David Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE

May 12, 2005 2:10 PM

David Lynch's secret movie (site with annoying, loud sound, sorry) "It's about a woman in trouble, and it's a mystery, and that's about all I want to say about it". Titled "INLAND EMPIRE" (all caps, though Lynch doesn't explain why), it stars Laura Dern, Justin Theroux, Harry Dean Stanton, Jeremy Irons. Lynch has shot much of his latest film in Poland, after making friends with the organizers of the Camerimage festival in Lodz. He's now back shooting in and around Los Angeles. Even at this relatively advanced stage of production, Lynch is cagey about when it will be finished. It was shot entirely in DV: "I started working in DV for my Web site, and I fell in love with the medium. For me, there's no way back to film. I'm done with it".
posted by matteo (36 comments total)

Lynch on MeFi: here, here and here
posted by matteo at 2:15 PM on May 12, 2005

Lynch's official site

Camerimage Festival's official site here

Getting Lost Is Beautiful - The light and dark world of David Lynch

davidlynch.de discussion here

posted by matteo at 2:19 PM on May 12, 2005

Awesome news. He's one of my favorites. I like this:

"It's about a woman in trouble, and it's a mystery, and that's about all I want to say about it," he comments diffidently.

For Lynch, that's a relatively detailed and clear plot summary. What was the one for Blue Velvet? "The love of a boy for a girl is a worm" or something?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:21 PM on May 12, 2005

His official bio in press kits has always been "Born in Missoula, Montana. Eagle Scout." on an otherwise blank page. Genius.
posted by fungible at 2:29 PM on May 12, 2005

I love that he's shooting on DV. Big time filmmakers have been *so* wary of embracing it...

</geek>
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:30 PM on May 12, 2005

I hate that he's shooting on DV. Small-time filmmakers are too prolific.

</elitism>
posted by nobody at 2:36 PM on May 12, 2005

I think nobody wins.
posted by xmutex at 2:53 PM on May 12, 2005

i hate that he's shooting on dv. dv looks like ass.

[/film snob]
posted by pxe2000 at 2:54 PM on May 12, 2005

Yea cos every single major (and most non-major) motion picture isn't transferred to digital and back these days just for post. They all look awful :rolleyes:.
posted by basicchannel at 3:01 PM on May 12, 2005

Is there a compelling reason for filmmakers to switch to DV as their means of filming, besides all the ease-of-use and cost benefits? I'm thinking of how people use lower end digital cameras today, even though the end product is of lower use ultimately than traditional film.
posted by VulcanMike at 3:02 PM on May 12, 2005

As for the quality of the DV image, Lynch says, "It looks different. Some would say it looks bad. But it reminds me of early 35mm, that didn't have that tight grain. When you have a poor image, there's lots more room to dream."

Interesting perspective. Shades of Guy Madden (whose own work, of course, is filled with shades of David Lynch).

Is there a compelling reason for filmmakers to switch to DV as their means of filming, besides all the ease-of-use and cost benefits?

Did you read the article? Lynch listed a bunch of reasons, including flexibility, immediacy, and not having to reload.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:08 PM on May 12, 2005

INLAND EMPIRE? It's set in the Spokane area? I hope it doesn't star the mayor.
posted by faceonmars at 3:26 PM on May 12, 2005

All I can think of when hearing that title is the area around San Bernardino in Southern California. I wonder if he is intentionally refering to it. Also, hooray for a new Lynch film.
posted by ddf at 3:30 PM on May 12, 2005

The Inland Empire.
posted by ddf at 3:31 PM on May 12, 2005

For Lynch, that's a relatively detailed and clear plot summary. What was the one for Blue Velvet? "The love of a boy for a girl is a worm" or something?

My awakening to the world of art and cult films came reading the monthly HBO guide at my childhood home and coming across the absurdly concise plot summary for BLUE VELVET: "Curious teen finds severed ear."

"That," I thought to myself, "is exactly the kind of film I want to see." My life hasn't been the same since.
posted by eschatfische at 3:48 PM on May 12, 2005

Is there a compelling reason for filmmakers to switch to DV as their means of filming, besides all the ease-of-use and cost benefits?

That question had me in stitches. Like saying, "Is there a compelling reason to eat food, besides acquiring nutrients and energy?"

And I gotta say, I'm a fan of david lynch (everything pre-lost highway), but now I'd have been expecting that quote to read more like this: "I started releasing unfinished movies for my Web site, and I fell in love with the laziness. For me, there's no way back to finished movies. I'm done with them."
posted by shmegegge at 4:04 PM on May 12, 2005

Q: How do you know when a David Lynch movie is over?
A: Midgets
posted by basicchannel at 4:15 PM on May 12, 2005

nobody: "Small-time filmmakers are too prolific."
Any format looks like ass when you don't know how to light. (No, not YOU, "one".) But someone shooting on the cheap with dv is probably less likely to be paying for a proper grip and cetera. Or to know what they're doing at all, perhaps. dv can look surprisingly good, IMHO. However, I happen to like ass, and film that looks like ass, so okay.
I too enjoy shooting with a camera made by an oatmeal company, PXE....
posted by zoinks at 4:21 PM on May 12, 2005

Any format looks like ass when you don't know how to light.

Hear, hear! (For the small-timers, lighting is also a huge $$$ problem in addition to being difficult to do correctly, or with any sense of artistry. True of film, too, of course.)
posted by dragstroke at 4:27 PM on May 12, 2005

Speaking of DV, anyone seen Tape?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:56 PM on May 12, 2005

zoinks: as the first person to correctly guess the genesis of my screen name, you get a cookie. from a strictly aesthetic perspective, i really like the grainy look of the pxl, as well as the low frame rate (half that of dv, thanks).

the look of digital really gets to me. the garish color, the trails, the look of 30fps...it just bothers me. additionally, the fact that filmmakers are discarding film on their way to video seems a bit silly. it's like saying "watercolors are cheaper! i'm discarding my oils now!"

a few filmmakers know how to do a good job with dv. they don't treat it like film. hal hartley's recent features have shown some artistry, and he's made clear that this is but one tool, not the be-all and end-all. unfortunately, too many people who use dv treat it like film (see also: linklater, arteta) and the results are horrible.
posted by pxe2000 at 5:23 PM on May 12, 2005

900 Lights and a 50-Pound Lars-Cam
Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle on creating beauty amid brutality for Lars Von Trier's Dogville
posted by matteo at 5:37 PM on May 12, 2005

pxe: I suspect that's backlash, mostly, from people who resent film elitism. at some point things will even out.
posted by shmegegge at 5:44 PM on May 12, 2005

basicchannel: There's a big difference between shooting on film with a 2K or 4K digital intermediate (like this), and shooting on a consumer format such as miniDV (like this).

Of course, it doesn't say what format he's using, so it could be something decent like 24p HDCAM, but usually when people just say "DV" without any other qualifiers, they mean the lower-end stuff, like miniDV and DVCPro.

And your implication that every film being made today employs a digital intermediate is incorrect -- quite a few do not.
posted by Potsy at 6:28 PM on May 12, 2005

Dragstroke wrote: Hear, hear! (For the small-timers, lighting is also a huge $$$ problem in addition to being difficult to do correctly...)

Good lighting is intimidating to do at first, since there's nowhere to learn it outside of an apprenticeship. However, it's not actually that complex, and sure doesn't need to be expensive for most small features. (It helps not to write scenes requiring you to light a city block.) There are really only three key factors to keep in mind

1. light must be naturally "motivated" or the viewer's subconscious mind will recognize it's fake
2. light should be used to enhance a sense of visual depth - flat light is the worst
3. good lighting is a balance of light and dark - the shadow is as important as the light

Practice, practice, practice.
posted by Pliskie at 6:42 PM on May 12, 2005

Great post Matteo, thanks -- I was wondering what Lynch was up to . . . Too bad the Natural Law party links are dead tho, I would like to see that video . . .
posted by undule at 6:48 PM on May 12, 2005

basicchannel, that (Q/A) made my day!
posted by shoepal at 8:02 PM on May 12, 2005

I shoot on DV. I'd rather use film, but I don't have the time or budget for it. I like being able to see if a take worked or not immediately.

I also hate the look of traditional DV, but a Panny DVX100 with 24p and a leica lens goes a way in solving this problem, as does magic bullet filters in post.

Once the new HVX100 comes out later this year for under US$6k, with 24p HD capabilities, the only thing you could really complain about would be the CCDs, but I don't think I'll be complaining too much.
posted by Poagao at 1:14 AM on May 13, 2005

I always thought of DV as being not quite as good as film, but much cheaper, until I saw Collateral. The filmmakers could have easily afforded to shoot on film, but director Michael Mann and his cinematographers decide that the look of DV would suit the film better; it's the first film I've seen where the makers have thought about the aesthetics of DV, instead of just trying to make it look like film.
posted by yankeefog at 5:18 AM on May 13, 2005

additionally, the fact that filmmakers are discarding film on their way to video seems a bit silly. it's like saying "watercolors are cheaper! i'm discarding my oils now!"

And thus the question I was asking about DV. Though I understand shmegegge's point, I come from the perspective that making movies is about making art. Surely cost and ease of editing are important to the final product -- but given that we've survived with traditional film for the entire history of motion picture up until now, those two factors are hardly the "acquiring nutrients and energy" of film.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:56 AM on May 13, 2005

Speaking as a one time filmmaker, film student, etc, I always love these sorts of conversations.

I grew up with 8mm, and BetaMax, and VHS, and Super VHS, and 16mm, and Beta, and DigiBeta...

In my timeline BetaMax and its bulky "portable" recording unit came before 8mm. So I had blurry, fuzzy, horrible light adapting video.. and I had pretty, but blurry, textured film.

I ended up in a film school where I was surrounded by "film snobs." there was no pleasing them. You shot that at 8mm? PAh, that looks like shit, you should have used 16. You shot that at 16mm? Pah! That looks like such shit! Why didn't you do Super 16. You shot at Super 16? Man, you really should have used 35mm.

Meanwhile, setting up one shot for a film (student) could take 2 hours. Setting up for DV could take 20 minutes. Trade offs.. tradeoffs. The depths and the textures on the film, blown up, were excellent. The DV showed gradients and digital artifacts where there was just blackness. Trade offs...

I am babbling because I have too much to say and no time to say it, except to say, there will always be snobs or "purists" as they would like to be called. Every medium has a value, a purpose, and a con.

Myself, I think film looks absolutely gorgeous. There's a chemical hoo-ah there that digital hasn't caught up to. But the gap is closing every year...
posted by cavalier at 10:47 AM on May 13, 2005

Posted too soon..

And to get back on topic, I'm happy that Mr. Lynch is going to DV. Because his reasons are sound. He's not saying HOO AH I"m enjoying all the production benefits of DV (ok he is but he's not accenting it) -- he's saying, I like the bits and smegma of DV. I'm paraphrashing, he didn't say smegma...

He's using it to get the aesthetic he wants, which is a perfectly valid reason IMO.. I bet he really doesn't like the fact that Fuji (Blue) and Kodak (Red) have refined their technology to produce such grain-free film stock in the past 15 years...
posted by cavalier at 10:49 AM on May 13, 2005

vulcanmike:

I might be responding too late, here, but my point was to say that DV is often used as a matter of necessity, and dismissing cost benefit analysis and ease of post production is dismissing a whole lot when considering the two. I figured someone would lay things out more completely with accurate info and all. I didn't really have the time to go into depth. If I was unclear about this, I apologize.

Basically, my feeling about people's opinions on dv vs. film are as follows:

1. Anyone who refuses DV out of hand is most likely coming from a position of ignorance. If not ignorance, then deeply entrenched bias that will harm them more than help in the end.
2. Most people who use DV do it not to reject film (mr lynch notwithstanding) but rather to say "Here's a valid alternative, and I'm throwing my hat in the ring to support it."
3. If you encounter someone who says "I hate film. I'll never use it," then you're encountering one of two types of people: a. a liar (mr lynch) or b. an incredibly stupid person. Film is beautiful if used correctly, as is dv. there is no reason to completely ignore one or the other, provided you can afford either.
posted by shmegegge at 6:07 PM on May 13, 2005

Thanks for the clarification, shmegegge -- makes sense. I didn't know that Collateral was a DV film until reading this thread, so I'll have to start paying closer attention...
posted by VulcanMike at 7:22 PM on May 13, 2005

zoinks wrote: nobody: "Small-time filmmakers are too prolific."
Any format looks like ass when you don't know how to light. (No, not YOU, "one".) But someone shooting on the cheap with dv is probably less likely to be paying for a proper grip and cetera. Or to know what they're doing at all, perhaps.

Agreed. My comment was mostly facetious. Since this thread has probably emptied out (and I won't be around for the weekend), I can probably wait for the next thread for more debate.

As a side note, in case anyone's still around, shouldn't the close-tag be a noun that describes the text theoretically surrounded by it and the implied open-tag?

Three examples from this thread:

</geek>
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:30 PM EST on May 12

</elitism>
posted by nobody at 5:36 PM EST on May 12

[/film snob]
posted by pxe2000 at 5:54 PM EST on May 12

I think only the middle one is correct. <query type="legitimate">Am I wrong?</query>
posted by nobody at 7:41 PM on May 13, 2005

I like it already.
posted by troutfishing at 8:32 PM on May 17, 2005