INLAND EMPIRE

There's a moment in the second half of David Lynch's Blue Velvet that has never left me. It occurs when Laura Dern's character Sandy comes to the brutally shocking realization that not only has her friend/boyfriend Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan) kept secrets from her, but her safe, ordered world is not as she thought it was and will never be the same. The combination of pain/horror/anger/helplessness on Dern's face is a microcosm of the entire film. It's also extremely effective.

But as effective as Dern is in that scene, it's like a speck of sand on the beach compared with her performance in INLAND EMPIRE. If you see INLAND EMPIRE for no other reason, see it for Dern's performance. You won't see another like it anywhere else. Lately I've read a lot of speculation that she'll be nominated for an Oscar for this performance. (Nominations are announced Saturday.) Such talk is both unrealistic and immaterial. This is not hyperbole: Dern's performance in INLAND EMPIRE transcends awards. Go see for yourself.

Having said that, not everyone should see this film. It is about as far from mainstream American filmmaking as you can get. If you haven't experienced David Lynch's work before, this is NOT a good introduction. Even if the only other Lynch film you've seen is Mulholland Drive, it still can't adequately prepare you for INLAND EMPIRE. Nothing can.

Describing the plot would be pointless and I don't want to give much away. Instead, here are a few of the things I've heard/read about the film with my responses.

Critics have said INLAND EMPIRE is Lynch's most ambitious film.

True. It has a tremendous scope and Lynch takes lots of risky chances.

The film is three hours long.

It is. (Actually it's about 2 minutes short of the three-hour mark.) For some, it will fly by. For others, it will seem like an eternity.

The plot is incomprehensible.

False. You won't get it all the first time and maybe not even the second time. I think I understood about 25% of the film last night. I didn't understand Mulholland Drive the first time either (and I certainly don't understand all of it now), but that film is a first-grade Easy Reader compared to INLAND EMPIRE. That's not to say INLAND EMPIRE does not have things in common with Mulholland Drive – it does. Both are about actresses and Hollywood, both use similar editing techniques, lighting, sets, similar Lynchisms, etc. In both films, you have to pay very close attention to what happens (and what is said) early in the film.

Lynch shot the film on digital video, which looks terrible.

I didn't think so. It certainly looks different, providing different textures, which Lynch loves. It takes awhile to get used to the look on the big screen, but after the first several scenes, I didn't think about it much.

This film is nothing more than three hours of self-indulgence.

I absolutely disagree. What about this film is self-indulgent? Has Lynch proclaimed himself Emperor or something? No, he has a story to tell and he tells it in his own way, a way that goes against the grain of mainstream film producers and studios. That's not being self-indulgent.

I saw the film last night and I can't stop thinking about it. How many movies that you saw last year – or any year – have had that effect on you? This is a tremendous, challenging film that I highly recommend. (And I recommend that you not wait for the DVD, but see it in a theatre if at all possible.)