Talk:Inland Empire (film)

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

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 23, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

INLAND EMPIRE, not Inland Empire

There are countless examples of titles, names of products, and even names of people (e.g. bell hooks) which follow nonstandard capitalization rules in wikipedia, because they follow nonstandard capitalization rules outside of wikipedia. INLAND EMPIRE is an example of such a name. Why do people insist on changing the capitalization back to standard? Are you going to go change the bell hooks article so her name is spelled Bell Hooks? Are you going to change the article on the iPod to say "I Pod" or something? I don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.158.2 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? --AlexOv Shaolin 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

The title of the film should be capitalized simply because that's how his director wants it. It's enought to google "david lynch inland empire capitalized" to find an incredible amount of articles citing the capitalization. I'll just attach one example--Madpoppin (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In both this section and a section above, there is a unanimous consensus that the title of the film should be capitalised. It is the director's choice, all advertising has stated it this way. It's not a trivial matter - Lynch may himself have artistic reasons for wanting it this way. To do anything else is to alter the original work. Utopial (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any actual reliable sources that state that this is how Lynch officially titles the film? The advertising campaign doesn't count as a reliable source as designers will often put a title in all caps for the poster but that has nothing to do with the actual "official" titling. In a special case like this, where the artist supposedly has a non-standard spelling of a title (i.e. it should be spelled that way in any reference to it in text, etc.), than we would need a source. There must be an interview somewhere with Lynch that talks about this. I did a google search and it's pretty inconsistent. To be clear, I don't care either way if this is titled in all caps if that is actually Lynch's desire. We go by the author's decision, but we do need a source, not consensus. freshacconci talktalk 15:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Never mind. I saw the Rolling Stone review which states that the caps is Lynch's preference. That's good enough. freshacconci talktalk 15:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the changes (for now), until a consensus clearly shows that the capital letters is the correct name. Even then, I'm 99% sure it goes against the guidance for titles of Wikipedia articles, regardless of how Mr Lynch would title it. That's why the film Seven is here and not here. I'll raise this at the Film Project too. Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I was trying to find was MOS:ALLCAPS. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ben Harper is the piano player in the final scene. He is uncredited. However in this article he admits being in the movie.--Madpoppin (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's like you read my mind! Yes, it is a very poor section - go for it! Lugnuts 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck Kinbotic. You'll need it. ;) Xfpisher 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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"

>>>> Don't you think the ending was all about reemerging from the darkness and coming out into the light? The phantom is killed, the curse lifted, the girl in the room is freed and able to be reunited with her husband and son while Laura Dern has a vision of herself sitting in a condition of complete calm and inner composure.

I've seen the movie twice now and yes, it is dark, but its also his most hopeful yet. The ending is beautiful. ThePeg (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)<<<<[reply]

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)[reply]

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

A review of the film

I saw this excellent 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 consequences", and the ego trip woman seem to be in as a gender, does not let them see the consequences 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I too think this is can be removed. --NeF 12:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews were uniformly bi-polar: Critics either loved it or hated it. --X3NA 08:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean unanimously, not unilaterally. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The current plot summary only covers the first part of the movie. I also don't know how to summarize the full plot. RiFraS (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary still seems like a mess tbh. Things are out of order and events are missing

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)[reply]

I actually never picked up that *"I'm afraid!"* was mocking until now. I feel dumb. 203.219.29.254 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I dunno if there is a unanimous agreement among critics about this, but the supposed alienation effect you're alluding to is not specifically post-modern.

comparisons to automatic composition or collage technique seem better grounded I'd think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.215.26 (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

sunset boulevard / eraserhead a double feature?

In the synopsis section you can read: (a homage to Lynch's favorite film Sunset Boulevard,[4] which he would show as a double feature with his first full-length film Eraserhead).[5] Actually the referenced article just says: "Before he began the five-year shoot for his feature debut Eraserhead (1976), David Lynch famously invited his small cast and crew to a screening of Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard (1950) to show the kind of mood he was after." --Madpoppin (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive plot summary

This plot summary is clearly too long and detailed. Does anybody object to drastically shortening it per WP:NOT? Firestorm ^Talk 03:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be shorten, i agree with you. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded, especially since the article as it is veers much too near to interpretation.

I agree, but I don't feel in a position to shorten it. However, it's very poor style to have "We see..." &c. Salopian (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult, if not impossible, to write a plot summary for Inland Empire that isn't just a description of every scene. Really, you can only have a very short description of the film's style and themes, or a page detailing every section. Nonetheless, I've done my best to trim it down, clean it up, cut out the "We see..." bits, and avoid interpreting the meaning of events. 203.219.29.254 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INLAND EMPIRE and Myth

Can anyone tell me if anyone, anywhere has picked up that the movie is a modern recapitulation of the Inanna Myth? In this the Goddess Inanna has to enter the underworld. In some versions this is to rescue her husband, in others to conquer it. In the process she passes through seven doors and has to remove an item of clothing each time until she is naked. Eventually she succeeds in her quest and returns to the Upper World.

In INLAND EMPIRE, Nikki Grace passes through endless doors and at one moment, after the scene in which she 'dies' among the homeless on the street, she finds her gaze passing between two enormous buildings on the Movie Lot, one saying STAGE 5 and the other saying STAGE 6, suggesting passing between different 'stages'. At the end of the movie she confronts the Phantom (God of the Underworld) and eventually returns to herself, having enabled the Girl in the Room to go free and be reunited with her husband. In some versions of the Myth Inanna fuses with her 'dark' sister, Ereshkigal, and is able to return with her powers (remember Nikki vanishes once she has kissed the Girl in the Room). The sexual degradation Nikki goes through parallels Inanna's humiliating nudity at each Gate...

I don't know if this is conscious or not on Lynch's part but it seems to be there. There is even an echo in the title. Does anyone know if this has been identified anywhere? ThePeg (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in the scenes with the polish

did the US release have english subtitles? I'm watching a version where all the polish has freaking italian titles or something. so I hoped the article would mention if there was a strange use of titles for an english viewer. thanks. Skakkle (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are supposed to be subtitles to the Polish. 203.219.29.254 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Plot Tagging

Listen, the "This section may be confusing or unclear" tag at the beginning of the plot section is probably the funniest thing I've seen on Wikipedia since the last time I sank several hours into trolling AN:I. I know the definition of irony, so I won't bore you by calling it that. But even if that plot section becomes a golden example of expository writing, I would !vote to not change that tag. Happy Thanksgiving, Americans, and a happy November 26 to the rest of you anyway. 97.73.64.163 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First scene

Is it just me, or is the first scene based on/an allusion to Kundera's The Hitchhiking Game? Feketekave (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

What about this link "A discussion board dedicated to Inland Empire" - http://66.238.109.130/forum/index.php ??? It was the main IE forum in the net. Now it's a dead link. Where is the content? Who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.233.53.9 (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Ranking

It says the film was ranked in the top 10 most underrated films of the 2000s decade, but it is just one critic's list. The Guardian didn't have ranking for most underrated films of the 2000s, just the one article written by Danny Leigh in which he clearly states it is his own personal list. Should this part be removed or clarified? 174.116.166.156 (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

The opening of this article lists Inland Empire as a mystery film. However, according to the article on mystery films, a mystery film "is a subgenre of the more general category of crime film and at times the thriller genre. It focuses on the efforts of the detective, private investigator or amateur sleuth to solve the mysterious circumstances of a crime by means of clues, investigation, and clever deduction." This does not describe Inland Empire at all, which hardly has enough of a conventional plot to fit into any genre. Reviewing the article's history, horror and thriller have been suggested in the past, as the primary intent of the film seems to be to unsettle the viewer by composing various elements of each scene in a disturbing manner. However, the film bears the closest similarity to art films, such as Un Chien Andalou. According to the art film article, such films are defined as "a serious, independent film aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience" often containing "unconventional" or "highly symbolic content." This describes Inland Empire very well. It was made independently by David Lynch primarily for his aesthetic satisfaction, having originated as a series of internet shorts he made and out of the desire to work with Laura Dern again. The content is highly symbolic and unconventional. Art films are often thought of as simply being dramas or documentaries by filmmakers such as Isaac Julien and Aki Kaurismäki that deal with the everyday lives of ordinary people. And these certainly are art films; however art films are not limited to that. They can emcompass any genre, or none, as long as they are not conventional or designed for mass appeal. Inland Empire is primarily aimed at a niche market of hardcore David Lynch fans who can appreciate the lack of traditional narrative and unconventional, often bizarre imagery. Therefore, I feel is far better descibed as an art film than by reductive genres such as ≥horror, mystery or thriller. Lynch has made many conventional films, some of them mysteries, horror films, and even conventional dramas and science fiction. But this particular film is not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.61.58 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about avant-garde film, as said by Entertainment Weekly, The New York Times, Slant Magazine, and CS Monitor? I find that substantially more tolerable than "art film", which offends my postmodern sensibilities. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with avant-garde film, that describes it well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.48.58 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the film so don't dispute its avante-garde status, but "avante-garde" isn't principally a genre. For instance, 2001: A Space Odyssey is an avante-garde film, but still ostensibly a science-fiction film. Describing something as avante-garde or an art film does not tell us anything about what we can expect from it. Some films are uncategorisable (we went through this on Clockwork Orange and Brazil), but this is what three sources picked at random say: Avante-garde/Experimental/Mystery (Allmovie), Drama/Mystery (AFI), Drama/Thriller (New York Times). There isn't much consensus among any of the sources, although "mystery" and "drama" crop up a couple of times so as descriptors probably come closer than most in describing the nature of the film. Maybe there can be a compromise here: "Inland Empire is a 2006 film, an avante-garde mystery drama written and directed by David Lynch". Ideally the best approach would be to track down a couple of David Lynch books and see how they describe the film, but obviously there isn't a perfect solution here so what you can do is try and cover the main bases. Betty Logan (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's usually a bit sloppy and amateurish when articles list multiple genres in the opening, not to mention confusing to individuals who haven't seen the film. Occasionally, it's necessary, as with the article on The Silence of the Lambs. That film is consistently just as much a horror movie as it is a crime movie as it is a thriller for its entire running time. But most of the time, such as the article on Drive (2011 film), where the movie is listed as a "neo-noir arthouse action" film, simply because it has a few influences from each of those genres (and many more,) it’s sloppy. Drive is still clearly a crime film at the end of the day. So I like to avoid that whenever possible. You could say that there is a bit of mystery in Inland Empire regarding the deaths surrounding the film the characters are initially remaking. But it's never investigated and that storyline is abandoned, in favor of a series of avant-garde sequences united only by Dern's performance. In terms of the drama, I suppose it's a drama in the sense that it's performed fiction. But that's true of any non-documentary film. According to the article, a drama film is "a film genre that depends mostly on in-depth development of realistic characters dealing with emotional themes." Dern doesn't even play the same character throughout the film, let alone develop a realistic one. I suspect those articles feel the need to label the movie as a specific genre, and Lynch's most famous for mysteries (Twin Peaks, elements of Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet) and dramas (The Elephant Man, The Straight Story) so those were the most convenient categorization. But it really doesn't conform to a genre, so calling it a mystery is terribly misleading. The opening should give a general idea of what a reader can expect if they decide to view the film. While terms like "arthouse" or "avante-garde" aren't principally genres, they paint the best image of what one can expect from Inland Empire. With Kubrick films like 2001: A Space Odyssey or The Shining, yes they're avant-garde. But if you tell someone "let's watch a science fiction movie" in the case of 2001, or "let's watch a horror movie" in the case of the Shining, the viewer is still getting those genres. If you tell someone "let's watch a mystery film" and put on Inland Empire, they'll quite rightfully feel gipped. They're not getting The Third Man or even something like Twin Peaks or Blue Velvet. For context, imagine if someone said to you, “let’s watch a horror movie” and put on Schindler’s List because the Holocaust was horrific. In lieu of conforming entirely to a set genre, I feel either the terms “art film,” or “avante-garde” film are the most honest descriptors possible for Inland Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.60.246 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is mot for editors to determine what the genre is. This article should go with the genre that is most commonly found in secondary sources, and that certainly isn't "avante-garde" or "art-film". Simply opting for one of those terms—which debatably isn't a genre anyway—would not be consistent with WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that Brazil encountered similar problems, and while it's called either a science fiction or comedy film by most sources, the article itself simply reads, "Brazil is a 1985 British film directed by Terry Gilliam and written by Gilliam, Charles McKeown, and Tom Stoppard." Why not agree that Inland Empire is also difficult to categorize under any specific genre, and it would also be problematic to list it under ambiguous terms such as "art film" or "avante-garde" film? Instead it could read, "Inland Empire is a 2006 film written and directed by David Lynch, his first feature since 2001's Mulholland Drive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.5.146 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with omitting the genre from the opening sentence and certainly don't object to that approach here; however, Brazil is still described in some capacity in the second sentence because we still need to convey the nature of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that in the Brazil article. I actually wanted something similar in the article on Blue Velvet (film) as it's considered various different genres by various different sources. But that didn't fly over there, they were very adamant on the film being listed as a neo-noir mystery film, rather than just calling it a film and describing the various genres different sources consider it to be in the body of the opening. As Inland Empire is widely considered a mystery by those sources, there's no reason that shouldn't be referenced in the article. But it shouldn't be the first thing readers see, for the reasons I listed earlier. Is it okay if I go ahead and edit it to omit the genre from the opening sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.5.146 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I was going to go with Betty's original suggestion, but omitting the genre in the lead works for me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but we should probably at least describe the plot briefly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know this is old, but I object to the assertion that genres are in any way inherently reductive. I’d absolutely call this a "horror film". It’s intended to scare. How is that reductive? Dracula (the novel) is horror. The Shining (1980) is horror. The Turn of the Screw, Macbeth, Psycho, Frankenstein, Begotten, Un Chein Andalou, The Raven, Get Out, Funny Games, Eraserhead, The Picture of Dorian Grey, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Don’t Look Now, The Birds, Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist, The King in Yellow, those are all meant to scare, and are perfectly respectable. I hate this assertion that "genre films" are somehow "lesser". Ridiculous. Pretty sure David Lynch wouldn’t appreciate this either, given his reaction when an interviewer called Twin Peaks "a parody of soap". Twin Peaks is also a sitcom, but that’s another story. --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inland Empire (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inland Empire (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150323062049/http://www.nationalsocietyoffilmcritics.com/?page_id=2 to http://www.nationalsocietyoffilmcritics.com/?page_id=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inland Empire (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928045413/http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/090406dnGLempire.64579170.html to http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/090406dnGLempire.64579170.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inland Empire (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Composer

I have removed the composer field from the infobox. Different sources disagree as to who the composer is, so, until we find some agreement, that field should remain blank. --The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Producers

The Production subsection of the section Development mentions Jeremy Alter et al. as "new producers" of Inland Empire, presumably brought on during the scattershot production. Maybe they ought to be included in the summary panel at top right corner of this page, even if they aren't among the producers of record.