there is a plot. A rather simple and identifiable plot, actually, told in a reasonably straightforward manner. The plot of the film in the film, On High in Blue Tomorrows, is, in fact, basically the plot of Inland Empire. A woman with a jealous husband gets involved with a man with a jealous wife, and actions do have consequences, and bad actions have bad consequences. That's it - and what happens in the film fits the plot line consistently. I suspect, further, that the plot has a fairly standard structure - rising action, turning points, the subplots and parallels that go into making a good story are all there, more or less in their proper places. I think you can trace the plot's structure through what happens in the film without much difficulty.
What makes this film Strange, though, is that this plot line is not enacted in anything like a unified story world.
Instead, characters change, actors sometimes change, settings change, the ontological status of what we see changes (as we move from the Hollywood frame story, to the film within the film, to the world of the film in the film, to the flashbacks or scenes from 4-7 or a radio play or whatever the Polish scenes are meant to be), the ontological relationship between different scenes change (as we move from seeing actors playing in On High in Blue Tomorrows to following the story "directly" to scenes like Laura Dern watching herself on a movie screen, as she lives the story), with all of it filtered through unspecified layers of subjectivity - dreams, visions, memories, thoughts, etc....
Lynch does not stabilize these different worlds. He does not maintain stable levels of reality. Nikki and Devon are not more real than Billy and Sue - Lynch moves back and forth between the different worlds, an uncertainty the characters share - they often seem unsure of which world they are in at any given moment.
Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway both received a good deal of attention on that question - critics made claims about what was real, who was real, they tried to stabilize the ontological relationships between Diane and Betty or Fred and Pete. It didn't really add anything to those films, and it would truly be a fool's errand with Inland Empire. It probably can't be done, and spending time on it tends to obscure the formal systems actually at work in the film.
that this film is basically about Lynch's obsession with lamps isn't so far off.
it is possible to interpret Lynch's films - they are, usually, grounded in fairly clear emotional and moral positions
Any thoughts?
This opinion seems to state most posters here are on the WRONG TRACK.
the "gateway" to other worlds, other realities, like the Black Lodge of Twin Peaks or the world-opening/changing "box" of Mulholland Drive. Here, there's a gateway tagged with the legend AXXoNN that transports the protagonist, Nikki Grace, from one reality to another; from one state of being to another. On the surface it's just a door, with those letters scrawled roughly in chalk on it.
The AXXoNN gate in Inland Empire fulfills much the same function. In the film, it links realities, identities, dreams and even disparate time periods together. Nikki navigates this gate and taps not into something personal (the "day residue" of dreams described Freud) but something much more Jungian in concept: an unconscious idea hidden in the conscious mind of the race itself; something about the "genetic" memory of women; of womanhood/sisterhood itself.
In Inland Empire, the dream sense of David Lynch suggests supernatural communication instead; the magical linking of at least two women (Sue and Nikki), and perhaps more, across time and space.
The magical AXXoNN gate is a symbol for the human mind. The "longest running show" in human history is the human collective memory, in this case the female of the species' collective memory of sexual violence and abuse through the ages, across the globe.
The perpetrators of such violence are symbolized in Inland Empire as one male uber-being or presence, the "Shadow," a recurring monster figure. The Shadow is the Blurry Man in the film's opening scene who demands sex, and also an unseen killer on the prowl in Poland. Finally, he is monstrous man "guarding" room 47 and keeping a woman locked up there.
When Nikki shoots this Shadow, he changes shape. First he is a horrible female thing (an amalgam of many female faces; pictured above), but then he shows his true visage and it is both monstrous and terrifying.
The Gypsy (Zabriskie) has prepared us for the presence of this thing in her first scene: "A little boy went out to play. When he opened his door, he saw the world. As he passed through the doorway, he caused a reflection. Evil was born. Evil was born, and followed the boy."
The Evil that has followed thus "little boy" is the mistreatment of women; the "dark side" (or reflection) of manhood.
But by taking on the role of "Sue" in the movie, by becoming the receptacle for the remake's "curse," Nikki has crossed the gate and become aware of the collective memory of abuse in the "sisterhood" of women, and it is up to her to free the woman in the hotel (again, perhaps Sue herself...) who has been trapped there, unable to return to her husband and son because of the "box" (of sexuality?) where the Shadow has locked her up.
In very simple, horror movie terms, Nikki "exorcises" the ghost of Sue/the trapped spirit from the haunted tale of "On High in Blue Tomorrows."
That "old tale" is about how men treat women poorly, like Billy treats Sue, or like Nikki's husband threatens her.
Jan 26, 2007 – Put on the watch. ... Then put your eye up to the hole and look through, all the way through, .... This David Lynch, he put his digital virus in me.
"Inland Empire" unfolds in a digital world ...
where events really do transpire in multiple locations at the same time (or multiple times at the same place), observers are anywhere and everywhere at once, and realities are endlessly duplicable, repeatable and tweakable.
(AKA: All of the HEAD TURNING being done to the RIGHT)
This is a digital dimension where, to paraphrase Jean-Luc Godard, there's no difference between ketchup and paint and light and blood: On the screen, it's red.
in the Inland Empire, nobody can quite remember if it's today or two days from now, because yesterday and the day after tomorrow are all transpiring in the present tense. Or, as one character puts it so memorably, "I suppose if it was 9:45, I would think it is after midnight."
it offers you multiple ways to view it
(aka: An OCEAN FULL of POSSIBLITIES)
It is, after all, overtly about the relationship between the movie and the observer, the actor and the performance, the watcher and the watched (and the watch).
"Inland Empire" presents itself as a Hollywood movie (and a movie about Hollywood) in the guise of an avant-garde mega-meta art movie
Put on the watch. Light the cigarette, fold back the silk, and use the cigarette to burn a hole in the silk. Then put your eye up to the hole and look through, all the way through, until you find yourself falling through the hole and into the shifting patterns you see on the other side.
That's a metaphor for watching and making movies, and it's one way to watch "Inland Empire
It has a story -- multiple stories, all intertwined and interconnected at various nodes -- but it's structured more like a web
Something inside the story goes awry, the watch spring snaps and the works go flying in all directions, from the intersection of Hollywood and Vine to Poland to Pomona. Gypsies and gangsters and whores and animals appear. Blood and circuses! "Inland Empire" works -- and works spectacularly -- as a kind of fractal telenovela.
Take any moment -- any shot or sequence or motif -- and you'll find it repeated throughout the film at greater and lesser degrees of magnification. Like a fractal image, any single fragment contains within it a representation of the whole picture
stock images, characters and dramatic templates -- often employed to build suspense, deliver a shock, jerk tears -- from a million other movies, especially the climactic moments in noir thrillers (like the one on TV at the start of "Blue Velvet"), melodramatic serials and soapy romances.
There's the dark hallway, the shadowy stairway, the gun in the drawer, the seduction scene, the portentious expositional dialogue, the bedroom/sex scene, the ominous foreshadowing....
But here they're deliberately disjointed because the usual connective tissue has been moved, removed or replaced.
Lynch knows all stories are all in our heads; we make them up and then inhabit them.
"Inland Empire" plays with our movie-fed storytelling expectations line by line, shot by shot, scene by scene, even reel by reel
He toys with the building blocks -- establishing shots, reaction shots, POV, and especially closeups -- to get us to look at them in unfamiliar ways.
It's poetry:
Inland Empire" opens and contracts in your imagination while you watch it -- and you're still watching it well after it's left the screen
It's still playing in my head, like a downloaded compressed file that's expanding and installing itself in my brain.
EDIT: long http from xxpo deleted from this message. ======================
Do you see what happened? The margins of the webpage are ruined by this too long url sort of string. So, could you be so kind and restore the margins by the next simple steps:
Go to this site https://bitly.com and SHORTEN your URL to this compact format. And edit your post accordingly, and please create a direct link (don't worry about url corruption, because they only occur when updating posts that have a url that is longer than 64 bytes).
You don't have to sign up or become a member of the bitly community. Just copy that long url-string into the text-area that reads "Paste a link to shorten it" and press the "SHORTEN" button. Then you will get the compact url in return; for free, without any problem. That's what I did. Even a four years old kid can do this. C'mon.
Anyway, thanks for cutting the url in shorter pieces.
RS: Inland Empire contains disparate storylines, styles, and modes of storytelling. When did these strands start to come together for you as being part of the same film and how did you organize the material once you got in the editing room?
DL: It’s the ideas that tell you everything. In the beginning the ideas were one theme, then two themes, then three themes.
Then I’m thinking of those themes and bringing in more ideas that started uniting those themes, those first themes and holding them together in a story. Once the story started unfolding, then much, much script work was done and we started shooting in a more traditional manner. So it’s the ideas that are talking and the ideas that you try to stay completely true to.
"I'm not sure what the ultimate importance of reading daily journalistic film criticism is, these days especially, but I think the case can be made that Manohla Dargis's piece on Lynch's Inland Empire is 'important' film criticism," Larry Gross has written to David Poland, and he, too, is "struck by the sense that this piece was one of her most significant at the NYT."
So what does she say. Well, for starters, Inland Empire is "one of the few films I've seen this year that deserves to be called art. Dark as pitch, as noir, as hate, by turns beautiful and ugly, funny and horrifying, the film is also as cracked as Mad magazine, though generally more difficult to parse."
It "resembles" Mulholland Drive "like an evil twin." And: "The reeler it gets, the weirder it gets." And, truncating a bit here, "The easiest way into Inland Empire is through" its "cinematic spaces in which images flower and fester, and stories are born." And ultimately, a second viewing helps. A lot, evidently. Updated through 12/12.
IE is strong enough a work that it starts to offer up - perhaps even demand - its own criteria for discussing it... it changes your conception of movies as you watch."
Thematically, Inland Empire is a fearsomely cohesive evolution of the feminist themes present throughout Lynch's filmography."
"The number of digressions in the film is continually startling, but there is a total unity to the work
xxpo is also a persona.
Something one uses like Niki uses the name SUE when she plays a role in the BLUE VERSION of the AXXON N PLAY.
And the persona also wouldn't be the one who registers.
Or be the one who breaks up the address for you?
Because that would be ME doing that.
Right Xav?
What's so peculiar about having only one DVD?
Got lots of vcr tapes ...
which are obsolete now ...
so why invest in still another form of technology that will also be obsolete ...
due to the BLUE RAYs???
Also still have 8 tracks and casset tapes and 45's and LP's as well (but no turn table anymore).
All of these constant changes one endures makes a person much less willing to invest in the newest technology.
Lynch's efforts to become the Griffith of our new media era.
Creating a New Folk Culture: Future Cinema Aesthetics and the Rise of the Backyard Filmmaker
Chris Marker has stated that “film won’t have a second century.”
Cinema culture is moving irrevocably to hobbyist-produced small-screen filmmaking, and David Lynch has chosen to abandon traditional filmmaking tools in favor of the tools of the amateur.
Just as Dante invented modern Italian by writing his Divine Comedy in the Tuscan dialect, so Lynch is creating a new vernacular language of filmmaking by combining his control of the medium with the tools of the masses and the realities of cinematic production in the (still developing) age of full cultural democracy.
Lynch’s aesthetic devotion to this new cinematic language extends from his choice of camera to his use of framing, choreography, actors, and music to mimic amateurism
IE explores narrative fracture as a component of the new dominant viewing experience of the masses – the aggregation of discrete multimedia events.
“Rabbits,” the ‘sitcom’ populated three human-sized rabbits, was shot literally in Lynch’s backyard, and picks apart the conventions of sitcom as a cause-effect simple narrative (misplaced laugh tracks and dialogue that gives no clues as to meaning or content).
Lynch, like Chris Marker before him, suggests that the age of narrative cohesion in longform storytelling has passed.
The structural complexities are immense, unlike the relatively simple Mulholland Drive, which has essentially a single narrative-structural conceit that inverts and de-realizes what we think we’ve seen. IE, on the other hand, doubles back on itself recursively. Inland Empire takes the already existent narrative fracturing, recursion, and de-cue-ification of modern filmmaking and ups the ante significantly. The film is structured like an MC Escher painting, with one hand drawing the other –
as when Susan interrupts Nikki’s rehearsal, an interruption that happens both early and late in the chronology of IE. IE even exemplifies Droste Effect
visual recursion when Laura Dern’s character (Susan? Nikki? Laura?) meets the girl who’s been watching her on the television. Certainly J.S. Bach’s fugal compositions share something with Lynch’s placement of Laura Dern’s mirror-image characters in isomorphic scenarios (and scenery). Lynch’s brand of “mise en abyme”
One notable structural element of IE is it’s blurred lines between Past, Present, and Future. Huge sections of the film exist as flashbacks or flashforwards, and much of the narrative confusion experienced by viewers is due to an inadequate presence of clue-giving on Lynch’s part as to when we are jumping and in which direction, and especially upon our return to the previously left scene. [“Inadequate” only for conventional narrative clarity, a principle DL has left behind for the murky territory of Art].
Adding to this confusion is the presence of flashforwards inside flashbacks inside flashforwards, and Lynch’s jumping between VERY disparate worlds with much of his crosscutting. Often from one frame to the next we will be at a different point in the (linear) story, where actors are playing different characters and we are thrust into new events in medias res. Lynch’s near-total absence of narrative and temporal clues makes this a “mystery” in the sense that we as viewers have a puzzle to piece together, and much of the information is obscured on first viewing.
“The big self is mondo stable. But the small self — we’re blowing about like dry leaves in the wind.” – David Lynch
The danger of an actor’s performance and the process of role-playing are a narrative engine as well as a theme. In the first rehearsal for On High in Blue Tomorrows, the actors and director are spooked the appearance of a figure who disappears before being discovered, in a way not humanly possible (“where no person can disappear,” if I recall the quote correctly).
We later discover that this figure was Susan Blue, the character that Nikki is rehearsing in the interrupted read-through. Susan’s arrival frightens those at the rehearsal – calling to mind Naomi Watt’s audition scene in Mulholland Drive (among other female-in-Hollywood isomorphisms with MD). That audition scene is one key to unlocking the (blue?) box of IE’s attitude toward performance as a component of an actor’s art. As in MD, the female performance literally frightens those around her, and actually convinces those others of the reality of her performance.
In IE, however, the ‘reality’ believed is a physical manifestation of Susan, a reality that later takes over Nikki so completely that she is no longer Nikki (or was it the other way around?). At this point in the film Susan’s interruption of the audition is only a spectre, just as it is for Nikki only a hint of things to come. It happens just at the moment when Nikki begins to connect with Susan, as the scene approaches emotional climax. In another example of Lynch’s denial of cues for audience understanding, the spectre interrupts the rehearsal before Nikki is able to perform Susan as Susan in the decisive moment; that is, the realization goes from internal (in Nikki’s mind) to external (a noise in the set) before Nikki completes her transformation to Susan within the rehearsal scene.
What’s most significant about this divorce of cause from effect is Lynch’s commitment to creating a work that feels like the work of the mind left to its own devices. Lynch’s adoption of dream logic has been present from his early short films, often becoming itself the subject of his work, from the discovery of the severed hand in Blue Velvet to the moment-of-death dream that makes up the first half of Mulholland Drive. IE extends this logic, using narrative disjunction, temporal shuffling, and recursion as organizing principles.
In doing so Lynch pushes the boundaries of even his intense audience and creates a new kind of viewership, one that is at once less dependent on causality and more engaged in the process of discovering causality. Like his unspoken theses on the futures of digital media, it remains to be seen if others will follow, but we should appreciate
The Chinese name of Hexagram 47, translated as 'Confined', 'Exhaustion', 'Oppressed', shows a tree enclosed on all sides by walls. The picture evokes the hexagram's atmosphere: hemmed in, entrapped, cut off. The Judgement makes explicit the sense of isolation:
'Confined, creating success. Constancy of a great person, good fortune. Not a mistake. There are words, not trusted.' 'Words, not trusted' - this is a common aspect of the experience of 47, which often represents some kind of communications failure. The Chinese characters suggest what's happening here: xin, 'trust', is made up of the elements 'person' and 'words'. 'There are words, no person-words.' Words spoken, but nothing that is someone's word. It seems there are ideas or messages in circulation, but no personal connection that would give them validity.
(Having said that... as with any hexagram, its practical application in readings can be on any scale, from the dramatic to the quite trivial. My favourite example with 47 is from the I Ching Community a few years back, when 'Coming slowly, slowly, confined in a bronze chariot...' turned out to mean, 'He'll miss your call as he's out in the car.')
The words not trusted can also be your own thought processes. There's no reasoning your way out from inside these walls. Our usual ways of getting to grips with the world - naming things, reasoning, identifying and organising with words - are no longer reliable.
In fact, all our best efforts seem to be failing us. The preceding hexagram, 46, was a very different experience: 'Pushing Upward', full of confidence, advancing step by step towards the summit, growing and thriving in a world receptive to your efforts. In hexagram 46, you know that if you put the work in, you'll get there. When frustration and disillusionment accumulate and confidence falters, you're entering the space of hexagram 47. ‘Pushing upward and not reaching a high point is necessarily confining,' says the Sequence.
Sometimes this hexagram indicates real oppression from outside forces; sometimes - particularly if you receive one of the more ironic yin moving lines - it can be more self-imposed, a matter of perception. But the 'oppressive' experience is the same.
Looking out and upward, there's no help to be seen: no way out, no connection, no sight of your goal. Confined, you have to look inward. The constancy of a great person, one who can depend on their own inner resources, creates success; this - however depressing or claustrophobic the experience - is 'no mistake'.
What's the nature of those inner resources - what sustains a great person's constancy? The Image, the Dazhuan, and not least the hexagram pair, shed light.
The Image:
'Lake without stream, confined. Noble one carries out the mandate, fulfils her aspiration.' In the Shijing, the Book of Songs, Kings Wen and Wu are said to 'carry out heaven's purpose'. When the noble one 'carries out the mandate', she is implementing what she's called on to do, conveying a message that has come to her through higher orders. (Many translators give a morbid tinge to this, but this seems inappropriate: the mandate, ming, calls for the dedication of the living.) And at the same time, she follows through freely on her own aspiration. Aspiration and mandate flow together in the same direction.
This is the flow that appears in the trigrams. With the lake above, stream below, water is draining inward. Energy is drawn away from communication and interaction, the qualities of the lake: 'honouring the mouth means exhaustion', as the commentary on the Judgement says. But this draining of the outer realms flows into the inner momentum of the stream: the destiny you're given joins together with your inner desires.
This, it seems to me, answers the problem presented by the Sequence. If you only set your sights on a goal and strive towards it, you might never get there. If your personal aspiration is in alignment with what you're called on to do, both are strengthened: you move through Confinement like a stream flows through a narrow gorge.
It's interesting that the nuclear hexagram of 47 is 37, People in the Home. (Actually, the whole family of hexagrams that share 37 at their core is interesting: Communicating Joy, Treading the tail of the tiger, Conflict and argument, and Confinement.) The inner strength and conviction to be found in Confinement seems to contribute to the strength of the Home, which after all is made of people who can find their place, and themselves, within walls.
The Dazhuan sums up this focussing, concentrating effect of Confining when it identifies it as one of those hexagrams especially relevant to the development of de, personal character and strength.
'Confinement defines de Exhausted yet also wholly connected, Lessens resentment.' Wilhelm translates 'defines de' as 'test of character', which sums it up. And I imagine that as focus moves inward, resentment and grudges against those outside might be lessened. The more difficult idea is that Confining can mean being 'wholly connected' - a word that implies completely open communication, or knowing something or someone completely, as if they were an 'open book' to you. What is happening inside those walls?
It seems to me that this is where hexagram 47 begins to join with its pair, the Well. The Zagua, a very concise Wing that sums up each hexagram in a word or two and contrasts it with its pair, actually describes the Well as 'wholly connected' and Confinement as 'mutually helpful meeting'.
Even where words are not trusted, there can still be 'meeting'. The meeting of your mandate with your aspirations, perhaps, forging a personal sense of purpose. Or perhaps an awareness of common humanity, or perhaps even something more like the Psalm: 'Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou are with me...'
From here it could be a small step to being 'wholly connected'. The Well, too, is a dark, narrow space surrounded by walls. When you go inward here, you find something limitless and quite independent of human plans and changes, that doesn't ask you to 'make sense of it'. The walls people build can contain something of value; the inside can be bigger than the outside.
]A Color suite (also called a color bay, telecine suite, or color correction bay) is the control room for color grading video in a post-production environment. The video source could be from: a telecine, a Video tape recorder (VTR), a motion picture film scanner, virtual telecine or a Direct to Disk Recording (DDR) or the older system called a film chain. A high end broadcast color suite may use a Da Vinci Systems or Pandora Int.'s color corrector. If a VTR is the source for the video the room is often called a tape to tape suite. Many suites are designed to operate as a telecine suite or a tape to tape suite by changing the configuration of the suite. The operator of the suite is usually called a Colorist. If a telecine is the source this is called a Film to Tape operation. A color suite may use one video standard or be able to change configuration to a number of standards like: high-definition video, NTSC, or PAL or a DI workflow. Color suites are sometime placed in digital cinema movie theaters with a video projector for color correction to that display format. The suite room will also have video equipment in the Production control room for monitoring the video signal like: Video monitor, Waveform monitor and vectorscope.
A Shadow Telecine in a color correction suite.
The suite may have an either a Non-linear editing system (NLE) or Linear editing system to control the source and record device. This may be internal to the color grading device, as in a Pandora's poggle or Da Vinci's 2k or external, as in Da Vinci's TLC (telecine controller).
Now that this "TCM Morbidity Reel" has sunk in, it brings all kinds of thoughts. The blonde in the theater, in beautiful blue and its interior's red, both Hopper's painting and Lynch's scene suck me in into the same sort of mind-set of a questioning world with thought provoking details.
Hopper's painting: Why's the blonde waiting? Why are those curtains opened? Who's upstairs? Is she hesitating to go up the stairs? Is the picture boring? And so on, and so on ...
In Lynch's scene: Why's Mr K downstairs, waiting? Why is the picture shown on the wide screen getting in sync at the moment the blonde is recognizing him? Is Mr K a Geeky Omniscient Dude, a super-operator of sorts? The one from upstairs, who knows every tiny detail by heart? A meta-director maybe? An usher of the truth, perhaps? Is he guiding the blonde without words? Why did the blonde cast off her blue, exactly in that theater?
Why is Lynch's film and the action of the scene in that film in perfect harmony at that very moment in that specific theater, hidden behind red curtains? Is this all happening in stage number seven? The blonde left 4, and looked at 5 and 6, but entered neither one of those.
My interpretation: The blonde failed several times facing the Geeky Omniscient Dude from upstairs in making a true confession. Her words did not describe her wrongness, in stead she was making up stories revolving around the truth. Yet, as the new neighbor predicted, there was the magic. The magic of film, the magic of acting and the magic of fantasy. The blonde imagined herself on the Walk of Fame, and literally walked in the shoes of her victim. Without words, she showed, felt, relived, her wrongness. The Geeky Omniscient Dude saw it on the wide screen in the theater, Lost Girl saw it on her TV screen, the audience saw it on the wide screen in their theater, or on a flat screen in their homes, maybe the unlucky ones saw it on a computer-screen in their isolated study-room? So, the blonde casted off her blue and just before she (tr)a(n)scends the stairs, all watching eyes witness a moment in time still to come. A phenomenon Lost Girl, in the beginning of the movie, already experienced. Is it a depiction of a premonition or just a thought heading reality - in ordinary understanding it might be called a decision that was made. Whereas lost Girl saw the Rabbits and the new neighbor in advance, now the theater's wide screen reveals this event, this decision of picking up the gun. Indeed she kills her rubber clown's face or was it her phantom, or both? The Rabbits vanish from their 47 room, in which the blonde retreats. Is she in the spotlight now, or is her appearance, her existence, coinciding with the film-projecting lights. Somewhere this light must have a source; the stars or Bucky Jay? Within this light she travels to Lost Girl's all white room 205 (both seven and perfect ten at the same time). Did the blonde dissolve in her embrace, or did Lost Girl annihilate her light completely. Did light meet light to send a message home to the ones who once were full of love and lived in house 1358?
The problem of course is how THE MAGIC begins way before DERN gets locked inside of SMITHY'S HOUSE, looks out the front WINDOW, and sees STAGE 4 MORPH into a FRONT YARD.
The MAGIC begins as soon as DERN'S HEAD begins to turn to look over at the OTHER SIDE of the ROOM inside the PALACE ...
where she finds herself first getting the call from her AGENT GREG ...
and then finds the other TWIN COPY of herself sitting on the couch in the PALE BLUE 60'S STYLE DRESS.
So the MAGIC also BEGINS right after the END of what the NEW NEIGHBOR says to DERN ...
before we also MORPH from the face of LOST GIRL into seeing the FACE of the NEW NEIGHBOR again at the end of IE ...
which also seems to indicate the NEW NEIGHBOR is an OLDER VERSION of LOST GIRL.
So if IMAGINATION is involved ...
then imo it would also be coming from THE MIND of the NEW NEIGHBOR.
"The problem of course is how THE MAGIC begins way before DERN gets locked inside of SMITHY'S HOUSE, looks out the front WINDOW, and sees STAGE 4 MORPH into a FRONT YARD"
How's that a problem? I don't understand what's wrong with a movie starting with a fantasy (or daydream if you like) as I describe in "The End of a Dream". I also don't understand why a character that intrudes a place, that interferes with private affairs, that even raises the proverbial pointing finger, that tells moral riddles, that stresses out that bills need paying, why such a character can not represent a mental phenomenon called "conscience"; a force that's trying to ruin the fantasy as if to clarify that the blonde's thoughts ought to be occupied by different matters than lazy romantic imaginations of an actress in a palace returning into film-biz ... This conscience is literally 'recalling' a brutal fücking murder.
Tell me, what's the problem with this interpretation?
There's no problem with THE NEW NEIGHBOR being like MARLEY who comes to WARN SCROOGE not to take the PATHWAY into the FUTURE TIME where TINY TIM dies.
The problem is you and EL were having a conversation on another topic about how the only REAL part is what happens inside SMITHY'S HOUSE.
BUT as was pointed out to you before ...
over on the other topic ...
SMITHY'S HOUSE is also already a PART of KINGSLEY'S MOVIE SCRIPT ...
due to the way he says they will
BLOCK it OUT as BEST as POSSIBLE ...
meaning they'll (or in this case DEVON) WALK to the PARTS of the STAGE where they say their LINES in the SCRIPT ...
meaning the SCRIPT also calls for DERN to enter the AXXON N DOOR and SEE HERSELF sitting at the REHEARSAL TABLE doing SCENE 35 ...
which also means this ISN'T REAL or really a DREAM ...
because it is only something that Happens IN THE MOVIE SCRIPT.
Sorry but THE END of a DREAM also doesn't ring a bell.
Is it still here???
If not, then xxpo probably also never saw it or read it.
PS: That other newest link to shorten the link won't work now either. Maybe these things work ONCE ... and then they want you to REGISTER the next time that you try to use them so they can SPAM you with AD mail???
OK FOUND THE END of a DREAM.
The problem is we don't see the situation the same way.
What I see is MD being DAN'S 2 DREAMS BEING MADE INTO A FILM VERSION.
WHAT YOU SEE is different.
The point in IE at which the memory seems to come flooding in would also be the point at which DERN makes the connection to the EYES of the RAPIST.
(one of which she YANKS OUT ) ...
being like the EYES of her HUBBY BUGGING OUT ...
when he attacks her ...
which is WHY she kills him ...
due to the way she UNCONSICOUSLY recalls being attacked by the RAPIST ...
and RELIVES that scene all over again when she kills the JEALOUS MAN in the GREEN COAT.
See what I mean?
And no wonder xxpo NEVER made any comment to that topic or bothered reading the rest of it because look at what you said over there:
Please, feel free to comment, although try writing in a mature sort of style and refrain from coloring, capitals, line breaks and emoticons, as much as possible.
After one has their POSTING STYLE RIDICULED and is INSULTED by someone who suggests their posting style is NOT a MATURE ONE ...
then WHY would one bother or even care to remember what one has just read ...
prior to one's also reading the INSULT that was made following what's been said??
"There's no problem with THE NEW NEIGHBOR being like MARLEY who comes to WARN SCROOGE not to take the PATHWAY into the FUTURE TIME where TINY TIM dies."
So, first there was a problem with "how the magic begins" and now it seems you don't have a problem with that anymore. BTW Your Scrooge comparison does not work for me, because I'm not talking about a "pathway into the future time". Your words, not mine.
"The problem is you and EL were having a conversation on another topic about how the only REAL part is what happens inside SMITHY'S HOUSE."
Hey, this is a sudden change of mind. Now the problem is "Smithy's house"? Well, even if you repeat this a million times it will never become an argument, simply because in my interpretation this whole world of stage, including the script, the rehearsal, the set, Smithy's house, that whole package of people and props all are part of the blonde's imagination; not real; an illusion. Apparently it is difficult for you to accept that someone can imagine such things. Again, I would like to make a comparison with MD, where Betty and Rita read the script and Betty auditions later on with Woody conversing the same words in a different context and setting. After that audition she ran into Adam Kesher's set, at the very moment that he'd to select 'the girl'. According a majority of viewers, the ones who think the dream/reality theory is very reasonable explanation of MD, this all happens in a dream-sequence; moreover Diane's dream, that is.
So, Devon, Kingsley, Nikki, sue, Billy, Doris, Freddie, Bucky J, servants, butlers, crew, the stage-front, Smithy in his green coat, Smithy's house, stage 4, etc, etc, are not real, are imaginary figures and imaginary situations made up by the blonde in house 1358. That's what I am saying.
"Sorry but THE END of a DREAM also doesn't ring a bell." Is it still here???" "OK FOUND THE END of a DREAM."
Weird, you start writing a reply and all of a sudden in between your typing you find the thread?
"PS: That other newest link to shorten the link won't work now either. Maybe these things work ONCE ... and then they want you to REGISTER the next time that you try to use them so they can SPAM you with AD mail???"
Not true. These url shorten websites work always, for anyone.
"The problem is we don't see the situation the same way."
I don't understand why that should be any problem. It's all about the willingness to understanding a different interpretation, and to go along that train of thoughts and discuss possible failures, mistakes, contradictions or inconsistencies. Of course you can make every exchange of thoughts impossible by posing your own interpretation(s), but that will lead you nowhere, unless this is what you want?
"And no wonder xxpo NEVER made any comment to that topic or bothered reading the rest of it because look at what you said over there:"
"Please, feel free to comment, although try writing in a mature sort of style and refrain from coloring, capitals, line breaks and emoticons, as much as possible."
I do not see any insults, I merely expressed my preference of a sober communicating style. Your unwillingness to adapt, even after I helped you with downloading those subtitles and tried to help you the best I possibly could with all my patience how to shorten url's and use url-tags, and even after I told you that those redundant decorations give me headaches, you keep doing it. Where's your empathy? Don't you care about other's and my well-being?
"After one has their POSTING STYLE RIDICULED and is INSULTED by someone who suggests their posting style is NOT a MATURE ONE ..."
I still think I made a polite request for exchanging thoughts in a normal way.
thanks for your patience, for you kindness, for your willingness to understanding different opinions, for your contributions and for your attempts of using url's. reply share
The problem is you see the ILLUSION being DERN'S whereas I see it as being THE NEW NEIGHBOR'S MAGIC that she's used as a way to SHOW DERN where she'll end up if she takes that PATHWAY into the FUTURE (which DERN DOES NOT because we also see DERN walking BACKWARDS in REVERSE back into the RABBIT ROOM from which she ORIGINATES).
HALF: HALF HUMAN/HALF RABBIT.
MD is simply 2 STORIES ...
BOTH the same stories ...
2 DIFFERENT VERSIONS of DAN'S 2 DREAMS ...
DREAMS he had based upon what he's heard NAOMI saying to JOE in the DINER when she hires JOE to kill RITA/C.
When NAOMI hears THIS IS THE GIRL ...
she also assumes they mean HER ...
due to the way she's KILLED the other girl who is SINGING the EVERY LITTLE STAR SONG ON TAPE (same as THE CRYING SONG in the CLUB of SILENCE is also TAPED).
What we see is also 2 FILM VERSIONS being CREATED of DAN'S DREAMS (not Diane's DALLAS DREAM).
It's not difficult to see that you see it a different way. It's just the way you see it MAKES NO SENSE for me ... same as what I see MAKES NO SENSE to you.
C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is the same thing the MAGIC MAN in the CLUB of SILENCE SAYS:
IT'S ALL ILLUSION.
Everything we see is a part of the FILM.
KINGSLEY isn't a DIRECTOR but an ACTOR.
Same with FREDDY.
He's NOT the ASSISTANT DIRECTOR but also a BIT PART ACTOR (which is also why he keeps asking others for help with his RENT MONEY).
Read the OP of the END of a DREAM topic back in AUG ... 4 MONTHS ago ... but as soon as the last sentence was found FORGOT ALL ABOUT IT and NEVER went back to it again.
Why should I when you've also issued ORDERS about NOT USING COLORS or any of the other POSTING STYLES you don't like?
You don't like the POSTING STYLE ... it wasn't used.
No big deal.
But what you'd said was also NOT REMEMBERED either due to not having discussed the topic with you (which was also YOUR OWN FAULT not mine).
The thread was also found easy enough because there is also only 2 PAGES here to search.
The suggestion that using colors wasn't a MATURE STYLE is INSULTING.
If you don't see it that way, so be it.
But IMO, what you said was RUDE, which is also why NOTHING was ever posted to your topic and the topic was FORGOTTEN about and NOT EVEN REMEMBERED until you mentioned it again.
If you also don't believe these places don't work, again that's your choice to believe whatever you wish, but that still doesn't change the FACT that THEY STILL DO NOT WORK when an attempt is made to POST the LINK into the box that shortens them.
So what you say about how they work for ANYONE is also NOT SO.
And now you also say SOMEONE ELSE is OBLIGATED to SEE THINGS YOUR WAY ...
when you are also NOT WILLING TO SEE THINGS FROM THEIR POV???
IS that it???
If YOUR TRAIN of THOUGHT MAKES NO SENSE, then it simply MAKES NO SENSE to FOLLOW IT.
Just like if MINE MAKES NO SENSE to you, it also MAKES NO SENSE for you to FOLLOW IT either.
SPEAR, for example, thinks some INVISIBLE ENTITY IMAGINES EVERYTHING that we see happening in IE.
So why would SOMEONE who disagrees with this bother to FOLLOW his TRAIN OF THOUGHT???
Why is anyone OBLIGATED to UNDERSTAND that kind of an interpretation?
They're NOT.
It's as Simple as that.
We've also already tried to discuss all of these other matters you've mentioned with him, but what good did it do???
NONE whatsoever.
As for discussing possible failures, mistakes, contradictions or inconsistencies
where ARE these kind of dicussions regarding my observations?
EL'S the only one to ever even make an attempt, the rest of you completely IGNORED the 3 MAIN REVELATION OBSERVATIONS.
But you still expect the person you IGNORE to discuss your ideas???
The use of COLOR was reduced considerably as requested.
Go back and check out how there's been much less use of it than there was before.
So an ADAPTATION has also been made whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Again ...
this isn't always about a WILLINGNESS to UNDERSTAND ...
because sometimes one SIMPLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND what another poster is saying ...
no matter how many times one reads what they've said ...
or how hard they try to comprehend it.
Some of dk's ideas, for instance, are so way out there that the mind simply has no idea what he's saying sometimes.
PALMTREE'S SUGGESTION about the DRIVE INN MOVIE sucking up the SOLES of the DEAD MOVIE STARS and depositing them in SPACE is also pretty OUT THERE as well ...
which is also the reason why they were asked what kinda MUSHROOMS they'd had on their PIZZA.
Your HEXAGON POST also seemed to be coming out of LEFT FIELD as well or like you'd had access to the same kind of MUSHROOMS as PALMTREE.
The scene where LANI looks into what at first appears to be the CAMERA and says:
WHO IS SHE
seems to be the kind of a scene you've mentioned PALMTREE.
In other words, it appears to be one Where the ACTRESS in KINGSLEY'S FILM is watching a scene from the POLISH FILM and asking WHO is this CHARACTER.
As previously mentioned here on this topic ...
the ANSWER to the QUESTION also seems to be
THIS IS THE SISTER who is married to KIDDO ...
who KILLS her SISTER (DERN) on the WALK of FAME ...
as revenge for her killing KIDDO ...
and then setting his HEAD and his other body part on her SHELF in the FRIDGE
The other scene where we see DERN sitting in the RAIN in BACK of the HOUSE also appears to be the SCENE where she's just KILLED KIDDO. .
So while the WOMAN in WHITE (THE SISTER) is telling the other MUSTASCH MAN she'll NEVER let him have HER ...
(who is probably also that other pretty girl we see standing in the SNOWY STREET of POLAND) ...???
We've also got characters from KINGSLEY'S FILM WATCHING the POLISH SCENES ...
which are also RECREATIONS of the GERMAN FILM ...
and ASKING
WHO IS SHE.
We also KNOW it's a FILM due to the way the WOMAN is WHITE doesn't turn around to ASK
WHO ARE YOU
or WHY do you WANT to know WHO I AM???
In other words, in the WHO IS SHE scene we've also got a FILM within a film just like you've described (except the character asking WHO IS SHE isn't repeating the same line at this time).
Anyhow, it's the part about SOULS being SENT to SPACE that's the problem.
Because ALL STARS eventually also EXPIRE in one way or another ...
so sending the SOULS of MOVIES STARS to these STARS also makes no sense for that reason.
Why force them to DIE 2 DEATHS?
Isn't ONE DEATH enough?
Some STARS are also about to get GOBBLED UP BY THE BLACK HOLE that sits at the center of our GALAXY.
So why subject the SOULS of MOVIE STARS to that kind of HORROR???
How would you like to be GOBBLED UP by a BLACK HOLE or EXPLODE when a STAR goes SUPERNOVA or MORPHS into a RED GIANT like our own STAR will eventually do???
“It’s mostly common sense making films,” he insists. “You don’t need a studio. You need some money and you need ideas and then you go make your film.”
------------------------
Soft-spoken and pleasant, calm and confident, answering most questions with simple and succinct answers, he comes off as a gentle but eccentric elementary school teacher patiently trying to explain filmmaking and the creative process as if it were nothing more than basic addition and subtraction
Blue Velvet captured something I’d never seen any other movie do at that time. It presented what should be a simple and peaceful rural community and revealed this dark layer underneath the surface, not simply a criminal underworld but a moral underworld. And I had lived for a year in La Grande, Oregon, which Blue Velvet‘s Lumberton evoked perfectly for me.
----------------------
LYNCH again:
There’s a dark layer underneath every community. Looking back, people made a big deal about Blue Velvet showing the surface and then something under the surface. Since then, if you see TV and newspapers, more and more has been revealed that was hiding there all along. I say the sickness is being revealed and people are dealing with it, which I guess is a good thing. So it’s not just La Grande, or it’s not just in Twin Peaks or Lumberton, it’s everywhere.
-------------------------
In Inland Empire, and in previous films as well, the living spaces of your characters are devoid of clutter. They are very austere and they feel more like temporary places because they don’t have the baggage of their past and present around them, more like hotel rooms than homes. Why is that?
------------------
LYNCH:
There’s a thing of fast and slow. Normally, a room is slower than a human being. If there’s too much clutter, then you don’t have a strong human being. It’s not something you think about, but I guess that’s the thing.
----------------------
Are you talking visually or cinematically, or…?
---------------------
LYNCH:
Visually. There’s fast areas and slow areas. That goes back to the thing of the duck. The duck is an example of that. The bill of the duck is sort of in the middle of fast and slow, it’s a little bit fast, and when it hits the head it slows down and the feathers there are very small and it’s not completely slow, and it fills out and starts going down into this S curve and the feathers get bigger and then it goes into the body, which is a very large, slow area, not a lot of stuff happening. And then it goes into the legs and feet and it’s faster and the texture of the legs and feet remind you of the bill so your eye goes back and you take the trip again. The eye of the duck is the fastest, the most detailed, a gleaming little jewel, and I always thought, what a perfect place to put that in the middle of the head. It’s just a perfect size frame. If you put it in the body it would get lost, it just wouldn’t be framed right, if you put it on the leg it would be too fast an area for the eye to really bring it out, on the bill it would be ridiculous. It’s that kind of thing. So a blank wall is such a perfect setting for a human being. Maybe one or two little things, but it’s fast and slow sort of thing. And clutter is, unless it’s feeding from the idea, it’s just a negative.
-----------------------------
Would you describe Inland Empire as not so much written as a story as grown as a piece of organic art?
-------------------------- LYNCH
Oh yes, it has a complete story, it’s just that there’s the story and the way the story’s told, and then there are stories that are more surface and there are stories that hold abstractions. Something that’s not so concrete that has something to do with feeling or intuiting a thing. And that’s what I love about cinema. So it’s a story but a story that hold abstractions. And again, that comes with the ideas
-----------------------
Inland Empire, like Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive, have characters who drift into other lives, as if crossing over into a dream world. And they are often surreal and strange.
Do you think viewers are right in seeing your films as dreams on the screen?
---------------------------
LYNCH:
No
people talk and they say things and they react, just a normal thing, but there are other things
------------------------------
You don’t discuss the meaning of your films. What about the interpretations of your audiences?
------------------------
LYNCH:
It’s not a game, that I like to confound people and see what they come up with. The filmmaker should have a definite, solid idea of what it means, but that never comes right away. It kind of comes part way and then more and more as it’s all revealed. And then
when you’re working on the whole, by then you know what it means until the whole feels correct.
When you display one ounce of the creativity that either Xav or xxpo has delivered in this conference over the years then maybe you can run your mouth at them with your squirrel brained Floyd crap but in the meantime I reccommend you find your torch and go open the bonnet of your car and see if you don't have an electrical short somewhere.
THANKS AGAIN for the COMPLIMENT PALMTREE!!!
The way you SLING your PRAISES one moment ...
then PERSONALLY ATTACK the person that you've complimented the next moment ...
makes one suspect this may be a case of PROJECTION on your part when you fling forth your BI POLAR accusation???
And then there is also this other post where you ATTACK LYNCH for being what you say is TOO OUT THERE ...
yet you don't like it whenever someone suggest the same thing about your idea:
by LauraPalmtree (Mon Nov 12 2012 04:18:39)
hi xxpo.
I guess I never really understood the whole "through the looking glass" thing, the whole "over the rainbow" thing in the true essence of its meaning before. I guess David understands it though. He may have lived it. I guess we all have at some time. Its escapism I suppose. Its a refuge from a storm. Its the ostrich putting its head in the sand when startled. Its a psychological fugue state the mind is forced into when under extreme stress. Its another world we go to when we cannot bare to live in our own. Naturalism portrays that bleak world of responsibilities. Absurdism seeks the care free "just along for the ride and look at all that weird stuff going by" level. I think a person can see it in that Good Day music short where the LB (lost boy) is sinking out of his sepia toned bleak world, sinking in his mind, and makes the transition from Natural to Absurd when he goes through the bowl of soup and comes out the other side into a different world. I dunno. Weird. Its hard to keep up with these psycho dreamers some times.
So WHO'S the OSTRICH now?
Who is using ESCAPISM now ?
Who is GOING THROUGH the LOOKING GLASS ???
Who is BEING ABSURD???
Who is GOING OVER THE RAINBOW ...
behaving like what you called a PSYCHO DREAMER ...
when they SUGGEST THE SPIRITS of MOVIE STARS are being SUCKED UP and brought back to life by a MOVIE PROJECTOR and placed into SPACE where they TWINKLE along with the OTHER STARS???
George and Gracie just did a scene very much like the one PALMTREE MENTIONS:
They turn on the TV SET and there they were on TV dancing for the AUDIENCE inside of the bedroom of their NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS.
So their NEIGHBORS CLAP for them and their performance as they take their BOWS INSIDE of the BEDROOM where they've just watched themselves performing their DANCING act on the TV SET.
LauraPalmtree's stars from above saw this scene when you were trying to learn how to shorten url's. http://bit.ly/T4oqYK Be careful your IP address will get registered, or spooky addy's kill the performance of your computer. BTW How's your virus infections?
Please refrain from decorating text as much as possible. Thanks.
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud—in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess, '"Draft H" deals with projection as a mechanism of defence'[2]—and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, why it is sometimes referred to as Freudian projection.[3]
In other words ...
PROJECTION is when a person PROJECTS something that comes from INSIDE of THEM OUTWARDS onto SOMEONE ELSE ...
VERY MUCH the same way as a MOVIE PROJECTOR does when it PROJECTS the IMAGE that comes from INSIDE of it OUTWARD onto something else.
So this is what PALMTREE does whenever they accuse xxpo of being a BI POLAR MONKEY.
Dern starts the film as Nikki Grace, a Hollywood actress who lands the coveted lead role in something called On High in Blue Tomorrows, a romantic melodrama set in the Deep South, even though the director (an unctuous Jeremy Irons) says it’s based on an old Polish folktale. But as the film progresses, Dern appears to slip into several alternate realities and alternate identities—the white-trash wife of a Polish carny, a streetwalker working the corner of Hollywood and Vine, a bruise-faced woman telling her life story to a private detective. Every so often, Lynch cuts to a TV sitcom starring a family of giant, anthropomorphic rabbits, and Dern seems to be part of that reality as well.
Lynch created the part (or parts) specifically for Dern, an actress who seems to be a particularly rich source of inspiration for him
Her character in Inland Empire, on the other hand, can’t be reduced to mere formulas.
Laura Dern spoke with me about acting, the making of Inland Empire, and the most surreal Best Actress campaign in Oscar history.
INTERVIEW:
Q: In interviews, David Lynch always describes the plot of Inland Empire as “a woman in trouble.” But how did he first pitch it to you?
Laura Dern: Well, even that’s more information than I was originally given! [Laughs.] When people tell me that’s not enough information, I always remind them that I started the movie with even less.
Q: Is Lynch the kind of director who you just go along with no matter what, or do you say, you know, “I’m going to need a little more detail than that, David”?
LD: To be honest, both things. Naturally, David is one of the true visionaries of American cinema and someone who I think most actors would leap at the opportunity to work with. But he started out just saying, “Let’s experiment.” There was a monologue that was scripted and which we shot, but we didn’t know what it was going to be or how it would fit into anything. We were just experimenting with a character, and then, after a few get-togethers, we arrived at a turning point where suddenly he saw the movie. And we were so in the thick of it that instead of stopping and writing an entire script, we decided to just keep shooting and go day by day, scene by scene.
Q: Does that change your method of working, when you’re in the middle of an unfinished jigsaw puzzle?
LD: It changes it so much for the better. You work your whole life as an actor to attempt to achieve being “in the moment,” and then David comes along and forces you to. And it works beautifully for a character like this, who’s in such deep conflict that she doesn’t even know where she is.David was as clear as he needed to be in his direction, but it was still terrifying.
Q: What’s your reaction when you hear people say Inland Empire is too hard to follow? Does it make you think maybe you should have given them a clearer path to follow? Or is it a mistake to watch the movie trying to find the magical key, to figure out the one ultimate, definitive explanation of what it all means?
LD: I do think that’s the wrong approach with this movie. I think David just wants you to enter the film and have your own experience, like you would if you were looking at a painting in a gallery or a museum. But I’m very used to these reactions. I was at a film festival with David the first time Blue Velvet was shown and people were very angry—including some critics who now say it’s one of their favourite films of all time. At Cannes with Wild at Heart, there was a jeering section amidst the standing ovation. So it would feel very weird if this film only got applause. It wouldn’t feel like David.
DL: All actors are collaborators. They’re like—how can I say it—a critical element. But all elements are important. Laura is an incredibly good actress; she’s also really fun to work with. Because I’ve worked with her more than once, you get a shorthand. So it’s easier, faster, more fun to go forward when you have a good relationship with someone. But every time, there’s a certain point where everything I say stops and she’s got to make it something real. I’ll tell you another thing: Before she saw the final film, it was suggested that Laura write down what she thought it was and she was amazingly accurate.
LD: My experience of it is the character that we started with, which is the character in the monologue. To me, it was about this woman in trouble, a woman who is dismantling, and her emotional and abstract journey of trying to define a character for an audience, emotionally. The girls, I don’t know what other people think of them, but to me they’re these abstractions in her mind, what she’s feeling. For me, [I’m playing] one person. I don’t know if David intended that, but that’s how I acted it.
David is very specific. Everything is scripted. It’s just, you get it on the day’s work or you figure it out as we’re working or he throws me a line as we’re doing something. But the largest chunk of the movie, on the day’s work, he knew exactly what he needed and he would give me that. Whether it made sense or not in the world of the surreal depended on the scene and what it meant, but he was certainly very specific about what I was supposed to do, be, feel—all those things.
There were times that it was extremely intimidating, because as an actor you are looking at that [shaping the performance] most of the time in a film. But, at the same time, there can be a great gift in that because I was forced to be in the moment. I had to trust that David was giving me the information I needed so that once it was cut together a character would evolve.
"My whole process begins when somewhere along the line I catch an idea. That idea is everything to me then. You catch a film idea and you fall in love with it for two reasons. One is the idea itself and the second is how cinema can translate it. And then you just stay true to that idea and go. It keeps talking to you, and you don´t walk away from anything until it feels correct based on that idea. That´s it."
I have the feeling that your films zoom in on portals way under the surface.
There are two things. There´s a surface, which is beautiful, but it´s the surface. When we see a person we see the surface, but as they begin to talk we get glimpses of something more. Cinema can say things that words can´t really articulate. A great poet might articulate abstractions wth words but cinema does it with pictures flowing together in sequences. It´s magical, it goes into the abstract. "I love the idea of going deeper into a world of a character."
Unfortunately, this interview you've posted completely contradicts what else Dern said ON STAGE during another interview ...
where she said she'd played 3 DIFFERENT PARTS in IE ...
before LYNCH cuts in to correct her and tell her that she'd played the parts of 4 DIFFERENT CHARACTERS in IE.
So was this other interview before that other interview where LYNCH tells DERN she played the part of 4 DIFFERENT ROLES???
Because in still another interview she also said she and Justin had NO IDEA what was going on and they'd wait each day for the script that day to try to figure out what was going on.
So what it sounds like is DERN'S interpretation of IE may have CHANGED and EVOLVED over time???
And maybe after she'd seen the FINAL CUT a few times (like we have) she also realized she was WRONG about her first impressions and CHANGED the story to she'd played 3 DIFFERENT PARTS before LYNCH corrects her to tell her she'd played 4 DIFFERENT PARTS???
During a lull in the filming of Eraserhead, Lynch’s father and younger brother sat him down and told him it was time to get a job in order to support his wife and daughter.
Over At the LYNCH board someone also posted a link that claims LYNCH will be making a SEASON 3 of TWIN PEAKS which will take place in the PRESENT TIME, and he also wants to bring back MOST of the former crew from the original show.