From: bmrosen@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian M. Rosen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Eraserhead
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:00:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <6058@npri6.npri.com> eric@npri6.npri.com (Eric Williams) writes:
>[Much preliminary speculation deleted.]
>
>In article <1992Aug17.230420.501@Princeton.EDU>, bmrosen@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian M. Rosen) writes:
>> 	It seemed pretty obvious that it was indeed sperm that the radiator
>> lady was destroying.  [blah blah blah]
>Nonsense. Those are fishbaby fetuses. (I use the term "fishbaby" for
>Henry's baby because... well... it just seems to fit the little monster.)

	WOW!!! Somebody actually responded to one of my posts!  This is a 
first.
	Well...O.K.  I think we just kinda disagree about this one.  I still
kinda remember them as sperm and that's actually pretty crucial to my
understanding of the film.  

>
>> The radiator woman was always a
>> promise ("in heaven...everything is fine" etc.)  
>> These promises were invariably hollow.  
>Not necessarily. He winds up in heaven. (Note the final scene in the
>movie.)

	My memory tells me the last scene was the one with the man with
the levers.  I don't recall any sort of heaven.

>
>> 	As I recall, sperm show up throughout the movie: in the very
>> beginning scenes, in one of the scenes in bed when huge spermatazoa were 
>> pulled from under the sheets and thrown against the wall, 
>Umbilical cords/aborted fetuses he pulls from his wife. I don't think
>what you describe makes any sense at all (within the nightmare logic
>of the film) given the material is coming from *her*. 
>BTW, this scene was nowhere near the beginning of the film.
>

	Again, I remember them as sperm.  It's very difficult to tell
though.  I also didn't get the impression that they were coming from
her.
	And in a brief bit of defensiveness, the above quoted paragraph
was meant to be a list of scenes.  I knew the bed scene was in the middle,
I was referring to the opening scenes as a seperate example of sperm.


>> and the baby itself grew 
>> into an enourmous spermlike nightmare in it's last scenes.  
>You seem to see sperm everywhere. Ever think of consulting a psychiatrist?
>I saw not one tadpole-like creature in the entire work.
>Lots of other mutated bodily excretions, tho'...

>
>[deleted]
>> 	I don't believe for a second that one should simply dismiss this
>> movie as pointless.  
>Neither would I.
>
>>I believe it focuses on man's (and I do mean male) 
>> inherent inability to parent.  It also depicts man as being victemized by
>> women and betrayed by an unfeeling, unsupportive society.  
>You're sorta right here. I saw it as the male conundrum: wanting to
>love and be loved, but not wanting to take the inherent risks. The
>marriage and the baby were all unexpected nasty twists to Henry's
>lovemaking... In a way, he brought it on himself. The consequence
>was that the baby took over his life, stifling his individuality,
>his control & his identity-- thus he becomes an "eraser-head," a
>body whose brains are of no more use than for the most ignominious of
>tasks. MHO, of course.

	I guess that this shows that it doesn't really matter what the
sperm/fetuses actually are.  We both agree as to the main content of the
film.  Interestingly enough, both sperm and fetuses are equally appropriate
to the theme of the movie.  Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional?

>
>> One more note on sperm...
>Please, no.
>
>>as I recall, in the first five minutes, sperm
>> was set flying across the scene when the man with the levers (pronounced GOD)
>You've got a whale of an imagination... How did you decide that was God?
>
>> pushed one of them.  At the very end, when the baby that that sperm created 
>> was... well...you know, GOD himself was unable to fix things (stuck lever).  
>> The universe itself was without control or direction.  Seems like a point to 
>> me.  
>Yeah, right. (insert sarcasm) I have always been puzzled by this image:
>the asteroid with the toiler inside.... Obviously Henry in some other
>aspect, perhaps his soul. As for the fishbaby fetus emerging from the
>asteroid, I will admit it does connote some spermlike properties (gasp!),
>but I say it's the fetus that develops into the baby. And remember at 
>the end, the baby's head turns into the asteroid which then crumbles... 
>Some sort of liberation (after killing Mr. Baby) upon which Henry is 
>united with the Radiator Lady in a pure white light, ostensibly heaven.
>
>>Then again, what do I know.  I'm just an engineer.
>A tempting overture for rejoinder, but I'll resist.   ;-)

	Well, again, we just disagree on this one.  I still prefer the
toiler-as-god interpretation but yours seems equally valid.  As for the
final scene with the Radiator Lady...I don't remember that at all!  I 
guess that's a good excuse to see the film again.

>-------- eric@npri.com ---------- or ---------- ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!eric ----
>Eric C. Williams/ NPRI/ Alexandria, VA/ USA/ (703) 683-9090/ Usual disclaimers




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brian Rosen                    |   " Toto, I don't think we're in           |
| Princeton University           |                Interlochen anymore"        |
| Department of Pretty Pictures  |                                -Me         |