How does Sup Forums feel about Eraserhead?

How does Sup Forums feel about Eraserhead?

Other urls found in this thread:

xixax.com/halfborn/
youtube.com/watch?v=NAoTHILzheo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Garbage, just like everything else Dabid Lynch has done.

"Surrealism was a mistake"

-David "Dishonest" Lynch

It's good. Especially for a director's first film.

Why does he intentionally make it impossible to fully understand? The issues with being a father and (in)fidelity are all apparent, but then you get some random scene that throws any attempt at a comprehensive analysis out the window.

Shouldn't a film try to convey a point or message, rather than just be surreal and opaque for no reason other than to be surreal and opaque?

Because he knew someday Reddit would love it because they "get it".

It really erased my head.

What "random" scene are you talking about?

>Shouldn't a film try to convey a point or message
Try to graduate out of high school before you try to seriously discuss films.

>rather than just be surreal and opaque for no reason other than to be surreal and opaque?
Every scene contributed to the feeling of the film. You could try to narrow to down to many themes, such as industrialization, fear of fatherhood and responsibility, but you would be doing yourself a disservice by trying to look at what an essay about the film would be instead of what the film is.

If you were made unnerved, disturbed, tense and restless by Eraserhead then it has achieved its purpose.

Okay, David Lynch.

It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but how about when he has dinner at the girl's house? The catatonic grandma is forcibly "helped" to prepare the food and then rewarded with a cigarette. Or just how bizarre her family is in general, with the theatrics and shouting? What was all of that supposed to mean?

Or how about the actual "eraser-head" scene?

Having read some interviews with Lynch, it seems like he enjoys the impossibility of his films being entirely understood.

It's Lynch's best movie

>he enjoys the impossibility of his films being entirely understood

That's because it requires little to no effort.

Fine. Ignore arguments that expose you for the retard you are, but just know that even by your standard of film having meaning over feeling (or substance over style as you Sup Forumsedditors like to say) Lynch wins.

Here's an explanation of one of his least understood films, Inland Empire. xixax.com/halfborn/
Read it and realize it's not that his films have no meaning, it's just that you're too obtuse to get them.

Oh fuck off, that post-Aristotelian nonsense is the reason why so many modern & postmodern art house films suck gooch drippings. No, films do not have to be heavy-handed morality plays with obvious messages to function but the core purpose of filmmaking is storytelling and Eraserhead's lack of unity and clarity of story is the reason pretentious faux-intellectuals love it and it doesn't hold the interest of others

Is a cool surrealist movie about the fears of fatherhood.
People accuse Lynch of being dishonest, for stuff like Mulholland I could even agree, but this one is genuine, and in some part disturbing.
Solid.

>"I'm going to put these panties in my mouth."

- David Lynch

>you Sup Forumsedditors
>pretending Lynch isn't pure Sup Forumseddit
YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE KID

Thank fuck film was allowed to progress beyond morons like you.

...

...

>more from the Sup Forumsedditor

numbers have spoken

>such as industrialization, fear of fatherhood and responsibility
can you point out where they actually say this in the film? no? then you're writing fanfic. gtfo.

I do find it weird that no one bats an eye-lid at Lynch saying his inspiration for Blue Velvet came from his desire to sneak into a girl's room whilst she's changing, and discover a mystery.

Actually you got roasted pretty hard. So much so in fact, that you resorted to name calling. Quite embarrassing. I'd delete my posts if I were you.

Holy fuck, I pray to god this is bait and not the actual state of Sup Forums. Here's some entry-level treat for you: youtube.com/watch?v=NAoTHILzheo

I don't want to believe that. I can tell from Mulholland Drive, Eraserhead, Dune, etc. that he does put in a lot of effort to whatever he's working on.

>Try to graduate out of high school before you try to seriously discuss films.
Why the arrogance? In any serious discussion of say books, for example, there is always an attempt at trying to understand what the author meant or what ideas they were trying to put across.

>Every scene contributed to the feeling of the film.
The feeling was pretty well established within the first 30 minutes, though. Scenes that come after that were likely trying to expand on the story, themes, or narrative. I'm trying to grasp how certain parts relate to the overall construct of the movie.

>but you would be doing yourself a disservice
Why? I've experienced the film and did feel the discomfort I think Lynch was trying to get across. But now I want to understand the narrative. I remember reading that he spent an extraordinarily long amount of time on Eraserhead, there must be something there more than just the feeling of disgust.

>pretentious faux-intellectual
you're who I was talking about.

spewing bullshit is not "roasting". You are a pathetic autistic little fuck.
70% of Sup Forums cannot really go beyond capeshit, and that's it.

>pretentious faux-intellectual

Stapling my nutsack (thanks, Mark Rippetoe) would make me "unnerved, disturbed, tense and restless" but that doesn't make it an act of art.

that woman with the cheeks was the most disturbing thing I'll ever seen on film

This is nonsense, your opinion is not fact.

>implying discussions on Sup Forums are anything other than hamfisted opinion spewing

>there is always an attempt at trying to understand what the author meant or what ideas they were trying to put across.
Precisely. Which is why it's so offensive that people dismiss his films as nonsensical without even TRYING to "understand what the author meant or what ideas they were trying to put across".

>there must be something there more than just the feeling of disgust.
There is, and it's for you to analyze and discover, but just because Lynch's films are constructed more like dreams so they're harder to write a school essay about surely doesn't mean that Lynch is a hack and that his films have no place in cinema. Not to mention that far more surreal and indigestible films than Lynch's were made and actively contributed to cinema as a whole. This notion that films which meaning is obscured or isn't immediately apparent are worthless isn't only anti-intellectual, it's harmful by being actively limiting to what the medium can achieve.

And I'd just like to say that this concrete meaning that everyone so desires to find in Lynch's films is in fact there to be found, Lost Highway's meaning was found, as was Mulholland Drive (which is very accessible), and even Inland Empire's which is by far his most inaccessible film.
Just because Lynch wants the viewer to find the meaning himself instead of being spoonfed doesn't mean there is no meaning to be found.

You can call me faux-intellectual as much as you want, but at least I'm not an anti-intellectual.

It's like that to stay as a personal experience for every viewer, not just a puzzle with universal singular answers to everything, it is more of an experience

Here's an excerpt from a Lynch interview to make things a bit clearer

>And it doesn’t matter if that conclusion [of the audience] isn’t the same as yours?
>"Right, because even if you get the whole thing, there would still be some abstract elements in it that you’d have to kind of feel-think. You’d have to say, “I kind of understand that, but I don’t know exactly what it is.” Sort of. The frames are always the same on the film—it’s always the same length, and the same soundtrack is always running along it. But the experience in the room changes depending on the audience. That’s another reason why people shouldn’t be told too much, because “knowing” putrefies that experience"

quads of cold truth

that's 3 numbers

Oh dear.

When you're being taught something your brain enters a mode very similar to sleep. If a film isn't independent-thought-provoking, if it doesn't allow you to participate in its meaning, then it's more akin to an afternoon nap than an experience.

trips of truth

I do agree with what you've said, but:

>Lost Highway's meaning was found, as was Mulholland Drive (which is very accessible), and even Inland Empire's which is by far his most inaccessible film.
While I do think the overall meaning of his films can be understood and discovered, the issue I'm having in the case of Eraserhead (and even Mulholland Drive when I watched that), is that some scenes don't seem to synchronize with the rest of the film. I understand the parental aspects of Eraserhead, and came to see how industrialization fits in too, but parts of it always leave me wondering.

Do you think Lynch intentionally uses red herrings to add to that 'dream-like' feel - or even to obfuscate his messages and make them less accessible? Or can everything be comprehensively understood, scene by scene, but with a great deal of effort?

i meant his abs

Its amazing. Fuck the haters. They have tiny brains that can't comprehend anything other than Captain Shitlord: Civil Gangbang.

>It's like that to stay as a personal experience for every viewer, not just a puzzle with universal singular answers to everything
I should really keep this in mind for when I watch anything else he has made.

>>You’d have to say, “I kind of understand that, but I don’t know exactly what it is.”
I'm at that stage right now, if that's what he was going for with Eraserhead then he definitely succeeded.

>(and even Mulholland Drive when I watched that)
That's because he just left in scenes from the TV show he originally planned to make. It's why things don't really make sense, or have very loose connections, and some scenes go nowhere.

>Do you think Lynch intentionally uses red herrings to add to that 'dream-like' feel
>Or can everything be comprehensively understood, scene by scene, but with a great deal of effort?
Both. Lynch leaves it up to you which is why his films stick with you so much.

Take the diner scene in Mulholland Drive for example. Many people cite it as one of the most horrifying scenes they've ever seen in film, but it does seem to not "synchronize" with the rest of the film.
It's been a while since I've seen it but it works on many levels.
The first is the most primitive one, it instills fear and discomfort. If film is meant to elicit an emotional response from us, it definitely achieves that, as I've said earlier it can even be considered a very short film (as others like to watch scenes on Youtube from films and series just for the sake of the scene itself).

The second is the emotional link to the film. The emotional response it elicits puts you on edge for the rest of the film, which is important because something is very wrong in the story which the protagonist also feels, and it makes you pay attention more.

The third is the narrative link, which I might be wrong about since it's been a while but I'm fairly certain the disgusting-looking hobo is connected to the murder by a later scene. His first appearance which gave you a feeling that something is wrong is clarified with meaning later as that something wrong is revealed to be the murder.

I like Mulholland Drive for this because this process of peeling layers upon layers to find the meaning in the dream is pretty much exactly what the protagonist is going through.

I really don't know why people act like MD is top 20 greatest films of all time and Eraserhead isn't.

I really don't know why people act like Eraserhead is top 20 greatest films of all time and Blue Velvet isn't.

I gave it a shot and I'm not ashamed to admit that I didn't get the surreal aspects at all
The shit with the neighbor lady, the part where the monster baby became giant, the lady with the weird cheeks, and especially the bit where the kid takes his head to the factory completely went over my head, and whatever subtext or message those sequences were supposed to convey were completely lost on me. In general, I understood that it was about Henry being an awkward, passive man in a situation he can't really handle, and how he gets through it, and in my mind, everything else is functionally window dressing to make the story more interesting

>I really don't know why people act like Eraserhead is top 20 greatest films of all time
they don't though, it's all about MD

i admire eraserhead for it's bold deconstruction of capitalist systems at the dawn of the reagan era

I detest Eraserhead for its insipid and shallow satire of Eastern European politics at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Eraserhead is the best Yugoslavian new-wave film

If you said that to Lynch himself, he would probably tell you that you experience things in real life which you don't understand too, and the important part is that you "experience" them and make your own view on it, maybe even learn something from it.

Sure, maybe David has his own meaning behind those exact scenes, but they could probably not be told in a single sentence, there is no singular answer to every question asked, Lynch hates the overuse of symbolism

Overrated director.

>there is no singular answer to every question asked
the credo of the talentless hack

>yfw you realized the "baby" wasnt really a prop

Overuse of symbolism is bad, it ironically makes a certain work more simpler and finite if there is one answer to every shot/scene.

Example: almost anything by zack snyder or jodorowsky

That's dumb.

>Hey David, what's Inland Empire about?
>... A girl in trouble.

Art is about expression. When art is made by a human, it is inevitably the expression of that human. But do we always know what others mean? Do we have access to anyone's mind but our own? Do we not change, as others do? Are we not uncertain of ourselves and who we are, as others are? Do we not change and develop in time? Are there matters in our life that we can not firmly grasp or explain, yet matter a great deal to us?

If we are infinite like that, always changing, without any finite self and meaning, then art that as closely abides to that is the closest to true human expression, in other words true art.

To clear things up, here's a quote about symbolism from Tarkovsky himself:

>"I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite"

That's nonsense, abstract meaning isn't the "right" way to do film, there's no right way.

I love the industrial setting. More films need to be set in heavy industry, its so underutilized and industry is awesome.

I didn't say "right", I said "true".

>Lynch hates the overuse of symbolism
Then why is he such a hypocrite?

What's the difference?

Any film will have esoteric elements, symbolism isn't the only way to express that and it definitely doesn't simplify or streamline it into one particular meaning, is something like Baraka simplistic because it has symbolism? I'd wager everyone who watches it will think differently about what it means.

Right and wrong is about subjective feeling. True and false is about logical definition.

Why are you so sure your explanation of "true" film isn't subjective?

Because it relies on the definition of art.

Art can't really be narrowed down into a particular definition, you ask anyone what art means and they'll give you a different answer.

reminder: lynch is a painter and not a filmmaker. his primary objective in filmmaking is not to have some deep, layered literary meaning where everything has an explanation. his goal is to convey a feeling, much like a fully realized painting. anyone who claims to know what his films are "about" is making shit up. because they aren't really about much of anything. they're designed to be provocative and get under your skin. not to teach you things about life

And that's its definition, which I used as the basis. You just proved my point.

So any attempt at defining "true film" is also wrong because there's no such thing.

I said close to true film. The only way to make a true film would be to link your mind with someone else's.

Trips confirm it

It's one of the greatest films of all time and one of the few classics that actually lives up to the hype instead of being overrated. The cinematography wasn't groundbreaking but it was still very well done and exemplary in a manner similar to Citizen Kane.

I can think of several iconic shots off the top of my head. There's the part where Jack Nance starts in front of the camera and then walks off under a bridge, revealing its massive scale. There's also the scene where his wife tries to grab her suitcase from under the bed all while appearing as though she is behind prison bars at the foot of the bed. The sound design is brilliant, especially during the moments that Henry is alone and contemplating suicide while staring at the radiator. The industrial setting and sounds in spite of the complete lack of other people captures the feelings of isolation and depression perfectly.

I can't sing enough praise for this film. It is Lynch's best work by far before his films devolved into masturbatory wankery from a man who grew to love the smell of his own farts. It's better than any of his previous short films as well. I could discuss this film forever. It's not exactly my favorite but it's one of the few that I can revisit time and time again like an old friend who's always there for you.

I think this is one of Lynch's more bearable films. I honestly hate the guy, I find him pointlessly pretentious for our times. Also, no matter what people say here, Inland Empire is shit.

I can see this with regard to Eraserhead but that's not the feeling that I get from his other work. Eraserhead is certainly like a painting but his other shit just seems to be the product of his shitty dreams. His first major work was such a huge success that he think it gave him the artistic license to trick people into watching the stupid shit that he sees when he goes to sleep. Everyone has weird dreams with surreal, inexplicable bits. I deal with that enough every night as it is but I'm not sure why he thinks that anyone would want to see his self-important garbage.

Great post.

Eraserhead is one of few films that I'd call beautiful.

Don't really see how that applies to his films to be honest, regardless of his "normal" films which I've never watched beside Elephant Man.

Henry pretty much deified his neighbor lady. She was supposed to be beautiful and represent and escape from his miserable shithead of a wife. The part where she's necking with some dirty John is supposed to reveal that she's not perfect after all. She's just a cheap floozy but she also sees Henry's shame and his single father status, which is represented by her seeing the baby's head where his should be.

The girl with the weird cheeks is just supposed to be slightly unsettling. She has that cute, angelic appearance on one hand but on the other hand, something is just off about her, which is conveyed through her slight deformity. She represents death/suicide. In that way, she actually is sort of an angel.

The symbolism was actually mostly straightforward in this film, and I say this as somebody who never understands symbolism or poetry. Of course you can take from it what you wish but it's really easy to understand what Lynch was trying to express in this film. It's basically just that he had a child when he wasn't ready and he was forced into marriage because of it. His living conditions were terrible since he was still a struggling film student and he had severe depression.

the lady in the other apartment is so fucking scary

The Elephant Man is the most bearable, which is quite ironic because the whole movie is about a horribly disfigured guy on screen the whole time.

Also, Lynch is the exact opposite of pretentious.
People who pretend they know everything about the narratives in his films are "pretentious"

I think that it's fair to say that his films after Eraserhead are pretty pretentious. It started to seem like he was creating films that only he could possibly enjoy or find relevant to something in his life. Of course no filmmaker has an obligation towards anyone else but if you're releasing films to the public, then it helps if there are some universal themes or at least a few elements to which some small group of people can relate.

Eraserhead does a good job at conveying a feeling. His other films are totally disjointed just like a series of random, vaguely related dreams that you might have over the course of a night. It would be fine if he made a film like that once or twice but he just kept doing it over and over, and he did a shitty job at it. I can't believe I'm saying this but when it comes to showcasing your stupid dreams for all the world to see, even David Firth did a better job at this with his early, shitty flash animations because he actually worked some kind of theme into them.

What you are describing does not fall under the definition of pretentious.

Also all of his other films do a pretty damn good job of conveying a certain feeling, just happens that the feeling is not based on a linear logical narrative structure.

>we are not even arguing about Lynch's movies anymore instead we argue about whether the love or hate for his movies is justified
I think we're too deep in the Lynch-hole.

It's legitimately a perfect film

That scene's only purpose is comedy

>Eraserhead's lack of unity and clarity of story

Since it sounds like you didn't actually watch the film, I'll be happy to let you know that it has a definitive beginning, middle, and end.

Well it's better than just throwing buzzwords at each other like in 90% of other threads I guess