GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
Cult
Those films with a following all their own.
83

David Lynch
Topic by: Eoliano
Posted: January 18, 2003 - 6:40 PM PST
Last Reply: October 5, 2006 - 9:02 AM PDT

page  1  2  3  4      prev | next
author topic: David Lynch
underdog
post #61  on January 18, 2006 - 12:02 PM PST  
> On January 11, 2006 - 3:40 PM PST Eoliano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > My head hurts...
>
> Mine too... good thing I still remember my mantra!
> ---------------------------------

Hah - a reference to Jeff Goldblum's famous quickie cameo in Annie Hall?
woozy
post #62  on January 18, 2006 - 12:02 PM PST  

> > My head hurts...
>
> Mine too...

Sorry. Didn't mean to 'cause any pain. I think MD may have been my first (other than Elephant Man) Lynch film and I was told it would be confusing and involved a scene where the characters get transported to another world. I guess I approached it with a sci-fi, mystery, alternative universe, time-travel, it was all a dream, frame of mind.

If the "correct" approach is a reality-is-flexible-and-ethereal-as-dreams one, then I don't think that there needs to be anything to "get". Anything can be put on film and plausibility and laws of physics and continuity need not apply and what you see is what it is.
Eoliano
post #63  on January 18, 2006 - 1:39 PM PST  
> Hah - a reference to Jeff Goldblum's famous quickie cameo in Annie Hall?

Well, no, it was just a reference to Lynch's advocacy of Transcendental Meditation.
woozy
post #64  on January 18, 2006 - 1:49 PM PST  
> On January 18, 2006 - 1:39 PM PST Eoliano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > Hah - a reference to Jeff Goldblum's famous quickie cameo in Annie Hall?
>
> Well, no, it was just a reference to Lynch's advocacy of Transcendental Meditation.
> ---------------------------------

It wasn't both?

Eoliano
post #65  on January 18, 2006 - 4:43 PM PST  
> > > Hah - a reference to Jeff Goldblum's famous quickie cameo in Annie Hall?

> > Well, no, it was just a reference to Lynch's advocacy of Transcendental Meditation.

> It wasn't both?

No. Credit underdog for making the Annie Hall/Jeff Goldblum connection, albeit, channeled subliminally. ; - )
woozy
post #66  on January 18, 2006 - 8:16 PM PST  
> No. Credit underdog for making the Annie Hall/Jeff Goldblum connection, albeit, channeled subliminally. ; - )
> ---------------------------------

Now if we can just get Woody Allen and John Lynch to team up and make a movie together.

vexkitten
post #67  on January 26, 2006 - 5:47 PM PST  
> On January 18, 2006 - 12:02 PM PST woozy wrote:
> ---------------------------------
>
> > > My head hurts...
> >
> > Mine too...
>
> Sorry. Didn't mean to 'cause any pain. I think MD may have been my first (other than Elephant Man) Lynch film
> ---------------------------------

Wow. When did you get out of the joint?
Eoliano
post #68  on January 26, 2006 - 6:27 PM PST  
New print of Blue Velvet coming to Film Forum March 3 - 16
woozy
post #69  on January 26, 2006 - 7:49 PM PST  
--------------------
>
> Wow. When did you get out of the joint?
> ---------------------------------

Well, according to my critics my nose is always out of joint.

sbarritz
post #70  on March 24, 2006 - 6:42 PM PST  
Relating to Fire Walk With Me, on Wikipedia, it says:

Lynch filmed a vast amount of footage, reportedly enough for a four-hour film; much of it never made the final cut (which was still longer than two hours). The missing footage remains the 'Holy Grail' for many Twin Peaks fans. The footage nearly appeared on New Line's Special Edition DVD in 2002 but was nixed over budget and running time concerns. In 2002 a French company called MK2 began negotiations with Lynch to include the missing scenes, properly edited and scored, in an upcoming Special Edition DVD. This has yet to appear.

Eoliano
post #71  on March 24, 2006 - 8:13 PM PST  
New Hope for Fire Walk With Me
woozy
post #72  on April 30, 2006 - 2:23 PM PDT  
> On January 9, 2006 - 7:57 AM PST Shaky wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On January 7, 2006 - 9:40 AM PST woozy wrote:
> > I thought Mullholland drive was "easy" (I mean both stories were linear and well seperated) but "Lost Highway" was "hard".
> > ---------------------------------
>
> I had the exact opposite reaction.
>
> I have written this before, but I'll repeat: Every Lynch film has a "key."

I just saw Eraserhead for the first time on Friday night and I'd be curious to hear Shaky's interpretation of it.

I don't disagree with Shaky's interpretation of Lynch's stories having a character "key" but I'm not convinced that it is a hard and fast rule.

Eraserhead is definately the most surreal (or would "alien" be a better word for it; i.e. it's a story set in a world that just *can't* be "real") of all Lynch films. I believe it to be dream (not "dream-like" as Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive has bee described but an honest to goodness dream as in the visions one has in ones head when one is asleep and unconcious). [actually I don't believe it to be a dream but a story in which dream rules may apply but the the difference is too subtle for me to want to go into.] but I'm not sure the retro-analysis to go backwards to deduce the waking reality is nescessary or even possible.

(Come to think of it, although I think "retro-analysis" was nescessarily in Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive, and helpful in Twin Peaks: Firewalk, I guess it wasn't nescessary in Blue Velvet either. I'd be interested in Shaky's interpretation of Blue Velvet as well.)

Hmm, got so far without a spoiler warning. Now **SPOILER**:

To what extent do you think we can retro-analize the "real" Henry Spencer (or if not him, whom)? I kind of want play with the idea that he killed his wife and baby and is executed (via electric chair) at the end but if I'm going to be that literal and concrete I have to face that no-one is electricuted while one is asleep.

Other possibilities are she had an abortion, didn't have an abortion, had a baby, didn't get pregnant, he had a vasectomy, or he's just having an anxiety dream.

I'm a bit more lost on this one than the others. I frequently have dreams of unformed helpless things I can't love that are determined to weaken and nearly die on me (which would be a relief as their existance is just plain creepy and entrapping) but I convince myself they are okay. But I'm a bit lost on the fuzzier edges. The man in the planet boiling the "worm"; what's that about? Seemed to me like taking a hermunculus or soul from Henry and boiling it away and destroying it. But the "worm"'s resemblance to the baby is too clear, so the menace and creepiness of such an act doesn't fit with my feeling that the baby is an unlovable nuisance that just comes into Henry's life as an inevetiable entrapment. (I also have dreams where failed outputs are pretty much all I can expect.) Other people have interpretted that opening scenes in bizaarly diametrically opposed ways than I have. One person thought the man in the planet was God and Henry was confessing sin and he was being cleansed. Another thought it was Henry's birth. But I can't help but think those are bizarrely optimistic interpretations to what I have to think is a menacing and disturbing and terrifying event. Perhaps tossing the worm in boiling water is creating the baby but it seems much more a destructive act to me.

It's interesting to see the birth of devices Lynch will use later such as the mail with evidence. The box or cabinet in which keys are hidden. I usually interpret the recieving of the key (in this case the little worm or claw) and stashing it as an inability for the main character to continue to hide from and continue to forget the "real" event that made him create the "fantasy" world which is the film world we are watching. But in this case I'm not sure what the real world is. If I interpret this as a film about the anxiety and entrapment of sex the is no "real" event Henry is hiding, and even if I take my fanciful "he killed his wife and baby" interpretation the clue of a worm seems to be more a reminder that he had sex and feels more guilty for the sex than the killing.

Perhaps the abortion is the best interpretation. He never wanted the baby and he may or may not feel guilty for having it aborted but he feels dirty for sex and the fact that it has consequences at all. The mail is not only a reminder that the damned baby is dead and he can get on but also that he did something to put him in this state so he feels self-stuck.

woozy
post #73  on May 1, 2006 - 12:50 AM PDT  
Hmm... just rewatched Eraser head. I have about 25 equally plausible ideas.

But I'm confused about the credits which list the following roles which so far as I can tell didn't occur in the film: Landlady, Little Girl, Little Boy, People digging in the Alley. That is assuming the the people violently fighting in the alley were were "man fighting" and "man with cigar". If they were that contradicts my theory 13 1/2 that he is remembering murdering his wife and burying her in the alley. If the two people fighting were the "people digging in the alley" then who is "man fighting" and "Man with cigar" (or "Mr. Roundheels"). Or do I still have prospagnosia and one of the women in the hallway wasn't the Julia Roberts on a bad day look alike but a different actress altogether and supposed to be the landlady? (I'm exagerationg about the prospagnosia. If one of the women in the hallway, maybe the quick shot when his wife leaves or the last woman with the slimy boyfriend, *were* a different actress I honestly wouldn't have any way of knowing that. BTW, In lost highway it was only the second time I saw it after reading the blurb and double checking the credits that I realized Whatserface Arquette played two characters and even then while watching I had to take the blurb's word for it. I had no way to verify or to deny for myself that they were or were not the same actress.)

Bizaar theory #7.314, the woman in the radiator with chipmonk cheeks, is a reminder that Henry is sterile from having mumps as a child and the baby isn't his. BT #13*square root(pi), the baby is Henry's penis. He gets syphallis from the pretty girl next door. He can't escape remembering his humiliation from his first sexual experience when he climaxed to soon, broke the condom (or rubber as they call both condoms and erasers in Philadelphia) and impregnanted Mary who had a terrible time. He ends the movie by castrating himself.

Not so bizaare theories #23: His wife goes to the bathroom we hear a bang. She killed her self and Henry deludes himself into believing she went back to her parents. Theory #14: The woman in the radiator in the back of his mind is his nagging doubt that he's utterly miserable. He enters the apartment when Mary is feeding the baby and he has a smile as though he is glad to come home to his loving wife and kids but its obviously forced and we never get any shot of him and Mary or the baby in the same frame to varify Smiling Henry and angry Mary/Monster baby simultaneously exist until after he sees the woman in the radiator and then Henry looks miserable. She urges him to face the fact that he hates the baby (although for a moment he almost cared about nursing it back to health) and resents Mary who in his mind trapped him into having the baby in the first place has abandonned him to take care of the beast which he feels he really had nothing to do with. Maybe she (the radiator chipmonk woman) made him start to doubt his parentage.

But I guess I'm really thrown for a loop by the man in the planet who just doesn't seem to fit.
Gradalis
post #74  on May 3, 2006 - 2:20 PM PDT  
I apologize in advance if the following words do any harm to anyone's enjoyment of Eraserhead. I recall reading an article when I was in high school (in other words, a bit less than two decades ago) that was an interview with Lynch and a complete dissection of the film. This was back in the days when the iconoclastic writer/director would make some efforts to explain himself. He has sensibly refused to do that in recent years.

Regardless, I clearly remember -- and I am not making this up -- that Henry's baby isn't much of a child at all. It's a penis. A living, breathing monster, but a penis none-the-less. The sequence at the end [beware the spoiler ahead...] is something of a castration ritual. Ever wonder about the Lady in the Radiator and her unusually bulbous cheeks? Testicles.

Of course, my memory of these details might be entirely incorrect. Unfortunately, I no longer have the magazine where this article appeared.
Gradalis
post #75  on May 3, 2006 - 2:22 PM PDT  
...which only supports Bizaar theory #7.314 above: "the baby is Henry's penis... He ends the movie by castrating himself."
woozy
post #76  on May 3, 2006 - 5:21 PM PDT  
> On May 3, 2006 - 2:22 PM PDT Gradalis wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> ...which only supports Bizaar theory #7.314 above: "the baby is Henry's penis... He ends the movie by castrating himself."
>
> ---------------------------------

The thing that makes this different from many of the later Lynch films is that each odd thing kind of works on multiple meanings.

He's impotent and the baby is his penis works a lot. But then so does Mary had an abortion but he felt constrained by the fact as though the aborted fetus still lived. As does they did have the baby and he hated it and Henry was disgusted that Mary was infinately fertile. As does he thinks the baby isn't his.

woozy
post #77  on May 4, 2006 - 4:35 PM PDT  
Well This page says "Eraserhead is a nightmare vision of a world where men control all aspects of reproduction, turning sex into a mechanised process. The result is a world of industrial decay where life is more morbid than death itself. The infamous baby in Eraserhead is not naturally conceived but created by The Man on the Planet (Jack Fisk), a deformed monster who unnaturally creates life by pulling levers. Without love, life is an artificially created abomination.

"At the centre of this mechanical world is Henry (Jack Nance), one of Lynch's many alter egos, who is a mixture of innocence and dark desires. Henry is forced to look after his deformed baby who constantly traps and enslaves him in the automated world of death-like existence. In this world, the baby, resembling an overgrown penis, both represents male sexuality and symbolises Henry's own sexuality. Similar to uncontrollable sexual urges, the baby-penis constantly demands attention from Henry who becomes its slave. Henry realises that he must kill the baby-penis in an act of self-castration to rid himself of his loathed sexuality. The baby-penis is the centre of the world created by unnatural sexuality, hence its destruction obliterates the world of Eraserhead. (2)"

which makes a lot of sense (but doesn't really fit Shaky's "key" method). The "(2)" is a reference to a 1985 Film Quarterly article:Godwin, K. George, "Eraserhead", Film Quarterly, 39, 1, Fall, 1985, pp. 37-43

DLeonard
post #78  on September 7, 2006 - 6:06 PM PDT  
Hey, Inland Empire just played at the Venice film fest. Or was it Toronto?

Anyway, looks like Lynch has got another head scratcher for us.
Cinenaut
post #79  on October 5, 2006 - 9:02 AM PDT  
> On September 7, 2006 - 6:06 PM PDT DLeonard wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Hey, Inland Empire just played at the Venice film fest. Or was it Toronto?
>
> Anyway, looks like Lynch has got another head scratcher for us.
> ---------------------------------

David Lynch Returns: Expect Moody Conditions, With Surreal Gusts




If you don't feel like registering for NYTimes.com, there's always bugmenot.com.

page  1  2  3  4      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.