Talk:Inland Empire (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Inland Empire (film) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 23, 2007
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Trailer?

Is there no trailer available at one month away from release?--Frenkmelk 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As of November 22, 2006 I can not find a trailer at any of these popular sites: IMDB Rotten Tomatoes QuickTime Movie Trailers --Psychofarm 14:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tradition?

Current version says "Inland Empire also continues Lynch's tradition of naming the project after the location where it is set, with the location actually having little to nothing to do with the film itself." One is hard put to see any such tradition in his filmography. Maybe this is a tradition with his working titles before actual release titles are assigned, but even in that case, it would seem to be more accurate to say that INLAND EMPIRE is a break with tradition, in that he will actually use one of these irrelevant place names as the release title. 66.241.73.241

Well, his previous film Mulholland Drive was named after one of its locations, as was Lost Highway (the Lost Highway Motel in the movie). Twin Peaks is also named after the location of the series and the film. 192.5.109.49 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
But the Twin Peaks location has everything to do with the series, and "Lost Highway" would be an evocative, on-target title for that movie if there were no such location at all. So the "tradition" consists of "Mulholland Drive." (And even that location title is not very oblique, since it's a well-known Los Angeles thoroughfare, and the movie is very much about Los Angeles.) It's the "little to nothing to do with the film itself" that I object to. 66.241.73.241
I agree, I think the article can do without this sentence (because there are a ton of other traditions that could be mentioned), but I will just remove the part about "little to nothing" Diletante 02:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] format

a digital video format, or DV? also citation doesnt match up. furthermore, if the movie wasnt shot in film can we create a more appropriate title? --AlexOvShaolin 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAPTALIZATION

The article should have the title of the film capitalized, as it has became a trademark for director David Lynch to use capitalized text both on his website and on his recent paintings. His characters, whenever he is seen in a film as an actor, also scream, which can be related to capitalization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beforedecay (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. There are also several other purposes for capitalization concerning a screenplay, and given the plot of the movie, I feel we have to respect that. Perhaps he thinks this movie should be louder than the ones before it? Maybe because it's the first appearance of the movie/concept/prop/location? (This is another reason for capitalization in scripts.) Also consider the "continuing tradition" of naming things after where they take place. In a screenplay, pretty much anytime something takes place anywhere, that LOCATION is in all caps. e.g.:
INT. SMITHY'S HOUSE -- NIGHT
Always upper case. Always. It seems a little late for this debate, but I feel like the name of the article should be in all caps. Even if we don't know exactly why, that doesn't make it any less relevant to the work. Just my two cents. Funkeboy 18:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: I'm pretty sure that the name of a film is technically understood to be whatever appears on the opening credits (e.g.: Seven should technically always be called Se7en). In the case of this film, that name is INLAND EMPIRE (also on the poster).

[edit] Budget?

Wikipedia says this film cost $17 million to make. Mulholland Drive only cost $7 million to make. There is no way that this film had a higher budget that Mulholland. This film had abudget of $2 million at the most.

Agreed. There is absolutely no source given for that budget quote, which is listed as an estimate--WHOSE estimate? Inland Empire was shot on digital video with off-the-shelf cameras, mainly in the Czech Republic, with actors who agreed to nominal salaries due to their desire to work with Lynch. Lynch has never been a profligate spender on his passion projects--and he could never have arranged to own all rights to the film, and self-distribute it, if he'd spent that much money. I'd be surprised if it cost 2mil. I heard it cost a few hundred thousand dollars, which would make sense, given the way the film was made. This 17.5mil budget 'estimate' needs to be either sourced or deleted. And I doubt very much there is a credible source. Xfpisher 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good--the 17.5 quote is gone. But if you google 'Inland Empire, budget', right up at the top of the search results page you see the budget listed as 17.5mil, with Wikipedia cited as the source. Somebody in a hurry wouldn't even bother to click on the link. So how do we edit Google?  :) Xfpisher 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben harper?

Ben Harper is not in this film.


--Caladonia

Find some evidence and we can correct it.Cop 633 02:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


He's playing piano in the final scene that runs during the credits. I seem to recall him being mentioned in the credits as well.70.94.32.98 05:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting the plot section

I'm a new user but I've seen this film twice so hopefully no-one has any objection to my rewriting the plot section. It's very poor at the moment. Kinbotic 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It's like you read my mind! Yes, it is a very poor section - go for it! Lugnuts 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Good luck Kinbotic. You'll need it.  ;) Xfpisher 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No kidding! Now that I'm actually trying to do it I can see why no-one's done it before. Gimme a few days guys, I'll do my best. Kinbotic 00:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of DVD release in the USA?

The release date for the DVD in the USA is given here as: June 12, 2007 (USA) (INLAND EMPIRE DVD Distributed by Rhino Entertainment). I really doubt the veracity of this info. What is it's source? A Google search turns up only this article.

However, I did find an official release info page at RYKO: RYKO release date for INLAND EMPIRE

It says: INLAND EMPIRE (2 DVD) (Release Date: 08\14\2007), which is inline with other dates given for it's release.

Come to think of it, I doubt that date for an Iranian release is accurate either. Something smells fishy. The only results for a search on "IR International Films Distribution Company" was also this article. Also, the Italian distributer 01 Distribution has no info on the INLAND EMPIRE release date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.202.131.14 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pena's Comments

Pardon me, but I find Pena's comments to be completely irrelevant, what he says suggests a complete misinterpretation and lack of understanding of Lynch's work.

There's nothing in the movie about smuggling women from eastern europe, and saying that it's a plotless thing or whatever can just show how superficial pena's criticism is.

Lynch's movie is a metaphore, that's all. you just have to try and make the connections yourself and try to understand what he was trying say. Because the movie, despite its obvious ambiguity, does contain some very beautiful and positive ideas in my opinion and it is unfair to judge as plotless etc...

the critic obviously did not try and make the effort to understand it, and I propose that his remarks be removed from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by King of Hearts81 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC).


While I disagree with Pena's 'women smuggling' interpretation, I do not think that it should be immediately considered offensive to call the film 'plotless'. I think it is an act of bravery on Lynch's part to experiment with narratives that are so open to interpretation that there ceases to be an identifiable plot. This is personally one thing I find beautiful about Lynch's work i.e. he brings together a collective of audio/visual ideas without having to load them with the formulaic development and exposition found in most films. The absence of a definable plot is part of the films strength. It would probably be more appropriate to refer to the film as 'not having a fixed plot' rather than simply being 'plotless', but this is the kind of provocative language inevitably used by some critics. It shouldn't be excluded just because it is a glib response to a complex film. Perhaps we should consider moving it to the 'responses' section because simply being 'one of the first' people to view a film does not endow someone with the ability to give an overview of it. How many other articles on films have such an inclusion? Move it to responses I say. Kurushi (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The darkness of man ad nauseam

I also agree the article is inaccurate. INLAND EMPIRE, like many others by Lynch may seem plotless but contain all of the topics and plot of his two previous films. People whose reality is a little too hard to live with, and the creation of a more suitable reality or the spiraling down into worse and worse problems. The dankness of mans soul (obviously his favorite topic), conscious or subconscious is rampant in this film, along with the inability of the innocent to not be compelled to a darker side. Through out the film you are given the impression that a voyeur has hidden himself filming the events. The use of hand held, digital film reminds you of the sleaze of pornography. The commoditization of sex. The characters, struggling with their reality and their unconscious desires and fears. The desires and fears manifest themselves into almost living demons that cannot be controlled by the character. The blurring of lines between fantasy, dreams, and reality set inside of actors who force themselves to become something/somebody else. Like Twin peaks the evils of the world manifest in human form exist in an area (the cabin) in INLAND the are revealed at the end, thriving and rejoicing. I'm really tired so I'm going to bed and I prey I don't have nightmares like the previous night. It was a scary f'ing movie. His most frightening since the one about the old guy on the lawnmower. "Dear Mr. Lynch please protect me from the images that you stained my mind with. Amen"

[edit] 2006/2007?

Currently the article lists the release date as 2006, but the Lynch template lists it as 2007. Either one should be fixed for consistency, and I think 2006 would be the most logical one since that's when it actually premiered in public. DiamonDie 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Fixed. 2006 is the correct year. Lugnuts 09:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A review of the film

I saw this excelent film yesterday, and beyond the particular way of the Director of develping a story, witch is in my point of view is refreshing and original, as in all his films, Im suprised that nobody has touched the core aspect of the Story, that is the loss of values. Thye film portraits women that are victims of thair vices, that become prostitutes becouse this sociaty gives to much importance to, as said in the film "tits and ass", how they live a senseless life, full of wrong decisions, and remorse becouse of their actions. Its very true that "actions have consecuences", and the ego trip woman seem to be in as a gender, does not let them see the consecuences untill its to late. Hopefully a lot a girls will see this as I have and reflect upon the tradegies that result of thair loss of values and attachments to ego and sensual plesures.

Sorry friend, but this isn't a site for posting your own personal reviews; we only include material by professional film reviewers. Try posting it at www.imdb.com instead. Cop 663 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's disconcerting. Only from professional film reviewers? And who are you, "WE only include..."? Btw I inform YOU (whoever) that you don't use this pattern usually.83.103.38.68 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean 'we' as in Wikipedia. Read this for explanation and complain on that page if you don't like what it says. Cop 663 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release dates

Is there a compelling reason to keep this overly long and detailed list of release dates? I'm in favor of removing it entirely, as I don't see how this information is necessary or useful. But if anyone thinks otherwise, please let me know. MrCheshire 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] surely the reviews/reactions were not uniformly positive

maybe a little parity in that section? 71.194.13.220 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I too think this is can be removed. --NeF 12:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The reviews were uniformly bi-polar: Critics either loved it or hated it. --X3NA 08:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean unanimously, not unilaterally. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynch voice cameo?

Can anyone confirm that it is Lynch's disembodied voice as "Bucky" who speaks to Jeremy Irons "Kingsley" character at 045:00:000 into the movie? --Frenkmelk talk 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it says that on IMDb. I don't know if we count that as a reliable source: I know at least one time it's been wrong. Ric | opiaterein 03:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:7791.jpg

Image:7791.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Summary

I'm slowly rewriting the plot summary, having noticed some omissions and inaccuracies. I don't want to make it too exhaustive and detailed, but I think a good summary would clarify some of the unique buzz surrounding the movie, help readers to place the cameo appearances, etc. Jordanr 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Plot Summary or interpretation?

Just some few examples:

-"On a street in Hollywood, Sue is suddenly a prostitute; she mockingly imitates the "Lost Girl" from the hotel room." -"Phantom's face is distorted beyond recognition,into the semblance of a fetus"

-"The "Lost Girl" is free to leave her prison"

I think it's better stick to a descriptive tone rather than go on a interpretation. Perhaps it would be better to do away with the parts in bold, don't you agree?

--Diegocunha 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I am quick-failing this article, it has too many <fact> tags. Before you renominate, you should try and summarize a bit more the "plot" section, also, there are a bunch of citations that need to be in format (see here). Please take a closer look at what is a good article? before you renominate. Thanks for your work so far. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-modernism

I found this film to have significant connections to post-modern philosohies. If someone is inclined, it might be worthwhile to examine the link. Most notably, we find an alienation between the observer and the observed as Laura Dern's character slips from mundane reality to fantasy (film) to absurdity (rabbits) and back again. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but it seemed to me to be the central point of the film - creating in the viewer a viceral emotional response only to discover the layered reality as we leave the cinema. 5 May 2008 - anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.101.232.122 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Emperor is Nude

And only the Newyorker was not afraid to shout it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.8.106 (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)