Bad movies, typically speaking, are either dismissed as simply bad, or are so bad that they in effect become pretty hilarious. But there’s another way to regard these films as well; what if, by a spark of inspiration, you come up with a theory that, if we take it as true, improves a bad film? Welcome to the Internet, the breeding ground for just such barmy theories, and over the years they’ve come up with some real kickers, the funniest and most interesting of which are typically those which actually improve our esteem of a bad film. Granted, a sucky film is a sucky film, but if we can brainwash ourselves into thinking that this is the filmmaker intention, then it somehow makes everything seem alright…
10. Inland Empire Was Re-Edited So It Didn’t Make Sense
David Lynch is a master filmmaker of weird films that aim to creep and confuse the Hell out of us. He’s had his fair share of successes in this regard, what with Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive, Eraserhead, and his TV series Twin Peaks, but his last film, Inland Empire, was a regrettable, unfortunate misfire. Not only incoherent and incomprehensible, but surprisingly dull, it’s a rare Lynch film without much merit beyond its solid performances, but there’s an interesting theory that’s been floating about film school lecture halls for the last few years that actually makes a lot more sense.
What if David Lynch actually filmed Inland Empire as a coherent, straight-forward tale, and then intentionally edited it out of sequence to keep his “arty oddball” persona well in tact? Looking at the film, it’s such a narrative non-sequitur that we could believe it, especially given how ingrained his image and style is at this point.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
9 Comments
I’ve heard the Rugrats one a thousand times and it only makes sense if Angelica is:
A) the main character
B) in every episode
Also, with the other babies and characters reacting to each other (Dil, Susie, …Kimi? Kiwi?) it would be assumed these are real people, so why would they, then, interact with the figments of imagination of Angelica’s psyche when she isn’t present?
Calvin and Hobbes grow up to become the Narrator and Tyler Durden in FIGHT CLUB.
I’ve also heard the theory that Alien 3 is either a dream or a darker epilogue to Aliens. Also familiar with the theory that James Bond is not a man but a code name but I hate that one.
James Bond is one person and always has been. The biggest nod to this comes in Skyfall.
*SPOILERS* If M dies in Skyfall, it makes no sense for her to be the M in the Brosnan era, unless, of course, Bond is the same person. *End Spoilers*
I’ve always hated that theory as well.
It’s James Bond, there is no continuity. Seriously, until Casino Royale (and with some very light dabbling in the Connery era), they were pretty much all standalone movies. Brocolli et al have given themselves a real problem by suddenly introducing the idea of continuity, but at least they had the good decency to brand CR a “reboot”. Therefore Dench’s M in CR is essentially a different character to her M in the Brosnan films, and you can kind of see that in the films themselves.
I have also heard that James Bond is a time lord, from Doctor Who. Hay makes sense why he looks different he just regenerates.
good article!
but i would have to say that your #1 is not a theory. zion is part of the matrix. the architect so much as says it. plus the transfer of power for Neo.
at least that’s always been the way i’ve seen it, since it’s release. blew my mind then too.
No Poke-Coma? That theory is so in depth and beievable that it’s criminal to leave it out.
The women in Charlie’s Angels are aliens or robots. Or alien crime fighting robots. If you watch the movies with this idea in mind they don’t suck (as much).