by Allan Fish
(USA 2006 180m) DVD1/2
No more blue tomorrows
p David Lynch, Mary Sweeney d/w David Lynch ph/ed David Lynch m none art Christina Ann Wilson, Wojciech Wolniak
Laura Dern (Nikki Grace/Susan Blue), Jeremy Irons (Kingsley Stewart), Justin Theroux (Devon Berk/Billy Side), Harry Dean Stanton (Freddie Howard), Julia Ormond (Doris Side), Grace Zabriskie (Visitor #1), Diane Ladd (Marilyn Levens), Neil Dickson (producer), William H.Macy (announcer), Mary Steenburgen (Visitor #2), Emily Stofle (Lani), Jordan Ladd (Terri), Laura Harring, Nastassja Kinski, Naomi Watts (voice),
Never was an essay in this tome more like playing devil’s advocate to myself. Here is arguably the most self-indulgent film of the entire selection. A film which takes H.P.Lovecraft’s famous mantra, also followed by Kubrick in The Shining, “in all things mysterious, never explain” and multiplies it to the power of infinity. It’s completely impenetrable, deliberately opaque, shatteringly perverse and throughout it all, one has a feeling that the director has played a massive trick on the viewer, by redefining audience tolerance. Lynch is of course the crown prince of weird, as earlier masterpieces Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks and Mulholland Drive showed, but this is way, way beyond the non-linear elements of those films.
Nikki Grace is an actress married to a powerful man with a psychotic jealous reputation, who’s auditioned for the lead in a new film to be directed by Kingsley Stewart, starring noted ladies man Devon Berk. She receives a visit from an Eastern European accented ‘neighbour’ who tells her she’s got the part before it’s even been confirmed and who then proceeds to insult Nikki, who asks her to leave. At that point, Nikki gets a call from her agent telling her she’s got the part. All is well until, during a read through, she is told what the director has just found out, that the script is not actually an original, but one that was attempted years before, only to be left unfinished after the death of the two stars.
What separates this film from Lynch’s earlier work is the difference in style, by which I don’t just mean the use of handheld digital camera as opposed to regular film, but also the ‘reality’ of the piece. Earlier works walked the tightrope between the real and the unreal, whereas Inland wavers between the unreal and the surreal, a fact signposted in the very opening scene, shot in Polish in monochrome, whose visual manipulation of the characters’ faces reminds one of the Man Ray short Le Retour à la Raison with the abstract patterns on Kiki of Montparnasse’s naked breasts. Essences of numerous other films abound, from Natural Born Killers (the grainy camerawork, Dern’s monologue, which if one closes ones eyes could easily be Mallory Knox) to Donnie Darko (the rabbit-men interlude, voiced by Harring, Watts and Scott Coffey, all from Mulholland) to the works of Krzysztof Kieslowski (especially The Double Life of Veronique, though the original aborted film being in Polish may be no coincidence, too) and the handheld camera style of the Danish films of Susanne Bier. It all finally converges when Dern exclaims, mid-take, “this sounds like dialogue from our script” and her two identities finally merge into one. From there on in, you’re on your own, and don’t expect help, for Lynch will only toss you red herrings. One side of me tells me it’s lazy film-making, playing up to the intellectuals by having nothing make sense and calling it art, and yet no film of its year had such visual texture and dared to take you to such places, to where no other director would dare. Neither did any film offer the sort of performance offered by Lynch’s old collaborator, Laura Dern. If ever the term ‘too good for Oscar’ was merited, it’s here. Her monologue alone is quite shattering, like Alice 25 years on, having failed to escape from Wonderland and descended into the darkest recesses of her mind. “I’m not too keen on thinking about tomorrow”, she observes. You’ll be lucky if, after watching this, your head’s cleared up enough the following day, or indeed in the next few days, to think about anything.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
This is the best movie by Lynch of this decade.
And I had one explanation for everything that happened on the screen: alternate worlds, as in “The Dark Tower”, or the one that originally did it but wasn’t as entertaining as Stephen King.
What’s so frustrating (and fascinating) about Inland Empire is not that it’s so “out there” but that’s it’s so out there and yet seems to have a hidden story and meaning. All of Lynch’s films operate this way – he does not make straight-up avant-garde flicks but rather plays with narrative, turning story conventions and expectations themselves into experimental elements – but in Inland the “secrets” are buried far beneath the surface, and the attempt to access them is maddening. If we could just delve into the images and textures without worrying what they meant, the film might feel more rewarding, less challenging, but that’s clearly not what Lynch is going for. In the end, I haven’t sorted out my feelings about this film but for anyone interested in Lynch it’s a must-see; it completely destroys the already stretched-to-the-limit boundaries of what defines “Lynchian” and sees how far it go before it no longer retains any semblance of the recognizable.
Trying to describe this serpentine play in writing inevitably comes off goofy-sounding, dancing about architecture in the extreme.
Anyway, I like your analogies, particularly to Man Ray & Kieslowski – and especially the comparison of Laura Dern to “Alice 25 years on, having failed to escape from Wonderland and descended into the darkest recesses of her mind.”
You make me want to see the film again. You also could have mentioned Eraserhead since perhaps both films began with Lynch jotting down random dreams and loosely assembling them into evocative order. Inland Empire had me riveted as soon as the rabbits appeared (with a laugh track!) like a sitcom of a non sequitur alternative universe.
MovieMan summed up my thoughts with this comment: “What’s so frustrating (and fascinating) about Inland Empire is not that it’s so “out there” but that’s it’s so out there and yet seems to have a hidden story and meaning.”
Parts of it had me riveted as well, thinking that some truly amazing was going to emerge… which I suppose it did in spots. But it is so frustrating a film, that there were large chunks that just had me completely turned and/or baffled to the point of thinking it all was pointless. So even now, I don’t know what to make of it.
This to me is Lynch’s most frustrating film — and even more so because he hasn’t done anything since. He seems to have abandoned film for the internet and guest spots on The Cleveland Show (seriously, he is a riot as the bartender on that show). His career has become almost as incoherent as this film.
But such moments of wonder in here — and Dern’s monologue -WOW!
I mean, this is brilliant, tedious, maddening, beautiful, horrific, hilarious, self-indulgent stuff.
It brought me back to my original thoughts when I first watched the film:
http://davethenovelist.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/a-review-of-david-lynchs-inland-empire/
And probably the only reason this didn’t make my list is that unlike most of Lynch’s other films (Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive) I just never have the craving to watch this again. I watched it twice within a tight time frame and have been done with it ever since. There was something arduous about watching this film…he seemed to have lost that magic that made you want to watch over and over and over. But I dunno…
Yup, yup, yup! Agreed totally. It might be hard to descipher, but unlike MULLHOLLAND DRIVE, the “visual fabric” of the film keeps you glued to it even when you wanna turn foe the door. In a sense, I feel that Lynch, without announcing it, and sub-conciously, is making the best horror films out there. Rather than splattering blood all over the walls, in obvious ways that most typical horror films do, he’s content and mastering the art of the subtle horror film. Fascinating. Dern’s (couldn’t agree more with Allan thaqt she was “too good for Oscar”) mopnoloque alone, in all its verbally real use of description, is enough to trump most traditional horror fare and will keep the viewer disturbed for weeks. I don’t always like Lynch’s films, but its hard to deny his effortless hold on those who can stick through them. This one, particularly, gets under your thick skin and fucks with your head for days.
Absolutely agree in that it is a horrifying film, and that’s why I think it’s actually a blessing that Lynch withholds and obscures so much. Watching Inland Empire it’s hard not to get the sense that there are things too terrifying and evil going on beneath the surface to be known, and that if we actually saw them they’d physically rip us apart. For me, this is Lynch’s best film.
This analysis actually sounds right, but is precisely what makes the film so difficult for me. If this is the case, then what is the point of even making the movie… of taking us right up to that edge and then deciding it’s simply too terrifying to let us in on anything. I just can’t shake the feeling that deciding that this is the case is something of a copout, be it by Lynch or the viewer.
I suppose I’m just still frustrated from not being able to make any sense of the film. Perhaps that’s the point, which is fine, but it’s just not quite my cup of tea. Which is interesting, because I am such a huge Lynch fan. I suppose I owe this one another look, because as I said earlier, there are individual sequences that are truly spectacular. But I eventually find myself loosing interest when things really go nuts. And similar to what David said earlier, this isn’t one that I’m exactly rushing back to in order to re-watch because it was so grueling the first and second times. What keeps me from writing it off completely – which I hope my response doesn’t make it seem like I am – is that the parts that I do like are so good that it keeps me believing that maybe the rest of it will eventually click for me.
Anyway, I’ll just agree to disagree with Dennis and Doniphon on placing this in Lynch’s output. There are at least four or five that I probably rank ahead of it.
Dave, obviously we’ve discussed this one before, and agree to disagree. As for the point of making it, however, I do think there are things we maybe kind-of experience that simply cannot be translated on-screen, and Lynch seems to be working towards those experiences knowing full well he’s not going to get there (I swear I’m not intentionally trying to be vague, it’s just hard to describe the indescribable). So if you want to try to account for these kind of things in your movie, it’s actually impossible to go over that edge. Using the word “withhold” might have been a mistake on my part; Lynch doesn’t understand it all either, but working towards something is a noble enterprise. Inland Empire’s structure is circular, getting closer and closer to some center that may or may not exist.
Yes, “withhold” is the key for me. If it is just exploring on Lynch’s part, looking at something that even he can’t completely understand or explain, then I don’t really have a problem. But if there is an explanation that is being withheld, then I question the point of it all. Not that I necessarily think there HAS to be an answer given, mind you, but I wouldn’t be for purposely obscuring an answer that the director thinks exists.
I don’t know, maybe it’s all ultimately semantics. Certain parts of Inland Empire work for me, a larger percentage don’t. I’ll hopefully work up the stamina to revisit at some point.
I do see where Donophon is coming from with his ultimate placement with this film, and I do think time will enforce that position, though for now I’ll go with BLUE VELVET and MULLHOLLAND on top with THE ELEPHANT MAN as a long-standing emotional favorite, and INLAND EMPIRE up next.
DONIPHON-I, personally, wouldn’t go that far… However, the suggestion of evil brooding under the surface is a theme that not only has Lynch vistited before, but something he effortlessly realizes on screen in the most obscure and, yes, blatant, ways. He, the horrific underbelly allows our IMAGINATION to do the work, and sometimes I wonder if that, in and of itself is more frightening than actually showing the repellant. Thinking of Dern’s monologue, I think it wouldn’t have been half as horrifically effective if it were visualized in a flash back. On the other hand. I feel BLUE VELVET is the type of film that works when visually illustrating the terrors that lie beneath. Don’t get me wrong, Lynch still refers to terrors unseen in BV, but the scope of that film requires, I feel, the visceral, visual enactment to jolt. I like both styles, but there’s something cinematically elegant about BLUE VELVET. I still think its his masterpiece.
debating his ‘masterpiece’ one would have to consider BLUE VELVET and MULLHOLLAND DRIVE as they seem to be the most Lynch like for his countless fans and critically praised almost unanimously. Now, about personal favorites I find most hardened Lynch fans take one of his more ‘out there’ masterpieces (such as Doniphon picking this one), which is easy to do–his ‘fringe’ films are so fantastic (and his ‘mainstream’ masterpieces are so strange as well). For me, I always cite LOST HIGHWAY, I think it does so much of what Lynch does well. Plus I think it’s his scariest film in the Horror vein.
When also talking about Lynch masterpieces I feel compelled to list his Short films disc collection, and his book of scribblings, paintings, and ‘other’… both are pretty fantastic too.
Who would have thought that (perhaps) the greatest American filmmaker to use the digital medium up to 2010 would be David Lynch and this film specifically?
When it comes down to citing Lynch for a “masterpiece”, for me it all comes down to “Twin Peaks”. And while I like “Inland Empire”, my favorite digital work from this decade was done by Michael Mann– the new technology has really brought his work to life and forced it to evolve in rather stunning ways.
Oh, and Jamie– I think there’s another addition to your sci-fi bald-women sub-sub-sub-genre with “Splice”. Granted, it goes all kinds of haywire and utterly wrong in the final act, but it’s definitely worth seeing.
I had my eye on that one (SPLICE) months back for that exact reason… yet to see it though
As a fellow-Cronenberg fan, I think you’ll dig it. Especially as you’ll be able to look at it from the horror-angle, whereas I prefer the sci-fi perspective.
I’ll try to find time, the Adrian Brody inclusion was interesting, that’s a huge score for a film like that.
I’ll have to see it before friday, as after that it’s all World Cup for me for about a month…
This is the movie that made me reevaluate Lynch’s whole career-quite silly and he has the same take on women and sexuality that a 16 year-old-virgin would have. Very disappointing, and his attempt to use video in the same cinematic language he had previously used film did not work. If Lynch’s name was not attached to this, I guarantee you that anyone who says they liked it would not have made it past the 10 minute mark, let alone suffered through the whole tomato.
“This is the movie that made me reevaluate Lynch’s whole career-quite silly and he has the same take on women and sexuality that a 16 year-old-virgin would have.”
I now wonder if you’ve reevaluated Scorsese, Lucas, and Spielberg for these reasons… or wondered if childlike naivety or banal melodrama/romanticism is precisely the point Lynch is getting at many times.
Hell, I think it’s the point that Lucas is getting at, oftentimes just as cleverly as Lynch (though obviously, not nearly as viscerally). I don’t really see it in Scorsese– he’s pretty grown-up in his outlook. Spielberg’s still in the oral stage of cinematic melodrama.
On Scorsese I meant that yes he is a grown up, but his films have never really featured a female character of any substance other then as a foil to the males.
In Scorsese’s world women are the whore or the virgin Mary, though I happen to (probably) agree with you that this is an interesting enough topic for a filmmaker to mull on over a career. I wanted to just point out that many great filmmakers view woman (or sexuality) as very juvenile, but this is usually the point, or a point that they don’t care about so it’s pointless to dissect them on these grounds. It’s like finding fault in Cronenberg because his films lack a comedic element, or something like that.
Interesting way to put Scorsese’s career into relief, especially considering his Catholic upbringing. I was about to try and think of some exceptions– “Age of Innocence”, “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore”– but to a certain extent you’re right about the Madonna/Magdelene thing, thought it does occasionally come in subtler variations. But when you get right down to it, there’s a latent sexism in a lot of the great (and predominently male) directors of the cinematic canon.
As for a lack of comedy in Cronenberg– jeez, I think all his films are full to the brim with a rich kind of gallows humor. Granted, it’s more absurdist at times than mainstream laugh-making, but when it’s good, it’s great. “How do you fuck that up?” Best scene he’s done in the past ten years.
Lol Jaimie I’m with you on the World Cup. Film viewing will suffer until after July 11th. The biggest stage for “the beautiful game” comes along only once every four years!!!
Maurizio, great to find another WC fan here! Who are your favorites/picks? I support USA as a resident, then ENGLAND usually when the US is eliminated, either way those are my two favorite sides. Pretty cool that they are in group play together this year. Also exciting for me is that not only is this the most favorable draw the US has ever received, but it’s also the best US team we’ve ever fielded (though 2002 squad with McBride/Reyna is up there) in our history let alone my lifetime.
“Interesting way to put Scorsese’s career into relief, especially considering his Catholic upbringing. I was about to try and think of some exceptions– “Age of Innocence”, “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore”– but to a certain extent you’re right about the Madonna/Magdelene thing, thought it does occasionally come in subtler variations. But when you get right down to it, there’s a latent sexism in a lot of the great (and predominently male) directors of the cinematic canon.”
yep.
If it’s been awhile for RAGING BULL for you, watch it again thinking about this–I know it’s obvious enough when just thinking back– but with it on your mind ever shot, every piece of symbolism in that film backs up this idea. And how males (inadequately) deal with this. Perhaps my favorite Scorsese moment/symbolism in any of his films (or at least up there) is the connection he makes between Jake submerging his fists in a bucket of ice after a fight, to an earlier image of him pouring ice on his genitals to ‘defuse an erection’ before a big fight. It’s really quite powerful.
Hm. I’d always thought of the “ice water” scene as more of a strange bit of humor, than anything else. Probably from real life, but still, presented in an oddly funny way. I didn’t read too much into it.
Speaking of Lynchian cinema and all things sexist, I finally finished my long-planned marathon viewing of “Evangelion” over the weekend, sans the current revival-production. And all I can say is–damn, it’s still one of the most depressing things I’ve ever seen. And yet still hypnotic for any number of reasons. Love it or hate it, though, I’ll give Hideaki Anno props for having more balls with either of his endings than the “Lost” creators did in theirs (though who knows how these remake-movies will turn out).
Superb response here Jamie, but hardly surprising, as you are one of the most brilliant of all writers and commenters at this site. I spoke to jason directly and let him know that (personally) I rejected the cries of misogyny.
Perhaps Jim Clark, David Lynch scholar extraordinaire can enlighten us at this point.
God, I love this movie. Lynch’s best? Who knows. I will say that right alongside Mulholland Drive, it’s the one that affects me the deepest. I just watched it last week for the fourth time scouring for screenshots for an upcoming blog entry, and it just simply has a transportive quality like few films I’ve ever come across. I can certainly understand how its mystery being just out of grasp and blurry can be endlessly frustrating for many, but for me it feels like an endless, intoxicating puzzle, one filled with dashes of humor, moments of pure terror, and some of the most haunting and beautiful imagery I’ve ever witnessed. Not to mention Laura Dern, who for my money gave the performance of the decade. After four viewings I’m as fascinated and baffled by it as ever. And it’s a good feeling.
I find obnoxious comments like “If Lynch’s name was not attached to this, I guarantee you that anyone who says they liked it would not have made it past the 10 minute mark, let alone suffered through the whole tomato.” to be just the height of absurdity, as they are built on some childish notion that every film goer watches every movie with the same interests, for the same reason, and to feel the same things. Give me a break.
Aye Drew, I’ve passed on my sentiments by e mail to Mr. Giampietro, whose headstrong comment here was really off the mark. As you rightly note people come to films with varying expectations, and blanket dismissal of views forged by taste and perception shouldn’t be arrogantly dismissed, especially since (as in this case) they were reached in re-appraisal. That said, as always, your insights are terrific. Allan has penned one of his greatest passages ever here with this:
“What separates this film from Lynch’s earlier work is the difference in style, by which I don’t just mean the use of handheld digital camera as opposed to regular film, but also the ‘reality’ of the piece. Earlier works walked the tightrope between the real and the unreal, whereas Inland wavers between the unreal and the surreal, a fact signposted in the very opening scene, shot in Polish in monochrome, whose visual manipulation of the characters’ faces reminds one of the Man Ray short Le Retour à la Raison with the abstract patterns on Kiki of Montparnasse’s naked breasts.”
INLAND EMPIRE is a hallucinatory, nightmarish and deeply disturbing film that uses style to explore the profundities not often reached by conventional narrative. I do think the opinions reached here by most on this thread were arrived at by a deep understanding of this film, and not (as the insult contends) by a blind adoration of a proven director. Some of the same people have shown far less enthusiasm for THE STRAIGHT STORY, WILD AT HEART and ERASERHEAD (and perhaps even THE ELEPHANT MAN) so that contention is nonsense.
Like Bob Clark I think there is definite black humor to Cronenberg’s films. A History Of Violence is filled with comedy. Other than the scene he mentions its also apparent in Ed Harris’ whole performance.
OK, OK sure, I was trying to just state that not finding something in a Lynch film that he isn’t intending to include is a fruitless endeavor. I suppose a lot of Cronenberg is somewhat funny, how about this analogy: ‘it’s like saying Cronenberg’s films lack show tunes, and dance routines.’ (damn it, he did –the absurdly underrated–M BUTTERFLY ! )
Jamie–I support USA and Italy. Unlike 2006 they are in opposite brackets and can only meet in the finals. This would be my dream come true!! I have conflicting feelings on who to root for when they face each other where a draw is not possible. I finally came up with a system where I root for Italy in soccer and the USA in the Olympics and other national sports. Though if Italy were to ever pass or tie Brazil in overall cups (only one behind!!!) I would then be more inclined to cheer for the US first. I just hope that at some point in my life they can win a World Cup! Four years ago I did root for a tie when they faced each other in the group stages. I was hoping both would advance to the knockout portion of the tournament.
God, let’s not go here, I hate that word, SOCCER. It’s football in every other country than the US, where what they call football is a pansy’s game (rugby for cowards) where the ball is never kicked at all in play.
And neither England (we are a nation of losers), USA (not good enough) or Italy (they shouldn’t have been good enough in 2006, they certainly aren’t now) has a hope of winning – only four sides can – Brazil, Spain, Holland or, if Maradona has sold his soul to Satan for a second time after 1986, Argentina. Forget Germany, especially with Ballack injured, France are playing with zimmerframes like an international AC Milan, Portugal will rely on Ronaldo, and so long as someone gives him the damn kicking he needs in the group stages, they’ll get despatched in Round 2. The others are basically fillers. As for an outsider, Paraguay might bear watching, but they won’t win for sure.
I agree with you on England and the USA. With Italy and Germany though what you see on paper never tells the full story. Those teams have an inner confidence (arrogance?) that always allows them to get results in every world cup. Dismissing either is never a good idea. I guarantee you that neither will do poorly and I would not be shocked if they meet in the finals.
Aye, Allan’s view here is exceptionally informed, and I know little about “football” in terms of prospects, though I always watch with relish. Italy has (traditionally) one of the stingiest of defenses, so they can never be counted out, as Maurizio rightly contends.
“where the ball is never kicked at all in play” evidently you’ve never seen the kick-off, extra-points, or field goals? LOL. In all seriousness though american football has little to do with my interests anymore, and it drifts farther and farther with each passing year.
As for the World Cup, I don’t think Argentina has the greatest of chances you speak of, after leaving off three great players (Zanetti, Cambiasso, etc). But they still have perhaps the greatest player in the world so they could still do it, but if they do it will be in spite of Maradona, not because of. I agree about some of your other picks (France I think will struggle to get into elimination play, same for Mexico, and Italy, and if these countries do advance it’s almost certainly one and done in second round play). My sleeper (and Paraguay is a decent pick) is Uruguay. I thought Ivory Coast could do something, but with an uncertain Drogba their chances dry up.
The great things about this cup, at least to me, is the relative openness of it, pretty much every team has a flaw (personal or injuries/health issues) so it’s really wide open. I could see Argentina, England, Germany, Brazil, Spain, or Holland very easily winning it/making it to the final… I don’t recall it ever being this open heading in.
OK, slight exaggeration but when I say ‘in play’ I was referring to the fact that all bar one players are generally standing still in most cases. In rugby we have conversions, the equivalent of field goals, but there’s kicking in the actual game, and an integral part, not just hand to hand. But that’s a proper game.
I have a hard enough time caring about domestic sports in the US to give a damn about whether or not to call the game soccer or football. And granted a lot of our sports are simply Americanized versions of others, but the only one that really interests me that much is the one that was founded wholesale stateside– basketball. I can enjoy the mythology surrounding baseball more than the game itself; I can enjoy the military strategy of televised American football in a way that I would never come close to in watching it unfold live; I can enjoy the fights in a hockey match more than following the puck; And the only time I can really give a damn about the World Cup is if one of the players is going to spontaneously strip to her sports-bra in victory.
But whatever. At least we’re not talking about cricket.
Bob your response gave me my first healthy laugh of the day. Soccer/Football is also very tactically based like american football. Coaches are constantly struggling to decide what formation best fits the players they select to the national team. It is often the reason why star players like Ronaldinho get left at home. For Italy the formation coach Marcello Lippi chooses will decide how far they advance. He already has dropped or ignored many individually talented players for a more team oriented squad. Argentina, though left behind the best holding midfielder in the world Esteban Cambiasso. This will hurt their chances of winning their third cup. As Allen points above, there are really only about 9 teams that have any chance of winning the cup. The four teams he likes along with Germany, Italy, and (yes) England. France is incredibly talented but have the most asinine coach ever. Portugal is to reliant on one great player and don’t have the same depth as in previous years.
I live in Park Slope, Brooklyn next to Prospect Park. Me and my girlfriend always jog or bike ride and consistently come across people playing Cricket. I am fascinated by the whole setup of the sport. I just have no clue what is going on. Its a sport that seems hard to figure out just by watching it. With Basketball, it becomes really easy to understand the point of the game visually. I try to comprehend cricket by comparing it with its long lost cousin baseball. This attempt though never works as the games while sharing some similar traits seem very different. I asked an Indian friend of mine once to explain it to me and I remember him saying that some games take three days!!! I will one day figure it all out and worm my way into one of those pickup games in the park.
To get back to film………Raging Bull, best sports movie ever!!!
Ronaldinho was left off the team because he spent 2 out of the last 3 years overweight, out of shape and complaining about ‘injuries’, the fact that he is over 30 now he wasn’t able to snap back in shape or make the coach believe that he was as serious about the cup as some of the younger hungrier players that have worked their tails off the last 4 years to make the national team. Ronaldinho was never a hard worker on the pitch (which is a vital characteristic in a midfielders bag of tricks), but when that work ethic moves into the off season and personal life, you really have no shot. That and Kaka is really the better player, and better suited to handle the more physical ball tracking mid’s of the European style. This is something Ronaldinho always struggled with–just ask Zidane.
_ __ _ __
Speaking of football (and Zidane) has anyone seen ZIDANE: A 21st CENTURY PORTRAIT ? Probably the best football movie these eyes have ever seen (and sports movie in general), even if you are interested in the sport it’s fascinating from a film perspective. I give it the highest recommendation– football as metaphor for the isolated man.
All of Brazil was clamoring for Ronaldinho to make the team. He also had a great year for Milan. I do agree with you though on why he wasn’t selected. I think Dunga is a different kind of Brazil coach who stresses dedication, defense, and substance over style. Ronaldinho’s flair often comes at the expense of fundamentals. Joga Bonito is not present on this squad and Dunga has actually adopted a more European (Italy, Germany) style of play. He is all about winning. He could care less if Brazil looks ugly as long as they get results.
Maurizio, I doubt I’ll ever be able to understand the appeal of soccer/futbol that much for any number of reasons, but this above all– games that end in a zero-zero score. I’d go mad if I had to watch a game that ended that way without being rained out.
As for other sports– cricket just seems too complicated for its own good. Baseball is a good streamlined circuit sport, but as I said, the game itself is less interesting to me at times than the mystique around it (and that’s more or less gone away ever since the Red Sox won the World Series). Basketball’s interesting to me, above all, because it’s actually something you can play as a solitary game. You always need at least two people for a decent baseball/football/soccer/whatever match, but if you’ve got a ball and a net, you can always shoot some hoops by yourself. It’s like pool in that respect. As a game designer myself, I’m really only interested in single-player games anyway, so all the competitive sports don’t strike my fancy too much.
I will say that I’ve always thought I should follow auto-racing a little more closely. Not NASCAR, mind you, but Formula 1. To bring this back to cinema again, I’m at times surprised that movies like “Grand Prix” and “Le Mans” aren’t bigger draws for American audiences.
Excellent choice, Allan. This is a spectacular film that hits that Lynchian sweet-spot–obscurity that feels inexplicably and intuitively *correct*–as perfectly as anything in the man’s oeuvre. I might even place it higher than #44 on my own 2000s list, but I’ll concede that would place me in a narrow group of cinephiles with unusual taste. I’ve been defending IE against the barbs of even other self-possessed Lynch fans for a couple of years now.
The story is as simple as the presentation is baroque. It is the story of Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive, and also Lynch’s shorts, “Tricks” and “Lumiere”. It’s the story of Last Year of Marienbad as summarized in a Roger Ebert anecdote: “We have the lover, the loved one, and the authority figure. The movie proposes that the lovers had an affair, that they didn’t, that they met before, that they didn’t, that the authority figure knew it, that he didn’t, that he killed her, that he didn’t. Any questions?”
Your Lynchian expertise and appreciation is always most welcome and appreciated Andrew. Your previous response on this film under Jim Clark’s review was particularly brilliant, but this capsule is a great encore, I must say. I’d go a bit higher myself as well, but this is fair enough placement from Allan as I see it.
Not the biggest fan of Inland Empire. I feel Lynch goes to far off the deep end in this one. I will view this film again soon as I am prone to change my opinion often. At the moment though Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, and Mulholland Drive are my favorite by this great director.