David Lynch comes up with a unusual style of storytelling and this movie extend that style very far.There is no story to start with just humanoid rabbits irrelevantly talking about some thing that happened . In two shots there appears a mouth and a match stick.One can see the same match stick reference in "Inland Empire". This movies gives the more of Lynch taste of exploring the abstract unknown.The Lynch always keeps the audience of the movie to generalize the movie based on his or her experiences which this movie has potential but movie is not made to make any generalization. Quite a time seems boring but worth a watch for die hard David Lynch fans.

This is a beautiful film from David Lynch, but unfortunately, not a lot of people are going to view it that way. The reason it's so stunning to me is because there is so much tension in just one continuous shot. It's definitely creepy but there are a lot more layers to it than just that. I don't think anyone ever knew that a video with people in bunny costumes and a laugh track could be so uncomfortable. It's one of the most ambiguous things I've ever seen but I'm OK with that, because it is so well done that in a way, I don't have to know what exactly is going on. It's a piece of art and it doesn't have to be anything more than that. Check this one out and I think you'll find that it is obviously Lynch behind the scenes!

This work must represent Lynch's musings on his craft. We see a sitcom. Actors are garbed as rabbits that are dressed as people. That is, they are not rabbits, "per se"; they are only (badly) dressed as pantomime bunnies within the sitcom, set obviously on a stage. Like Shakespeare's play within a play, we see a sitcom in a video (in a movie, inside Inland Empire). It is presented as an ironic "meta-tale". If we try to follow the sitcom we are misled. The laugh track isn't tracking identifiable punch lines. The dialog is out of order and seemingly not in sync with the present action. There is a narcotic dreaminess about watching the actors in the video playing characters in a sitcom. We lose context. What exactly are we witnessing? The meaning of the sitcom is not the meaning of the video, and therein lies the disturbing ambiguity of the unfolding story. The medium is not the message. Lynch knows his audience interprets him through the tropes of movie-making. He knows he must express his ideas within the boundaries of its form, subject to the expectations of his audience, who are likely to impose their own prejudices. The rabbits exist in a created exigency outside of real experience. They are motivated by their own ephemeral mythos, informed to action only for this short performance we are witnessing. The author feeds them soliloquy, to bridge the distance between himself and the audience, but with an absurd result. Will we ever know what they are thinking? No, because they are not thinking in reality, they are acting out roles in a disordered sitcom. This being said: The sitcom is about patricide. The mother waits for him, but Suzie and Jack have killed the father figure. It is an unspeakable crime that masks another. Dear dad may have had designs on young Suzie. Of course, it explains the dread and shame. I cannot prove it conclusively. On first viewing I was entirely riveted by it. On second viewing I was analyzing the heck out of it. On third viewing it struck me how absurd the whole thing was and I started to laugh at it. I began to think, this is what Beatrix Potters' recurring nightmare looks like.If you know who Luis Buñuel is, then you probably already own a bootleg copy of this video. If you can walk through a modern art exhibit without giggling then this movie is most likely for you. If Jackson Pollack reminds you of the oil stains on your driveway, then you probably want to steer clear.Lynch removes the burden of narrative from the story and fragments dialog out-of-sequence so you are free to get popcorn during any phase of the showing without fear of missing something.SPOILER ALERT!!: Nothing really happens. Well, a woman screams. And no, I have no idea what that means.

Lynch really elevated my opinion of him here. This is very, very well constructed. It is the highest art.That means that any "explanation" will be worthless. You can read some other material to discover something of what you will see.Its unsettling and strange, hypnotic and lyrical. That it is in several "episodes" is all a part of how certain familiar forms are subverted to give us something that has identity and also has a sort of meta-identity defined by deviance from the expected.My observation will be highly personal. I see this as a sort of "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern" but instead of referencing "Hamlet" engages "Alice in Wonderland." It fits, especially if you are inclined — as I am — to blow Alice into something as world-swallowing as Hamlet. Where Hamlet is all about what it means to sit in the world, Alice works at more refined level, being all about what it means to carry a name in the world.One is about being and the other about what we see and acknowledge about being. Its this second conceptual space that Lynch inhabits, always has. His "firewalking" TeeVee stuff bends notions of representation and discovery, the amusement being not in what we see, but in the difference between what we expect to see.Let's look at the entire vocabulary he has toyed with. First, he acknowledges the audience (laugh track), camera (static but in and out of focus), narrative (drawn more overtly by its fragmentation), framing (with very formal, abstract composition) and "acting," which here consists more of pauses and empty spaces than anything we normally associate with acting.And then there's the bending of the form. We have a demon that appears twice. Its noir drawn tightly, especially since there is a hint that the demon or his avatar as perhaps a "lost dog" is driving the entire situation. And then we have three "performances," one each by the three characters. These are accompanied by an ignited set, literally ignited. The performances, which each occupy an episode, are pretty transcendent in terms of what we would see in an ordinary drama. In such a case, each would "solo" in such a way that their soul was revealed. Its the challenge of the writer to weave this into events in such a way that we don't see the performer revealing his character overtly. This is different; all pretense is removed. The character enters and opens its heart with no narrative baggage. What the character tells us actually has more information about context than the surrounding context provides.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.