Home › View

"Film is dead." -David Lynch

Tue, 09/04/2007 - 11:35am — J.M.

Inland Empire, the latest movie from director, David Lynch, has had a surprising effect on me. I confess, I have not been much of a Lynch fan in the past. I'm not familiar with most of his work. My experience has been limited to Blue Velvet (ok, but not great for me, people may cringe) and Wild at Heart (i liked better, go figure). I read some reviews on Inland Empire, and I was turned off after reading how chaotic and difficult it is to watch for audiences, but then i saw this article in the Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/screens/0732,lee,77431,28.html Lynch used the Sony PD-150 DV camera. The same camera we use at Pan Left. Then I changed opinion, this I had to see, The experience was just different all together. I felt I was introduced to Lynch for the first time, and from articles I've read as well as discussions, this actually is a new start for Lynch in certain aspects. Inland Empire, for me at least, has re-awakened the possibilities of digital video in cinema.

The brief history of DV in the film industry has caught my attention before, but Inland Empire has realized the potential of DV and given a template for all those involved in the digital medium. Recently Lynch himself has come to his own realization about film and his relationship to digital. His experiences from working with it have led him to the conviction that, "Film is dead." http://www.lostmag.com/issue13/cinematography.php I can't help but take this into account after watching Inland Empire. I believe Lynch used this movie to prove that point. It's given me a feast for thought, and, for myself, I too see this truth and believe film is dead.
[added perspective from Lynch is offered in this online video http://www.amazon.com/Lynchs-Inland-Empire-Limited-Two-Disc/dp/B000QQFKY... Just the beginning though, the rest is Lynch's current Transcendental Meditation propaganda tour he's doing, which some might like if you want to watch further.]

Inland Empire is not solely responsible for this self-realization, but it was the catalyst that caused me to question and ask, what does film mean to me? The answers have led to many thoughts, and many more questions, but there is no doubt that I now choose to devote myself to digital and abandon film.

I'm still working toward reaching a more coherent explanation to a philosophy I feel is being developed, and I'll reveal more in future posts. I hope at that time, people who haven't seen the movie will also be able to offer opinions. Or even now, if something I've written gives reason to comment, then please do.

However, I still am also looking for more thoughts from those that have seen Inland Empire. But this also might be a bit difficult because I come from a perspective that finds revelation in the aesthetic of Inland Empire, not so much the content. If you haven't seen it and might be curious, I do feel there should be a somewhat of a Warning: For myself, it was very difficult to watch. Plot is pointless, characters are confusing, and the images could be described by audiences as, disturbing, explicit, gross, misogynistic, racist, pretentious, alienating, and probably countless other adjectives. To say the least the content does provoke dialog, and countless reviews I've read go forward to take on the discussion. I too have an interest in having those talks, however, I am curious about the catalyst Inland Empire sparked in me. I wonder, do others see what I'm seeing? Do people find something liberating in the aesthetic?

For at least now, if you are going to watch Inland Empire on DVD, I ask three favors. 1) Watch it only on a TV set. 2) Before you press play, scroll down to the "picture set up" option on the menu, and follow the instructions. 3) Try to watch the whole movie, take breaks if you have to. It's very long and intense.

After that... well, I guess we'll see.

Comments

Fri, 09/07/2007 - 10:07am — steev

Film is Dead But Story Still Lives

I've already talked at length with Jason and Pepo about Inland Empire and the issue Jason is bringing up here. But for the benefit (or detriment) of any others, I thought I'd summarize my views:

The first time I saw the film (I'm going to continue saying "film" to refer to any moving-image single-channel work, because I just feel stupid calling things "videos", unless they're those short films used to advertise songs on outlets like MTV), in a theater, I thought it must be a lie, there's no way this could be a cheap DV camcorder. I saw it again on TV and could believe it more, especially after Jason related all the interviews and articles he read about how Lynch did it.

But really, my overall reaction is, "whatever". I mean, the film is beautiful. (and I think the sound design is even more beautiful than the cinematography.) But I've never cared much whether I ever "get" to shoot on real film. It's never seemed worth it or even desirable. Maybe I should just go back to writing (my first creative pursuit back when I was a kid), because I just don't care about image quality that much. It's not what's important to me. What's important is content - especially story. And with Inland Empire and the film before that, Muholland Drive, Lynch has disappointed me quite a bit. He doesn't seem to be concerned with good storytelling anymore, just one creating a sort of cloud of loosely, connected scenes and letting the viewer sort of swim around and struggle to make sense of it for themselves.

However, getting back to pretty pictures, I have learned that most people in the film world care a lot about image quality, and so I have resolved to play the game to some extent, especially after doing my Juarez film (one of the biggest critiques of that was about cinematography - as if one can't care much about mutilated murdered Mexican girls unless the footage of their mothers crying is a certain level of beautiful). So, I'm thinking more and more about how to follow the rules of the game, but again, it doesn't matter to what tools I use.

The thing one has to realize, too, is that Lynch spent tons of money on lighting, set design, and most importantly, computer filtering to make his shots pop so wonderfully. Film may be dead or dying, but lots and lots of money and time and expertise is not. You can't just walk out of your house with a PD-150 and automatically shoot great stuff.

Another recent film to see that is relevant is "Once," which is at the Loft this week - also shot on cheap video cameras but there's no mistaking that it's video. They even purposely shoot shaky handheld shots, I guess to say "hey, it looks crappy cuz we're using cheap cameras! look at us! we're using cheap cameras!" The lighting is also pretty mediocre in a lot of scenes. And yet, they clearly spent a little time and cash on some of the camera work, with fancy crane shots and stuff. I kind of don't see the point. Also check out the home movie love montage that the main character plays guitar along with while watching on his laptop. It's all high-saturation "film look" footage, as if to say "this is a symbol to denote that this is home movie footage." Even though people don't use Super 8 cameras to shoot home movies anymore, that look is still the symbol for that kind of content. Isn't that interesting? I find that kind of stuff fascinating.