus cannot really be expressed as a genuine criticism; with the confusing twists, multiple characters, alternative film universe and disturbing swerves from (dark) comedy to horror all being intended to disarm the viewer and create a sense of paranoid confusion that mirrors that of the central character (or characters). It can, I suppose, seem dense and obscure; more of an ordeal to get through than even Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive combined, but still, try to approach it with an open mind and the disarmingly naive idea that Lynch has described the film as "the story of a woman in trouble". Now, note the significance of "the lost girl" that appears in the vague and initially confusing scene at the beginning of the film and the idea of the actress and the significance of the role that she will eventually play. As with Mulholland Drive (or any of Lynch's work for that matter) the film is chock full of clues that point to the specifics of the actual story at hand - however, that said, there is still much room for acres of personal interpretation, thought and analysis.
What the film means is ultimately down to the individual, and as such, the amount of enjoyment you get out of it will probably depend on the amount of work that you put in. So, if you wanted to watch it five times in a row to work out all the various "ins and outs" of the cryptic dialog and sketchy characters, then so be it. Likewise, if you wanted to dismiss the film after a single viewing; criticising it for a lack of clarity and sense of story then again, that's entirely up you. However, don't assume that just because the film didn't work for you that it must be an unmitigated failure (and likewise, anyone who doesn't enjoy the film should not be treated as an idiot). Still, there is plenty here to enjoy for those willing to appreciate the film with the right frame of mind. Unlike many filmmakers, Lynch always strives to produce great art; and like all art his work is entirely subjective, elusive and open to interpretation. As a result, this isn't the kind of film that can be justified by an arbitrary rating; it will either be a film for you, or it won't. Some films are like that.
In my own opinion, Inland Empire wasn't something that I enjoyed quite as much as say, Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive, with my natural aversion to incredibly long films kicking in during the half-way point (this is almost three hours in length, half of which is in Polish and I watched without subtitles due to a problem with me DVD player - D'OH!). That said, there is still a lot to appreciate; from Lynch's bold use of digital film-making techniques and the incorporation of his own short-films and art-installations to offer further sub-textual depths to an already warped and fragmented story. In actual fact, the film often feels more like an art installation than an actual film, with some scenes merely revelling in arcane moments of reflection and visual expression. Other times the story manages to break through and actually drag you in; something that is mostly down to the riveting performance from Laura Dern; who dominates much of Inland Empire and really manages to embody the physical and psychological space of perhaps three to four different characters (adding further self-reflexive dementia to the idea of an actress, playing an actress, playing an actress, etc).
As I've discussed, Inland Empire isn't my favourite Lynch film, but like all of his films to date, it feels like something I SHOULD watch; something I should invest my time with in order to properly pick apart it's various supposed mysteries and experiments with the visual narrative. Like anything of this nature it feels somehow above criticism, though I know deep down that there are elements I didn't quite like or, indeed, understand. But still, who am I to say? Perhaps this won't be the most helpful review ever written - maybe I should have offered some of my own interpretations of the events and scenarios depicted herein? - but I think, by this stage, you will know quite well whether or not this film will be to your personal tastes (yeah, that's a close to three hour experimental art-drama about psychological dislocation! I'll get the beers in then!). Obviously don't watch it if you've never experienced another David Lynch film beforehand, and certainly not if you're looking for something to zone out with after a hard day at work. It might just drive you insane.
However, this is clearly a deliberate decision on Lynch's part and as thus cannot really be expressed as a genuine criticism; with the confusing twists, multiple characters, alternative film universe and disturbing swerves from (dark) comedy to horror all being intended to disarm the viewer and create a sense of paranoid confusion that mirrors that of the central character (or characters). It can, I suppose, seem dense and obscure; more of an ordeal to get through than even Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive combined, but still, try to approach it with an open mind and the disarmingly naive idea that Lynch has described the film as "the story of a woman in trouble". Now, note the significance of "the lost girl" that appears in the vague and initially confusing scene at the beginning of the film and the idea of the actress and the significance of the role that she will eventually play. As with Mulholland Drive (or any of Lynch's work for that matter) the film is chock full of clues that point to the specifics of the actual story at hand - however, that said, there is still much room for acres of personal interpretation, thought and analysis.
What the film means is ultimately down to the individual, and as such, the amount of enjoyment you get out of it will probably depend on the amount of work that you put in. So, if you wanted to watch it five times in a row to work out all the various "ins and outs" of the cryptic dialog and sketchy characters, then so be it. Likewise, if you wanted to dismiss the film after a single viewing; criticising it for a lack of clarity and sense of story then again, that's entirely up you. However, don't assume that just because the film didn't work for you that it must be an unmitigated failure (and likewise, anyone who doesn't enjoy the film should not be treated as an idiot). Still, there is plenty here to enjoy for those willing to appreciate the film with the right frame of mind. Unlike many filmmakers, Lynch always strives to produce great art; and like all art his work is entirely subjective, elusive and open to interpretation. As a result, this isn't the kind of film that can be justified by an arbitrary rating; it will either be a film for you, or it won't. Some films are like that.
In my own opinion, Inland Empire wasn't something that I enjoyed quite as much as say, Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive, with my natural aversion to incredibly long films kicking in during the half-way point (this is almost three hours in length, half of which is in Polish and I watched without subtitles due to a problem with me DVD player - D'OH!). That said, there is still a lot to appreciate; from Lynch's bold use of digital film-making techniques and the incorporation of his own short-films and art-installations to offer further sub-textual depths to an already warped and fragmented story. In actual fact, the film often feels more like an art installation than an actual film, with some scenes merely revelling in arcane moments of reflection and visual expression. Other times the story manages to break through and actually drag you in; something that is mostly down to the riveting performance from Laura Dern; who dominates much of Inland Empire and really manages to embody the physical and psychological space of perhaps three to four different characters (adding further self-reflexive dementia to the idea of an actress, playing an actress, playing an actress, etc).
As I've discussed, Inland Empire isn't my favourite Lynch film, but like all of his films to date, it feels like something I SHOULD watch; something I should invest my time with in order to properly pick apart it's various supposed mysteries and experiments with the visual narrative. Like anything of this nature it feels somehow above criticism, though I know deep down that there are elements I didn't quite like or, indeed, understand. But still, who am I to say? Perhaps this won't be the most helpful review ever written - maybe I should have offered some of my own interpretations of the events and scenarios depicted herein? - but I think, by this stage, you will know quite well whether or not this film will be to your personal tastes (yeah, that's a close to three hour experimental art-drama about psychological dislocation! I'll get the beers in then!). Obviously don't watch it if you've never experienced another David Lynch film beforehand, and certainly not if you're looking for something to zone out with after a hard day at work. It might just drive you insane.