At Land is first and foremost a dream projection. Meaning that, while if it's either surreal or not, what we see is a not the narration of a dream or even the interpretation of a dream; it's the shared experience of a dream. Like, in dreams, you change from one location to another, or the person you are talking to suddenly become somebody else, or a Walt Disney look alike in a bed may be creepy, without any logical reaction to the strange nature of it because while you are dreaming you are just experiencing it, not trying to understand it. I strongly suggest that with this film, in fact, most of Deren's films, to let got to the rational function of "understanding" and just flow with it.
I don't think that most of Lynch or Buñuel's films are really onirical, maybe they are surrealistic on an absourdist level or rich on Jungian symbolism, but in the end, they have a basic narrative structure and usually bring a closure to whatever the film is about. Maya Deren's At Land is not based on rethorical figures or a discernible point; I don't even think there is no explicit symbolism to it (maybe Deren has explained it in some essay, but I haven't read her yet). It's experiencing the whole thing as if we are in Deren's head while she is dreaming. Of course, this implies the alienation of most viewers who may be in need of closure. Few films are successful as shared dreams, Malle's Black Moon or Jean Cocteau's Blood of a Poet come to mind.
Comercially, Kubrick tried and achieved to some extend the share dream with Wide Eyes Shut, but it's only last year's blockbuster Inception the one which has nailed it. Of all the references that are to be found about the excellent Inception, At Land it's the most clear influence, from the beach opening to the dream experience to the search of the totem and getting back to the first "dream layer".
So, even 60 years and something later, Deren is still a truly influential filmmaker
