Eraserhead Opinions

Back to the larger discussion of how we take meaning from films: the main problem with that, as I see it, is that people tend to take away messages that conform to what they already believe. Thus, the more subjective you decide the messaging is, the more license you give yourself to read into it whatever you like, and the less it can surprise you. And to be surprised and even contradicted by a piece of art seems much more enriching to me than simply having it confirm everything you already believed.

There are levels of nuance here, of course; I can greatly enjoy a film that tells me things I believe, but it's most potent and powerful when it does so in some new way I hadn't considered. That, to me, is the real value of almost all art: the Other. The thing apart from ourselves. And I think the degree to which we dull the edges of a film's message and exalt our own interpretation of it is the degree to which we lose that.

I'm an American, born and raised, so I'm not assuming a superior position. However, I've found that European and Eastern cinema tends not to explain everything as readily as American films do, and rely more on the intelligence of the viewer. I'm not saying these are absolutes, it's merely an anecdotal observation, take that however you will.Please don't misrepresent my post, I never said it was. However there is certainly room for films that don't follow narratives that audiences have come to expect.I do believe all things should be open to criticism, however I don't like it when people speak in absolutes like "this means nothing" or "The director said this therefore that's what this means." I understand that some might view a film and find little of value, but everyone has a different perspective, and there is no definitive interpretation or judgement of art.

Yeah, you're definitely playing with stereotypes there.I don't judge someone's opinion, I judge how they support and defend that opinion, as well as how they present it. Also, your accusation that I am stereotyping is way off-base. So I'll give you a new deal, you don't condescend to me like a parent would a child, and refrain from using straw men and godawful analogies in your responses, and I won't assume that you're just an overly defensive plebeian. Deal?

I think they tend to rely more on viewer participation, but not necessarily intelligence, and I think that word choice is where the observation becomes qualitative. And a qualitative observation is otherwise known as a judgment.

Whether or not movies are improved by requiring participation depends on many factors. But there are obviously limits to the idea, which is why no Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book has ever been considered great literature. If spoon-fed narratives can be the crutch of some audiences, open-ended meaning can be the crutch of some directors.

Well, let's go through what you said. You said "many people, particularly Americans" are used to being "spoon-fed their movies." You also suggested that Lynch's films don't always have (or have to have) "typical thematic rules and storytelling logic." And I'm saying that wanting those things in a film is not asking to be "spoon-fed." There's a vast amount of daylight between those two ideas. There are any number of brilliant, subtle, challenging, open-ended stories that do not abandon these general rules of storytelling. I'm responding to what I see as a false dichotomy.

You're quite right to say there's room for these kinds of films. But that's pretty different from saying that the alternative is wanting to have things spoon-fed to you. It does not follow that believing stories should have structure also means you don't want to be challenged, as a viewer.

It depends on how they define meaning, doesn't it? If you can simply decide what a film means, to you, I wonder why someone can't decide what constitutes meaning, for them. You seem flexible on the former and rigid on the latter. If everyone gets to decide what a film means, why can't they decide it means nothing?

Yup. So, can you explain the difference between the stereotypes I'm trading in, and the "trends" and "anecdotal observations" that you are? Because that seems like a nicer way to describe the same thing.

"I think many people, Americans in particular..."

I don't know what you think a stereotype is, but generalizing negatively about a group of people based on nationality really seems like it ought to qualify.

I think you're missing the point. I didn't say that because I think it describes you (I don't know you well enough to say). I said it because it's the flip side of what you said. It is no more condescending and no more (or less) rooted in anecdotal evidence than your generalizations. If you find it condescending, well, I do too. That's the point.

And, as far as I can tell, the analogy's fine; you're disputing the premise it's based on, not the structure.

Oh, and welcome to Movie Forums.

Fair enough.Perhaps, but I don't think this is the case with Lynch.Yes it is. Expecting every movie to follow the same logical, linear course is nothing if not narrow-minded. It's fine to have preferences, sure, but it's not fine to dismiss movies simply because they don't fit your limited scope of what a film should be. I can't respect that, sorry. I never said the two were mutually exclusive, this false dichotomy you seem to think I believe does not exist. The primary point of my post was to address something that irritates me, how people see no meaning in a film and therefore assume it cannot be there. After all, if it doesn't make sense to me (and I'm the smartest being in the universe) it must be void of meaning. I come across this quite often.I never said his films don't have structure, they do. They simply use a vastly different structure than the majority of films use, and if not fitting into the common mold makes someone despise it, then yes, I would imagine this is the kind of individual who doesn't want to be challenged.Because anything can have meaning if looked through a certain perspective, intentional or not. Even things that have no artist which made them, like the natural world, can have meaning. To avoid trying to find meaning in things seems like analytical laziness to me. Which is fine, as long you don't go around spouting how "meaningless" something is. In particular, when there are entire websites devoted to ideas and analyses about the film someone apparently finds "meaningless," it comes off as silly and even intellectually adversarial. I'm sure this isn't always the case, but it's the impression I get from some. Just my two cents.
No difference, only that you seem to think I believe that what I say is the absolute truth, which I certainly don't. That's why I use phrases like "I think," "seem to," "anecdotal" and "observations."


Everyone generalizes, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. It's when you can't critically look at your generalizations and understand that's in fact what they are that you should be worried. Of course I made generalizations, you don't need to point out the obvious. Furthermore, stereotypes are heldbeliefs about groups of individuals, not the same as generalizations. Stating that I've noticed that many [insert group here] tend to [insert here] is not a stereotype. It's not a firm statement, therefore it is not a belief, therefore it is not a stereotype.Thank you.

i also think it's fair to say that literature wouldn't ever be considered great if it was a choose-your-own adventure, because the only thing that makes literature great is how it's written; whereas, with movies, it's not just about a storyline. so it's kind of an unfair analogy

__________________
letterboxd

I felt that Eraserhead was a ode to the mental state where you feel like you're no longer actively participating in the world around you, but rather going through the motions of life. The entire world seemed void of emotion, and was dull and monotonous..

i'm sorry i had to.

I'd want to be alive too, if I was in a film that had no real life..

Well, let's go beyond binary. If forced to choose between "Is surrealism a crutch for David Lynch, yes or no?" I'd pick "no." But if it were a sliding scale, I probably wouldn't put it at 0. Honest question: would you?

I don't really respect it, either (inasmuch as it actually exists). But I'm making a distinction between whether or not something is open-minded and whether or not it's indicative of wanting to be spoon-fed. Skipping a quote to go right to one related to this:

By "structure" I mean the "typical thematic rules and storytelling logic" you mentioned. But what I'm getting at is that disliking films that stray from this is not the same as not wanting to be challenged. I'm not saying you can't criticize these people--I'm saying I think the criticism itself is the wrong one. By all means, argue that they're wrong, or narrow-minded. But that's different than making insinuations about their intelligence, or curiosity, or desire to be challenged.

Frankly, couldn't you make a case the other way? A film that has no correct interpretation isn't challenging, because there's no possibility of getting it wrong. To be a challenge implies the possibility of failure, which doesn't exist if any interpretation is as valid as any other.

I'm only operating under the assumption that you think what you're saying is true. Not that you think it's an undeniable, metaphysical truth. If you're open to changing your mind, that's great. I think more of you for it. But I don't think I've said anything that assumes otherwise.

Anyway, taking these two quotes together: is there any reason for designating your opinion as just an opinion, but theirs as "spouting off"? It seems to me quite easy to take our own opinions as nuanced and thought out because we're privy to all that went into them; but all other people hear are the conclusions, which sound a lot starker. In another thread earlier today you spoke quite starkly about Christopher Nolan. Should I take your criticism of Inception to mean, as you say about these other people, that your interpretation "must" be the right one, because you're so smart? Or that another point of view can't be valid? I think it's a stretch to read so many personal failings into an opinion, even if I thought it completely wrong.

When someone says a film is "meaningless," I don't see any reason to read into that that they're saying it's impossible to find meaning. The question is: is something meaningful just because you were able to find something in it?

I'd say no, for the reasons you've already mentioned; everything can have meaning if you want it to. But if everything can have meaning, then the word "meaningful" doesn't distinguish one thing from the next. I take it to be understood that to call something "meaningful" is to suggest a meaningfulness above and beyond whatever meaning can be found in everything else. Lots of words--beautiful, delicious, important--imply this sort of relative comparison.

So when someone says a film is "meaningless," aren't they just saying they have a different definition of the word "meaning" than you do? And if so, is there any point in disagreeing with them, seeing as how disagreement would imply a common definition of the word?

This is all technically true, I admit. But then, this would also let all sorts of bigots (no, I'm definitely not calling you a bigot) off the hook, too. It's easy to change this into "I've noticed that many <members of racial group> can be seen doing <bad thing>." Technically, just an observation, but the fact that they felt the need to voice it is usually considered ipso fact proof that they believe in the associated stereotype.

Incidentally, if you like discussions like this--even when combative--it's a pretty good indication that you'll like it here in general. And if not, not.

Well, couldn't it still be written well, independent of the whole "Turn to Page 36 to Fight the Dragon" deal? Movies are more than storyline, but so are books. They're about the beauty of the prose, too, which theoretically shouldn't be affected by things like structure. If I'm understanding you correctly, that is.

I trust David Lynch as an artist. That's what it comes down to. I trust his reasons for the material he presents and the ways he presents it. I don't think he uses a crutch at all. He just has his interests as an artist, his preferred methods, and it's not even about being surreal for surrealness's sake. He's shown he can perfectly well employ a relatively straighter narrative style with greater surface consistency, if he pleases.

And while we're on that note, most films use forms of shorthand involving linearity/compression of ideas to cater to viewers or toy with their culturally reinforced representational templates. Tarantino does it all the time.

I very strongly doubt many movies get made that are intentionally meaningless. The nature of art itself is manipulating forms to produce significance. The fundamental artist/audience structure necessitates some sort of transmission will take place. So even in the act of producing a "meaningless" film, a statement is being made.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Also, I think there's a world of difference between being obscure and being nonsensical. Lynch's films to me seem to usually be about how minds function to obscure reality by reducing its fearsome complexity to bite-size chunks, and the quandaries that emerge from mapping & modelling information flows from the inside-out using egoistic tools that are innately corrupted by the hungers and aversions of the self.

Lynch really likes quinoa and all the deep meaning he derives from it.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Totally agree. Lynch is one of my four or five favorite filmmakers and I usually can find something to take out of his work, including Eraserhead. With something like The Elephant Man or Lost Highway (the only two films of his I'd rank below Eraserhead), the message strikes me as a bit less profound, but it's still there.

I think my favorite thing about Lynch, above all, is his unique ability to blend beauty with darkness. I can't name another filmmaker who juxtaposes the two so brilliantly. The only films of his I haven't seen are Dune and The Straight Story.

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

To put it simply, his films usually seem to me more about how human beings deal with life mentally, not so much about the exterior events themselves.

Oh, and I LOVE choose-your-own-adventures.

That's an interesting point. It's most apparent in the 'dream logic' trilogy of Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, and Inland Empire- the narrative of those films are all internalizations of the subconscious in different ways. But I think your statement could definitely apply to Eraserhead, Twin Peaks, and even Blue Velvet. Jeffrey Beaumont's internal conflict in that last film is, to me, at least as interesting as his conflict with Frank Booth.

I personally think Lost Highway is great, a personal fave of mine. I like it better than Blue Velvet in fact, which I consider a bit overrated. What did you think of Inland Empire?

Agreed on how even the disturbing stuff appears strangely beautiful. There's a sense of the exotic to the characters and their environments, almost as if we're witnessing rare deep sea creatures.

Yes, what Lynch does for me is objectify the internal states of his characters as persons/places/things unto themselves, which is naturally going to be confusing, especially for viewers accustomed to a strict line being maintained between "the real world" and the psychological landscapes of thoughts & feelings characters experience as their reality.

It's not that it's random or meaningless. I believe the opposite is true: By blurring the line, he presents us with ways to know them more intimately.

I adore Inland Empire. I almost wouldn't mind if he never made another film, because that one is just such a fantastic tribute to his career. It plays out like a greatest hits album.

Blue Velvet narrowly eclipses Mulholland Drive as my favorite Lynch film, but they trade places occasionally. To me, it just barely beats out the latter film as the fullest representation of the whole 'juxtaposition of beauty and darkness' thing I mentioned. I also think it's the definitive portrayal of good vs. evil on screen- internally for Kyle MacLachlan's character, as well as in his battle with Dennis Hopper, who gives perhaps the greatest performance in any David Lynch film.