INLAND EMPIRE
Sort of strange news that I just saw -- David Lynch is working on a new movie. Well, that's not so much strange news, I suppose -- Lynch is a filmmaker and that's typically what filmmakers do. The weird part, though -- apparently, he's been working on it, without anyone really knowing, for two years. All that's known is the title (INLAND EMPIRE, all caps), some of the cast, and that it's "about a woman in trouble". It's slated to premiere in Cannes next year, but they're going to release a little more information soon, but until then even the posters are covered up.
Me, I'm just amazed that someone as famous as David Lynch has been able to be that secretive. Usually, even if no one knows anything about the movie, it's at least leaked that they're working on one. The articles even mention that there's no script -- I'm thinking that's a misinterpretation of the Studio Canal representative's statement, which I took to mean that there's no script released (and perhaps they haven't even seen one, just working on their past relationship with Lynch). Though, hey, at this point, it could just be improvised, who knows.
And it's interesting that Lynch has gone to DV and says he's done with film. Too bad, really -- I've always liked the look of film (DV looks good, but tends to produce a flatter picture, where actual film has a bit more depth to it, at least in my eyes... which admittedly don't really have depth perception...). And I'd always been under the impression that Lynch was a fan of the medium too, but I guess not, or, rather, that his love of it has been surpassed by DV. Either way, though.
(Hopefully, this doesn't mean that he'll re-release, say, the Elephant Man with CG critters running around and, say, overdub John Hurt with Temuera Morrison...)
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me @ Friday, May 13, 2005
13 Comments:
True, but look at his reasons for dumping film... it's expensive, meaning that he has to justify what he wants to film to others, which he hates (and which results in inferior product) and two, most importantly, I do think that although we loved him as a FILM maker, I personally cannot think of a director who could better use CG for what is REALLY can do-- aid/tell a story.
Oh, definitely; I can completely see the reasons for going DV -- especially for someone like Lynch who insists on Director's Cut (and accepts lower budgets to do that). And, to be honest, I doubt he's going to do CG, though, if he were to, I'd certainly trust him to do it more than certain other people I could name, with names like Blorge Blucas.
So, yeah -- I think that, as always, the most important thing is the Film, as in the images what are moving on screen, rather than the film, as in the stock.
(I just happen to prefer the look of the stock, but interesting things can be done with DV too, and some DV can look really good, actually, so even _that_ objection can be a little dodgy.)
There are software packages that will put in the "grain" of film, too. There's a really good buddy of mine named Mark (whom I'm going to see next weekend! We're hopefully going to go together to a Vespa rally in Victoria, BC) who is going to be using this transfer method (if that's what it is) on his film, Awake.
And DV is evolving... it's in its early B&W stage, really. Film did this too... Technicolor... etc. It hasn't reached its peak, yet.
I do believe that eventually we'll be seeing movies in 3D or holograms... give it 25 years...
And THAT technology would enable TELEPRESENCE, which I really can't wait for!
That's true, too -- there's even some plugins in things like Adobe Premiere that'll add grain, too (haven't played with them too much, though I've basically only used Hi-8, Digi-8 and Mini DV... always wanted to actually use Real Live Film, but, well, that's rather expensive, where tape is _cheap_. Tho', less so the Mini DVs. But hi/digi-8 tape? Cheap-ass.) So, yeah -- I'm not really _too_ down on DV. It's a matter of preference at this point that makes me like film more, but it's basically a more-or-less negligable amount of like. Sort of in the "Hey, it'd be awesome to have a pony" kind of like. Where, yeah, it'd be neat, but it's not always that feasible, and for the benefits (having a pony), are the costs really that worth it (feeding it, stabling it, having to not-lose-interest when it grows up and you've got a horse...)? And... well, to be honest, it's sort of up in the air. I'd hate for film to go away 100%, but I can see that it's migrating over to DV, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
And, yeah -- it'll ALL go out the window, once we have holograms and ultra-hi-def and holophonors and news monsters and all the stuff on Futurama I want.
A big way to make video look like film isn't to add grain, but to remove frames of video. I wonder if Lynch will do that.
Regardless of all that, I think it's AWESOME that he has a new project in the works!! I'd been wondering why he was taking so long to even start anything, gievn that "Mullholland Dr." was probably his biggest commercial success. I'm pumped about the new one, and while with some directors I'd worry about them picking up the newest toys, I know that Lynch is an artist first and foremost; he'll do it right. :)
Yeah-- both of you.
And DV also has that guerilla factor. Directors can cut and recut and do more takes not just because the DV is cheaper, but because the problem with film isn't just the film-- I've read that DV is dozens of times more sensitive to light.
As for frames... When I was a kid I went to Expo '86 in Vancouver and there was this one pavillion which purported to show the "future" of film-- actual movies, shot at 35 fps. The "claims" they made were that this FPS level was more in synch with the actual frame-rate that the brain takes in information, and that therefore, as the audience gets more engrossed in the movie, mentally, the "sides of the screen would disappear", resulting in a more immersive experience.
Obviously, it didn't catch on. As I recall, the movie was about a kid who travels over a forest by climbing inside a large yellow plastic "orb", so... I'm not sure how engrossed in it I was. Maybe DV (and an actual director with a budget) will finally make that possible.
A while ago, I actually had a bookmark to a site that was "MAKE YOUR VIDEO LOOK MORE LIKE FILM" which was actually pretty interesting, although I think it was mainly about a: De-interlacing and
b: Dropping frames.
I should probably dig that up again at some point, though. It was pretty interesting.
I dug "Mulholland Dr.", but was it as big of a success as, say, "Blue Velvet"? I thought that was the film that sort of catapulted him to Big Name Fame (after "Eraserhead" which I always figured basically stayed at Cult Levels (though apparently it WAS shown on USA Network....) and "Elephant Man", which I thought was one of those more Respected Films than generally well-known and Big Success Types). And then, of course "Twin Peaks" was a huge success. (Bad news on that -- they're pushing season 2 back to 2006, although, apparently it's because Lynch wants to contribute.))
But yeah -- as you mention -- if anyone's going to do the whole "New Toy" thing and do it right, it'll be Lynch. I don't really think he's the type to get blinded by new stuff for the sake of newness.
Also, the thing about the 35 FPS at Expo '86 would have been neat to see. Although I'm not sure if it would have worked as they're saying. (Apparently not, considering it doesn't seem that you remember so much, but... maybe you just weren't Immersed in the film's world because it was a stupid and boring world..8) Although, it's kind of funny, since I wonder if, for me, one of the reasons I'm so into film is that I don't really have depth perception, so there isn't a whole lot of difference between what I see and what a camera sees, so films aren't Something Different Looking for me; it's basically sort of like a window. (A window that's really interesting and tends to do all sorts of visual tricks and has words hovering by from time to time, but, hey.)
I think the same math that makes EVERY weekend a "record-breaker" at the box-office is why Mullholland Dr. is Lynch's most profitable film... just because it was the last one. However, it did get widespread release and good reviews, two things that are rare for him. Blue Velvet was a cult hit, but Mulholland Dr. was popular enough to get Oscar nominations, so I'm going to guess (I might be wrong) that more people saw Mulholland Dr. than have seen Blue Velvet.
Ah, OK -- that makes sense. I think for me, I just have the in-retrospect view of most of his films -- I think _Fire Walk With Me_ was about the first one I was really aware of when it was happening (since I was a pretty big _Twin Peaks_ fan, and my parents and I were the only three people in America who watched _On The Air_ when it was on, and we all _loved _ it. And I still do), and basically the HUGE critical backlash w/r/t it. (At the time, I hated it too, but I'd like to go back now that I'm a little older. Considering it came out in, what, 1992? Meaning I'd be 12? For the time being, though, I'm waiting for the complete Twin Peaks to come out -- since Paramount's also apparently got the rights to the Pilot film as well -- before going back to it, just so I have the same background, as I've kind of forgotten the non-first-season stuff.) I remembered seeing the ads for Lost Highway on TV, but never actually made it to see that one. I was kind of interested in it, at the time, but around then it was kind of difficult for me to get to the theater. And my parents are only sorta-Lynch-Fans (Loved Twin Peaks/On The Air, Elephant Man, hated Mulholland, and I don't think they've seen Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, or Lost Highway. I don't know about Eraserhead -- I think dad's seen it, and I think he liked it. I remember him telling me that it was called such because of Nance's hairstyle, and I haven't even seen it and I know that's not it..8), so sometimes I'd get stuff that they rented to watch and/or watch it with them around that time. And I don't think they cared to see LH, so I missed out. (Totally waiting for the DVD to come out once they get around to deciding it's long enough after the Blake trial or whatever lame reason the studio had...)
....and, I've totally forgotten my point! It was probably something to do with how pie is awesome. Because it totally is.
BTW, I think "On The Air" is BRILLIANT... I have the whole series (nine episodes, I think?) on some bootleg DVDs I bought in a shady corner of the internet.. my Lynch-hating partner considers this one of the funniest TV shows ever.
(He only hates Lynch because of Mulholland Dr.... he has a serious love/hate thing going on with David Lynch.)
It's funny, with "On The Air" -- I actually saw it when it ran, and loved it (all, what, 3 episodes that aired?) and was so disappointed when it went off the air. And then about a year or two ago, I found a bootleg tape of them and bought that for probably too much on eBay, but, you know, On The Air. At first, I was worried that it was one of those "Things You Loved When You're 12" type things, but as soon as I threw it in, I was relieved because it was still good. But yeah; I've often said that if I had billions of dollars, I would contact Lynch and give him as much money as he wanted and director's cut and everything to make anything he wanted, as long as it was a comedy. Because I love his sense of humor.
It's funny, David Foster Wallace wrote an essay about being on set of Lost Highway, and in an aside disses OTA. I was all "NO! You may be one of the best writers of our time, but you're WRONG!" But it's still a great essay (it's in A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again).
(BTW, I've got two tapes -- one from the US version of the cassette, which I didn't know existed, and one from the Japanese version. In a way, the Japanese subtitles sort of enhance the effect of the show....)
...hey you're talking about MXC too!
Hey, speaking of surreal things, there was this one show on in the '60's... crap. I was never much of a TV hound but I heard it was extremely surreal.
... The Prisoner?
Or maybe Kure Kure Takora?
Post a Comment
<< Home