Talk:Eraserhead/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fatherhood Reference

"Another definitive influence on the film was the pregnancy of Lynch’s wife. Lynch has described the film as his attempt to deal with the anxieties of first time fatherhood."

Could anyone source this? I have read before that Lynch has heard this, and responded "Everyone has a baby. So why doesn't everyone make Eraserhead?" Unless it is sourced, it is merely interpretation, and should be omitted, or at least put into another section. Desdinova

I've been meaning to bring this up myself. I'm almost certain I've read a quote from him where he addresses that specific question and refuses to confirm or deny or even talk about it at all, but I can't find the quote. I do know that he has with great consistency refused to explain any other aspect of the film, even more than he does with all his other films. In the interview book Lynch on Lynch, he plays mum about whether the film is supposed to be a dream or not, from whose point of view the film is told, and how the baby was made, among other things. Here's the entire quote you mention (or a variation of it), from the same book:

Chris Rodley: Your daughter Jennifer once said in a documentary that a lot had been made of the autobiographical aspect of Eraserhead - of you being the reluctant art school father - and that because she was born with club feet, the baby was inspired by her. That's very literal, isn't it?

Lynch: Sure. Obviously, since a person is alive and they're noticing things around them, ideas are going to come. But that would mean there'd be a hundred million Eraserhead stories out there. Everybody has a kid and they make Eraserhead? It's ridiculous! It's not just that. It's a million other things.

Given his reluctance to analyze his films, I doubt very much that he ever confirmed the interpretation any more than that, and for the same reason I think it's important that the article reflect his desire to let people decide for themselves what the film is about. I vote we put up a cite needed tag, then delete the passage in a couple of weeks if nobody can find anything. The autobiographical interpretation is definitely worth mentioning, however, as long as it's sourced; If anybody knows what that doc is with the Jennifer Lynch quote (Pretty as a Picture, maybe?), it should be included along with Lynch's semi-refutation. MrBook 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Desdinova 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I cut it out (couple of weeks, couple of months, same difference), but I didn't add the Jennifer thing or his response or anything. MrBook 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Netflix

I was a little hesitant to mention the Netflix acquisition of a DVD, because I don't want it to look like an advertisement for Netflix. But this has been a major thorn in the side of US movie collectors for some time now, and I'm sure a lot of readers will be glad to hear it, so I thought it best to err on the side of information. Still, if this is too much of an advertisement, I'm okay with removing the hyperlink and Netflix note. -- Pangloss

Why arent there any mentions of the Symbology of this movie? (E.G.: the worms symbolising sins)

although i am not a fan of Eraserhead, i think there should be a section for discussing the metaphors and the symbolisms (although there are many interpretations, there should be at least 1 attempt of interpretation)

There is certainly more than one copy; I and a friend had a copy from netflix at the same time. There is no point of splitting hairs with numbers. They have copies. Meaning more than one (even if its only two). How trivial an edit. Fuzzform 04:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Symbolism reverts

An anonymous IP removed the section on worms symbolizing sin, etc. I've never seen the film, but I undid the edits, since he was also vandalising George W. Bush at the same time.--Scimitar ^parley 21:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

fanboys dont like to see the premise of the movie broken, wich is that the movie has several interpretations (or that is "hard to understand"). Of course, for encyclopedic purposes, that has the equivalence of unjustified censorhip.

201.215.180.73 seems to be implying (anonymously) that Eraserhead is as lucid as a John Ford movie, and that only "fanboys" consider it "dream-like," or open to multiple interpretations. However, there is a large body of critical literature, and quotes from from Lynch himself to support its "dream-like" nature, and its openness to multiple interpretations. I have just added two sources to the article backing up this position. If 201.215.180.73 thinks, contrary to statements by critics and Lynch himself, that it is not dreamlike and not open to multiple interpretations, he should present reliable sources backing this up. Rizzleboffin 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, its true, to say that its a "difficult movie to understand" is also saying that fans of the movie MUST be intelligent if they are fans of the movie to begin with... and thats just snob there, anyone who sees the movie can pass as a smart guy then (wich is actually quite common for these times). I think that if theres a criticism section about Eraserhead, snobbism would be one of the points there. This is not a fan page, and pages that are about Eraserhead are also extremely biased for the movie, placing it in a pedestal, i saw both pages you placed, its fanboyish pastiche by a number of nobodys plus a quick remark by Charles Bukowsky (bukowsky was the best you could found?, he is just a popular writter more than anything else), the only thing that could be taken into real consideration is the line about Kubrick, but then again he was considered to be a nice man around his peers, he even considered that 1941 was a good movie. I suggest a more down-to-earth article about Eraserhead, cos as it stands, its just too POV.

You seem to have issues, Mr. Anonymous, regarding "fanboys" and "snobs."

I provided a quoted reference from Lynch himself for the "dream-like" description, and a review from DVDVerdict that contained more than one interpretation to support the view that the movie is open to more than one interpretation. (There are quotes from Lynch that indicate the film is open to more than one interpretation also, I could dig one up later.)

Perhaps these weren't the most reliable sources in the world, maybe someone else can provide better back-up, or I can find better ones later. But the movie, in fact, like it or not, has a dream-like quality, and, in fact, like it or not, is open to multiple interpretations. How does stating this in an article on the film make the authors of the article (I had no hand in it, I just provided a couple of sources), "snobs" or "fanboys?"

By the way, for a purported anti-snob, you rather snobbishly slam Bukowsky. Rizzleboffin 23:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Course i have, its anti-culture (fanboys that is), whenever a whole generation gets stuck on 3 or 4 books that everyone is reading, is because theres something deeply wrong there (if we consider that we live in times of huge literacy levels). To me, someone who reads Bukowsky is no different than from someone who reads the DaVinci code, mainly because theres tons of really great books that arent being read because people flock to 1 or 3 books. Same thing could be aplied with Eraserhead?, maybe, i still believe its an assumption to go right ahead and say that "its considered to be a difficult movie to understand", by who?, who has sayd such bold statement?, who has the authority to really have sayd that?. Looking it in another perspective, if we consider that there's not really any source to confirm that, this article is no different than other fanboyish articles out there. I would also like to make a point of how i didnt used a single personal attack here.

Spoiler tags

The spoiler tags are very carefully placed in this article so that no plot details are ruined for viewers who have never seen the film before. It is very important that viewers watching Eraserhead for the first time have no idea what the plot is about, or a very thin idea of what the plot is about. This way, the film is more startling. (Ibaranoff24 18:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

• Please stop moving the spoiler tags. The first spoiler tag should be above the "interpretations" section, as the link given is a spoiler no matter how you slice it. (Ibaranoff24 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

I give readers far more credit than you do. No one is compelled to click on the link. Furthermore, anyone would surmise that the "several interpretations", which are mentioned in the sentence leading to the link, will reveal important information. Anyone who clicks the link knows what they are going to get.

Spoiler tags are for information that is in the body of the article. It is not appropriate to slap spoiler tags willy-nilly throughout the article on the off chance that someone might decide to click on a link.

Also, your notion of how to watch Eraserhead for the first time is just that--YOUR subjective notion. Please consider that other people might see things differently and that you shouldn't take it upon yourself to try to make that decision for them.((Sullenspice 012:17, 22 May 2006)

• Please do not refer to my ideas of where to place a spoiler tag into an article as "inappropriate." (Ibaranoff24 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

bad article

Filled with assumptions and lacking sources. Problem with this article is the movie itself, its a huge cult favorite movie, from which is almost impossible to write any article without a given ammount of fancruft, for example here is a fine example of fancruft: "its surreal imagery, strange soundtrack and its generally dreamlike aura", probably with just Surreal imagery it would had been enough, "strange soundtrack" sounds like something it needs a source and "generally dreamlike aura" is just completely fancruft. Even so for such bold statement, theres always the need of sources, credible sources. The "synopsis" is good, the "filming" section is written poorly and doesnt cite any sources and the "incluence section" is just a carnival of useless trivia and unsourced info.

Added Original Research Tag

This whole section needs redoing. I realise that it is very difficult to summarise, but opinions such as "As a metaphor for sin, their resemblance to sperm cells indicates that the premarital sex that led to the baby was Henry’s first and most troubling sin." shouldn't be in here without sourcing. Desdinova 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the paragraph you cited is problematic and may need to be deleted, the rest of the synopsis is (insofar as is possible for this film) a straightforward recap of the movie. I have added "citation needed" tags to the two sentences in question, but your assertion that the whole synopsis is tainted by original research and needs re-doing is puzzling and demonstrably inaccurate.

Sullenspice 15:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sentences, and therefore the tags. The synopsis as it stands seems to me to be completely devoid of original research. I hope this works for everyone. -- TinaSparkle 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fry and the Radiator Woman

The "radiator woman" that Fry romances at the alien beauty pageant is not a reference to Eraserhead. It is a reference to the fact that Fry made out with a radiator, hoping it was actually an alien beauty. He then requested directions to the nearest burn ward. Later, in the episode "The Sting", the radiator appears at Fry's funeral along with other women he has been with. 71.0.19.25 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation

The section does cite some sources, but the comparisons to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are unattributed (as is the declaration of Lunch's move being "ingenious"). Given the absence of sources I'm tagged the section with {{synthesis}}. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The corrections have been made, but I don't know how to fix the tag. --"original researcher" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.233.130 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lung?

As the baby screams in pain, Henry stabs its lung with the scissors. Is it a lung? Or more importanly - is it original research?. Lugnuts (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Some interpretation removed

For me there is too much speculation put as facts. I just removed a part about the women in tears about the bloody artificial chicken. While it might be mentioned that they actually are artificial chicken (??), the women don't see the blood. It is only in Henry's fiction. She looks at Henry, momentarily sees Henry's head transform into that of the baby, and appears frightened by her vision. Is also wrong in my eyes. Lynch leaves open to the viewer if the baby head is what henry feels like or what ever other interpretation you want to put here. She does not appear frightened in that scene so I would put it this way: She looks at Henry and we momentarily see Henry's head transform into that of the baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.57.82 (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)