Eraserhead Opinions

I recently saw in an interview with David Lynch that nobody has ever come close to his interpretation of Eraserhead (sorry, I lost the video). I've also hear him say that he knew what it was about once he read the Bible. The only problem is, he said it was one specific sentence only that lead to his understanding.

I've always seen Eraserhead as a cautionary tale about sex and industrialization, but what do you guys think? Anybody have some insight on this cryptic and very disturbing work?

__________________
Mubi

To me it's just about parenthood in an unwelcoming environment. I'm fairly sure his bible citing is, much like the "clues" in the Mulholland Dr. booklet, a red herring.

Yeah, to be honest, I don't believe him when he says no one has come close. That seems like exactly the kind of thing he'd say whether it's true or not. It might even be true from his perspective if, say, he makes a point not to talk to people about it or read anyone's opinions. Either that or he's being pedantic and defining understanding in a way that nobody could realistically achieve, anyway.

I LOATHED this movie when I saw it: it turned me immediately off to David Lynch. Then 22 years later, he goes ahead and does The Straight Story, which is one of the most beautiful and poignant films I've seen. Go figure.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

Yeah, haha, that does sound like something Lynch would do. It's hilarious how nobody's had a successful interview with Lynch. Everyone asks him what his movies are about and they get philosophical answers about film as language and understanding.

It's surrealism and I don't thing that there's a lot of meaning in surrealism.So surrealistic films or books have more aesthetic value instead of meaning/message.

I'm not a fan of Eraserhead at all.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Neither am I, but any film that elicits strong feelings in either direction deserves discussion, that's why Bio-dome is the greatest movie of all time, duh.

I'd argue that surreal works don't come from pre-established purpose, but because the source is the subconscious the meaning is greater, albeit harder to comprehend initially, even for the creator. Why would you think there's no meaning in it? I'll grant you that certain works aren't wishing to say anything but there's innumerable ones that do regardless.

Well I obviously love the movie (based on it being in my top 10), but I dont really try to look for a full meaning in any Lynch film. He himself said for Mulhollan Drive that there is no meaning. What makes his movies do great is the intensity, uniqueness, and characters. Just the all round style. The maiming is hardly relevant in them. But as far as if I had to think of anything I think it has to do with the Sextual Revolution. Like the scene of squashing semen, and just looking at the baby in disgust and not in a nurturing way. Also the mom kissing the man in front of his wife. I just think it has to do something with the implications of contraception and openness of sex lives. Maybe...

__________________

It's all about people who live in planets and behind radiators. Also awkward dinner "parties". Beautiful cinematography (in a disgusting way) too.

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

Regardless of what Lynch might say, there is meaning in every work of art. Now whether or not this meaning is intended by the filmmaker is something else entirely, but seeing as how "meaning" is subjective and up to interpretation, every work of art can have a certain meaning for each individual. I choose to analyze Lynch's films because I enjoy doing so, it's fun to come up with theories and interpretations.

That said, my interpretation of Eraserhead, a film I happen to adore (I even have the soundtrack sitting in my car right now) is the horror of unplanned parenthood, and the nightmare of being forced into an unwanted domestic situation.

I went into Eraserhead without any prior knowledge about it. What I got from it was a man who had a morbid outlook on the world and who was afraid of fatherhood so much so that he looked at his child as an alien creature.

At the end, I like to think the killing scene was him actually destroying his view of the child as this alien creature and he came to accept fatherhood which is why he found bliss at the end. I never found the movie disturbing.. maybe it's because my interpretation of the end, I walked away from it feeling kind of warm-hearted actually.

__________________
Let's talk some jive.

I like Eraserhead well enough but not as much as many other Lynch acolytes. To me, it works best as a (very) black comedy about fatherhood.

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

Because I don't see it and when I read reviews of any surreal film,people who liked it usually don't tell what do they think it meant,they just like the way it is made.For instance,the same Eraserhead - I don't think that this movie has any meaning or some message which it sends for the viewers.It's just bizarre,maybe even shocking film.It has something like a theme,characters,some kind of a plot and I think the most important thing in surrealism is how it is presented.But I really don't think that there is such explanation for the film,which would related all scenes and make the movie logical.Other surrealistic short film I've seen is Andalusian Dog which is considered the start of surrealistic cinema and,like Eraserhead,its scenes are related,but I don't think that you could normally explain what does it want to say.This is why I believe that the most important thing in surrealism is aesthetics.

On the other hand,yes,I'm not into surrealistic cinema,so I don't watch it but I've seen some films,read some books and it just tries to show common things in the most bizarre way.

It's not the film's fault that the masses are simply just too indolent to think.

I think many people, Americans in particular, are used to being spoon-fed their movies, with everything explained and tied up with a bow. Just because something doesn't follow typical thematic rules and storytelling logic (surrealism, if you like) doesn't make it meaningless. It's arrogant to believe that simply because you didn't take away anything meaningful from the film that there can't be anything there.

I thought the movie was good, but I enjoyed Mulholland Drive and The Elephant Man much more. Looking forward to seeing more of Lynch.

It IS arrogant; almost as arrogant as assuming a superior position in regards to art based on geographical location.

__________________

Let's not forget the wholesale exaggeration of the opposing position. It's kinda silly to say "just because everything isn't explained and tied up with a bow." That's a wildly disingenuous description. Expecting some kind of narrative coherence is not asking to be spoon fed. That's like saying you don't exercise because you don't feel the need to be a bodybuilder. There are thousands of gradations between the two.

Lynch doesn't just refuse to tie everything up with a bow; sometimes he doesn't even put the thing in a box. Sometimes the thing turns into a unicorn. And that's fine. Heck, maybe it's great. But it's also open to criticism just like any other decision, and it can be criticized without implying vapidity on the part of the person doing the criticism. It can't and shouldn't be handwaved away with baseless assumptions.

If we want to play with stereotypes, sure, it's true that your less sophisticated moviegoers have less tolerance for the surreal and experimental. And it's also true that people who'd like to be thought of as more sophisticated give those things a much wider berth--perhaps wider than is always merited. It may take a sophisticated moviegoer to appreciate something odd. But then, it also takes one to appreciate something just because it's odd.

So here's the deal: if you don't stereotype people who dislike Lynch as uncultured luddites (let alone based on their nationality, of all things), I won't stereotype you as an art house poseur who injects meaning into films that don't have it. Deal?