Photography is important to my enjoyment of cinema - in fact in terms of making an impression and influencing me in styles that I would like to emulate in still photography it possibly gives me more to think about than time spent wandering galleries. In the age of the DVD it certainly is more accessible.
Two days ago I started watching David Lynch's film, Inland Empire. Like many other Lynch films the dense hallucinogenic weirdness of the first 15 minutes, suddenly a mood shift, opening up into something approaching light reality (only Lynch reality) for the next 45.
Then last night, not knowing how long was left in the film I sat down to watch the remainder.....
After 30 minutes of a claustrophobic oppressive battering of the senses I did not have a clue what was going on. My son (15 years old) was watching too - he had not seen the first hour but I remember thinking that I probably know no more than he does. An hour later we were still both there watching Laura Dern's confused and horrified face echoing our own thought process of "What the **** is going on?". A half hour more and the trip was over - in total three hours of confusion, nausea and stunning photography (all captured with a handheld cheapo home video camera often held by Lynch himself) and it was over, finishing with a credit sequence with all the lightness of a pop video.
I've watched Mulholland Drive 3 times now. Lost Highway twice. But they have some narrative to identify with even if it does not make sense.
Inland Empire was a gruelling experience; Lynch letting rip with his artistic vision and damn the commercial consequences. Why do I want to go back for more?
(Want to understand it? Reading reviews
does not help!)
Labels: art, personal