Eraserhead

I'm always a bit worried when I'm about to express my love towards this movie by the genius director David Lynch... I figure it's the perfect indicator for psychiatrists to claim that you're completely nuts :)

But what the heck, they're a lot of nutballs on this website, so I can speak my mind freely. Indeed, I love this movie...although 'love' may be a wrong term to describe my feelings towards it. This movie 'fascinates' me is a much better saying. Usually, a movie is something in which you can live yourself in...in order to escape the stress of real life. Eraserhead is the exact opposite of that ! When watching this film, you can only hope that you'll never awake in the wold like Lynch shows it here. The horrible noises, the colorless and tasteless locations and the insensible characters...you all hate to love it. Eraserhead takes a walk with your emotions, you don't know whether to be disgusted or intrigued by it. So you'll feel uncomfortable when watching it and that's a wonderful experience for a cinema freak !

Eraserhead is the ultimate cult film in my opinion and a must see for every fan of this delicious genre. In fact, I would go so far to say you can't call yourself a cult-freak if you haven't seen it yet.

David Lynch begins his highly impressive career with this one and it still lives on. Eraserhead isn't his best film at all ( certainly not when it comes to storyline ) but it's his most deep and personal tale. 25 years old and still the "weirdest" film ever. That's an achievement, certainly with all this artistic filmmakers lately...or, at least, they try to be...)

I want to encourage as much people as possible to see this one, but it's for the best that some groups of people avoid it. Surely not recommended if you're depressed or suicidal...The image of Jack Nance and the rest of the cast could even put you more down, I think. The tagline of this movie - "In heaven, everything looks fine" - could become a stimulus, I'm afraid. Pregnant women and young couples in love should beware as well !! This film is the ultimate nightmare for that what should be the greatest miracle of life...The hideous but yet harmless "baby" ( I really don't know how I should call it, actually )is the purest form of horror that ever occurred on the screen.

You must have respect for director David Lynch. If you imagine how hard it must have been to create and finance this production. But it worked...hell, even comedy legend Mel Brooks was deeply impressed. Based on this film, he decided to let Lynch direct "The Elephant Man" a few years later. By that, David's career was launched and of course he made a masterpiece out of it. For me personally, his highlights were the 80's with terrific movies like "Blue Velvet", "Dune" ( very underrated, in my opinion) and "Wild at Heart" at the end of the decade. And let's not forget the best TV-series ever made: "Twin Peaks".

Please, watch this movie !! Three times in a row if possible. I know a lot of people who just stopped watching it after half and hour ( or less ) and yelled "What the f*** is this ???". Real shame, if you ask me. It's an insight to a great mind and a unique event. If you really don't see the magic of it, at least try to admire the very stylish haircut of the main character. I'm thinking of doing the same thing with mine...

I can think of very few films that have sound as their most commendable feature. The Exorcist is one, a film that, aside from infrequent strains of `Tubular Bells', adopts minimal incidental music. This is laudable in a horror genre where shocks are clearly signposted – and predicted – by overgenerous musical stings. The Exorcist may be flawed, but its avoidance of this field cliché is worthy of praise.

Eraserhead is the other film that excels in sound. A frankly disturbing concoction of industrial score and white noise with undercurrents of musical hall and sonorous church organ, it is almost an extra character in the film, and easily it's most prominent factor.

Yet Eraserhead is to be recommended for more than its incidentals. An impenetrable and gloomy work, what is it actually about? Who is the credited `man in the planet' who pulls levers that control giant spermatozoa? Many questions like this permeate a film which perhaps has to be seen several times to get over the initial shock of it's avant gardism. Lynch extracts the everyday and supplants it with the exceptionally bizarre. The experience of meeting a girlfriend's parents for the first time is never worse than here, where the parents in question gyrate spasmodically to the animated legs of a blood-spitting chicken. It's these scenes – along with the deformed mutant baby – that could lend the film the air of an abortion debate. Birth and repressed sexuality thrive throughout the film, from suckling puppies to the seductive appeal of the `beautiful girl across the hall' and a mother-in-law that gets too close for comfort. I guess the entire film could be a man's mental breakdown when faced with the premature responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood. Though to be honest I couldn't even begin to imagine what it's really all about.

Encroaching blackness fills every scene, where lights are intermittent at best, and at worse fail completely. Often sets – particularly the bedroom when `Mary X' is feeding the child – are like prison cells. Two of the most eerie segments involve a title-explaining dream (?) where Henry's (Nance's) head is carved into pencil rubbers and an unsettling musical number from the `lady in the radiator'. This is the same lady with two candyfloss-like lumps on her cheeks that alternates her stage appearances between stamping on giant sperm to singing with religious convictions.

Direction and cinematography are brilliant throughout, though the climax is the ultimate extension of a film that borders on darker, extremely unpleasant aspects of reality. I took a girl to see this film once, where the conclusion formed the final straw in what could be seen as a cycle of repellent imagery. I wonder why I never saw her again?

You need a clear head and focused intent prior to settling down to an abstract and uncoupled vision of a world that's so out of phase with anything you have or will ever come across - wlack & bhite but not monochrome.

I was scanning through the other commentaries on this film and I noticed that most of them used either the word "genius" or the phrase "work of art" in reference to Mr. Lynch's work. If we define genius as an unusually powerful capacity for doing original, inventive work, then we must decide whether or not this film meets that criteria. It is unusual, there's no denying that. If by powerful you mean that it stirs the emotions, and we are discussing a piece of work in an art form and the measurement of whether or not something is a work of art is if it affects the emotions, then yes, it is powerful. Emotions can be affected in a positive or a negative manner by a work of art. The imagery in this film is dark and disturbing. It is an experimental film, which tends to make one think of it as original and inventive. It could easily be said that it is not, in that dark, spooky films about grotesques have been made almost from the beginning of movies. But just because a certain type of film has been made before doesn't detract from the quality of the film under discussion. The real issue here is whether or not Mr. Lynch's work can stand as an organic whole. This is where I think it begins to get into trouble. Mr. Lynch has filled the film with images that probably mean something to him. However he doesn't communicate that meaning to his audience except for an overall feeling of repugnance and dread. If we go back to the concept that a work of art's primary function is to communicate an emotion, that perhaps that is enough. However, a film, and this one is no exception, is a narrative. Narratives are supposed to communicate ideas. They tell stories. This film tells a story, but the characters are doing things, and events are happening that don't make any sense. Mr. Lynch probably knows what's going on but he doesn't share that knowledge with the audience. The film is filled with powerful images but they don't coalesce into a coherent story. There is no why and wherefore. I'm sure many people will say that a work of genius doesn't have to explain itself. It just is. That's a point of view, but most people require some sort of meaning in order to derive enjoyment from a film. Is mood enough of a meaning to make people want to sit through a movie?

What fascinated me throughout the entire movie was how David Lynch built a world that looks like it could be familiar to the audience, but feels like something entirely alien.

This is not my first David Lynch movie, as I watched The Elephant Man some years back, but I remember it being nothing like this in terms of its weirdness.

Definitely looking forward to getting to know more of Lynch's work!