Sunday, May 11, 2008

Obligatory Eraserhead Post

I'm going to agree with the idea that the film plays out like some sort of elaborate nightmare. It's surreal in it's imagery but, like any good nightmare that occurs naturally, it follows some sort of plot even if it doesn't make any sense.

Lynch sets up a world for us that we have to accept right away without explanation. For example, things like the industrial wasteland landscape that we are introduced to at the beginning of the film, or the man with the chemically burned face, describes a world where the human being is not the most important factor. The film doesn't go into why this is or how this society works because, as in a nightmare, the audience is just merely seeing it happen and are meant to accept it as a way of life in this newly adopted reality. Also, the tiny chicken scene just goes without saying.

Really, it's just that the whole movie feels like a bad dream that David Lynch had one night in college. The bottom line is: This shit is scary. It makes us feel uncomfortable but interested. Eraserhead is like a nightmare that you don't want to wake yourself up from.

Postmodernism Generator

During my quest to find a topic, any topic, to cover so I can try and attain the necessary amount of posts, I've come across a device of the internet that just might be the most postmodern thing I've found. What the following link will take you to is a postmodern generator. This is a webpage that will randomly generate quotes from postmodern philosophers and couple them with postmodern ideas whenever you refresh it. The result is an incomprehensible essay due to it's mish-mash nature.

You may not think that this is totally postmodern, but I think it proves that it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong. If the internet is able to bring me nonsensical postmodern essays, I don't know why I should even bother coming up with anything else.

I promise I'll try anyway.
Blog coming at you.

Here's a clip from an episode of Gilmore Girls.



Although I don't think it's been confirmed by the show's creators, the clip looks suspiciously similar to the dinner scene in Eraserhead, including the awkward silences and dialog, the shot of the clock, and the concept of the boyfriend meeting the girlfriend's parents, who want what's best for their daughter. A couple of people agree that it might be a parody of the scene, including this lady (check the third paragraph of the article).

Here's my issue with it. This scene can't measure up to the scene it's based on, and honestly, it's not as funny as the original. Sure, it is funny, but only if you know the show well enough. So what are we supposed to do with a parody based on a more explicit work? Gilmore Girls is, of course, a more family-friendly program than Eraserhead, and therefore, it's not as ironic. A parody of Winnie the Pooh in which Pooh dresses as a dominatrix and Eeyore threatens to kill himself is probably more ironic than a parody of a controversial movie on a not-so-controversial TV show.

There was also a parody of Eraserhead in the first episode of Tiny Toons, where Babs puts an eraser on her head and says, "Look! I'm Eraserhead!" Though I couldn't find a clip of it for you.

What I really wonder is, do you agree that a parody or pastiche is more successful if it's more controversial than the original work, or can it still be as much of a success due to other factors?

Friday, May 9, 2008

in the end, all that matters is that it was.

So, for a film which has a primary message of the loss of all new ideas, it’s funny, almost, that I’ve learned something new because of it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_zcqvDPpzQA

I found this while putting around across the Internet. I saw first the baby and thought it was a fake. In the thumbnail of the video, I was reminded of the baby from “Eraser head.”

The child in the video suffers from a skin disease called harlequin ichthyosis. It was called that because most sufferers of the disease end up with a scaly diamond shaped pattern of abrasion and sores across their body. The resulting impressions are nostalgic of the harlequin-esq carnival costumes.

Now-a-days, it is possible for persons with harlequin to live fuller lives; this, of course if thanks to new technologies. New information that is shared through learned texts of growth and study. In a way, it’s like my experience with the film [Eraserhead]. Even if those ideas that sparked it had already been thought, and expressed before, through objective chance, and a level of Internet-surfing boredom, they still taught me something new; that in itself is worth their continuous expression.

I prefer pens...

The most interesting connection within the dark and nightmarish film “Eraser Head” was the relationship between the title (and correlating scene) and the man who seems to be controlling the world. In reference to literature, the controller it obviously the author. He gave life to everyone, as if they are all characters in his grand narrative.

In the title scene, when Henry’s head is extracted like an aging Swiss cheese, then literally turned into eraser tips for pencils, the author dies, because his character’s mind is wiped clean. With no mind, there is no character. With no character, there is no story. With no story, there is no author—he has no purpose.

Another level to this poor artist’s inescapable demise comes from the characters and the readers in the film co-inhabiting the same plane. They are equals and interact with each other they same way they interact among themselves. If then, a character can rightly be called an “eraser head” then a reader, as an equal can be called the same. As a reader though, the title takes on another meaning.

Readers erase, or forget works of literature. Therefore, reproduced stories are always new when they are read again. This perpetuates the idea that there are no new ideas, and thus, if all ideas are reproductions of potentially pre-read texts, then there is no single author.

In this light, I think this film is balanced somewhere between modernism and postmodernism. The author is fighting his downfall and trying to create something new out of something that is very much like that which is consuming it. [Modernism] At the same time, he fails, and the film is left to a pluralistic audience of viewers. [Postmodernism]

Strip the Soul

A video I remember from high school. This is Porcupine Tree's "Strip the Soul" music video on their enhanced album Absentia from 2002. I think it's appropriate considering that we just saw Eraserhead.


Porcupine Tree - Strip The Soul


This is my home, this is my own, we don't like no strangers
Raise the kids good, beat the kids good and tie them up
Spread it wide, my wife, my life, push the camera deeper
I can use, I abuse, my muse, I made them all

This machine
Is there to please
Strip the soul
Fill the hole
A fire to feed
A belt to bleed
Strip the soul
Kill them all

They are not gone, they are not gone, they are only sleeping
In graves, in ways, in clay, underneath the floor
Building walls, overalls, getting bored, I got faulty wiring
Brick it up now, brick it up now, but keep the bones

(Do you want a western home in the rubble ?)

Eraserhead

Ok, so here's my thoughts on the film. Given the way the movie progresses, even though there is definite abstraction and fragmentation present, it strikes me as being more Modern than Postmodern. Then again, this does also bring into consideration what delineates the Modern from the Postmodern. I think the key with "Eraserhead" is the presence of some sort of overlying narrative. The film seems to have a certain set of goals at its outset, and by the end of the film those goals are met. We meet Henry, we meet Mary, and eventually we meet the Baby. Although we do not ever discover what the baby is, that does not seem to be the major concern. What is concerning the parents more is how to deal with the creature. They try to feed it, they try to nurture it and care for it, but no matter what they do they still do not know what to do with it. It certainly cannot be treated in the same way any normal child could be handled. They can't even seem to name the creature. In the end, though, all is well. Henry removes the bandages and exposes the Baby's heart and stabs it, ending its perplexing existence and conquering it. He then goes on to find some sort of bizarre love with the Lady in the Radiator.

Taking into account the events in the film, it would not qualify as Postmodern since it follows a teleological path. Another thing to consider is how it tries to create a narrative in which the seemingly unconquerable is conquerable. If you consider the Baby as trying to achieve the same sort of symbolism as the Minotaur in House of Leaves, then you can clearly see how differently David Lynch handles the unknown from Mark Danielewski. The Minotaur is not something that can be unravelled and exposed, its heart ready for the taking, but the Baby is clear and in sight, no matter how strange it may be.

And that's that.