Just saw Eraserhead. My reactions.
Hardset Head
Hitting random keys, "mario camposano pasamba" spelled out:
:
: ??????, and !!!!!!, and ?!?!?.
:
: Can someone explain to me what the movie was about? I didn't get it. Was
: it in black and white to make the baby more realistic? And was it (the
: movie) supposed to be symbolic of something? I mean, when I saw it I knew
: nothing of what it was about, which I usually do with movies, but when I
: saw this I just couldn't grasp it. Way over my head.
:
: Please enlighten me,
: Mario
I think that's the point. I thnk Eraserhead was made just to make a
surreal, weird film. As for it's meaning....I've always thought that
David Lynch's surreal work was basically him putting a big question mark
on the screen, and you figure out your OWN meaning.
--
-----------------
psl...@nmia.com
"Rev. Pslock's Temple of Film" | http://www.nmia.com/~pslock |
Interesting/weird/cult/badfilm cinema for your online pleasure.
RMeisch106
Is Eraserhead available for sale on video?
Thanks,
-rob
mario camposano pasamba
On 28 Jul 1997, Hardset Head wrote:
>
> I think that's the point. I thnk Eraserhead was made just to make a
> surreal, weird film. As for it's meaning....I've always thought that
> David Lynch's surreal work was basically him putting a big question mark
> on the screen, and you figure out your OWN meaning.
>
> --
> -----------------
> psl...@nmia.com
Yes, but what about a movie so bizarre that many come out of it with no
meaning whatsoever? Did David Lynch ever say what his meaning was of the
movie? I can respect his ambitions, and I actually enjoyed the dinner
scene (the dad was hilarious). But certains scenes like the woman in the
radiator singing about heaven while stomping on those tapeworm things
made other parts like Henry's dream seem normal. Oh well.
Mario
Martin Koolhoven
Hardset Head wrote:
> Hitting random keys, "mario camposano pasamba" spelled out:
> :
> : ??????, and !!!!!!, and ?!?!?.
> :
> : Can someone explain to me what the movie was about? I didn't get
> it. Was
> : it in black and white to make the baby more realistic? And was it
> (the
> : movie) supposed to be symbolic of something? I mean, when I saw it
> I knew
> : nothing of what it was about, which I usually do with movies, but
> when I
> : saw this I just couldn't grasp it. Way over my head.
> :
> : Please enlighten me,
> : Mario
>
> I think that's the point. I thnk Eraserhead was made just to make a
> surreal, weird film. As for it's meaning....I've always thought that
> David Lynch's surreal work was basically him putting a big question
> mark
> on the screen, and you figure out your OWN meaning.
Sometimes that works and sometimes you're just stuck with an empty
feeling, because you feel cheated. That is if a film is weird just for
sake of being weird. Lost Highway was so intense that I didn't care
things weren't making sense. Eraserhead just bored me. I'm sure there's
no point to that movie.
The black and white was mainly because that's cheaper.
Martin
mario camposano pasamba
Jay
mario camposano pasamba wrote:
>
> On 28 Jul 1997, Hardset Head wrote:
> >
> > surreal, weird film. As for it's meaning....I've always thought that
> > David Lynch's surreal work was basically him putting a big question mark
> > on the screen, and you figure out your OWN meaning.
> >
> > -----------------
> > psl...@nmia.com
>
> Yes, but what about a movie so bizarre that many come out of it with no
> meaning whatsoever? Did David Lynch ever say what his meaning was of the
> movie? I can respect his ambitions, and I actually enjoyed the dinner
> scene (the dad was hilarious). But certains scenes like the woman in the
> radiator singing about heaven while stomping on those tapeworm things
> made other parts like Henry's dream seem normal. Oh well.
>
> Mario
What's the meaning of UN CHIEN ANDELU or many of Bunuel's early work?
Surealist cinema is there for you to extract a feeling from the images
not tell a story. The "meaning" of Eraserhead is simply dispair.
Everything about the film's characters screem dispair. Lynch was into
this in the early years and captured the same sort of feeling with THE
GRANDMOTHER.
Alex K
In article <5rjc9f$a...@osh7.datasync.com>, Alric Knebel
<al...@datasync.com> writes
>>psl...@nmia.com (Hardset Head) wrote:
>>I think that's the point. I thnk Eraserhead was made just to make a
>>surreal, weird film. As for it's meaning....I've always thought that
>>David Lynch's surreal work was basically him putting a big question mark
>>on the screen, and you figure out your OWN meaning.
>
>conclusion that the film is a surrealistic joke. When the movie first
>opens, we see the title: ERASERHEAD. Then the very first character
>you see is this weird guy with a strange haircut. The first thing you
>think is, "Oh, this must be Eraserhead." Now Lynch has engaged you in
>the mystery, which is really the meaning of the title of the film.
>That's the mystery: the title. When it opens with that weird
>character and the strange haircut, you think you have the mystery
>solved in the very first scene. Then you wait for some plot in the
>standard sense to begin unfolding. But then that creature is born,
>which has a strange head. Then you reconsider the meaning of the
>title: THIS is the real "eraserhead," this horribly deformed baby.
>But the movie doesn't stop there, but continues on with more surreal
>scenes of little people living behind radiators and all of this other
>weirdness. Anyway, the guy eventually comes to take possesion of the
>"baby," and by this time, you're SURE that THIS is the Eraserhead of
>the title. Then his own head falls off to be replaced with that
>thing's head, while his original head falls out the window. Then the
>boy on the street finds the head. The boy takes it to a hotel (I
>think), and he hands it to a man who inserts some sort of a drill into
>it. Then he takes out a pencil with an eraser on it. He's made an
>eraser out of the head of the main character of this movie. In the
>end, the main character really was the eraserhead, just as we had
>first proposed, but not at all for the same reasons we initially
>proposed it.
>
>As for symbolism, I wouldn't recommend looking deeper for some classic
>theme. The real meaning is your reaction to the images, and nothing
>more. I think it's just as I described, a mystery set up by the
>title, the viewer participating in the mystery by asking the question
>as to the origin of the title and how it will be revealed in the film;
>along the way, we are led to one interpretation of the title to
>another, until the truth of the title is disclosed almost at the very
>end. Simply put: This was a meticulously realized surrealistic film
>that engages the audience in an unexpected and humorous way. Lynch is
>goading us by not meeting our usual expectations of the viewing
>experience. He anticipates what each scene will make us think, and he
>reels us in like fish. Lynch never really wants us to forget that we
>are watching a film, which is the usual goal of a movie, the
>suspension of disbelief. He doesn't want to do that. Everything is
>in it's place: The images in front, the audience in their seats
>seeking to apprehend, with Lynch floating above it all, pulling every
>string and understanding it all.
>
>I have been very much mocked by my close family members who I talked
>into renting this movie one night and watching it with me. I was the
>only one who really liked it, who got the joke. .
>
>Anyway, that's my interpretation of this movie.
>_____________________________________________
>Alric Knebel
>al...@datasync.com
>_____________________________________________
>
Eraserhead seems like a pretty easy film to apply quasi-analysis to.
Filmed over a five year period I think it's safe to say it is inevitably
a slightly uncontrollable mishmash, but a general symbolism survives
throughout.
This is all from memory:
The opening scene is clearly the moment the child is conceived. The
planet is the egg (there is clearly further egg symbolism later on -
Jack Nance and the woman across the corridor descend into an egg-like
pit). Sperm is clearly seen. The man in the planet therefore is some
sort of God figure/orgasm point.
So the child is conceived - it is twisted an retarded, representing
Henry's self-doubt and fear.
The whole film is about the conflict between his physical manifestation
(ie how he put his physical form about - through fatherhood, sex with
the woman across the corridor) and his mental state ( represented by the
woman with the puffed cheeks and Henry's bookishness) Henry is repelled
by the physicality around him. Scenes such as the dinner fuel this, and
the final scene in which he kills the child is the ultimate denial of
his physicality. When his head pops off on the stage this is again a
sign of his self-doubt, and he does fall to temptation with the woman
across the corridor. But ultimately victory is his - he kills the child
(perhaps causing his own death) and is met by the woman with the puffed
cheeks. The man in the planet is in agony - the physical life has been
repelled with a more etherial one replacing it.
This doesn't make perfect sense, but it's what I have cobbled together.
One thing is certain - Lynch ain't gonna tell us, he always likes to
keep us guessing.
--
Alex K
Alex K
Forgot to say you can also see it as reality vs idealised life. Henry
hates the hard, physical reality of his existence, and wants a more
metaphysical idealised existence.
Hey-ho.
--
Alex K
Martin Koolhoven
Jay wrote:
> mario camposano pasamba wrote:
> >
> > On 28 Jul 1997, Hardset Head wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that's the point. I thnk Eraserhead was made just to make
> a
> > > surreal, weird film. As for it's meaning....I've always thought
> that
> > > David Lynch's surreal work was basically him putting a big
> question mark
> > > on the screen, and you figure out your OWN meaning.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------------
> > > psl...@nmia.com
> >
> > Yes, but what about a movie so bizarre that many come out of it with
> no
> > meaning whatsoever? Did David Lynch ever say what his meaning was
> of the
> > movie? I can respect his ambitions, and I actually enjoyed the
> dinner
> > scene (the dad was hilarious). But certains scenes like the woman
> in the
> > radiator singing about heaven while stomping on those tapeworm
> things
> > made other parts like Henry's dream seem normal. Oh well.
> >
> > Mario
>
> What's the meaning of UN CHIEN ANDELU or many of Bunuel's early work?
> Surealist cinema is there for you to extract a feeling from the images
>
> not tell a story. The "meaning" of Eraserhead is simply dispair.
> Everything about the film's characters screem dispair. Lynch was into
> this in the early years and captured the same sort of feeling with THE
>
> GRANDMOTHER.
Another dumb film.
Jay
Martin Koolhoven wrote:
> >
> > GRANDMOTHER.
>
> Another dumb film.
>
Well, in surrealist cinema the image reflects the viewers own ability to
be creative in his/her grasp of their meaning. "Another dumb film" is a
rather telling statement.
J
pencil pushers
RMeisch106 wrote:
>
> Is Eraserhead available for sale on video?
You might be able to find an older copy of the original release
(Columbia Home Video?) still on sale, but I think it's been out of
circulation for a while, both on video and theatrically...
I was working on a college film committee around '91-'92, and we were
constantly barraged with requests to show it; the story we got from
the 16mm distributors was that Lynch had withdrawn ERASERHEAD
completely from all circulation to rework the ending and other parts
of the film. However, I've never heard any confirmation of this
anywhere, and a couple of Lynch's collaborators (Allen Splet, Jack
Nance) have since passed away, so... Has anyone else heard of this?
webm...@film.tierranet.com
-Spoilers ahead for Eraserhead-
Well, it was in black and white simply because it was cheaper. It was so
dark because Lynch under exposed the film on purpose making it darker.
The little worms represented sin. Everytime Henry sinned a little worm
appeared. When he lied to his wife he found a little worm in his
mailbox. When he killed the baby he was over-run with bigger ones. When
he pulled them out of his wife she was filled with them from their
relationship. Sex before marriage.
The woman in the radiator was a representation of heaven. "In Heaven
everything is fine." She's Henry's image of a perfect women. It's odd
yes but it shows Henry's unusual taste. The Radiator it's self was
supposed to be the image of suicide. Everytime he looks at it or into it
he's contemplating suicide. Since Heaven is contained in suicide that's
the only way he can reach it. At the end of the film when he embraces
the Radiator women it means he has killed himself and is now in heaven.
Hope this helps.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
RMeisch106 wrote:
>
> Is Eraserhead available for sale on video?
>
>
> -rob
No, not now. It hasn't been avaliable since the early 80's but it's
going to be re-released in letterbox later this year. I have heard that
if it's sales are good they'll release Lynch's early films and maybe
even Blue Velvet in letterbox. His film Dune was recently re-releasedin
letterbox.
pencil pushers
Martin Koolhoven wrote:
( various people's comments about ERASERHEAD snipped)
> The black and white was mainly because that's cheaper.
I'm not sure that's true-- at one point it certainly would have been,
but by the time ERASERHEAD was filmed, color stock was so common and
cheap that B/W was almost always an artistic choice. Plus, at one
point in the '70's, the price of silver went up, affecting the cost of
B/W film stock (which is silver-based); in fact, studios were junking
unused prints of B/W films to recover the silver, causing some films
to become rare or lost.
Hardset Head
Hitting random keys, "Martin Koolhoven" spelled out:
: Another dumb film.
:
:
Gee....that was a profound statement.
"Hey everyone, I think these movies aren't any good so, like, don't talk
about them."
Martin Koolhoven
--------------133661E46CD4098059BCAA57
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jay wrote:
You should read THE EMPEROR'S CLOTHES. No, better, let somebody read
that to you.
When I was just starting in film I also thought this was a nice film,
until I saw that what this film (and a number of others) is conceiling
is a lack of content. It is a dumb film, made by an interesting,
searching director who obviously needed to make this type of film to
grow. Surrealism reflects not a damn thing in me when it's not good. You
have to understand that surrealism is also the first thing to run to
when you don't want to show the back of your tong. It is quite safe. Go
and take a look on filmschools and see how much surrealism is made
there.
Martin
--------------133661E46CD4098059BCAA57
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
Jay wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Martin Koolhoven wrote:
<BR>> >
<BR>> > GRANDMOTHER.
<BR>>
<BR>> Another dumb film.
<BR>>
<BR>Well, in surrealist cinema the image reflects the viewers own ability
to
<BR>be creative in his/her grasp of their meaning. "Another dumb film"
is a
<BR>rather telling statement.
<P>J</BLOCKQUOTE>
You should read THE EMPEROR'S CLOTHES. No, better, let somebody read that
to you.
<P>When I was just starting in film I also thought this was a nice film,
until I saw that what this film (and a number of others) is conceiling
is a lack of content. It <I>is</I> a dumb film, made by an interesting,
searching director who obviously needed to make this type of film to grow.
Surrealism reflects not a damn thing in me when it's not good. You have
to understand that surrealism is also the first thing to run to when you
don't want to show the back of your tong. It is quite safe. Go and take
a look on filmschools and see how much surrealism is made there.
<P>Martin
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------133661E46CD4098059BCAA57--
Alex K
In article <33E0D2...@erols.com>, pencil pushers <pp...@erols.com>
writes
A few years ago I was a film school, and Freddie Francis came to chat to
us. He was the D.P. on The Elephant Man. He said that was shot in b and
w purely due to financial considerations. Only well into production were
the claims of it being used for artistic reasons bandied about.
Also up to 6 weeks into the shoot Lynch was determined to do the face-
make-up for John Hurt. But make-up artists had to be called in when it
was clear Lynch was overwhelmed.
--
Alex K
Pearce Duncan
pencil pushers (pp...@erols.com) wrote:
: I was working on a college film committee around '91-'92, and we were
: constantly barraged with requests to show it; the story we got from
: the 16mm distributors was that Lynch had withdrawn ERASERHEAD
: completely from all circulation to rework the ending and other parts
: of the film. However, I've never heard any confirmation of this
: anywhere, and a couple of Lynch's collaborators (Allen Splet, Jack
: Nance) have since passed away, so... Has anyone else heard of this?
A couple of years ago (or was it last year? damn my memory) Eraserhead
was re-released theatrically here (New Zealand) enhanced & remastered but
still the same movie, so I doubt that Lynch is sitting on it/ It has also
been re-released on sell-thru here in the last month or so.
Pearce
The Gore-met
When I finally came across this in a video store I rented it in high
anticipation. When it was over I thought it was the worst bucket of
diarrhea I've ever had the displeasure to sit through. I nearly pitched
the TV off the balcony it was such garbage. Analyze this all you want,
it was 80 whatever minutes of my life I can never get back. You think I
would have learned with "Blue Velvet". Another offal movie. (Pun
intended). I think Lynch is the most overrated "director" going.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
"We have a lifetime to know your flesh..."
Terror! Mayhem! Bloody horror!
The Galloping Gore-met: http://www.interlog.com/~goremet
--------------------------------------------------------
Jay
Martin Koolhoven wrote:
>
> Jay wrote:
>
> Martin Koolhoven wrote:
> > >
> > > GRANDMOTHER.
> >
> > Another dumb film.
> >
> Well, in surrealist cinema the image reflects the viewers
> own ability to
> be creative in his/her grasp of their meaning. "Another dumb
> film" is a
> rather telling statement.
>
> J
>
> You should read THE EMPEROR'S CLOTHES. No, better, let somebody read
> that to you.
>
> When I was just starting in film I also thought this was a nice film,
> until I saw that what this film (and a number of others) is conceiling
> is a lack of content. It is a dumb film, made by an interesting,
> searching director who obviously needed to make this type of film to
> grow. Surrealism reflects not a damn thing in me when it's not good.
> You have to understand that surrealism is also the first thing to run
> to when you don't want to show the back of your tong. It is quite
> safe. Go and take a look on filmschools and see how much surrealism is
> made there.
>
> Martin
>
>
Are you always so condescending? The fact is that I am a director of an
incredibly successful film festival that specializes in experimental and
surrealist cinema as well as straight narrative. This year we had over
800 entries and believe me when I say that I have seen MY share of bad
filmschool surrealism and imagery.
Though I agree that it isn’t Lynch’s best effort, being one of his
first, I do think that it is a proper assessment to refer to it as
surreal. It is, frame by frame, the work of an art student trained in
canvas painting,
I don’t care if you like it or not. My taste in film has proven it’s
self in the attendance of our festival. None the less, what I object to
is blanket statements like “another dumb film” without one shred of
intelligent critical thinking attached to drive home the reasoning.
I’m sure with this attitude you do just great in the “film business”.
Regards,
Alric Knebel
I don't believe that the movie was meant to be taken so literally, and
the surrealism was only meant to make you think. I believe I analyzed
this correctly when I said that the movie really begins as the title
appears, and you begin asking yourself what the title means. Then
Henry's face with that weird haircut appears, and you start trying to
pinpoint the reason the movie is titles "Eraserhead." You see Henry,
and you assume you know. Then you wait for some plot to unfold. But
it doesn't, because the baby appears with that ugly head, and then you
rethink what the title is really referring to. You assume for sure
that THIS must be the eraserhead of the title. By the end, you
understand how the movie got its name. Meanwhile, as this mystery is
floating in front of you, you are treated to some well actualized
images that are puzzling and amusing. Lynch is causing you to
participate in this movie in a different way than you'd ever
participated in a film before. People think they are looking for a
deep meaning, but the truth is that if they retrace their first
viewing experience, they were more occupied with trying to discover
the meaning of the title. In the end, he's pulled your leg: Erasers
are being made from people's heads. Sure, the surrealism seems
random, but that's because the world in the film is a place where
people's heads fall off, then retrieved off the street for a deposit.
It was really meant to be humorous, and I don't think Lynch wanted us
to believe that something more psychological was going on up on the
screen; the meaning was how we were participating in the film, what
was happening to US psychologically, how we were relating to the
images as they passed in front of us. Did we get it, or were we
looking too far and missed the fun?
I absolutely LOVED this movie. I only understood it when I was
relating the experience to someone else.
>Martin Koolhoven <kool...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>You should read THE EMPEROR'S CLOTHES. No, better, let somebody read
>that to you.
>When I was just starting in film I also thought this was a nice film,
>until I saw that what this film (and a number of others) is conceiling
>is a lack of content. It is a dumb film, made by an interesting,
>searching director who obviously needed to make this type of film to
>grow. Surrealism reflects not a damn thing in me when it's not good. You
>have to understand that surrealism is also the first thing to run to
>when you don't want to show the back of your tong. It is quite safe. Go
>and take a look on filmschools and see how much surrealism is made
>there.
_____________________________________________
Alric Knebel
al...@datasync.com
_____________________________________________
Martin Koolhoven
Alric Knebel wrote:
The posting you reacted on was about The Grandmother.
However, I would like to say that your explanation is one of the
strangest ones I've ever heard. What you're saying is that all Lynch
tried to do was keeping us puzzled over a title? I think that would be
the stupidest reason to make a movie.
I actually wasn't so occupied with the title. I liked it when I heard
it, but didn't think about it when I saw the film until you see the
heads becoming erasers.
Mainly I thought the film was quite boring, except for some scenes. But
maybe I would have had a wonderful time if I was occupied with looking
for the meaning of a title.
Martin
PS I've got a nice movie for you: Hi, mom! by dePalma (though by
telling you this, you can probably guess what the final words in the
film are)
DHM
mario camposano pasamba <pas...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>??????, and !!!!!!, and ?!?!?.
>
>Can someone explain to me what the movie was about? I didn't get it. Was
>it in black and white to make the baby more realistic? And was it (the
>movie) supposed to be symbolic of something? I mean, when I saw it I knew
>nothing of what it was about, which I usually do with movies, but when I
>saw this I just couldn't grasp it. Way over my head.
>
>Please enlighten me,
>Mario
>
I interpret Eraserhead an a young man's nightmare comprising his
greatest fears - he goes to dinner at his girlfriend's parents (can be
a tramatic experience in real life) and the evening is extremely
bizarre and unsettling (although, he has to keep up appearances the
entire time); his girlfriend gets pregnant (another fear), has a
mutant-nightmare baby that cries constantly, and he has to marry her
(yet another real-life fear) because of the baby and the whole thing
is a disaster.
Intermixed are a number of his dreams - a fantasy about the neighbor
across the hall; a dream where he smashes his giant sperm against the
wall and prevents the baby from being conceived; a dream where his
head is used to make erasers (just a Lynchian joke IMO that has
nothing to do with the rest of the film); and a dream of a lady in the
radiator who sings to him of heaven, "where everything is alright."
Framing the story is the god/guardian-angel who controls Henry's life
- he starts the machine that creates Henry at the beginning and he
stops the machine (and Henry's life) at the end - putting him in
heaven where he wants to be.
-Don
Allen Brunson
I remember reading an interview with David Lynch's daughter, who also turned
out to be a director (she did "Boxing Helena," amongst other things). She
said a lot of Eraserhead was inspired by Lynch's reluctance at becoming a
parent. Note how Henry is forced into getting married when told his
girlfriend is pregnant. Lynch's daughter points out how the "baby" almost
looks cute from certain angles, then it turns its head and looks ghastly,
then it's cute again.
I think Lynch took a lot of his own fears and anxieties and ran them through
his usual filters and that was the result. I can't say I actually "like" the
film, but it did affect me rather strongly. I can definitely get into the
vibe of it, it affects my emotions.