« And I Am Telling You... | Main | Nationally Bored Review »

December 05, 2006

The Inland Empire Of Manohla

I got the following note from screenwriter Larry Gross tonight. And after reading Manohla's review of Inland Empire, I was also struck by the sense that this piece was one of her most significant at the NYT. It’s not that it is her best writing or that the film is the most complex she’s written about. It’s that the review reaches well past traditional reviewing and speaks in a very interesting way to how we watch movies and how we should be watching movies. The piece speaks to art and commerce and the place that David Lynch has dug out for himself… and how his landmarks create a gravitational pull of their own.

Larry wrote:

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 Manhola Dargis' piece on Lynch's Inland Empire is "important" film criticism.

Leaving aside her simple choice to support the film, in the major pulpit of the times, it's the subtlety and rigor of her defence--or rather her non-defensive articulation of its reason for being taken seriously that I find compelling.

First of all, she states the issue of the film's aesthetic ambitions with great precision, always avoiding hyperbole and hype. When she makes the crucial observations that this is one of the few films she's had the chance to be reviewing this year that meaningfully and somewhat successfully aspires to be art--she's simply stating an unadorned fact.

She also finds a way to astutely refer to flaws in the film again with great precision (her estimate that about twenty minutes could happily come out is remarkably accurate, in my opinion) without backing down in a pussy-footish way about her admiration, her thumbs-up stance.

Finally, she describes many specific details about the film's texture, especially the decor, the lighting, the non-narrative structure the moment b y moment experience of it with both accuracy - not an easy task - and clarity - even harder.

Pauline Kael became an "important" critic 40 years ago when her review of the then-difficult new American film Bonnie and Clyde, helped that film find a place for itself in the minds and hearts of the mass audience, indeed world wide audiences. MD's effort with Inland Empire, will I fear, have a much tougher time making Lynch's grand but difficult experiment, part of "the national conversation" the way that Kael succeeded in doing, but it deserves to, and in my opinion it deserves to make Manohla Dargis an "important" film critic, beyond the fact of her being employed at the New York Times.

I said to you earlier David, that you ought to try to collect responses to Inland Empire and put them "against" each other, what's interesting is that now, I imagine, in the blog world at least responses to it, will also mean that responders will have to situate themselves in relation to Dargis' article. One has much greater confidence that this piece will reverberate among cineastes on the internet than it will with the public at large.

And Larry's own thoughts on Inland Empire will be running on MCN tomorrow.

Posted by poland at December 5, 2006 11:10 PM

Comments

first...

Interesting stuff...can't wait to see it...

Lynch always seems to inspire Manohla's writing to new heights. Years ago she wrote a fascinating piece in the LA Weekly on Lost Highway that was brilliant, but somehow more like a fiery diary entry than an actual review.

I'm not always in sink with Manohla's obsessions but word for word she's one of the most interesting reviewers working today. Great writing.

Posted by: The Carpetmuncher [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 5, 2006 11:52 PM

All that is solid melts into which ism??

Posted by: prideray [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 12:12 AM

Does Manohla include her address for angry letters demanding their money back after wasting their time sitting through three hours of mindless wanking? I gave the movie two hours before walking out, returned for the last 15 minutes of the movie (since there was a press conference with Lynch) and it didn't get much better. I'd consider watching it on DVD if I had the chance, but I hated it even more than I hated Mulholland Drive (and I used to be a huge Lynch fan, too).

Posted by: EDouglas [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 03:56 AM

I usually find Manohla's review's very enlightening and helpful when deciding whether I want to see a movie or not.
In the same paper, have any of you read Tony Scott's review of Indigènes? (Days of Glory) It's the Algerian candidate for Foreign Language Film Oscar. Brilliant and heartwrenching film, saw it a few months ago, and I highly reccommend it! Eastwood's giving us another point of view for Iwo Jima. Bouchareb wants us to take another look at some of the unsung heroes of WW2's western front. The actors well deserved their ensemble award at Cannes! :o)

Posted by: crazycris [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 05:08 AM

"I gave the movie two hours before walking out, returned for the last 15 minutes of the movie (since there was a press conference with Lynch) and it didn't get much better."

Aren't you a film critic of some sort?

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 06:31 AM

I agree with Kamikaze. Would it have been that hard to actually do your job and keep your butt in the seat for an extra 45 minutes?

If I got up and walked out every time something annoyed me at work I would have been fired years ago.

Posted by: Krazy Eyes [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 06:42 AM

"'Important' film criticism"? I said it elsewhere on this blog (I forget where, or I'd find and repost it), but these days that's an oxymoron.

Posted by: Blackcloud [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 07:03 AM

"'Important' film criticism"? I said it elsewhere on this blog (I forget where, or I'd find and repost it), but these days that's an oxymoron.

Posted by: Blackcloud [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 07:05 AM

This is the sort of review that may be better to read after you've actually seen the movie.

Posted by: Eric [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 07:45 AM

It's a well written review, but it doesn't really make me understand what it is that she likes about the film - which I despised. Cutting twenty minutes would be just the start. An entire hour of that movie could go away easily.

Posted by: Devin Faraci [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 08:28 AM

Larry
Considering that the entirety of WE DON'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE could go and no one would (or did) miss it I think your point is lost on the rest of the world. Dargis is a hack, an ugly little troll who lives under a bridge. Her review won't put one more ass in one more seat. You need to get a driver's license and get out more.

I am Jeff Wells' Ego!

Posted by: JWEgo [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 08:41 AM

"I gave the movie two hours before walking out, returned for the last 15 minutes of the movie (since there was a press conference with Lynch) and it didn't get much better."

Aren't you a film critic of some sort?"

Yes, but I'm not obligated to write reviews for every movie I see. If I wrote a review saying how much I hate the movie and you knew I walked out, you're welcome to call me on it. Believe me, if I stayed, it would have been even worse, because I might have jumped on stage and throttled Lynch.

Posted by: EDouglas [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 08:42 AM

John Podhoretz has called this review the definition of pretentious. (I don't agree with him, BTW, and can't imagine singling out Dargis for pretension while Armond White lives and breathes.)

Posted by: postalchris [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 08:45 AM

It's okay Ed. I pretty much dozed off during U93.

Posted by: mutinyco [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 09:22 AM

I found myself getting sleepy a few times during Blood Diamond last night. Talk about an overlong movie.

Posted by: Stella's Boy [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 10:08 AM

Edouglas hated Mulholland Drive? Someone should revoke his license to review ANY film. Let me guess, an angry 20 something male with a pringle on his movie shoulder. Any critic who walks out of any film is not a critic in my book, and I don't care whether you were going to review the film or not.. you're giving everyone your fucking opinion on it and you have nothing to back it up - so sit down and shut up.

Great to see Spam Murphy come out and attack Dave's guest speaker for no reason at all.

I'll wait to see EMPIRE before opening my cakehole.

Posted by: Jeffrey Boam's Doctor [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 10:49 AM

Spam, I don't suppose this is too specific for you, but do you remember where I paid to see WE DON'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE in LA?

Posted by: T.Holly [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 10:57 AM

Heh; Wonder who's going to review it in the L.A. Times. Will it go to Carina "Ramble like a TWOP recapper" Chocano, or to Kenneth "Old Man" Turan? I used to resent Turan's stuffiness and inability to accept dark or transgressive material (hence his stock smug variation on "this film takes us places we don't wish to go" that he repeats ad nauseam). But now I just delight in how obviously he's phoning it in. I swear, he repeats himself so much of late, it's like he's filling out a software template: TuranPro 2.0. IS there a recent Turan review whose 2nd sentence isn't something to the tune of, "When dealing with this kind of material, you want to have the best cast possible. And in (Denzel/Nicholson/Dern/Penn/etc.), you have (a) very special actor(s) indeed."

Posted by: LexG [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 11:24 AM

"but I hated it even more than I hated Mulholland Drive"

Is that because you absolutely loved Mulholland Drive? In lieu of those fighting words, what degree are we talking about?

Posted by: palmtree [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 11:25 AM

What? There's no dwarf?

Posted by: Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 11:55 AM

Spam and T. Holly hang out in the real world?

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 12:18 PM

Damn...I was hoping that on the MCN page they could have restrained from calling Manohla Dargis 'The Man' which I think is silly.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 12:19 PM

Agreed, that and "Tony" Scott really annoys me since the filmmaker is interesting, AO is not.

Posted by: martin [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 02:00 PM

I've never seen a movie by this Lynch guy. He any good?

Posted by: frankbooth [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 02:29 PM

Yes he is.

Posted by: Wrecktum [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 04:14 PM

>>Spam, I don't suppose this is too specific for you, but do you remember where I paid to see WE DON'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE in LA?>>

What are you talking about Willis? I borrowed an Academy screener, tried to check out Naomi's goods during the sex scene on the tree and then propped my eyelids up with sticks.

WHY did you pay for it?

I am Jeff's Ego.

Posted by: JWEgo [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 06:56 PM

Thanks, Wreck.
Which one should I start with? Is he better than Ron Howard?

Posted by: frankbooth [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2006 07:33 PM

"Any critic who walks out of any film is not a critic in my book"

Agreed. If you're getting paid to do a job you sit down and do it. I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to do ED's job.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 7, 2006 01:05 AM

I used to wonder why Stella's Boy was so hard on EDouglas. I no longer do.

As far as the movie goes, (all kidding aside -- did you happen to notice my name, Wrecktum?) I'm not reading any reviews, watching any trailers or looking at any photos. There are some films, like any new Cronenberg, that you just go to no matter what. Talking about it before that is pointless.

(Talking about it before ten years have passed is probably pointless, too -- look at how Mulholland "completed" Lost Highway and cast it in a completlely different light -- but what fun is that?)

Posted by: frankbooth [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 7, 2006 10:34 AM

"As far as the movie goes, (all kidding aside -- did you happen to notice my name, Wrecktum?)"

Of course I did. I guess my sarcasm didn't come across very well.

Posted by: Wrecktum [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 7, 2006 12:05 PM

That's why you should always use a winky emoticon. They're the height of sophisticated discourse on the internets.

Posted by: frankbooth [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 7, 2006 01:04 PM

:P

Posted by: Wrecktum [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 7, 2006 02:48 PM

i am not a film critic.
i enjoyed WE DON'T LIVE HERE... quite a bit.
i LOVED MULLHOLLAND DRIVE. (and LOST HIGHWAY).

To JWEgo & Edouglas - anyone who didn't at least appreciate MULLHOLLAND probably should not be seeing, let alone REVIEWING, a film like INLAND EMPIRE. it indicates an inability to appreciate all the yummy goodness Mr. Lynch has to offer. he is certainly not to everyone's taste.

Gross sez: "One has much greater confidence that [Dargis'] piece will reverberate among cineastes on the internet than it will with the public at large." Here here - and thank goodness those of us who DO want to read intelligent, detailed film criticism have a rapidly expanding world of blogs & sites to read it on...

Posted by: ProgGrrl [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 9, 2006 08:20 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?