NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to someday, since it does look like an interesting film, and even an insightful one at that. How do NSG film buffs interpret the story?

That's a surprise, is it? I don't think that film is meant to be understood. I think understanding that you'll never understand is the only way to understand.

Understand?

That's a surprise, is it? I don't think that film is meant to be understood. I think understanding that you'll never understand is the only way to understand.

Understand?

I was hoping that there was some esoteric philosophy. It'd be a great pickup line isn't it, "helo thar, I hold the key to Eraserhead, may I buy you a drink?"

It's like a dadaist or abstract painting. Open to a thousand interpretations, and what you get out of it islargely what you bring to it.

Good luck with Twin Peaks then.

I don't think that film is meant to be understood.

I never did, and come to think of it, I doubt that I want to!

Nor will you understand Inland Empire.

So go back to House of 1000 Corpses

What might be worth your while is Lynch's subsequent film, The Elephant Man.

It's arguably a variation on the theme of Eraserhead, examining similar ideas and covering familiar ground while being significantly more accessible.

It absolutely is meant to be understood. Some of the symbolic choices might not be easily accessible, or might lend themselves to multiple interpretations, but there are easily-understood themes there.

The most obvious is creation and parenthood. People make a big fuss about the fact that Lynch's wife was pregnant when he wrote Eraserhead - maybe too big a fuss - but it's still relevant. Henry is in a loveless relationship with a partner he doesn't understand - he's confused and anxious and the result is a monstrosity (the Eraserhead baby). It's a monstrosity that's supposed to symbolize the disconnect between what a family is and what many of us assume it's supposed to be. There's no love or empathy or compassion, or anything, and Henry's offspring reflects that. There's only routine, mechanization, industrialization, etc., which I would call the second major theme. Then you have the whole biohorror element, which Lynch was hugely into as a student film maker: if you have seen his short subject "The Grandmother," as I believe it's called, you'll know what I mean. It's nature out of control. There's a horror in that that Lynch loves to employ, and within the story it serves (look at Henry's little creature-thing in the cupboard, which he keeps secreted away there, and what becomes of it) as a micro-example of the broader point, and relates to the main theme.

I think I'm rambling, but hopefully some of this helps. There's much more to it, of course, but this is what I thought was most obvious many years back.

Lynch is highbrow Tarantino. All obscure references and pseudo-intellectual sophistry that you're just too damned stupid to understand if you don't get it. It makes some people feel superior to claim a knowledge of Lynch's crap. Meh. If I want to be confused by philosophy, I'll read Eco.

Lynch is highbrow Tarantino. All obscure references and pseudo-intellectual sophistry that you're just too damned stupid to understand if you don't get it. It makes some people feel superior to claim a knowledge of Lynch's crap. Meh. If I want to be confused by philosophy, I'll read Eco.

That's nutty. They're just movies, even if they contain some symbolism that isn't immediately apparent. There are few if any "obscure references." Anyone who claims you're stupid if you don't like or understand Lynch is just being an ass.

The most obvious is creation and parenthood. People make a big fuss about the fact that Lynch's wife was pregnant when he wrote Eraserhead - maybe too big a fuss - but it's still relevant. Henry is in a loveless relationship with a partner he doesn't understand - he's confused and anxious and the result is a monstrosity (the Eraserhead baby). It's a monstrosity that's supposed to symbolize the disconnect between what a family is and what many of us assume it's supposed to be. There's no love or empathy or compassion, or anything, and Henry's offspring reflects that. There's only routine, mechanization, industrialization, etc., which I would call the second major theme. Then you have the whole biohorror element, which Lynch was hugely into as a student film maker: if you have seen his short subject "The Grandmother," as I believe it's called, you'll know what I mean. It's nature out of control. There's a horror in that that Lynch loves to employ, and within the story it serves (look at Henry's little creature-thing in the cupboard, which he keeps secreted away there, and what becomes of it) as a micro-example of the broader point, and relates to the main theme.


Also relevant here is that Lynch himself had experience with being the father of an unhealthy child. I seem to remember that Jennifer Lynch (David's daughter, later director of the sort-of-legendary Boxing Helena [which I did actually go and see when it was released]) was born with club feet.

Ah yes.... found the quote from an interview promoting Jennifer's new film Surveillance.

In many ways, this rather recalls her own upbringing in Philadelphia, when she was on the set of her father’s masterly feature debut, Eraserhead, the harrowing seven-year production of which prefigured her own trials with Boxing Helena. She first watched her father’s film when she was just seven. “It didn’t give me nightmares,” she says. “But I said, ‘Dad – this is definitely not a movie for kids!’”

While that’s putting it mildly, you have to wonder what she made of the story of a man who fathers a mutant baby. After all, Lynch – an unplanned child – was born with club feet. As an infant, she was placed in a cast from the waist down; unable to crawl, she would pull herself along, encumbered by a metal bar between her ankles. She eventually underwent surgery at four and wore orthopaedic shoes until she was 12.


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/jennifer-lynch-life-with-david-and-the-turkey-of-the-decade-1627963.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/jennifer-lynch-life-with-david-and-the-turkey-of-the-decade-1627963.html)

So I think it fair to speculate over the extent to which Eraserhead is an attempt to visually express an internalised personal experience.

That's nutty. They're just movies, even if they contain some symbolism that isn't immediately apparent. There are few if any "obscure references." Anyone who claims you're stupid if you don't like or understand Lynch is just being an ass.

My point. Thanks.

An easy to understand, completely straightforward, synopsis of Eraserhead:
There's this guy, and stuff happens for a while. Then there's a baby, so more stuff happens. Then stuff stops happening and words appear on the screen, because it is the end of the movie.

You can now get on with your merry little lives.

An easy to understand, completely straightforward, synopsis of Eraserhead:
There's this guy, and stuff happens for a while. Then there's a baby, so more stuff happens. Then stuff stops happening and words appear on the screen, because it is the end of the movie.

You can now get on with your merry little lives.

Fiddlebottoms used Synopsis!

It's super-effective!

I still don't understand Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, nor do I ever need to. After all, this is bat country.

I would like to someday, since it does look like an interesting film, and even an insightful one at that. How do NSG film buffs interpret the story?

It deals with a lot of fairly obvious themes: suicide, depression, sexuality (specifically, sexual repression), isolation, sanity (or lack of it).

It deals with other themes - Henry is not responsible for his actions (his own image of himself is 'piloted' by someone else)... so it's maybe a discussion of freewill versus predetermination. It isn't unusual for Lynch to have 'god' as a character, so it would fit the canon.

It deals with a lot of fairly obvious themes: suicide, depression, sexuality (specifically, sexual repression), isolation, sanity (or lack of it).

It deals with other themes - Henry is not responsible for his actions (his own image of himself is 'piloted' by someone else)... so it's maybe a discussion of freewill versus predetermination. It isn't unusual for Lynch to have 'god' as a character, so it would fit the canon.

I think Keanu Reeves was a powerful choice to play Henry.

I think Keanu Reeves was a powerful choice to play Henry.

Heh. There's a remake I'd be interested to see... although I can't really think who you could get to direct. David Lynch?

Heh. There's a remake I'd be interested to see... although I can't really think who you could get to direct. David Lynch?

His daughter?

The guy that directed Dune?

Guy Ritchie was married to Madonna...after years of that, he's probably fucked up enough to direct that bad boy...

His daughter?

The guy that directed Dune?

Guy Ritchie was married to Madonna...after years of that, he's probably fucked up enough to direct that bad boy...

The guy that directed the movie of Dune? Sure - let David Lynch make his own remake. :)

It might be interesting to see his daughter do it, actually. Or Richard Kelly.

I really hate symbolism.

But what I hate more than symbolism is when a work of literature tries to introduce symbolism to make itself seem "deeper" but fucks it up somehow.

Since I don't know the movie personally I'll spend the rest of this thread ranting about how pseudo-intellectual and phony you all are. Elitists. >.<

I really hate symbolism.

But what I hate more than symbolism is when a work of literature tries to introduce symbolism to make itself seem "deeper" but fucks it up somehow.

Since I don't know the movie personally I'll spend the rest of this thread ranting about how pseudo-intellectual and phony you all are. Elitists. >.<

I really love symbolism.

With symbolism, you can show sexual tension, without ever having to show actual sex, or even sexuality. With symbolism, you can show a chronic masturbator dealing with suicidal impulses. With symbolism, you can show murder and self-destruction. And you can do it all in artistic and emotion-centred fashion, without glamourising the violence, or being gaudy about the sexuality.

I really love symbolism.

With symbolism, you can show sexual tension, without ever having to show actual sex, or even sexuality. With symbolism, you can show a chronic masturbator dealing with suicidal impulses. With symbolism, you can show murder and self-destruction. And you can do it all in artistic and emotion-centred fashion, without glamourising the violence, or being gaudy about the sexuality.

*shrugs* I don't like it, but I can tolerate it, if it's done well. Same with lots of literary devices.

As I mentioned, what I can't tolerate is when symbolism is ineptly used, including instances when the plot doesn't stand up without it or when it's waaay too obvious.

*shrugs* I don't like it, but I can tolerate it, if it's done well. Same with lots of literary devices.


Oh, totally agreed. "Natural Born Killers" would be a classic example of symbolism being applied with a kind of slapdash approach. Some of it worked... some not so much. It was definitely heavyhanded.


As I mentioned, what I can't tolerate is when symbolism is ineptly used, including instances when the plot doesn't stand up without it...


I'm not sure I understand this... given that the symbolism is just a representation of action , motivation, events, chronology, etc

Well, obviously, a plot doesn't stand up unless it has some application of action, motivation, events and/or chronology. Even something as massively character driven as "Reservoir Dogs" has to have some chronology, some motivation... some events.

I think you're making an unrealistic demand on symbolism - you're asking it to be fluff... to be optional. To he honest, that is the exact kind of symbolism I have no time for. If you're going to show explosions, sex, drug-use, etc... don't use symbols for the girl who masturbates, or whatever. That's just tacky.


...or when it's waaay too obvious.

Like the 'train going into a tunnel' symbol for intercourse? Sure - it's old and tired.

I really hate symbolism.
I could start a whole rant about how all things are understood within a system of connections, so all objects operate as symbols whether you acknowledge them as such or not. Aa gun, for example, means violence. Even if no one in the scene actually gets shot, or even directly threatened with the gun, the fact that there was a gun tripped several triggers inside your head that made you think, "ah, violence."
That would probably just annoy you as pseudo-intellectual, though, so I won't bother you.

I think you're making an unrealistic demand on symbolism - you're asking it to be fluff... to be optional. To he honest, that is the exact kind of symbolism I have no time for. If you're going to show explosions, sex, drug-use, etc... don't use symbols for the girl who masturbates, or whatever. That's just tacky.

Not exactly. After all, symbolism is supposed to be a visual shorthand for all kinds of things. A movie about aliens invading the Earth can also symbolize the struggle of man against his own internal demons or something, but it can also just be a story about alien invasion. A novel about a guy growing up in the slums of Cuba can include plenty of symbolism, including lots that might be essential to the plot, but it's still about a guy growing up in the slums of Cuba. What I don't like is when a story makes no damn sense unless you assume that everything about it is meant to be symbolic.

I'm derailing the thread, anyway, so I'll go have dinner.

The clown face is just a clown face. Enjoy it.

I still don't understand Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, nor do I ever need to. After all, this is bat country.

Hunter would want it that way.

Of course, people always forget that Fear and Loathing is actually two temporally and materially different stories put together rather than one contiguous event..

It absolutely is meant to be understood. Some of the symbolic choices might not be easily accessible, or might lend themselves to multiple interpretations, but there are easily-understood themes there.
Well, if that is so, Lynch's failed at telling me what to understand and shit.
I think I'm rambling, but hopefully some of this helps. There's much more to it, of course, but this is what I thought was most obvious many years back.
It has been a couple of years - but that DON'T HELP NOTHING!!!
Lynch is highbrow Tarantino. All obscure references and pseudo-intellectual sophistry that you're just too damned stupid to understand if you don't get it. It makes some people feel superior to claim a knowledge of Lynch's crap. Meh. If I want to be confused by philosophy, I'll read Eco.
Tarantino I get - Lynch I don't. So sue me. Fuck Lynch. I absolute love what Tarantino has made. Pretty straight forward, references to his fetish(es), great dialogue, even greater movies.

Lynch? Pffft!
There's this guy, and stuff happens for a while. Then there's a baby, so more stuff happens. Then stuff stops happening and words appear on the screen, because it is the end of the movie.

You can now get on with your merry little lives.
I'd rather get on with my merry (?) little live before I even try to understand all tha BS!
I still don't understand Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, nor do I ever need to. After all, this is bat country.
"One Toke Over the Line..." One toke? You poor fool! Wait till you see those goddamn bats!!!

I really hate symbolism.

But what I hate more than symbolism is when a work of literature tries to introduce symbolism to make itself seem "deeper" but fucks it up somehow.

Since I don't know the movie personally I'll spend the rest of this thread ranting about how pseudo-intellectual and phony you all are. Elitists. >.<

Stay far, far away from Jodorowsky. Just a tip. :D Lynch isn't even in the top-20, for most symbolic directors that I can think of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqWgTi2bIOc ?


I swear he was gay. I don't push that in anyones face. but by God he was gay.

An Absolutely great singer, and a big dude in country Music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7hCuDL8j2M (love the backup singer in the blue shirt.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajchHifnc48 <<he's soooo