Originally Posted By: Capo de La Cosa Nostra
I meant what did you mean by, "there was actually sense behind this movie" (as opposed to Eraserhead's implied lack of sense). Do you mean you didn't understand Eraserhead's story? Or did you not find "sense" in its events? Or do you think there's a lack of conscious intent behind it, authorially?


Some part of story aren't coherent. For instance, those you mention below are the least part of my concern and actually some points that stand out and are all right in my book.

Quote:
What was so disagreeable about it? The imagery (eg. raw chicken evoking the female torso, blood drippage and all; or the baby)? The action (eg. Mary X having a fit; stirring dinner with the grandmother; Mrs X kissing Henry, evoking incest)? The general aesthetic (the industrial sounds married with overwhelming, bassy drones)? The story (of a man suddenly thrown into the responsibility of fatherhood)? The representation of that story (fatherhood told as an inescapable nightmare)?


But what doesn't go with the rest, is the space man and the last part of the movie. Yes, I think there is no prior and conscious decision as where it goes.

Quote:
But I was just saying, there's little in common between the two films.


Okay, so for the first part the hair stands out. The detached senses of Barton throughout the movie. Sex with the beautiful woman and blood and then "Did you have sexual intercourse?" to the horrified man echoes the same feeling. A detached head perhaps ends up in the box, parallel to the head of Henry and well I suppose that's enough. There, I think that's the similarities I felt in a nutshell.

Quote:
If you didn't understand the literal story, fair enough. It's about a guy who becomes a father due to his own irresponsibility, and how he can't come to terms with the responsibility now required of him as a father.


I suppose this part was pretty obvious. In fact minus the scene with the spaceman, it didn't go that bad till the ending, where it all fell apart badly.

Quote:

If by sense you mean authorial intent, ie. a conscious presence behind the work saying, "I am now doing this because I want to portray that, I will now do this in order to evoke that," etc., I see what you mean. Lynch is very vague and elusive about his own working method.


Yes. He can't pull off a sense for the entire movie. He does random things that baffle the viewer, to somehow gather the story together to no avail.

Quote:
That he referred to his own method as "random"? I'd object both to that and to him for saying it, because it isn't random. The film-making process inherently forbids randomness. More instinctive, more intuitive, sure. But there's a lot more things going on than a mathematical term.


In order for a movie to connect on some level, you need to define what you want to convey. You as a film maker should have a goal. (Or not! What do I care, but then I wouldn't care for what you do either.) I as a viewer, might get there, or have some other perception. But Lynch doesn't seem to have one. And he says he does things as he goes. So there, that's my problem. I'd like to see work of someone who knows what he wants to do before he starts filming.

Quote:
Have you seen The Straight Story? You should like that very much.


No, I've not. I'll keep that in mind, thank you.


"Fire cannot kill a dragon." -Daenerys Targaryen, Game of Thrones