David Lynch’s debut feature Eraserhead (1977) consistently defies analysis, which hasn’t kept people from trying. Over the years I’ve heard more interpretations—some from folks in altered states of consciousness, some from perfectly sober people and some from people where it probably made no difference. I’m not sure that any of these readings were wrong, because I’m not sure that any response to the film can be wrong. Lynch himself has merely called it a “dream of dark and troubling things,” and that’s pretty undeniable. At the same time, reading it as a film about the dread of childbirth seems pretty on the mark to me. Linking it to Ed Wood’s Glen or Glenda (1953), with Eraserhead’s Man in the Planet (Jack Fisk) standing in for Bela Lugosi’s puppet master from the Wood film—not to mention Eraserhead‘s overall “retro” look—also makes as much sense to me as anything else. I mean, we are talking about a movie that features a tiny woman living in a radiator.
The best approach to Lynch’s largely plotless nightmare movie is just to go with it—something that may be easier now than it was in 1977 without the context of Lynch’s subsequent films. (Of course, back then it was a mark of coolness just to find it “profound.”) Seen today, Eraserhead may make no more sense than it did 30 years ago, but its casually sinister air can now be seen as so much a part of Lynch’s mature work. Think what you like of Lynch, there’s a remarkable consistency to his body of work, and so much of it is grounded in the desolate imagery found in Eraserhead. The distance from this film to Inland Empire (2006)—an equally impenetrable film—is not very far. Simply sit back and be disturbed.
I first saw this film at an art repertory theater in Norfolk, VA shortly after its release. I’ll never forget that twenty minutes into the movie, someone stood up from the audience, yelled “civilization is this way” and stormed out of the theater. I knew I’d picked the right flick then!
I’ll never forget that twenty minutes into the movie, someone stood up from the audience, yelled “civilization is this way” and stormed out of the theater. I knew I’d picked the right flick then!
Yes, that would be a defining moment of validation.
And I have a confession to make. Over twenty years ago, a friend brought this movie back from college. The first 15 minutes freaked me out so bad that I’ve never watched the rest of it.
The first 15 minutes freaked me out so bad that I’ve never watched the rest of it.
Well, it doesn’t get any less freaky.
I bought the deluxe DVD of it, just hoping David Lynch might come on somewhere and explain what the hell is going on, but no such luck.
“I bought the deluxe DVD of it, just hoping David Lynch might come on somewhere and explain what the hell is going on, but no such luck.”
That man doesn’t put in chapter stops, let alone commentary.
He did, however, make a statement that has been the rallying cry for all of us indie video stores…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0
Also, there is this gargantuan set coming out next month…
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/sd-dvd-film-documentary/275307-new-david-lynch-10-disc-lime-green-dvd-box-set.html
He did, however, make a statement that has been the rallying cry for all of us indie video stores…
It’s the rallying cry for all of us who have a respect for film.
Ken why do you like all these weird flicks? Yet you pan good ones. I don’t get it. I guess you just like the dark side don’t you.
Ken why do you like all these weird flicks?
Well, Dave, I’d need a little more specificity than that. In other words, what comprises “all these weird flicks” in your estimation. I’d certainly concede that Eraserhead is weird, but then again it’s not like I picked this movie. I merely gave my views on it — which certainly make it clear that it’s weird. The movie was shown by the Asheville Art Museum, so they apparently find some artistic merit in it.
Yet you pan good ones.
By which you mean I’ve panned movies you liked, which is fine. But again, I’d need to know what the films are that I’ve panned that you’re calling good.
I guess you just like the dark side don’t you.
Not particularly or exclusively. First of all, not all weird films are dark and not all dark films are weird. Consider: Neil Jordan’s Breakfast on Pluto, weird, but not dark (though it has a few dark moments). Consider: I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, dark, but not weird.
I do have a preference for films that challenge the viewer, that stretch the boundaries of the art form, and that, yes, challenge the status quo (artistic, social and/or political). I do prefer seeing something I’ve never seen before as opposed to seeing the same old recycled stuff.
I like all kinds of films — some of which are weird, some may be perceived by some as weird, some of which are pretty darned “normal.” Would you believe it? I have Alexander Hall’s Little Miss Marker (1934) with Shirley Temple, but I don’t actually have Eraserhead. Fancy that!
Ken: “I do prefer seeing something I’ve never seen before as opposed to seeing the same old recycled stuff.”
Ken, I think this view is what skews your rewviews away from what the average flick viewer needs. I dont blame you for getting bored watching so many flicks. But “Joe Sixpack” viewer just wants an entertaining movie to spend his money on.
Personally, I prefer the Greg the Bunny parody of Eraserhead…
Ken, I think this view is what skews your rewviews away from what the average flick viewer needs. I dont blame you for getting bored watching so many flicks. But “Joe Sixpack” viewer just wants an entertaining movie to spend his money on.
Thank you for proving my suspicion that you couldn’t or wouldn’t answer my questions about citing some of these “weird movies” I like and those “good movies” I pan.
But just who is this mythical “Joe Sixpack” and what makes you uniquely qualified to define his wants and needs? Does your vision of Mr. Sixpack even read movie reviews? And, good heavens, don’t tell me that your notions of Sixpackery would have him reading a “leftist” paper like the Xpress or an openly liberal humanist writer like myself? I find this hard to believe.
Me, I don’t pretend to know what Mr. Sixpack wants in a movie. I can only tell you what I see, how I feel about it and why. From this you should be able to tell whether or not it’s likely to be something you would like to see — regardless of whether I praised it or damned it. I may have given Eraserhead high marks, but you ought to be able to tell if it’s your dish of tea from the review.
Who am I — and who are you — to pretend to know what this Sixpack guy likes? Who is anyone to presume to speak to the tastes of an entire group of humanity that you’ve arbitrarily labeled “Joe Sixpack?” It’s stereotyping plain and simple.
Anyway, I’m still waiting for those examples.
Ken, I am a regular guy. Your reviews are obviously written for the “arsty” crowd. Ken. Regular folks like an entertaining movie without all the leftwing artsy brainwashing. We just like entertainment. Period.
Ken, I am a regular guy. Your reviews are obviously written for the “arsty” crowd. Ken. Regular folks like an entertaining movie without all the leftwing artsy brainwashing. We just like entertainment. Period.
So in other words, you’re going to ignore my request for those examples? And you’re setting yourself up as the person who defines what “regular folks” want, which means that all “regular folks” want simple movies with good conservative values, right? (I’m sure it doesn’t cross your mind that that could also be construed as brainwashing — just of a different kind?) I presume in your mind that in order to be a “regular guy,” it’s necessary to also be rightwing — I mean, a rightwing mindset has been the thrust of every post you’ve made on this site that I’ve seen. Why do I feel I’ve met you before in another incarnation — or three?
Actually, no, I don’t write for the “artsy” crowd per se. I write for whoever cares to read what I’ve written. I write for a crowd who care about movies as something more than mindless entertainment, which is pretty much what all reviewers do. Do you honestly believe that most people who would willingly go to see Beverly Hills Chihuahua check out the reviews first? Do you seriously envision the target audience for Larry the Cable Guy movies caring what some critic says about them? And do you really think you’re going to find too many critics praising Larry’s comedic brilliance?
But “Joe Sixpack” viewer just wants an entertaining movie to spend his money on.
Regular folks like an entertaining movie without all the leftwing artsy brainwashing. We just like entertainment. Period.
I must admit that I’m baffled by this recent
rhetorical preoccupation with “Joe-Sixpack,” “regular” people, & the status quo. Who knew that the suitable interpretation of movies had been fallen into the corner of populist thinking? As if “regular” people don’t have the intellectual capacity to critique art? And, if they do, they’re automatically elitist. This notion is ridiculous. And what?–if you do understand, agree, or perpetuate an “artsy” point of view then you’re necessarily left-wing as well?
Can someone please explain why is it that we would want to aspire to a quality of life and performance in every aspect of our society that’s beyond “average,” but not when introspectively evaulating ourselves as individuals — when it apparently is some kind of middling badge of honor to a be “Joe-Sixpack” average American?
I’m a regular guy. I’m insulted by this constant dumbing-down to the lowest common denominator. It’s counterproductive. Just because someone stirs the Kool-Aid doesn’t mean we have to drink it.
I must admit that I’m baffled by this recent
rhetorical preoccupation with “Joe-Sixpack,” “regular” people, & the status quo.
I’m actually surprised that this mythical “just folks” construct hasn’t been turned into “Joe the Plumber” by this point. (Wait for it; it could happen.) It’s merely an abstract idea — usually perpetuated by conservatives — of a “normal” person, which is arrogantly translated into meaning one of a conservative and anti-intellectual mindset. You might notice that “Joe” was invoked by someone who has only posted right-wing messages since his arrival on the Xpress boards (see his off-topic post in Body of Lies for starters).
As if “regular” people don’t have the intellectual capacity to critique art? And, if they do, they’re automatically elitist. This notion is ridiculous. And what?–if you do understand, agree, or perpetuate an “artsy” point of view then you’re necessarily left-wing as well?
Well, we all know that intellectuals are all left-wing communist pinkos, don’t we? That’s what the argument is grounded in. And, yes, it’s absurd.
I’m a regular guy. I’m insulted by this constant dumbing-down to the lowest common denominator.
That’s because it is insulting. It perpetuates a stereotype that anyone who’s working class (which, by the way, includes me) is automatically keen on simple movies that require no thought and would rather see Larry the Cable Guy than a Bernard Shaw play or even the Marx Brothers. It’s frankly offensive.
I’m actually surprised that this mythical “just folks” construct hasn’t been turned into “Joe the Plumber” by this point. (Wait for it; it could happen.)
In that case, I’ll have no other choice than to look forward to being labeled a “Joe-the-Unlicensed-Plumber” type. My GOD! How un-American am I? I feel so ashamed. You can always pick out people of my “ilk.” We’re the ones with the seat of our pants fully covering the split in our Gluteus maximus.
Ken, you should point out that you do give good reviews to mainstream films when they’re actually good. For instance, Harry Potter, Borat, Pirates of the Caribbean, all got good reviews from you.
I like Lynch, but I agree his films take a lot of patience and thinking. Inland Empire is probably the most challenging film I’ve ever seen. Personally, I think Twin Peaks is the best thing he’s done.
Your reviews are obviously written for the “arsty” crowd. Ken. Regular folks like an entertaining movie without all the leftwing artsy brainwashing.
I agree, Ken’s elitist review of “Disaster Movie” was obviously un-American. Half a star my ass!
Ken’s elitist review of “Disaster Movie” was obviously un-American. Half a star my ass!
Well, they won’t let rate things in negative numbers.
Ken: “And do you really think you’re going to find too many critics praising Larry’s comedic brilliance?”
Ken, I LOVE Larry The Cable guy. Same with the Three Stooges. Joe Sixpack just likes to laugh. When was the last time you laughed?
Joe Sixpack and Joe the Plumber know who they’re voting for. McCain/Palin. And they’ll win because there aren’t enough elitists around to elect Obama.
Ken, I LOVE Larry The Cable guy.
As you loved him in all your previous incarnations on this site, too.
Ken, I am a Christian. I don’t believe in reincarnation. And I bet there are a lot of fans of Larry The Cable around. Blue Collar Comedy Hour is very popular on the Comedy Channel and Atlanta isn’t that far away.
Please answer my question to you: when was the last time you laughed?
Gee, Dave/Al/Jim Bob/William/Nam/Cullen, isn’t it about time for a rant about how awful John Waters is right about now?
Ken, I don’t know these other names you are throwing at me. Evidently you are defensive to the point of lumping all your critics into a vision of being one person. I am sure there are many who will debate you on some of your views and reviews. Since we are on the subject of “weird” movies, you have to add “Pink Flamingos” to the list with “Eraserhead”. I have seen both and recoil at the depravity of movie makers behind each flick. Lord, can’t we have more good movies? I know it’s your job to review every movie can fit into your schedule. But, why admire the sick, weird ones while panning the family movies?
Ken, I don’t know these other names you are throwing at me. Evidently you are defensive to the point of lumping all your critics into a vision of being one person.
Sorry, “dave,” but no one else is buying that you don’t know these other names, since everything you’re saying, everything that you’re objecting to, every particular bete noir of yours is not merely similar, but identical to the list of names you “don’t know” and the postings made by “them.” It would be a truly remarkable coincidence for your every thought and view to duplicate someone else’s, now wouldn’t it?
I am sure there are many who will debate you on some of your views and reviews
I have no doubt of that, but they don’t follow me around in your particular manner, nor do they wander about interjecting completely off-topic observations. (See Body of Lies review. See your post about my supposed cynicism in this week’s “Screening Room.”)
Since we are on the subject of “weird” movies, you have to add “Pink Flamingos” to the list with “Eraserhead”. I have seen both and recoil at the depravity of movie makers behind each flick.
Interestingly, I didn’t mention Pink Flamingos, I mentioned John Waters and there’s a lot more to Waters than Pink Flamingos. I’d also ask you to show me a review I’ve written about Pink Flamingos that explores what I think of the film. You can’t do it, because I’ve never actually reviewed the film, though it has come up in postings on these boards in connection with comments from some of those names you don’t know.
But, why admire the sick, weird ones while panning the family movies?
I’m still waiting for the list of these movies that you so admire that I’ve panned. Why do you seem unable or unwilling to provide that?
ahhhhh-ah-ah-ah-ahahahahah!!!!!!!!
Here’s the part I dont understand, Ken. It would seem that the “average Joe-who-drinks-a-six-pack (JSP)” (even though social conservatives dont drink too much, and certainly not after-hours) enjoys a good ‘laugh-em up, light-hearted flick’ every now and then to relax after a hard day at the Mill/Factory/Fields, then why does he need the obviously “liberal” movie reviewer, of a relatively “liberal” free weekly, published in a pretty ‘liberal’ mecca like asheville to recommend it too him? What should this kind of review sound like? “The newet Adam Sandler, Larry The Millionare Comedian comedy is a laugh-riot, sure to keep the average man in stiches. Dont bring the whole family, though, as there will be lots of adult humor and recycled plot turns. Couldnt JSP just turn to the Citizen-Times for this type of bland, predictable, USA Today-style review? Why even read this coddled, sheltered, carpetbagger of a paper anyway, especially since the only people who read it are a a bunch of backsliding sinners and heathens anyway?
that’s what I dont get.
why does he need the obviously “liberal” movie reviewer, of a relatively “liberal” free weekly, published in a pretty ‘liberal’ mecca like asheville to recommend it too him?
I have long pondered this question and have no answer. Let’s face it, the audience apt to go see Larry the Cable Guy Pulls Up His Pants isn’t waiting to see what Justin or I thought of it first. (For that matter, they likely aren’t reading any reviews at all, since Larry peaked with a 6% “critical approval rating” on his first picture and worked his way down to 0% by the time of his last one.) The “appeal” of reading these reviews is obviously grounded in some agenda that has nothing to do with movies.
“Why even read this coddled, sheltered, carpetbagger of a paper anyway, especially since the only people who read it are a a bunch of backsliding sinners and heathens anyway?
that’s what I dont get.”
And here’s what I don’t get: since you clearly read this “coddled, sheltered, carpetbagger of a paper” are you a “backsliding sinner” and “heathen?”
uhhh, Dio, I think you didnt read the whole post, or you would not have been able to miss the context.
and to answer your question, yes I slide back often, and love to roll in the heathen!
knee-jerk libs :-)
I think its important to realize that the weird baby thing is in fact, NOT a human baby. It’s something they created before the time a REAL baby can be created. What it ‘is,’ or may be in my opinion, is the manifestation of a relationship formed on lust between a scared boyish man and a troubled woman. They cannot deny this ‘thing’ they’ve created but even when she runs away, he still has to watch it, which torments him to no end. Inescapability of the effects of ones actions is the main theme.