Venice. Inland Empire.

Ok, so we knew David Lynch would be receiving a lifetime achievement Golden Lion award in Venice, and that he did, but what we've been dying to hear about is Inland Empire. So far, all critics seem able to agree on two things: the new film is enigmatic as hell and it's three hours long.

"David Lynch's latest opus is a Russian doll of a film with stories inside stories inside stories," writes Geoffrey Macnab in the Guardian. "Laura Dern (who also co-produced) stars as an actress who has just landed a part in a new film. What the producers have neglected to tell her is that the movie is a remake and that the two original leads were murdered. Now, history looks set to repeat itself." Sounds straightforward enough, but "we are never quite sure whether we are watching the film-within-the-film (being directed by Jeremy Irons) or the film about the film-within-the-film.... Two hours in, you begin to realise it is pointless trying to unravel the mysteries of the plot. The best way to enjoy the film is to succumb to its warped, dream-like logic."

Updated through 9/11.

Dalya Alberge has a fairly amusing piece in the London Times on the confusion that struck the film's first audiences: "Lynch clearly had no intention of enlightening them, even when one critic said: 'I have to ask you with a certain concern, how are you these days?' 'Thank you, I'm doing really well,' Lynch replied." The Times' James Christopher calls it "one of the most impenetrable films ever made."

"There was never a complete script, so thesps turned up each day with a new set of lines and no idea where they were going, making Dern's central turn even more remarkable for its coherence," remarks Jay Weissberg in Variety. Writing in Screen Daily, Lee Marshall agrees that she "commands the screen despite the fact that she doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on either."

Marshall adds another note of common concern among critics: "Perhaps one of the biggest let-downs, though, is the director's conversion to digital filmmaking, which he enthused about on the Lido. Though the format has undoubtedly allowed Lynch greater creative freedom, the result for much of the film is a poor TV-quality image that bleeds color, and lighting that even a Dogme director would blush at. There are exceptions - notably some striking black-and-white moving collages that take us back to Eraserhead and German Expressionist cinema."

In the German papers, die taz's Cristina Nord predicts the film's imagery will enter our dreams, but the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's Michael Althen accuses Lynch of self-parody.

Updates: The Guardian: "Speaking ahead of the screening, Lynch attempted to reassure the audience. 'It's supposed to make perfect sense,' he said. 'Every film is like going into a new world, going into the unknown. But you should be not afraid of using your intuition, and feel and think your way through.'"

Online viewing tip. A teaser Lynch made for a collection of "short films" (music videos) promoting Michael Jackson's Dangerous. Via Matthew Ross at the Daily Reel.

Update, 9/8: "[A]n interminable bore," declares the Hollywood Reporter's Ray Bennett. "The annoying thing is that it starts quite well.... Angelo Badalamenti's music does all the heavy lifting. If it weren't for the extraordinary range and texture of his underscore, much of this film would sink without trace."

Update, 9/9: Brian Logan in the Guardian on a few bafflers of art history.

Updates, 9/11: "[T]he most miserable three hours I've ever spent in the cinema," writes the Observer's Jason Solomons.

Brendon Connelly posts a few images.

Posted by dwhudson at September 7, 2006 12:16 AM