Yah, that's always been my understanding. Lynch did it as a favor for Harring. It's kind of ironic given all of the accusations directed at Lynch for exploiting/humiliating his actresses over the years.

As far as Inland Empire is concerned, I'm sure a BD would at the very least improve the compression given it's length. Also, I don't know how the dvd transfer was done, but it's possible it could be improved. The new restoration of Hoop Dreams that is making the rounds is like night and day compared to the Criterion dvd and that was shot on sd video. However, I think that must have been a film print that Criterion used to do their transfer. I assume the Inland Empire dvd was an entirely digital workflow.

No doubt this was an artistic decision for one of Lynch's usual inscrutable reasons?

It was affordable. It has always been hard for him to get financing so he decided to shoot it the most economical way possible. Not only was he the writer & director on IE but he was also one of the producers, the editor, cinematographer, camera operator, sound designer & sound re-recording mixer. I guess the money was tight.

I know he also loved the immediacy of digital. He could go back and watch stuff he just shot without having to wait for dailies and such.

Yeah, in the "Side by Side" documentary, he talks about it a little bit. Keanu asks him if he's done with film and he basically says, "I think so." but that doesn't mean he'll stick with standard-def DV. He could easily get his hands on a high quality digital camera (Red, etc.), but he'd need a cinematographer who knows how best to utilize it.

Even in a best case scenario, we'd be talking about a marginal difference.

The problem is that David Lynch likes the way that Inland Empire looks now. He shot it that way on purpose. Even with the cheap prosumer DV camera he used, he could have gotten better image quality out of it if he'd wanted or tried. Simply lighting his shots with something better than a table lamp at the far end of the room would have helped enormously. Lynch claims that he likes the "textures" of the ugly video.

Belive me, I'm not advocating for a BD release in the slightest. I'm simply suggesting that there is probably still room for improvement.



I know Inland Empire is ugly and that's the way he wants it. My point is, it's possible that a better transfer could still be done depending on how the dvd transfer was made. When I say better, I mean a closer approximation of the original appearance/intentions. I'm not talking about aesthetic beauty.

having seen the UK BD of Inland Empire, I would say compression is definitely better but the biggest improvement is in the audio mix.

There is no improvement in the movie though (ducks).

It's going to be academic very shortly, film is going, going, gone . But in the case of Lynch, we're talking about some who's as non-commercial as it's humanly possible to be, so for him to have cheap consumer equipment available, it probably allowed him to do pretty much whatever he wanted. Apparently when working on it, he basically dreamed stuff up on the spot and worked as he went along. There are lots of filmmakers who make films which deal with difficult subject matter or non-commercial ideas, but few who are as outright obtuse and non-literal. That being said, most of the early digital adopters-the Dogme guys, Boyle, Soderberg, Neveldine/Taylor, Rodriguez, etc. seemed to like the expediency of it, the looseness and freedom it offered to pretty much go and do whatever you wanted without worrying much about the cost of celluloid or cameras, being able to be so spontaneous. That said, idiosyncratic as he is, maybe he does like the ragged, haggard staticky look of it. With Lynch, who the hell knows? That said, digital is a lot more sophisticated now, and for him to wind up using a proper high end camera like and Alexa or a Red is probably forthcoming. Though that would also me he'd have to return to filmmaking, and apparently he's been away for a while doing....whatever it is he's doing.

Last thing he did was a music video for Nine Inch Nails

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1RN6pT3zL44" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

from wikipedia:

I never saw Twin Peaks. I'll get the set when it's cheaper.


David Lynch is a filmmaker I'd love to see during the whole process of production for a film. He is very unique and form interviews he seems like a really nice guy too.

the irony of Inland Empire is that you could watch it on a phone or tablet and would not lose much in the visual sense despite Lynch's comments about not being able to say you have watched a film if its on a phone (which I otherwise agree with).

In recent years, Lynch has spent most of his time on his self-created art commune, surrounded by sycophantic college grad students who ooh and ahh while he makes weird furniture.

Indeed.

What a damn shame. At 68 he should have at least a couple of more films in him.

He's also been doing music. That's why the Twin Peaks announcement is so exciting. Less because Twin Peaks is back, more because Lynch is writing and directing 9 new hours of television.

AND shooting it on film to boot - so much for his new love affair with digital.

Has that been confirmed? I know he has re-professed his love for film recently, but everything I've read about him shooting Twin Peaks on film has been pure speculation.

Is this re-release of Criterion's Leopard a new transfer?

I think it's just a new, non digipak case.

He said that watching the Missing Pieces on film reminded him of the life it has, so he more or less confirmed it himself.

I've read the quote, but until someone says "Twin Peaks is being shot on film," it's not really confirmed. That's what I'm looking for.

On a completely unrelated note, Criterion's newsletter yesterday hinted at Carol Reed's Odd Man out. It's a title that's been rumored for years, so I'm glad to finally see it happening.

yes, not everyone digs the recent 4K transfer /2.55 AR version of 'The Leopard' but I'm surprised that Criterion hasn't bit on releasing said version here in the States.

I don't think Criterion has ever upgraded one of their blu-rays before. Either way, the disc is only 4 years old. I can't imagine it sells enough to merit a re-issue so soon.

edit: The new Playtime blu is an upgrade, but it's only available in the Tati boxset.

2.55??? I thought the correct framing was suppose to be 2.21.