I don't think a film has have a concrete plot, be "entertaining" in some non-artistic way or be explainable in only one or two ways. I also don't say that everyone has to appreciate a film in the same way and that all films have to be on a level playing field to be compared and contrasted, but there should be some critical standards in place for a viewer to be able judge what the film accomplishes, even if it might be difficult to grasp at first. Films have evolved and standards must therefore evolve, but one thing I've noticed lately is that more people are saying I don't understand what I've just seen, but I like it because it's different and/or it's not mainstream Hollywood. They can't especially tell you why they like it but it makes them feel some way that I have to assume is "enjoyable" in some way because I don't think most people are cinematic masochists.
So I'd say it's OK for a film to be non-traditional, and it's OK for someone to like it, but doing away with the why and wherefore doesn't seem fair because how are we to know if it's a great film or an embarrassing act of public masturbation. Wait a minute. Now even hardcore porn is "mainstream".
But I think that some of us are looking at film as some kind of saviour or release from more than sexual tension or addiction. So if there are unusual films you adore, work out why and perfect your writing skills to explain to others why you do and why they should feel the same way.
I adored the film because it's unusual style leaves me thinking just why I enjoyed what I saw so much, but first of all I will say it has a mood like no other, grotesque and disturbing at times, perhaps, but that was its intention I felt, and I don't think I have 'jumped' during a film as many times of this one. I enjoyed it as an exploration of cinema, like
Un Chien Andalou and
Holy Motors, Lynch is experimenting with the digital camera and exploring the possibilities of direction, acting, and the creation of worlds, the roles characters play.
Scenes are deliberately disjointed and repeated in order us to question ourselves and the power of films that has been used to do so - how certain actions and decisions end up affecting things a lot further down the line, we get repeated dialogue, the appearance of the original Polish cast, and the woman's clue at the beginning that 'actions have consequences'. In his promotion of Dern's performance Lynch also said "without cheese there would be no Inland Empire" and expanding with "Cheese comes from milk", the idea that what happens results as something much further down the line that strangely has a way of impacting on the future - although my explanation of this is a little poor at the moment.
I also liked the idea of the woman at the beginning/end who watches the events unfold on screen, an image later replicated as Dern watches the film take place, we have a film within a film within a film. Lynch seems to be suggesting a 'higher power', an evil that influences others beneath them. This is something that happens in
Twin Peaks with the evil forces of the Black Lodge, then in
Mulholland Drive we have Michael J. Anderson as a dwarf how has the ability to pull the plug on everything, make a Hollywood director's work come to a complete stop. The idea of the directing controlling his actors are shared between this and
Mulholland Drive, Lynch seems to have something to say about Hollywood and corporate studios - I read an interesting interpretation to the rabbit scenes where the rabbits are meant to represent those Hollywood/studio people 'high up', controlling things, the laugh track going off at random times is used as a way of showing how despite people not necessarily know what they're talking about, they go along with it and please them anyway.
Huge Inland Empire fan. That said, I also understand why people abhor this film. It;s dense, obtuse, and very dark and yukky feeling for some. I have had a couple people ask me right out to shut it down, because it is making them "feel really weird" or "getting under their skin." I like to think that makes the film a successful cinematic exercise in the expression of emotive and affecting cinematic language. As a narrative, it clearly has issues, but I don't put IE in for a narrative.
The space-folding scene with the silk is something I have watched dozens of times. Love the tone, there.
Glad you like it. The point of the narrative though is to be disruptive, I wouldn't say it has issues. The woman at the beginning talks about how times can be mistaken. And I think
Twin Peaks and
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me also help understand what Lynch tries to achieve in terms of parralel universes, although events and characters are connected (I'm talking about the Black Lodge), is time necessarily constant between them, do the various events have to follow each other?
Inland Empire is a film I've seen three times and I'm still working on what I think it means. As for purpose, all I know is I was more fascinated by it than bored and I appreciated its imagery, some of which genuinely frightened and disturbed me, such as that weird thing that looked like a fetus/deep sea creature which seemed to represents the main character's hidden ugliness or evil, I believe...
No one is obligated to like a movie because it is difficult, but I also think it's narrow-minded to judge a film harshly solely
because it isn't easily understood.
I agree with the genuinely frightened/disturbed part. I think I'm the only person on here, actually there is HitchFan who I think likes both too, that likes
Fire Walk With Me. It's a film I also understand why a lot of people dislike it, it has an extreme grotesque visceral style, is more abrupt than the TV series and has lots of weird scenes with lots more evil elements in it. But I enjoyed it because I saw it as the perfect summary of the pain Laura Palmer felt in here final week, and the chaos of the secret life she lived.