OT: Questions about Eisenstein and David Lynch

[Kevin Loy]

Hey everyone,

I know this is off-topic and pretty unrelated, but the recent DVD reissue of Eraserhead (well, wide-spread reissue) hit shelves last week. I've seen very little of David Lynch's work, though I have to admit that Eraserhead sounds pretty fascinating...but a fascinating concept doesn't necessarily make for an enjoyable film. Has anyone out there seen it, and if so, could you offer some constructive criticism about it that might give me a bit more guidance than the typical online fodder? (most of which revolves around "this film sucks and is the worst movie that I have ever seen" or "this is an incredible film"....which says absolutely nothing about the film in either case)

On a completely unrelated note, I've read a bit about Sergei Eisenstein that has me interested in checking out some of his work as well. Does anybody out there have any general thoughts and recommendations in this regard as well?

Thanks in advance.

[Terry]

Eraserhead is technically a superb example of Lynch's considerable craft, but the film features such a horrifically graphic infanticide that I was psychotically depressed for three straight days the first time I saw it and at this point in my life will never see it again. Lynch is a deeply disturbed man. I praise his talent but have no stomach for his psychoses. Proceed at your own risk.

His talents are equally well served in The Elephant Man and The Straight Story. Either of those I would see again. Blue Velvet walks a fine line between what I will and will not see, but at least Kyle MacLachlan gives me someone to root for, and I can laugh at Dennis Hopper's atrocious behaviour.

Lynch is too rough for me. I used to be a fan but just can't enjoy him anymore.

[Roger Ryan]

Like Welles's, I adore Lynch's work for its originality. His is a one-of-a-kind vision. Now it's true that the majority of his films can be deeply unsettling (frightening because of the unexpected and unflinching look of human depravity and depression) while some of his work ("The Elephant Man" and "The Straight Story") is surprisingly emotional. It is perhaps best to approach Lynch's films with a sense of adventurous humor. If you find yourself laughing at Welles' "The Trial" or "The Lady From Shanghai", then you could very well find the humor in films like "Blue Velvet" and "Wild At Heart". As Lynch's debut feature, "Eraserhead" remains his most abstract work (although the feature "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" comes close). Most viewers comment on the hellish nightmare it seems to represent, but I've always seen it as a satire. The fears that inform the film are universal: fears of alienation, of commitment, of parenthood. Lynch plays on these fears in a surrealistic deadpan fashion that was startling unique in 1977 and has only become familiar through imitation (and the director's subsequent films). The character of Henry Spencer is the Kafka everyman who is overcome by situations out of his control that he is not emotionally equipped to deal with. The horror hits home because it is about anxieties we can all relate to; the humor is there in the cockeyed absurdity of the film's execution. Since I share a penchant for dark humor, I don't see Lynch as a disturbed individual (or, at least, not any more disturbed than the average human trying to come to terms with a fallen world). At the same time, if you have never seen a Lynch movie, please start with something like "The Elephant Man" or the original "Twin Peaks" TV series. From there, move to the masterpieces "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive". After that, "Eraserhead" might be more rewarding once you know the language.

As for Eisenstein: although rather dry, he was a master of composition and editing. His "Battleship Potemkin" (1926) is the one to check out. There are moments in there that are startling unique and still seemingly ahead of the curve of modern film editing.

[Terry]

I liked Mulholland Drive up until they found the blue box - after which David Lynch seemed to forget who the characters were and what the story was about. He did the same thing in Lost Highway, which a friend of mine rightfully labelled 'Lost Plot.'

I also have some fondness for Dune, which certainly has its moments (both sublime and pretty bad.)

Lynch's cameos in Twin Peaks are pretty hilarious. He's utterly wonderful. However, once I knew who it was who had killed Laura Palmer I never cared about watching any of it again - not because of revulsion, but more because the entire series was built upon the premise "there's something behind the door," and once that door had been opened all the mystery was lost as far as repeat viewings are concerned.

Laugh at Eraserhead? Well, some nervous laughs at the beginning, but my humour isn't dark enough to have taken me very far.

Jack Nance is wonderful as Henry. He appears in many of Lynch's films. And Kyle MacLachlan is wonderful as Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Dale Cooper.

Lynch's other TV series, On the Air, is sort of interesting, if you can find it. It was supposed to be a comedy. Maybe Lynch thought it was funny, but I was only puzzled.

His student films are interesting as well - things like The Alphabet and The Grandmother.

He's some sort of sick genius.

[Roger Ryan]

I liked Mulholland Drive up until they found the blue box - after which David Lynch seemed to forget who the characters were and what the story was about. He did the same thing in Lost Highway, which a friend of mine rightfully labelled 'Lost Plot.'

Ah Store Hadji, perhaps you weren't watching close enough! After the blue box is opened in "Mulholland Drive" you are treated to the reality of the story/characters who were disguised in a Hollywood fantasy for the first two-thirds of the film. Once you break the code, "Drive" is a very easy film to understand (and appreciate). "Lost Highway" is significantly less so and not a favorite of mine.

[jaime marzol]

ereaserhead is one of the 3 films by lynch that i like. i didn't think ereaserhead was a great film, it will not dazzle you. it's an odd, little, b&w film that is loads of fun to watch if you have a taste for the bizare.

on eisenstein, i liked both ivans, oktober, potemkin, alexander nevski. potemkin is widely considered to be his masterpiece. i liked october better

[Terry]

I watched Mulholland Drive once, and my conclusion was "What the hell was all that about?" Yes, I'll have to try it again and attempt to crack the code.

I haven't seen any Eisenstein in eons, though I'm interested in seeing that reconstructed Que Viva Mexico thing (or whatever it's called.)

What other two do you like, Jaime?

[catbuglah]

Hey Kevin,

* Strike (1925) - Interesting, experimental, dated.

* The Battleship Potemkin (1925) - What Roger said.

* October ( 1927) (aka "Ten Days That Shook The World" - 1928 U.S. title) - Great film - Not as focused as Potemkin, but rich.

* The General Line ( 1929) (aka "Old And New" - 1930 U.S. title) - This one's quite nice - a spunky paesant women takes on the man...

* Que Viva Mexico! (unfinished) (1930-1932) What's there is very rich.

* Bezhin Meadow (unfinished, 1935 – 1937) Haven't seen.

* Alexander Nevsky (1938) - Accessible, fun historical epic - Like the Stranger for Welles IMO.

* Ivan The Terrible, Part I ( 1945)
* Ivan The Terrible, Part II (1946 / 1958) - Great film - Different - slow but dense and rich - Like Chimes for Welles.

[catbuglah]

NO HAY BANDA!

[Glenn Anders]

I agree with catbuglah's last reference to MULHOLLAND DRIVE, which suggests that Hadji look at the movie again. I agree, too, that it is Lynch's masterpiece, up to this point.

As for Lynch's character, you might be interested that I happened to attend a sneak of MULHOLLAND DRIVE about a month before it opened. Naomi Watts, an excited, charming young woman, who was made an international star by her performance in the film, was in attendence. She said that she didn't entirely understand the picture, but she knew that it was an important and different work of Art, and she was genuinely affectionate toward the Lynch she met and worked with. She said that he was a wonderful host, as well as a sensitive director, and that he was deeply into his own music, and that he had made all the beautiful furniture in his home.

You might like to look at the review of MULHOLLAND DRIVE I did for Epinions, the first one posted there, which has been read by over 10,500 people, my most successful review of a single movie, in terms of readership. I might add that a number of reviews posted later there by others are extremely perceptive and even more informative than mine, for they had the advantage of seeing the movie later, some of them many times, after explicators had entered the field. My review is basically a first impression, and aside from a few corrections in usage, remains that, though I added a couple of updates in response to comments.

Here is my URL, from which you may also link the other reviews:

http://www.epinions.com/content_41824587396

BTW, I also like catbuglah's reference to Eisenstein's STRIKE (1925), which is far ahead of its time, a first film stylistically like CITIZEN KANE in its innovations. The picture may be dated in its depiction of evil capitalists and the Russian Imperial factory system, but turn over a global mega-corporation, and you will find the same nest of worms and elementals.

Glenn Anders.

[jaime marzol]

hadji, my other 2 fav lynch films are BLUE VELVET, and WILD AT HEART. did not like the elephant man, did not like mulholland drive, did not like lost highway. however, i might see these films again in a year or 2 and have a different opinion. i didn't like any of welles' films the first time i saw them. none. it was weeks after seeing each of his films the first time that they struck me. now i'm addicted.

i saw BLUE VELVET first run. i went with a date, she fell asleep. i resisted groping at her while she slept and watched the movie. the next day my friend asked me if it was any good. i replied that i didn't know, i was not sure what the hell i saw. a few weeks later i decided that i liked it a lot.

in 1987 or 88, i wrote some scenes for a movie. i was hanging out with the director, and cinematograher. both had done real work. i respected their opinions, and their talent. one night we were talking about films, and when i mentioned blue velvet, i was really surprised that both of them though it was a complete piece of garbage. it really surprised me. i did not understand how these 2 guys especially, could think this excellent film was trash. and especually, since it was the director that turned me on to ereaserhead 2 or 3 years before blue velvet came out. there is no accounting for taste.

[Terry]

Oh what a difference an audience makes...

I saw Wild at Heart during its first run at a Midnight Saturday showing in Boston. The audience roared and laughed and gasped and shrieked and had a great time. It was a very fun showing.

I saw it a week later at an afternoon showing in my Bible-Belt Midwestern Conservative and Constipated hometown. No one laughed. No one reacted in any discernable way. What happens when the audience is dead? The screen is dead too...

(I saw Gilliam's Brothers Grimm here some months ago. Before the film the cinema was running commercials for a local church and for a dentist who said that his faith in Jesus was the most important thing in his life...)

[Glenn Anders]

You are certainly right, Hadji, about an audience making a difference to our personal reactions. True at the Movies, even more so on the Stage. Rather like what kind of music a director selects for a film.

Jaime, as you may well know, "the business" has changed a lot in the last few years. Whether it is the young audience brought up on video games, the political climate, or the pressures of competion in the DVD, Cable and Theater markets, I don't know. Probably all of the above, but if a movie does not have an easy to follow "through line," a predictable "arc," and a commercial "grabber," the few real movie people I know, bottomline folk, often denigrate what they see as an "art film," which will lose money and take up crucial theater space in that constantly closing window time between release and DVD-land.

They often avoid wasting their time seeing such films, certainly FEAR being lured into writing or producing them. That may explain your friends' reactions to BLUE VELVET.

As John Huston said about his films, years ago, almost all of them made money. Some just took a little longer than others. Alas, the suits need the money right away to pay off their creditors.

David Lynch, strangely enough, may fall into Huston's category. But in his own way, Lynch has made his handicap work for him.

Glenn

[catbuglah]

Glenn Anders wrote:

I agree with catbuglah's last reference to MULHOLLAND DRIVE

I saw the movie last year and was left dumfounded. Fortunately, there's quite a bit of material on the net, but that article was the one I was most sympatico with.

I had read your review, which is great, actually more perceptive than the one I had seen on Siskell and Egbert at the time of its release ('we don't know what this is about, but it's one of the best movies of the year') - I believe David Lynch plays a prominent role in that Jimminy ('Gabe Kaplan! That's who I wanted you to be!) Glick movie.

reference to Eisenstein's STRIKE (1925),

It remains a heckuva movie - My video copy even has a Welles quote on the cover - ....Eisenstein was supremely the master of film rhetoric...-

[Terry]

The KINO DVD of Stroheim's Blind Husbands also has a Welles quote on the cover: "A true artist - My God, he had talent!"

And the BBC book The Art of Gormenghast has this 1951 quote from Welles (concerning Mervyn Peake's novel Gormenghast): "It is in every way a remarkable work."