MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

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.

Be Sociable, Share!

33 Responses to “The Inland Empire Of Manohla”

  1. The Carpetmuncher says:

    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.

  2. prideray says:

    All that is solid melts into which ism??

  3. EDouglas says:

    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).

  4. crazycris says:

    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 Indig

  5. “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?

  6. Krazy Eyes says:

    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.

  7. Blackcloud says:

    “‘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.

  8. Blackcloud says:

    “‘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.

  9. Eric says:

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

  10. Devin Faraci says:

    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.

  11. JWEgo says:

    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!

  12. EDouglas says:

    “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.

  13. postalchris says:

    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.)

  14. mutinyco says:

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

  15. Stella's Boy says:

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

  16. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    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.

  17. T.Holly says:

    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?

  18. LexG says:

    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.”

  19. palmtree says:

    “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?

  20. Cadavra says:

    What? There’s no dwarf?

  21. jeffmcm says:

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

  22. jeffmcm says:

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

  23. martin says:

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

  24. frankbooth says:

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

  25. Wrecktum says:

    Yes he is.

  26. JWEgo says:

    >>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.

  27. frankbooth says:

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

  28. “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.

  29. frankbooth says:

    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?)

  30. Wrecktum says:

    “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.

  31. frankbooth says:

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

  32. Wrecktum says:

    😛

  33. ProgGrrl says:

    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…

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon