Return to Oz Review

        My look into the Oz films continue. We’ve seen mostly musical adaptations of the classic book. While The Wizard of Oz remains as a classic treasure, The Wiz was a mixed bag that tried to be contemporary for the time instead of honoring the Broadway spin-off. There weren’t any live action adaptations of the Oz books between the release of The Wiz and this one. Just Japanese anime movies of the story would fill in the gap of time. For awhile, Disney attempted to do something with the property, as they had the film rights for the sequel books. 

1. Back to Oz

        As I mentioned earlier, Disney had the film rights to the Oz sequel books. There were attempts to make them into a television series and a film at the time, but none of them got anywhere close to shooting. It was during the 80s that director Walter Murch had discussed the project with Disney as they were close to losing the rights to the sequel books. Initially pitched as a follow up to MGM’s film, right down to having to pay the studio a massive fee to incorporate their ruby slippers into the film. Just looking at the poster and seeing brief snippets showed that there was a huge creative liberty that occurred. 

        While I’ll get to that, the film is mostly straightforward. Based on the two Oz books: "The Marvelous Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz", the film picks up months after the tornado whisked Dorothy to the fantasy land. We see Dorothy be sent to a sanitarium by her aunt, due to her believing that the young girl’s “dream” is too much. The little girl is transported once again, only to find that Oz and the Emerald City is in destitute. And we meet new characters that help Dorothy try to restore the city and the Land of Oz. 

        So yeah, this movie is a massive 180° shift of the first film. Meaning there’s no musical moments, munchkins, Glinda and even Toto gets left behind in the family farm. This is a different film by all measures. And it would’ve been a nearly impossible task to try to stay consistent with the first film since it had a visual style and clearly time had passed since it couldn’t be a musical without the comparison. I’ll give the director that since he took the direction of the movie to somewhat match the books. 

        Again, I’ll elaborate on that more along with the creative choices. One thing I’ll say that this isn’t the first time that I’ve seen the actress who portrays Dorothy. It’s weird seeing an actor/actress in a younger role than what I’ve been initially exposed to in my younger years. The first film I saw of Fairuza Balk was in Adam Sandler’s The Waterboy as she portrayed Bobby Bouche’s girlfriend. While she wasn’t a big star, she’s mostly known for the supernatural film The Craft. 

        Back to Dorothy, knowing that the film is a sequel to the 1939 classic, it’s a curious choice to cast a younger Dorothy instead of leaning towards Judy Garland’s age for consistency. Not that the age made Balk not good enough for her portrayal. There’s even moments where you can hear the accent that Garland used in her portrayal of the girl as Balk would imitate it in some form. I feel that it was a deliberate choice given what we see her go through in the whole movie. And man, does she go through some things that seemed intense for the time. 

        I know you’re getting annoyed since I don’t elaborate on the dark elements that the film has. I’ll tease you once more since we get new characters that Dorothy meets. We see that none of her friends appear initially, to replace Toto we get Dorothy’s pet chicken Billina. As well as a robot named Tik-Tok, a scarecrow with a Pumpkin for a head named Jack Pumpkinhead. I think out of all of them, my favorite is Gump. He’s a mounted head of an Oz creature that has witty commentary. All of them are a mixture of puppetry and practical effects. I like how there was more of an emphasis on the special effects to show the other inhabitants of Oz. All of it is impressive, especially for the villains. 

        So, let’s talk about the villains. It would be a near impossible task to top the Wicked Witch. She’s one of the best movie villains of all time. Instead of one villain, we get two with the Nome King and Mombi. The Nome King is an all-rock creature who inhabits the mountains and has minions commute from any rock to his lair. It’s looks cool that their facial structure resembles cracks in the stone. Meanwhile, Mombi is the most interesting since she has multiple heads and one body. And I mean, she has various heads behind individual glass cases as she chooses which to pick. One tidbit that they carried over from the first film is that Dorothy encounters the people who would personify the villains. For Mombi, it has one moment where I think was intense for a Disney movie. 

2. Dark Fantasy

        The 80s was an interesting time for fantasy. There seemed to be an inflection point to have the style of films be dark. For fantasy, there were loads of dark fantasy films that weren’t light hearted as some may think. You had films like Legend, Dark Crystal and even Conan the Barbarian that took the genre and pivoted the style to a sub-genre. A lot of it had an edge where it gets, for a lack of the word, dark and interesting since it had no restraint with how it wanted to portray the fantasy element. 

        What makes Return to Oz ostensibly different than the MGM classic is that it tried to adapt the books and be a direct sequel. It’s visually jarring since there’s a huge contrast between the two when you try to marathon them. One is a product of the time that is beloved in cinema, while this one tries to be a sequel and be faithful to the books. It’s clear that there’s a tonal inconsistency, since we have somewhat creepy imagery when Dorothy encounters the new threats in Oz. Now, from researching the books, it’s clear that this is the faithful adaptation. 

        A good chunk of the Oz books have a lot of weird and creepy imagery than what people are not aware of. The film even mentions how Tinman became such, by having Dorothy give out his whole reasoning when discussing it with her new friends. I feel that with the attempt to be faithful to the books, the film alienated the film fans of Oz while being embraced by the true fans of Oz. Additionally, when Dorothy goes into Mombi’s quarters, she’s chased by the headless body of the villainess as the various heads scream and shriek at her. 

        It’s clear that the MGM film made a huge imprint into pop culture that having this one be a sequel is clearly a huge misfire to the ones who haven’t read the books. Of course, it didn’t need to have the ruby slippers and stick with the silver ones. Like, the film tried to have it be both ways but depending on if you’ve read the books or just seen the classic, it’s a clear juggling act of a movie. It isn’t bad since it tried to be different since it couldn’t replicate what made the Judy Garland one a classic. To me, I feel that it was ahead of its time. 

3. Legacy

        No surprise that the film didn’t make back it’s budget. And more so that it seemed like Disney wanted to bury it since the company didn’t believe in the film. It’s one of those instances where the behind the scenes is as interesting as the film itself. Especially as the director was fired then re-hired as the budget ballooned than what Disney was comfortable with. I think had the film be isolated enough where it was it’s own Oz film without any connection to the Garland one, then maybe it would’ve received just enough to squeeze back it’s budget. 

        Reading the reviews of the past, there was a clear line of contention where some thought that the film betrayed the original while others praised it’s faithfulness to the books. It’s baffling to read that since The Wizard version took creative liberties to the extreme when showcasing the colorful cinematography. Yet, this one is crucified by having be tacked on to the original yet being faithful to the source material. As time passed, the reception for the film improved by just borderline in Rotten Tomatoes. Which I think is appropriate due to nature of the film and what it’s trying to go for. 

4. Overall

        Return to Oz is an interesting adaptation of the Oz books. It’s one of the underrated Disney films and an underappreciated adaptation of the Oz books. 

The Wiz Review

        After the success of MGM’s The Wizard of Oz, there were multiple film adaptations that tried to capture the magic. One of those was a supposed animated sequel of the film that starred Judy Garland’s daughter Liza Minelli. In between the gap of the Oz adaptations, there was a Broadway musical that was making the rounds during the time. "The Wiz" is one of the most beloved plays and one of the most decorated when it was awarded multiple Tony awards. So, it makes sense to give the play a cinematic adaptation. 

1. The Wiz

        As I mentioned earlier, it’s one of those most beloved Broadway plays when it came out in the 70s. The basic gist is that the play is an inverse of the story. Having all the characters that are white are now portrayed by black actors and actresses. The setting is still the same since the play takes place in Kansas and in the world of Oz. It’s one of those things where it received praise because it did something different by combining multiple elements of black music and it became it's own thing. 

        Of course, when something is hot there’s opportunity to be had to milk the source for financial gain. This is where Motown Productions comes in, they’re well known for their musical output especially putting stars like Diana Ross and The Jackson Five on the map. They’ve dabbled in television specials and in putting out movies that had the artists under their label. This one was when Ross lobbied to be put into the film. Initially, Motown was going to bring in the Broadway star to reprise her role as Dorothy, but they signed Diana and had to accommodate the change in the script. 

        And I feel that’s one of the film’s mistakes is that Diana’s portrayal as Dorothy is not a good one. While I’m not going to discuss the age aspect since Judy Garland was also slightly older than the intended age for the character. In this one, Diana’s character is just there where she’s told that she needs to make better choices in her life. And she just has that sadness to her where she doesn’t have the chops to make her sympathetic. I don’t want to make a comparison but it’s one of those issues where someone younger could have made the character more intriguing than sorry. 

        So yeah, if you’re thinking that this film is slightly different as far as plot is concerned, it’s basically the same thing. Dorothy gets whisked by a tornado and transported to the land Oz. The way they went about is that the film made multiple changes to the play. Instead of Kansas, the film starts with a New York setting. Even Oz, a fantastical place is replaced visually by having it take place in a somewhat fantasy fusion of New York City. None of it pops since it has that urban decay look to it when Dorothy lands. 

        And I can understand where some people wouldn’t believe that there can be African American farmers. The level of disbelief must be achieved when Dorothy lands anywhere that doesn’t resemble her home. The film practically went the opposite route where the locales aren’t colorful in the least bit. It’s the worst looking film that I’ve seen where it should be able to pop color wise. And I think it’s supposed to show the era just how dingy New York looked when it was going through a rough time in the 70s. But they went about it the wrong way where it’s reinforcing the predicament as far as class status is concerned. 

        Either intentional or not, I feel that there was just a big misunderstanding with how the film was shown. While I’ll get into the biggest problem that the film adaptation really went wrong, I must highlight the director. Sidney Lumet at the time was a mostly dramatic director that handled real and urban stories. Having helmed the Al Pacino film Serpico and his film Network winning the Academy Award at the time. None of his prior work screamed Musical since it’s an entirely different film style given to the right hands. 

        I feel as though the choice to pick him was supposed to be a way where he has directed some hits that this would add to his track record. Someone like director Robert Wise, who directed a spectrum of genre films like West Side Story and The Haunting to name a few where he easily understands the type of filmmaking needed and commits to it. This one doesn’t since it has a very glaring issue that really made me bored just by looking at it. While I’ll elaborate more on the big thing, I’ll at least list some positives. 

        I’ll say this that it’s interesting that this was Michael Jackson’s first appearance solo as he was with The Jackson Five. It’s the song Ease On Down the Road that I think is the film’s highlight since both Diana Ross and Michael are singing it as they kick off Dorothy’s journey to find The Wizard. The other actors do their job well as the Tin Man and Lion. They all have that distinct look that is somewhat different than the MGM film. I was surprised to see that Richard Pryor is The Wizard, but he was only in it for a little bit and didn’t have the oomph like the prior one. 

2. Anti-Musical

        With the problems that I have listed, I didn’t even want to talk about the Wicked Witch, since she’s relegated to the final half of the film. The biggest problem with the film I think is just how it was shot. Looking at the stills in the film barely resembles what it’s like watching the thing. Just the method of shooting it isn’t very interesting since most of the musical bits is shown at a distance. Like, I don’t understand why the director and cinematographer thought that it was a good idea to shoot it like they were in a balcony. 

        Now, that’s not to say that the original film was very dynamic with how it looked. No crazy camera movements for the musical bits, but it was the color that highlighted the uniqueness of Oz. With this, it’s very static since the musical moments is shot very still. Sometimes the camera will move when the gang makes it to Emerald City, but it’s one of those things where it could’ve been great. As I mentioned with the song featuring Ross and Jackson, the dancing is shot very far and it would’ve been interesting to see it shot closely so it can match the song’s energy.

        I think there was a level of complacency where while the movie looked how it looked, at least the music and stars would carry the film. And I feel that if it was the case, then the movie failed as an adaptation. It failed for the reason why the musical was a success in its medium, there was a commitment to be completely different. In this film, the producers and filmmakers got greedy and didn’t do enough to make it as ambitious as the musical. 

3. Cult-Following and Legacy

        No surprise that the film didn’t do well financially and with critics slamming it at the time. It was a step back for black films, considering when it came out there was an influx in Blaxploitation Grindhouse films. The aftermath of the film made many studios start a reduction of black films. To me it’s interesting to read on how one film can contribute to a decline of a style, but it’s unfortunate that it had to happen at the time that it did. 

        As time passed, there’s a cult-following for the film. So much so that there are fans of the film that like it just for the cast. This film is definitely for those love Diana Ross. I can understand since this is also Michael Jackson’s first film debut and one where it was the first cooperation between him and music producer Quincy Jones. Both would revolutionize the music business and Jackson would dominate the next decade with his music. 

        While for those who’d marathon the Oz films, such as myself. I feel that there’s at least an appreciation for the misstep that the film had. There would be yet another musical based on the Oz books that would get recognition due to the poster and it’s interesting story. It took its own creative liberty to craft an origin story. You better believe that I’ll be reviewing that one as well. For the meantime, seeing what this film did would give credence that the Oz brand is an inherently musical venture. 

4. Overall

        The Wiz is not one of the best Oz films, just watch the live version of the play. 

The Wizard of Oz Review

        I’m back from my break. Since it’s that time when a new crop of students go back to school, I’ve decided to dive into another literary adaptation. The last time I did this was two years ago, by talking about the films based on Roald Dahl’s works. This time, I’ve decided to watch select Oz films based on the works of L. Frank Baum. Now, there are many films based on the first book, but I’ll only limit my output to the ones that got a theatrical release. I think this one needs no introduction, everyone as far as I’m aware knows about The Wizard of Oz. One can say it’s a timeless film and essential for any cinephile. It’s influence is still being felt to this day nearly 80 odd years later. 

1. Dorothy’s Quest

        This wasn’t the first time that the first story of Oz was adapted onto the screen. During the early years of the 20th Century, there were multiple silent shorts and films that adapted the first book of L. Frank Baum’s Oz series. Even he had a hand with directing the short films, starting a production company named The Oz Film Manufacturing Company. A precursor of when authors took the creative endeavor of adapting their published works. An animated Canadian adaptation is also the first to do a full color presentation, albeit it was done illegally without the consent of Technicolor at the time. 

        I think it’s everyone’s guess that the film is their first exposure to the works of L. Frank Baum. The core series that he’s written spanned 14 books. Even after his passing and when the entire property was taken to public domain, more publications banked on the name of Oz. Right down to the movies and musicals that were to be put into production as the years went by. I bring this up early in this retrospective since there would be many adaptations of the first story and even the events that led to Dorothy’s encounter with Glinda in Munchkinland. 

        In due time we’ll look at them, for now we’ll look at the one that’s practically one of the many films that represent the Golden Age of Hollywood. So, in case you’ve been living under a rock or have no Earthly access to any media, this is the gist of the plot. Dorothy Gale is a farmgirl living in Kansas with her aunt and uncle. A tornado whisks her and her pet Toto to the world of Oz. She travels to the yellow brick road and encounters a motley crew to join her quest to see the mysterious Wizard to take her back home. 

        Pretty simplistic even at that time, but you get hooked with Dorothy’s story. There’s so much to love about this film, and I’ll talk about the main highlight in the next tab. For starters, I love the introduction when we see Dorothy and her plight. The various men that we see her interact represent the things that she struggles with, to be brave, courageous when confronted by the cantankerous Miss Gulch. All that leads to the most famous song in the film, when she sings “Over the Rainbow”. It’s one of those songs where it became a precursor and inevitably ubiquitous in Disney films when the character sings what they want. Hence the nickname for the song type called “I Want” songs. 

        So yeah, as soon as we see Dorothy get transported to the world of Oz, it turns into a fish out of water storyline. Where she’s an alien in an otherwise odd world full of fantastical people inhabiting them. I love how she does get her wish, but it backfires since she has a new problem after inadvertently killing the Wicked Witch of the East. Her sister is also the other highlight in the film. Surprising to note that prior to her portrayal of the Witch of the West, she was a kindergarten teacher. Her personality and action just make her believable as the Wicked Witch. Right down to causing a lot of fear in many young children at the time, I don’t blame them. 

        Back to Dorothy, of the many roles that Judy Garland had starred in. This is the one that many people will immediately point to being the best in her career. For a while, she was the main star for MGM since she had starred in multiple musicals. From this one and Meet Me in St. Louis, she was star in a making since she had the talent to sing and do the choreography to make the musical more pop. I think what sells her performance is that there’s a lot of innocence that is in play. Such as when she’s crying when Professor Marvel tells her that her family misses her. It’s one of those things where she’s a brat but recognizes that she doesn’t mean it when she wants to go back home. 

        I think it’s time I talked about her gang when she journeys the yellow brick road through Oz. I love how when she meets them, they are in a predicament and Dorothy takes it upon herself and the others subsequently to help them out. They all join her and specifically want something to be more than who they are. All of it is supposed to be representative of what Dorothy wants to. If you’re eagle eyed, you’d know that the men she meets in the farm are played by the same who are the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion. There’s even a moment of clarity where Dorothy becomes aware that she met them prior to arriving in Oz. 

        With everything that the film has going on, I feel that the only thing that didn’t click with me was the dream aspect near the end. Not having read the book, but the first entry in the series was vague to have it where either Oz did exist or a figment of Dorothy’s imagination. With how it’s presented in the film, Oz is just a semblance of Dorothy’s imagination and where she becomes a better person after the tornado took her. Reading further it was a deliberate choice to have Oz be a fantasy since it was to believe that the audiences couldn’t buy the straightforward narrative. While I understand the creative choice, I feel that it could’ve committed to the weird aspect instead of just disavowing it near the end. 

2. Color

        The transition when Dorothy peaks out from the front door to Munchkinland is one of the many highlights of cinema employing color. Having watched it in 4K, it’s just astonishing that it looks good as it did when it came out in 1939. At the time, it was extremely rare to even have color in films. Of the past films that have used color, it was a crude execution that didn’t appear as vibrant as this film. Even silent films used colors, albeit it was just one color in a scene that represented a mood or feeling of what’s going on. 

        For a fantasy story such as this, it needs to have color to be vibrant and to show off the spectrum of what we see. There’s even a reason as to why the slippers that Dorothy wears are ruby instead of the book accurate silver. To show off the technology, MGM decided to use ruby to show off the technicolor feat that was being employed. The studio is the only one where they own that specific detail when it comes to adapting The Wizard of Oz. It wasn’t until when Disney acquired the rights to Baum’s other Oz books that MGM gave them permission to use the ruby slipper detail in their adaptation. 

        As far as how it’s utilized it’s ingenious. We see how Dorothy’s neck of the woods has that sepia tone to it. Practically indicative of where exactly she is and it’s rather drab since the brown color represents the farm area. Then transition to Oz and it’s a cinematographer’s dream to capture that vibrant of color. All the vistas that we see utilize the red and green to show off one area and another in the journey. I feel that the Poppy field and Emerald City is where we see the technicolor in its grand setting.

        One thing that I should mention is that it’s a sin where you have the scenery take over the film. I feel that when showing off the technology that the story must be engaging to make it worthwhile. Generations have come where special effects is the new “Color” for a film when showing off the impressive feats. And what I mean is that it should be complementary to the overall movie, not simply piggybacking a story that’s lacking or not having any interesting characters. It’s something where I describe it as eye candy but for the wrong reasons where it becomes boring instead of interesting. 

3. Legacy

        Still crazy to think that this film is beloved by generations. I mean, the level of merchandising and re-releases is something whereas I mentioned earlier, the film is timeless. Even crazier still is that it’s currently having a residency in Las Vegas. What I mean is that the new attraction called The Sphere is presenting a viewing of the film, with the help of A.I. to cover the venue’s supermassive screen. More so that the success of this film has spawned several imitation films and influences in Broadway and in cinema. 

        Of course, I must mention that the film has a pertinent influence on the LGBT community. Since it’s a musical with very flamboyant portrayals and musical numbers, it made an impact on them. More so that the film’s relatable message made a mark on them as far as having acceptance within a group of people. Right down to have the beloved film be a cult film among the minority. I think it’s extremely rare to have a film that fits the bill with two classes. 

        Lastly, I think my very first exposure to the film was when it was utilized on all movies a disaster film. It was in the film Twister was when I was first exposed to the idea of Wizard of Oz. Most of the minute iconography and names is used in the film. Right down to the flying cow that is shown in the movie and the Tornado probes that is called Dorothy. Even Judy Garland herself made an appearance, as her film A Star is Born is shown on the T.V. in one of the scenes. 

4. Overall

        The Wizard of Oz is a timeless film that is to be beloved by every succeeding generation. 

Inland Empire Review

        It seemed not that long ago in May that I watched Eraserhead. Not knowing what I was going to see with marathoning a season’s worth of films by David Lynch. Of course, I missed out on two films of his that would’ve been a definitive look into the director. Through limited funds and patience, I’ve finally crossed over the bridge with his final feature film. Mind you, while this is the last film he made theatrically speaking, he did other works in other media. Such as delivering the third season to his beloved series Twin Peaks. For his final film, it’s an interesting one in a sense where you feel that it’s taking you down a road that only leads you into another direction. 

1. The Rabbit Hole 

        This isn’t the first time that I have watched Inland Empire. Late last year was when I watched the film as my local film club was presenting it. I will admit that it’s embarrassing on my end to leave the movie around the 30-minute mark. No film should be left, and I always try to soldier on and ignore my gluteus maximus’ muscle to leave. With that one, it wasn’t because the movie is awful or had bits of unpleasantness to it. More so with how it looked, the overall sense of plot and just where it was going made me want to position my feet slowly into walking mode. 

        Just now is when I finally got the courage to watch it once more and take it all in. I had the luxury of inviting a friend to sit down and watch along with me and let me tell you. The movie is anything but conventional in a story-sense. And it’s one of those things where you have to actually pay attention since there’s multiple callbacks to prior scenes and subtle references that are brought up as the film goes along. To describe the film’s plot is a challenge in and of itself. I will be willing to sit down and listen to anyone succinctly describe the plot. I’d buy them a case of beer if anyone is up to it. 

        To my knowledge, I’ll try to at least describe just the point to the plot. It’s three hours and it’s not a slog in a least bit. Just one of those where it becomes interesting since it’s a very unconventional film that has a flow to it where you have no idea where it’s going to go. So we follow this actress Nikki, she’s given a part to be in a film where it hasn’t been finished in its country of origin. With the role, she goes into the character deep alongside her co-actor. From there, well it’s kind of complicated. 

        This is both the film’s biggest highlight and the detriment. We see Laura Dern’s actor go through this imagined version of method acting where she becomes the character. And by that, it’s like she’s transported to this other plane of existence where it’s transcending time and space. It’s a David Lynch film alright. It’s a highlight since we see her act out her parts where she is her main character and the character in the film. The caveat is we don’t know which is which. There’s never a discerning look in the film where we see the film and the movie being shot. Compounding it is how the film looks when viewing it. 

        Right from the start, we see that the film was shot in a basic Sony camcorder. Prior films was when Lynch would shoot his movies with film stock, this is experimental in a sense where he can shoot how he wants without the limit of the reels. At the time, it sort of turned me off since it has that amateur look to it. You can see the shadows of someone holding the camera in some instances. Judge me for being conceited since I didn’t give this film a shot initially, I think it works since it would’ve been too easy to tell which Nikki is acting and when she’s in the other plane. 

        For as unsettling as the film is, I feel that with the story being presented it makes it feel uneasy to approach it. Like, it’s a fine line between being a thriller, psychological horror to an acid trip. All of it weaves and flows as we’re following Laura Dern’s character descending into madness since the script that she’s acting in is cursed. I was for it, until it stopped making sense. It is one of those films that Lynch was making that has vibes written all over it. Take it from me, I like to have stories being told from A to B. This one is one of those rare films where you must watch multiple times to get it. 

        With vibes being a source of contention for me, I feel that the film is a very esoteric art film. Where plot and story is established, but as soon as the weird starts to kick off. The former is immediately tossed out the window and stomped repeatedly on the concrete sidewalk. Most of the highlights as I mentioned is watching the crazy being amped up. I’ll give it that as well since it got me interested with Nikki and how she was going to be affected by the curse and get herself out of it. I’m glad that there’s not a villain in a traditional sense but this malevolent force that is causing the weirdness to happen. A callback from Twin Peaks, and many other references to past works that Lynch managed to get in this one. 

        With everything that I’ve typed down, you can assume that I don’t like weird, or just not vibing to the movie as originally intended. Be it as it may, I feel that I can appreciate the director for being unconventional with his approach. Like, I don’t want to turn my brain off to just “get” the film. I feel better knowing that my time is invested with watching a character overcome something than just going with the abstract imagery. What excels with me is when Lynch does his motifs subtly. When he has total reign where he is a maestro is when he loses me. This is the one film where any Lynch aficionado would spent their life deciphering the inner meaning of it. 

2. David Lynch

        Eight films is what it took to not personally talk about the director. Sure, I talked about his past, inspirations and method to his madness. Having watched a good chunk of his films made me appreciate him more as an artist. He went to do what he wanted with no studio head breathing down on him. To me, he’s the inspiration for any filmmaker that has the talent to be an artist and a filmmaker. He did paintings prior to picking up the camera and directing. He’s unconventional, but only when people see out of context clips of him in any interview or video. 

        The man is complex since he interprets things that only he could. No one could interpret what Eraserhead means without knowing that it’s about parenthood, and how it’s possibly about his moment becoming a father. I say possibly because he was not one to indulge any interviewer or anyone about what his films mean when someone is trying to understand it. There’s ways to go about it, but only Lynch is the one that can be cheeky enough to get away with it. Any other director can make films that are generally weird as his but aren’t talent enough to utilize everything to be weird. 

        With his interpretations in his films, the key thing that I think is important is seeing the muck/grime underneath the supposed clean thing. Meaning that, while everything looks nice and dandy from the outside. There’s something that is the true face of the subject in his films. I’ve only noticed it in his films like Blue Velvet and afterwards. I feel that he was pushing the envelope to make people uncomfortable by showing the true face of something that is not what they think is representative of the status quo. He’s an artist alright, and it’s always bold to go against the grain that has become the MO for any filmmaker to just have a career. 

3. Legacy

        So what else can be said about this film and it’s director? To me, I remember the very first time that I was exposed to him. It was in the Steven Spielberg film The Fabelmans where he portrayed John Ford in the final moments of the movie. Just when his face appeared is when I heard chattering in the audience asking if it was him. From there, I saw a montage of his behind the scenes and other interviews which gave me an unconventional look to him. I guess you can say that I was ignorant since I didn’t sat down and watch his films earlier. 

        His death surprised me, and I felt it was an obligation to at least dedicate a season’s worth of his films to expose to anyone who is interested or to get an idea of who the man was. While I bungled it, I didn’t anticipate my personal life affecting my viewing schedule. Rest assured that I will finish out his remaining two films. I feel that for any film buff or anyone that is interested in the medium and want to experiment, this is the director that delivers on such the endeavor. New filmmakers should embrace his approach but be smart and disciplined on how to balance between the normal and the absurd. 

4. Overall

        Inland Empire is one of the most divisive films that I’ve seen. For Lynch fans, it’s one of the essential viewings to marathon.