The Criterion Collection

[The Great Owl]

I finished watching the Criterion Blu-ray of David Lynch's Eraserhead, along with the included short films, and I am now going through the extras.

This was my first time seeing Eraserhead, and, like most others viewers seem to be after their own introductions to the film, I'm not quite sure what I have just been through. I have always had a difficult time relating to Lynch's films, with his comparably accessible 1984 version of Dune being the exception, but Eraserhead is a particularly elusive work to pin down.

There's not much of a point to writing one of my customary long-winded User Reviews, because I do not feel like pulling theories out of thin air with respect to the meaning behind this film. It could be Lynch's reaction to adult responsibilities, it could be a meditation of a post-nuclear-apocalypse world where genetic mutations are rampant, it could be an observation about the industrial age, or it could just be a series of oddball vignettes. Personally, I rather like the idea that this could be an explanation of what happens if your girlfriend has an affair with Admiral Ackbar when he stops by Earth on the way to join the rest of the Rebellion in the attack on the second Death Star that orbits the moon of Endor.

I'd say that Eraserhead certainly qualifies as a horror film, especially if one prefers to define horror simply as an emotion and not as a movie genre. It's almost like a tour inside someone's nightmare, in the same way that House (Hausu) is almost like a cinematic interpretation of an incoherent story dictated by a child.

I do not know if I "like" this movie. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this film, although it's pretty safe to say that it's not one of my favorite Criterion titles. I have no real urge to revisit it now, but the urge will probably strike me on occasion in the future. I do not think of this film as a puzzle to be solved, but rather as a collage of insane imagery that caters to a specific mood for eerie and impenetrable cinema.

I would like to have seen one of the 1970s midnight theatrical showings of this film, along with one of the confused audiences.

The short film, The Grandmother, is pretty spooky as well, and, as with Eraserhead, the sound effects go a long way toward inducing shudders.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I finished watching the Criterion Blu-ray of David Lynch's Eraserhead, along with the included short films, and I am now going through the extras.

This was my first time seeing Eraserhead, and, like most others viewers seem to be after their own introductions to the film, I'm not quite sure what I have just been through. I have always had a difficult time relating to Lynch's films, with his comparably accessible 1984 version of Dune being the exception, but Eraserhead is a particularly elusive work to pin down.

There's not much of a point to writing one of my customary long-winded User Reviews, because I do not feel like pulling theories out of thin air with respect to the meaning behind this film. It could be Lynch's reaction to adult responsibilities, it could be a meditation of a post-nuclear-apocalypse world where genetic mutations are rampant, it could be an observation about the industrial age, or it could just be a series of oddball vignettes. Personally, I rather like the idea that this could be an explanation of what happens if your girlfriend has an affair with Admiral Ackbar when he stops by Earth on the way to join the rest of the Rebellion in the attack on the second Death Star that orbits the moon of Endor.

I'd say that Eraserhead certainly qualifies as a horror film, especially if one prefers to define horror simply as an emotion and not as a movie genre. It's almost like a tour inside someone's nightmare, in the same way that House (Hausu) is almost like a cinematic interpretation of an incoherent story dictated by a child.

I do not know if I "like" this movie. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this film, although it's pretty safe to say that it's not one of my favorite Criterion titles. I have no real urge to revisit it now, but the urge will probably strike me on occasion in the future. I do not think of this film as a puzzle to be solved, but rather as a collage of insane imagery that caters to a specific mood for eerie and impenetrable cinema.

I would like to have seen one of the 1970s midnight theatrical showings of this film, along with one of the confused audiences.

The short film, The Grandmother, is pretty spooky as well, and, as with Eraserhead, the sound effects go a long way toward inducing shudders.

You couldn't have written it any better.

I watched Eraserhead last Thursday night for the second time in my life (and first time in maybe 6 or 7 years when I once caught it at a Sunday screening at a tiny arthouse theater here).

I am still perplexed and mystified by that film in ways I cannot delineate here exactly.

Knowing that Lynch didn't make this film with the audience in mind and that he took 4-5 years to finally get this film finished makes me realize it was a labor of love for him. I believe it was Lynch honing his craft and using Eraserhead as a project he could master before he went on to direct the next film, which is the masterpiece: Elephant Man.

I recently discovered that Stanley Kubrick screened Eraserhead many times for the cast in The Shining while on set and that it was one of his favorite films at the time. There are some shots in Eraserhead I could actually see Kubrick being directly influenced by, especially the "staring" scenes, as The Shining had quite a lot of staring involved by the characters, especially Nicholson's character. There is an uncanny "energy" from Eraserhead that one can harness and instill into one's own art in some ways and Kubrick did this.

I quite enjoyed The Grandmother too, and found it to be quite disturbing and nightmarish. It made me wonder if Lynch himself had a childhood that possibly could have influenced him to make this film.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I have an Excel spreadsheet so I know - to the penny, how much I've spent. I've got average cost per title, totals, monthly expenditures, formulas that indicate red font when I've spent more than I'd like, green for when it is in range.

I'm an accountant, so I had fun creating it and continue to have fun maintaining it. I've managed to scour out tons of great deals, so I'm content w/ what I've spent on my 97 blu-ray titles.

Ironic, I happen to have a spreadsheet listing every film in my collection, blu-ray, dvd or vhs. My spreadsheet is a lot different though as I didn't record how much money I spent on the title but rather I list several columns containing various ratings and information such as "Title", "Format or type of release", "Info - whether its out of print and in my collection or used/new", "The minimum used value on Amazon.com", "The percentage on Rotten Tomatoes for the film" and "Whether or not its in my display cabinet".

I also have another spreadsheet for all the movies I sold.

Want to trade spreadsheets? I'd like to see yours and if you're interested in seeing mine, I can send it.

[olivianewtonyawn]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

I am almost certain that Interstellar will not be anywhere near as intelectually stimulating as Primer or Upstream Color. These films made me want to watch sci-fi again.

A lot of the sci-fi films of today are terrible, very mundane. A great example of the mundane sci-fi film is Gravity.

Not just mundane, I actually found myself wincing as Gravity went on (and on) devolving into some sort of Lifetime movie. I was squirming in my seat for the last 20-30 minutes of the movie.

[olivianewtonyawn]

Got sidetracked thinking about Gravity, meant to chime in with what I think will stand the test of time as a classic film: Synecdoche, New York. So original, gloriously depressing and one of Philip Seymour Hoffman's greatest roles.

[TheHighRoller]

Originally Posted by mrjohnnyb

Great films, but none of them hold a candle to Rear Window.

Actually, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) is very good. So I would say that one is the closest.

However:

1. Rear Window is given too much artistic merit. In my opinion, it's a great thriller, but it loses the initial awe effect after a second viewing.

2. Comparing films to see which ones will be classics in the future- and using current (well, old) "classics" as the reference point- is totally useless. You cannot compare two of something when they are different. Much less when the styles vary greatly due to the passage of time. You can compare them in the sense of what themes they both deal with, but that's pretty much it. You can't say "this will be a classic because it shares this and this in common with [enter "classic" here]". I don't think it all adds up to a valid argument.

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by TheHighRoller

Actually, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) is very good. So I would say that one is the closest.

That's the worst film from the list!

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

That's the worst film from the list!

I'd agree. I think it's the weakest on the list as well, and a wholly unnecessary remake.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I'd agree. I think it's the weakest on the list as well, and a wholly unnecessary remake.

I don't get this term with Fincher's version. He didn't remake the Swedish film. He made his own adaptation.

And it was miles ahead of the Swesidh one, getting much close to the tone of the books. And that's an un-objective fact.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I'd agree. I think it's the weakest on the list as well, and a wholly unnecessary remake.

Actually, I think it's better than the original. While Fincher's film deviated in some ways from the novel, it was truer to the novel's nature as a murder mystery. Oplev's film turned the story into a psycho-thriller. Whether it's "unnecessary" as a remake is debatable. But I for one am glad that it got made.

But then, I'm also of the minority opinion that The Girl Who Played with Fire was the best film in the original trilogy, so...

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I don't get this term with Fincher's version. He didn't remake the Swedish film. He made his own adaptation.

The definition of "remake" is "to make again". Since the book was already made into a film previously, Fincher "remade" it into another film.

[pedromvu]

While everyone of us has their own idea of what films may probably be considered classics in the future, i think one of most important factors that they become classics is because of lists like the AFI and Sight & Sound, it depends a lot on the critics and popularity of the films.

I am not saying that because certain movie is in a list it makes it better than others, but being on a "important" list makes it more easily to be passed on future generations, let's say 10-20 years from now, so in the end those are the films that get more popular because no one has the time to see every movie released (specially of all the years past).

Anyway here is my list of post 2000 films

Pan's Labyrinth
There will be Blood
Wall-e
Inglorious Basterds
The Social Network
A Separation
The Tree of Life
The Great Beauty
Her

[jw007]

Just spent 2 more hours watching 90% of the supplements from My Darling Clementine and I'm just more impressed than ever.

I realized that producer Darryl Zanuck was more talented than I realized as he re-cut Ford's film and added more music and refined the pacing by removing dialogue in many scenes. One would think that a producer meddling with a director's vision is a liability, but I feel this is a rare case of a producer actually possibly improving upon a director's work.

I also learned of Monument Valley even more and the amazing little supplement on the Navajo from the Today Show from 1975 was a real gem. It reminded me of my dad's own work with the Navajo back in the 60s when he was a Major in the medical corps stationed out in New Mexico.

The demystification on Wyatt Earp was fantastic as well and I learned a bit of awesome history from this 15 minute or so documentary from historian Andrew Isenberg. I could only imagine if Mr. Earp got to live to see Ford's film on him in the 1940s, but he would have been close to 100 years old by then (even so, he lived until 1929 and died at 80 years). My first exposure to Wyatt Earp was from George Cosmatos' Tombstone and I still remember buying it from Columbia House in the 1990s on VHS. I loved the movie but at the time had no idea of My Darling Clementine and how this film is not only superior but avoids the glorification of violence and redemption as seen in Tombstone and Wyatt Earp made a year later.

Overall, to reiterate from yesterday's post, My Darling Clementine is truly great stuff.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I have an Excel spreadsheet so I know - to the penny, how much I've spent. I've got average cost per title, totals, monthly expenditures, formulas that indicate red font when I've spent more than I'd like, green for when it is in range.

I'm an accountant, so I had fun creating it and continue to have fun maintaining it. I've managed to scour out tons of great deals, so I'm content w/ what I've spent on my 97 blu-ray titles.

I use DVDPedia to track my collection. It's actually a condition of my insurance policy!

DVDPedia gives you a financial value based on RRP, so it's nowhere near exact, but as it stands my collection is "worth" an eye-watering $167,509! I've been collecting for 15 years tho. My Criterion collection in itself is valued at just under $5000.

Regrets? None! My collection is my hobby, it's never taken precedence over anything serious like living costs, rent etc.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by jayembee

The definition of "remake" is "to make again". Since the book was already made into a film previously, Fincher "remade" it into another film.

Actually, the definition of "Remake" (according to dictionary.com) when the subject is movies -

"a more recent version of an older film".

Otherwise all films derived from books would be considered remakes. To attach the older meaning to films ("anything that has been remade, renovated, or rebuilt") is nothing more than purposefully obtuse!

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

I use DVDPedia to track my collection. It's actually a condition of my insurance policy!

DVDPedia gives you a financial value based on RRP, so it's nowhere near exact, but as it stands my collection is "worth" an eye-watering $167,509! I've been collecting for 15 years tho. My Criterion collection in itself is valued at just under $5000.

Regrets? None! My collection is my hobby, it's never taken precedence over anything serious like living costs, rent etc.

Oh my! So if there was an incident do they pay you the money back for RRP value? I get confuse by insurance so excuse me if I am being silly lol!

That's A LOT XD

Also what if you have damage to OOP blurays? Do they go based on original price or what o,o

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Oh my! So if there was an incident do they pay you the money back for RRP value? I get confuse by insurance so excuse me if I am being silly lol!

That's A LOT XD

Also what if you have damage to OOP blurays? Do they go based on original price or what o,o

I think most insurance companies have a set price per DVD/Blu-ray, so they might value ALL DVD's as being worth £5, and ALL Blu-ray's as being worth £7, or something like that. Unless you have a separate insurance policy for each OOP disc I wouldn't have thought they'd be any different to the regular £5/£7!

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Nothing about the trailers or the reviews for Christopher Nolan's Interstellar quickens my pulse, sadly. I was underwhelmed by Inception when I saw it years ago, and the same red flags are up there for this new film.

Interstellar doesn't excite me (Although I will see it to form an opinion). The main reason is the Nolans wrote the script which means plenty of talking and explaining followed by doing then more talking and explaining with some awesome whiz-bang-boom tossed in there. I agree with Inception. It's one of the greatest cinematic frauds of the 21st century, imo.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

On the topic of classics:

I've seen Million Dollar Baby about 10 times (The only films I've seen more are Annie Hall and Casablanca). I watch it 1-2 times a year. I think it's an incredible piece of cinema. Like most people in this thread I've seen many classics - for me Million Dollar Baby is among the best films I've ever seen.

I've never even thought about watching Million Dollar Baby. Is it safe to say you recommend it?

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

I've never even thought about watching Million Dollar Baby. Is it safe to say you recommend it?

Yes. Watch the film then read F.X. Toole's short story (And his other boxing stories for that matter. They're excellent).