A Woman in Trouble, but Who is She?

It is roughly a month to the day since I saw David Lynch’s latest, Inland Empire. I anticipated it a great deal: 2006 I found to be a dismal year for art cinema (despite Three Times and The Death of Mr. Lazarescu). So the year-end buzz circulating around both Lynch’s new project (and Children of Men) had me optimistic towards the possibility of a formidable year-end push in 2006’s waning moments. Technically, a last ditch effort before rolling out Dick Clark one more time, if you will. To boot, the showing I had tickets for at the AFI Silver was to be graced by Mr. Lynch himself. Indeed I was poised: though 2006 had technically already passed, its filmic redemption stood before me, flanked by our very potential benefactor, Mr. Lynch…

Any casual fan of The Simpsons will recall the scene of Homer watching Twin Peaks (for you serious fans, that would be episode 3G02 from season 9, entitled Lisa’s Sax). To the image of a man dancing with a horse, Homer exclaims: “Brilliant! I have no idea what is going on.” A similarly casual fan may also recall (from BABF22, season 12’s HOMR) Homer being escorted out of a movie theatre for not laughing at a punch line incorporating Regis Philbin’s would-be meme: “Is that your final answer?” Though an admittedly flippant means towards elucidating my impressions of Inland Empire, these two scenes are freakishly apropos. Bewilderment and an acute alienation stemming from not “getting it” best encapsulate those three hours. With every chuckle of the sold-out crowd at another quirky line or character, I sank deeper into my chair and grew more anxious and desperate for the movie-cum-torture device to be over.

Naturally, Lynch is worthy of being taken seriously, and it would be cheap to simply throw up hands and say, “I just don’t know what he’s on about!” In fact and to the contrary, I do feel a dull desire to see Inland Empire again. Astute reviews from the likes of the NYT’s Manohla Dargis reinforce these feelings. But what is not so dull is my profound consternation over what Inland Empire lacks. And most importantly, I don’t think any number of viewings will yield it. While critics rave about Laura Dern’s performance, I cannot get over the simple fact that this piece lacks characters of any depth or situations that resonate in the key of the human world.

I think Lynch knows this; I believe it is part of his overall plan. Somewhere around the midpoint (though it’s certainly hard to specify a midpoint when time is seemingly standing still), one of the whores (or actresses, or friends, or hangers-on, or…damn it, I’m not sure) asks directly into the camera, “Who is she?” This is, indeed, the film’s guiding question. But I’m afraid it’s impossible to want to engage in solving the riddle when the viewer isn’t provided enough context to remotely care. Lynch’s very own sense of mystery leaves so much in the shadows that it is impossible to latch onto anything or establish a connection. Who is she? Why should I care? I don’t even recognize this as having anything to do about life.

Ultimately, I cannot help but be reminded of Ingmar Bergman’s Persona. Granted that in it, we begin with two distinct people as opposed to an actresses’ on and off camera life. But no matter, both films attempt to render the dissolution of the self into another and the struggle to discover and posit one’s own “I” and identity. And Persona is certainly just as self-aware and deconstructionist as Inland Empire. The difference is that the former is able to root its themes in a simple, coherent narrative and provide characters cut out just enough to provide a foundation. Thus, its force. And conversely, these missing aspects from Lynch’s latest and highly-autonomous project belie its effectiveness, leaving it only able to imbue anxiety and frustration.