From: shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Eraserhead
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:10:31 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr, Calif.

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.)
>
>> 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.)
>
>[putrid typographical matter deleted]
>
>> 	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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.   ;-)
>
>> | Brian Rosen 
>> | Princeton University         
>> | Department of Pretty Pictures
>





So what you are in effect saying is that _Eraserhead_ is

a drama-cum-comedy-cum-social-commentary-cum-horror film?










                            R ****
                             I
                              C
                          **** K	
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies