First off, thank you for writing this.  I’ve always been a tremendous fan of Lynch’s work, but I’ve always felt that I’ve missed greater themes and connections, despite repeated viewings.  While I don’t agree with all your points, I find the fresh perspective invigorating. 

Secondly, Lynch’s creative process, which you referenced several times, is marked by many things, but two which I find most interesting are one, his need to keep his actors in dark about what the project “means,” and two, his reliance on things like improvisation and experimentation.  I recall an interview with Twin Peak’s “Man From Another Place,” the famous backwards-talking dancing little person.  He would go to elaborate lengths to figure out his character’s meaning, the Lynch would shoot his analysis down with a word.  Do you think that such a technique makes analyses inconsistent at best?  Lynch himself said once that he had never heard an analysis of “Eraserhead” that he agreed with, or that had anything to do with what he intended.  This was either him posturing, or him genuinely not interested in analysis.

I suppose my real question is this: what do you think the best way to actually watch the film is?  I’ve heard two schools of thought on the subject.  The first is the underlying ideal behind your piece here, that his work is a code which needs to be figured out.  The second, which I subscribe to, albeit out of a lack of original analysis, is to look at it as an aesthetic piece.  One where you may or may not look at the whole, but rather pay attention to individual scenes and moments.  An old film teacher of mine said that Lynch didn’t think of scenes to fit into his stories, he thought of stories to fit his scenes.  When it comes to certain films of his, such as Twin Peaks, I avoid trying to analyze it at all, instead watch it for the power of individual scenes. 

Thank you again for this piece.  Good analysis is hard to find, but well-rewarding when it is found.

Thanks, guys.  I’m glad you enjoyed the essay.

Rob, as Lynch has said on several occasions: “We’re all detectives.” This is a central metaphor for him, and he has made it clear he believes that both artists and their audience should approach any work of art as detectives--that is, beginning in a state of intuitive observation and trusting that a pattern will emerge.  Patterns indicate significance, which naturally leads to interpretation.

Also, I can appreciate your focus on the individual pieces of Lynch’s work, but for me each of his films is a wonderful story in which the whole is more than the sum of its individual scenes.

Carol, nothing comes to mind at the moment.  But you might enjoy Michel Chion’s book, “David Lynch,” which was released in a new edition earlier this year.  Chion touches on all sorts of things like this, and his abstract theorizing really complements Lynch’s mode of filmmaking.

I think the best way to ‘understand’ a Lynch film is found in the following Lynch anecdote, from The Passion of David Lynch by Martha P. Nochimson:

One moment of our 1993 conversation made this especially clear, one during which we both looked at the textured surface of Blue Poles: Number 11, 1952, a painting by Jackson Pollock full of patches, slashes, lines, drippings, and blobs, with barely a hint of blue (see figure 1). “I don’t understand this,” I said. “Yes you do,” Lynch said. “Your eyes are moving.” They must have been, but I had not paid any attention. I had automatically experienced a lack of meaning because I could not stand at the prescribed, controlling viewing distance and read the painting as a rationally controlled system of shapes. Lynch had spontaneously identified the painting as a meaningful representation for me because it had released my moving eye from conventional viewer expectations. I saw that I could not contain the painting in some theoretical framework; he saw me performing with the painting. He saw as crucial that part of me that my education had taught me is inconsequential to my grasp of meaning.

try
Mental Territories: Mapping the Inland Empire
by Katherine G. Morrissey

First of all, I just want to say that the reason I watch this movie because I live in the Inland Empire and the title caught my intention.

The first time watching this movie was confusing and this is the first David Lynch’s film that I’ve seen. But after reading his works and watching some of his other films such as Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr., and Blue Velvet, I was fascinated by this movie and how human dreams connect with reality.

This is not one of those average movie, so don’t expect everyone to like it.

I am not a fan of Lynch, honestly speaking.  I work as a freelance writer and I had to write an order on Lynch. I would like to thank you for such an informative essay.  It has significantly contributed to my knowledge on Lynch.