Kubrick actually said that Eraserhead had shown him the limits of his creativity: he could never do a movie like that. However, he showed the movie to the crew of "The Shining" and you can actually find some of the inspirations from this movie in Kubrick's horror masterpiece (use of sound, surreal images out of place etc.)
Well, he understood Blue Velvet. But he couldn't see ANYTHING in Lost Highway or Eraserhead. What's shocking for a "professional" film critic (and Ebert is guilty of this as well) is to call Lost Highway "meaningless" and arguing that young people only want to be creeped out by Eraserhead - suggesting there is nothing there besides that. If they can't see meaning, they dismiss. A real objective critic would admit that they can't see the meaning at this point and therefor can not recommend this film at this point. But they can still talk about what it made them feel - even if it was a bad experience. Just be real with your audience.
@@abonny I was one of those kids who saw it on home video probably around the time this aired..and I was a fan after first viewing...it was the most surreal film I had experienced up to that point, and I knew then I was not of the "normal" ones (aka atypical) lol
Its not just surrealist nonsense...There was definitely a story and while a lot of it was shown and not told explicitly handed to you what was going on, the emotional beats and conclusion is abatract, but not meaningless fun to get freaked out to. I like to think of it as an allegory for fatherhood and the unwanted child.
"In the 60s, I think it was called a bad trip. Sometimes people wanna go on one. It makes them feel kind of creepy, and that's maybe what they're looking for." Lmao what a great response to Siskel being a stiff. I do like him a lot, but he can be so annoying about more abstract/art films.
David Lynche's Erasurehead remains the most original American film made from the 1970s and beyond..Jack Nance is terrific as Henry Spencer and Judith Hall as Beautiful Lady Across the Hall is absolutely alluring.
I first saw this in my teens and was spellbound. It also gave me a headache and I couldn't stop thinking about it for days. The same with my first viewing of In the Mouth of Madness. That is some powerful art.
@@wanderlustrer i mean i was eating chinese food and choked on my bite, not sure its that bad Ill keep you in mind the next time im draining pus or fixing a broken bone tho
I didn't get through it the first time because I tried to watch it with my mother when I was younger. I cared what she may think of me. Now that I'm older, I've come to accept and embrace my quirks and love for the abstract and obscure.
In my opinion: Eraserhead is a movie that puts you inside the mind of someone with Schizophrenia. It's definitely interesting movie, but I was so disturbed by it that I can never watch it again.
I just watched this movie and have to say that it’s definitely a masterpiece. Just the soundtrack alone is enough to make it a masterpiece, never mind the amazing cinematography, lighting, and directing. This is the stuff of real nightmares.
Eraser head is simply the story of a man who fears becoming a father. Any other sort of subtext you take from the actual film is up to interpretation, but that is a concrete fact of the story. Henry is afraid. Whether or not the events of the film even happen is up to debate, since it is implied the pregnancy was way too short to spawn any sort of life. I like to think that Mary was still pregnant, and Henry imagined what his life would become if he was to be a father. That’s why the second half of the film goes off the rails, in the best way.
The film is really about the sensation of dread. Hitchcock spoke to Truffaut about how he was supply connections to some of our senses and biological programing that have become formant in modern society. We don't sleep in the woods any more. Danger had become abstract. How often are we in a panic now? He was aiming at those fears with many of his films. How many films did he depict a man falling from the vantage of looking down on him? And Hitch learned from his own mistakes.
Yep. I watched this film in the cinema back in the 1980s. Hated it. Watched it again a couple more times over the years on VHS then DVD and though I didn't hate it I didn't really like it. (I'm more likely to rewatch a film I didn't like to try and work out why I didn't like it - if it's not obvious straight away which is true with most films I dislike - rather than rewatch I film I DID enjoy and get disappointed that it wasn't as good as I initially though.) The first time I watched Eraserhead after having had my first child I fell about laughing. It is a brilliant pure and unadulterated distillation of every fear and dread that I felt as a new father. It's a great film.
Siskel made some very good points. But I still enjoy Eraserhead. I think Roger said it best when he said "it makes people feel kind of creepy and I guess that is what they're looking for."
Saw this on videotape back around the time Siskel & Ebert reviewed it on their show. Trust me, you do NOT want to watch this movie when you have the flu.
It's so funny how they don't understand any film that's not strictly literal. They just call it weird lol. Tim Heidecker does it in On Cinema, it gets me every time.
The thing about Eraserhead, is you kind think of it as a short film, because it doesn't behave like a full length film. And then you remember the dread you had after you saw the baby, (especially trapped in the theater) and you started wondering how long the rest of the film was going to be. Cause the humor in it was....gone....But both these guys don't mention the humor in this film.
That seems a little harsh. They do know about art, but mostly about what has been, not what might be considered art. But then again, harsh seems fair with the tone Siskel and Ebert has when talking about stuff that didn't appeal to them. They can be quite brutal, but at least they always strived for honesty
They disagreed on Blue Velvet though. Siskel liked it and Ebert panned for being too exploitative/misogynistic. They both were kind of annoying reviewers.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017- Roger Ebert couldn't stand seeing women humiliated. He hated A Clockwork Orange for the same reason he hated Blue Velvet, never mind that you couldn't humiliate either Isabella Rossellini or Adrienne Corri if you stripped them both naked, painted them yellow, and made them crawl around Branson, Missouri on all fours, braying like donkeys. Those women were fearless.
You have to realize that these two panned Blade Runner when it first came out. Apparently Siskel watched Roy Batty's speech, and it went over his head.
Spoilers were not a meme 35 yrs ago, when the movie was already 10yrs old. But you're right, journalists were just a stupid back in the day and way more disrespectful to their audience and whatever art they 'covered'.
He's really not giving much away - and even if he did, with this movie the plot is nothing compared to the experience of seeing it. Does the film title count as a spoiler?
Why are so many commenters saying that Ebert liked the movie? In this clip he never says that he likes it. Are people really this incapable of understanding the English language? It's almost as if they think that Ebert HAD to like Eraserhead simply because Siskel DIDN'T like it.
I think because to him it was Kids These Days who were swamped with anxiety. That wasn't how he worked, and even if it was he'd probably never admit it.
I've shown this movie to half a dozen or so friends and have yet to convince anyone it's a great film. I watch it 3-4 times a year. I don't know how to explain my fascination with it and Ebert comes as close as anyone. To me, and I don't hear much about this, the sound is one of the most critical aspects of the film. I always crank it up and, to be sure, the sound is disruptive and agonizing, in a good way.
I don’t know about rewatching unless you haven’t put all the pieces together yet. Once I knew it was about the fears of becoming a father i understood everything & no longer found a reason to watch it again.
The difference between Ebert and Siskel is clear here...Ebert knew what he was talking about while Siskel didn't. Knowing what surrealism was is one of the keys to have a basic analysis of the movie. Lynch is the son or grandson of Bunuel and the fact that Ebert got it, which honestly it is expected, demonstrates that he had the tools to analyse the movie while Siskel did not
Agreed. Ebert had a more whimsical way about him. He saw the world with more understanding. Made him appreciate and understand movies better than Gene.
Creepy? Uhhh no...not for me at least. Eraserhead, to me, is the intense dream you wake from only remembering bits from, but are so intrigued by you want to go back again and again to explore that particular reality. And it is a reality where I am strangely comfortable, for lack of a better word. There is something very calming about it. Now I may lack the ability to understand what it is I see there, along with the ability to convey what little I do understand, but I absolutely love it. It is a favorite among favorites.
@@jon4715 It's not creepy for me, as it presents a world and reality which I find comfortable. And it is likely from the juxtapositions. The mechanized industrial hellscape and the cramped but cozy confines of Henry's apartment. The cold dark rain and the warmth of his radiator. The muffled drone of the outside world and the quiet still of his room. These are the reasons I am comforted by the movie, rather than repulsed by it. Have you ever layed in the dark while a hurricane roars outside? It's _that_ kind of feeling. Like I said, it's difficult to put into words. Lynch's movies elicit an emotional response more than an intellectual one. It's why I love them. The eggheads can jaw about it all they want. More power to them. That's just not my scene.
@@joelbizzell1386 I don't suppose you've read Songs of a Dead Dreamer by Thomas Ligotti, have you? Vastarien, The Greater Festival of Masks, The Troubles of Dr. Thoss: all eerie stories which are a pleasure to walk around in. Eraserhead's still creepy, but.
The meaning of Eraserhead rests on nightmares and subconscious, in some place between real and dream world If you reject that idea...you won't be prepared for the movie
I think everyone over analyzes Eraserhead. It was Lynch doing his first real feature as such, given free reign to work with a hand-picked gang of friends and recommended colleagues (Alan Splet, et al.), and he's said many times that it was mainly an attempt at creating kind of a self-contained pocket universe of sorts, surreal, an allegory, whatever you want to call it. People used to watch it with me and ask me Scott, what the fuck is the point of this nonsense, and my response is, the point is that it creates a strange world that you go into (Lynch often talks about how that excites him as a reason to want to make a film) and come out of. If you're expecting Eraserhead to be like some conventional Hollywood narrative film, well, you can forget it. It's also kind of a backhanded tribute to Philadelphia and the milieu that Lynch lived in for years attending art college and learning to be a painter and multimedia artist first, and then filmmaker second. If it is "arty" well it is the product of an artist! It wasn't supposed to be Star Wars. Elephant Man creates a similar world but it's a more familiar one, based in historical reality, and Lynch didn't write it, it wasn't his "baby" (haha) as it were. Blue Velvet was a breakthrough because after the DUNE disaster, Lynch was given more free reign to make a more personal project, but it's kind of an uncompromising film that takes you into a weird noir world of smalltown corruption that at least meets Hollywood halfway, by then Lynch had some commercial clout (even after Dune), and he managed to produce a very surreal and strange film that still had some commercial trappings or potential. That's a difficult balancing act. But anyway like all of Lynch's early short films, Eraserhead really was experimental filmmaking and I don't think it makes any apologies for being so. Like Jodorowsky, he wasn't making the film for the multitudes, he was making it for himself and his friends, primarily.
To be fair, Ebert panned each and every one of Lynch's films - including "The Elephant Man" - up until (I believe) "The Straight Story" and "Mullholland Drive". I can understand Lynch's other movies not being to everyone's tastes.....but "The Elephant Man"? :P
Ebert sums up my feelings, but his bad trip analogy would neatly work with Evil Dead 2, various Cronenberg films, probably Argento (though I’ve never seen) and Carpenter’s The Thing, you get my drift.
This is not a popcorn movie. This is not for the average or mundane movie goer. This is surrealist art and very complicated. His greatest masterpiece is Mulholland Drive,
Man these guys suck way too often. Eraserhead is profoundly symbolic film about a man who wants physical intimacy with females so badly, but at the same time is terrified of commitment, marriage and being a father. He wants it to be like heaven, but it's really like hell to him. That's all it really is about.
It is profoundly symbolic, but I disagree that that's "what really is about". The fact that is profoundly symbolic means people are gonna interpret it in many different ways. This is one of my favorite films, and yet I don't agree your interpretation at all. That doesn't make it any less valid, if that's your point of view then great, but that's still not "what is really about". No one knows for sure, and that's the beauty of it.
Lynch himself has admitted that his relationship with his then wife and terror at becoming a father was the film's inspiration...add to that living in a Philadelphia tenement, where he realized that all that separated him from the outside was a brick wall.
He loved Synecdoche New York, though, which is at least as weird as Blue Velvet. And the book Blood Meridian, too, though that's far more violent and nihilistic than A Clockwork Orange.
The oldest thing is that after saying he didn't like it, Siskel went on to pretty much nail the point of the film. If he'd maybe realized that, maybe he would've viewed it a different way.
In her review of Lynch’s Elephant Man , the late great Critic Pauline Karl prefaced it with a comment on Eraserhead . “ I thought David Lynch was a true original “. Ditto that but like Last Tango in Paris it took me several viewings .
Much as Siskel didn't like it and couldn't see the point, he got pretty close. I relate a lot to what happens to Henry in this film. Well, not directly luckily.
When we were 16 we watched this high on cough syrup. It was horrifying and transcendent. We tried to watch it again months later and it was unwatchable. Highly recommended but you have to be in the right mindset.
So Roger liked it. He’s not exactly sure why he liked it but I think I reacted that way also the first time I saw almost any David Lynch film. I liked it but I needed to watch it a few more times to find out why?
@@Lalo-dh8xq It was shot on a small budget, but in no way was Eraserhead "crude". The baby effect is still a mystery to most people and it was incredibly effective.
I like the creepy industrial feel and the sounds of machinery ,trains and such, but David Lynch needs to explain some stuff which he refuses to do.Like why is there plants in piles of dirt on the night stand that isn't in a pot?Why does the lady in the radiator have giant cheeks?I like arty films,but I like a coherent story.Lynch is great at setting a mood but some one needs to help him with the script.
That’s not always the case. I have to go by multiple sources. A lot of times rotten tomatoes is right, but usually if a movie is less than 6.3 on IMDb then it’s no good. I find that more reliable than rotten tomatoes.
The appeal is in the film's use of visual and aural language to communicate an everyman's anxieties about parenthood and sexual intimacy against an intimidating modern, industrial backdrop. It's one of the best films I've ever seen, but one has to know how to read it. Much of what you see an hear is exaggerated and not meant to be literal.
I think you have the date wrong. They speak about Blue Velvet, which came out in 86. This had to have been after that, though Eraserhead DID come out in 77.
Bald guy and people like him will never understand it. It's the love of art, the weirdest we can be around one another and even beyond that. That is what David Lynch doesn't care to casually show.
You realize “bald guy” was greatly defending Blue Velvet when Roger Ebert panned it, right? Siskel actually seems to really like David Lynch, he just didn’t like eraserhead. Stop getting upset with people for not liking movies like eraserhead. As a fan of it you can’t deny that it’s WAY fucking outside normal barriers, in fact I can almost guarantee that is one of the main reasons you enjoy it so much.
I totally get what people are saying when they say that Siskel can be annoying sometimes with his unwillingness to better appreciate some of the more abstract/surreal films such as this one. But I still really respect the guy because at least he gives reasons and explanations for why he feels how he does. Regardless of whether those reasons make sense or not. At least he gives a reason. What I can't stand is when people just say "It's just shit and that's all I have to say". Why do you feel that way? "Cuz it just sucks. That's my reason." .... -_- ....
What an opinion. “The only people who like it are college kids” now and then plenty of grown adults love it, but he can’t even try to THINK about It he just passes it off as “of edgy teens feel lost and need something to identify with so they like weird pointless violent shit”
The films appeal IMHO is that it is the very best non traditional story telling u will ever see bc it's out there way way way out there but its also either intentionally or unintentionally very funny u decide but Def see this movie bc there's absolutely nothing like it anywhere in film😮🎉❤
I’m not sure if this is true or not since I wasn’t around back then, but did the owl eyes make everyone seem vulnerable & innocent? Childlike? More trustworthy? Just the vibe I get when seeing old pictures & videos.
I have yet to see the movie but from what I’ve read, the lady in the radiator represents death. The man who runs the gears represents God. Seems like an interesting premise in a way.
![ออกพรรษาน้ำตาหล่น - แอน อรดี [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PFZtOcY9ONA/mqdefault.jpg)
True fact: Stanley Kubrick once said that "Eraserhead" was his favorite film.
And Lolita was one of David Lynch’s favorite films!
Kubrick actually said that Eraserhead had shown him the limits of his creativity: he could never do a movie like that. However, he showed the movie to the crew of "The Shining" and you can actually find some of the inspirations from this movie in Kubrick's horror masterpiece (use of sound, surreal images out of place etc.)
@@crangismcbasketball9710 The "normal" scene with Peter Sellers is amazing.
And his favorite band was ministry. The early stages of AI are how the band ended up in the final product.
ah them old true facts.
Siskel never fails to fail to understand art
Well, he understood Blue Velvet.
But he couldn't see ANYTHING in Lost Highway or Eraserhead. What's shocking for a "professional" film critic (and Ebert is guilty of this as well) is to call Lost Highway "meaningless" and arguing that young people only want to be creeped out by Eraserhead - suggesting there is nothing there besides that. If they can't see meaning, they dismiss. A real objective critic would admit that they can't see the meaning at this point and therefor can not recommend this film at this point. But they can still talk about what it made them feel - even if it was a bad experience. Just be real with your audience.
He didnt even like Taxi Driver
@@abonny I was one of those kids who saw it on home video probably around the time this aired..and I was a fan after first viewing...it was the most surreal film I had experienced up to that point, and I knew then I was not of the "normal" ones (aka atypical) lol
I remember Ebert tearing him a real new one for not getting _Jacob's Ladder_ 😌
THANK YOU haha
Its not just surrealist nonsense...There was definitely a story and while a lot of it was shown and not told explicitly handed to you what was going on, the emotional beats and conclusion is abatract, but not meaningless fun to get freaked out to. I like to think of it as an allegory for fatherhood and the unwanted child.
Exactly. If you can't see this as a film about the fears of adulthood and fatherhood you are dumb as a brick.
the fatherhood allegory is pretty well trodden turf in film analysis about this film. we get it.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Well now that's funny seeing as how Lynch himself has said there's no meaning behind it.
@@rofyle was about to say the same thing.
@@rofyle wait really? Where?
As much as I strongly disagree with either of their views at times, I greatly miss this duo. They had a passion for cinema and it showed.
"In the 60s, I think it was called a bad trip. Sometimes people wanna go on one. It makes them feel kind of creepy, and that's maybe what they're looking for." Lmao what a great response to Siskel being a stiff. I do like him a lot, but he can be so annoying about more abstract/art films.
It’s still a pretty reductive answer from Ebert imho, considering the movie
David Lynche's Erasurehead remains the most original American film made from the 1970s and beyond..Jack Nance is terrific as Henry Spencer and Judith Hall as Beautiful Lady Across the Hall is absolutely alluring.
Judith Roberts, not Hall.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Judith Hall as the lady across the Roberts is absolutely alluring.
I first saw this in my teens and was spellbound. It also gave me a headache and I couldn't stop thinking about it for days. The same with my first viewing of In the Mouth of Madness. That is some powerful art.
I’m with you on in the mouth of madness.
"I didnt like the movie"
I coughed up a piece of chinese food laughing at that one
why?
@@nathanielphillips3592 its a very dismissive and straight forward response from a usually well spoken critic. Its just so blunt
@@FearMonarch Oh okay, lol
Unnecessarily disgusting comment.
@@wanderlustrer i mean i was eating chinese food and choked on my bite, not sure its that bad
Ill keep you in mind the next time im draining pus or fixing a broken bone tho
I didn't get through it the first time because I tried to watch it with my mother when I was younger. I cared what she may think of me. Now that I'm older, I've come to accept and embrace my quirks and love for the abstract and obscure.
Roger Ebert was a brilliant writer and wonderful human being.
Yeah, but he said John Nance
Maybe but he blew it on elephant man
@@res1dentgearsol1d he’s credited on Eraserhead as John Nance
He poorly reviewed so many great films.
@Dench2020 Give details
Siskel's's favorite movie was Saturday Night Fever. Nuff said.
Yeah, Siskel had a weird fascination with that movie...never understood that one.
Siskel had very good and interesting, sometimes off-beat taste in film. Lots of good takes and top 10 lists. Definitely a worthwhile critic.
I like both movies...but yeah, Eraserhead is a force of nature.
Actually his favourite is Dr. Strangelove. He has mentioned so more than once.
@@linkbiff1054 Siskel had a few favorites, including Dumbo.
In my opinion: Eraserhead is a movie that puts you inside the mind of someone with Schizophrenia. It's definitely interesting movie, but I was so disturbed by it that I can never watch it again.
Think of it more that he was having a nightmare about being an unprepared father - and try a re-watch unless you really hate that type of film making.
I think I made it about 30 minutes into the movie. It was like watching someone’s bad dream or a fucked up art school project.
I just watched this movie and have to say that it’s definitely a masterpiece. Just the soundtrack alone is enough to make it a masterpiece, never mind the amazing cinematography, lighting, and directing. This is the stuff of real nightmares.
Siskel: faithful defender of the quotidian.
Tom Hagen: "Tessio. I always thought it would be Clemenza."
Michael: "It's the smart move. Tessio was always smarter."
Ebert was always smarter.
Eraser head is simply the story of a man who fears becoming a father. Any other sort of subtext you take from the actual film is up to interpretation, but that is a concrete fact of the story. Henry is afraid. Whether or not the events of the film even happen is up to debate, since it is implied the pregnancy was way too short to spawn any sort of life. I like to think that Mary was still pregnant, and Henry imagined what his life would become if he was to be a father. That’s why the second half of the film goes off the rails, in the best way.
The film is really about the sensation of dread. Hitchcock spoke to Truffaut about how he was supply connections to some of our senses and biological programing that have become formant in modern society. We don't sleep in the woods any more. Danger had become abstract. How often are we in a panic now? He was aiming at those fears with many of his films. How many films did he depict a man falling from the vantage of looking down on him? And Hitch learned from his own mistakes.
Yep. I watched this film in the cinema back in the 1980s. Hated it. Watched it again a couple more times over the years on VHS then DVD and though I didn't hate it I didn't really like it. (I'm more likely to rewatch a film I didn't like to try and work out why I didn't like it - if it's not obvious straight away which is true with most films I dislike - rather than rewatch I film I DID enjoy and get disappointed that it wasn't as good as I initially though.) The first time I watched Eraserhead after having had my first child I fell about laughing. It is a brilliant pure and unadulterated distillation of every fear and dread that I felt as a new father. It's a great film.
Wow, it all makes sense now. The biggest fear really is giving up your throne & having your child become the center of you & your wife’s universe.
It's not John Nance but Jack
He was credited as John Nance for this movie.
He was in Twin Peaks too.
There was a fish in the percolator!
Same thing. Like calling Gandolfini “Jim”
Ebert doesn't know Jack...
The soundtrack is just as amazing..
Move is a nightmare brought to life.
Siskel made some very good points. But I still enjoy Eraserhead. I think Roger said it best when he said "it makes people feel kind of creepy and I guess that is what they're looking for."
Ebert is stupid like a child
Saw this on videotape back around the time Siskel & Ebert reviewed it on their show. Trust me, you do NOT want to watch this movie when you have the flu.
This movie gave me the flu
No one should watch this movie. That's how disturbing it is.
Watching it and Blue Velvet high as fuck is awesome
@@DrawtheCurtainsdid some guy barfed for 2 hours while watching it
It did appeal to me as a college kid in the 1980s. Surrealistic and creepy and themes of alienation. Worked for me back then.
Honestly was anyone expecting them to love it?
Both Siskel and Ebert were decidedly dull reviewers. There are better reviewers on TH-cam today by the dozen.
Yeah, I wasn't. Roger Ebert has hated everything David Lynch has done. He's liked like two movies of his.
I wouldn't call Henry a hero
Hero is a dumbed down word for protagonist. I wonder if Lynch would call Henry a hero
@@LordMarlle I doubt it, Henry seems to do a lot of questionable things throughout the film
@@Hal9000ize He kills his wife and child. Not the most heroic thing.
@@joeycmichael3206 Idk about him killing Mary
@@Hal9000ize Yah that's admitedly up more for interpretation.
It's so funny how they don't understand any film that's not strictly literal. They just call it weird lol. Tim Heidecker does it in On Cinema, it gets me every time.
It was a WEIRD movie. I didn't like it. *gregg chimes in* SHUT UP. SHUT UP! I give it 4 bags SHUT UP 4 bags of popcorn and 2 soda drinks.
You mean On Cinema At The Cinema. And yes: brilliant stuff by both he and Turkleton.
You have to be on acid to enjoy this movie
@@peteparker22 shut up
But when you got films like Tom Cruise in them, you can’t go wrong.
The thing about Eraserhead, is you kind think of it as a short film, because it doesn't behave like a full length film. And then you remember the dread you had after you saw the baby, (especially trapped in the theater) and you started wondering how long the rest of the film was going to be. Cause the humor in it was....gone....But both these guys don't mention the humor in this film.
The elevator bit is still one of the funniest things ever.
Ebert understands art a little bit more than siskel obviously
That seems a little harsh. They do know about art, but mostly about what has been, not what might be considered art.
But then again, harsh seems fair with the tone Siskel and Ebert has when talking about stuff that didn't appeal to them. They can be quite brutal, but at least they always strived for honesty
Siskel loved Lynch's Blue Velvet and Ebert absolutely hated it. They were pretty equally inconsistent.
really, really not saying much.
They disagreed on Blue Velvet though. Siskel liked it and Ebert panned for being too exploitative/misogynistic. They both were kind of annoying reviewers.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017- Roger Ebert couldn't stand seeing women humiliated. He hated A Clockwork Orange for the same reason he hated Blue Velvet, never mind that you couldn't humiliate either Isabella Rossellini or Adrienne Corri if you stripped them both naked, painted them yellow, and made them crawl around Branson, Missouri on all fours, braying like donkeys. Those women were fearless.
David lynch couldn’t even name a Bunuel film, and yet he’s been said to have copied him many times
You're pretty naive if you think Lynch hasn't seen a bunuel film
Lynch went to a film school that had surrealist directors among its faculty. I'm pretty sure he saw Bunuel's work.
Dead Kennedy's "You bawl like the baby in Eraserhead!"
Dude is the epitome of “I didn’t get it the first time so it means nothing that’s that”
That's the case with most critics, unfortunately. That whole industry doesn't leave a lot of room for challenging works.
Honestly, you're trying to say you got Eraserhead the first time you watched it? Right...
@@imcallingjapan2178 That is very much not what they said. Like I don't understand how that could be how your interpret it.
You have to realize that these two panned Blade Runner when it first came out. Apparently Siskel watched Roy Batty's speech, and it went over his head.
These 2 is dumber than dirt
Thanks for giving away the ending Roger.
Spoilers were not a meme 35 yrs ago, when the movie was already 10yrs old. But you're right, journalists were just a stupid back in the day and way more disrespectful to their audience and whatever art they 'covered'.
People were normal back then and didn't throw a tantrum like a child because they knew an ending to something they haven't yet experienced
He's really not giving much away - and even if he did, with this movie the plot is nothing compared to the experience of seeing it. Does the film title count as a spoiler?
Dammit, Gene!
he had one job...
Why are so many commenters saying that Ebert liked the movie? In this clip he never says that he likes it. Are people really this incapable of understanding the English language? It's almost as if they think that Ebert HAD to like Eraserhead simply because Siskel DIDN'T like it.
After recently watching this for the first time I thought "ok, David Lynch took the brown acid that was announced at Woodstock to avoid!"
ts weird how Siskel says he doesnt get the appeal, only to then perfectly describe why people find it appealing
I think because to him it was Kids These Days who were swamped with anxiety. That wasn't how he worked, and even if it was he'd probably never admit it.
I've shown this movie to half a dozen or so friends and have yet to convince anyone it's a great film. I watch it 3-4 times a year. I don't know how to explain my fascination with it and Ebert comes as close as anyone. To me, and I don't hear much about this, the sound is one of the most critical aspects of the film. I always crank it up and, to be sure, the sound is disruptive and agonizing, in a good way.
flash back to the acid days
And yet David Lynch never did acid
It is a really good film, one worth rewatching periodically.
I don’t know about rewatching unless you haven’t put all the pieces together yet. Once I knew it was about the fears of becoming a father i understood everything & no longer found a reason to watch it again.
The difference between Ebert and Siskel is clear here...Ebert knew what he was talking about while Siskel didn't. Knowing what surrealism was is one of the keys to have a basic analysis of the movie. Lynch is the son or grandson of Bunuel and the fact that Ebert got it, which honestly it is expected, demonstrates that he had the tools to analyse the movie while Siskel did not
Some brains are genuinely incapable of absorbing the abstract. It's a foreign language,
Agreed. Ebert had a more whimsical way about him. He saw the world with more understanding. Made him appreciate and understand movies better than Gene.
Creepy?
Uhhh no...not for me at least.
Eraserhead, to me, is the intense dream you wake from only remembering bits from, but are so intrigued by you want to go back again and again to explore that particular reality.
And it is a reality where I am strangely comfortable, for lack of a better word.
There is something very calming about it.
Now I may lack the ability to understand what it is I see there, along with the ability to convey what little I do understand, but I absolutely love it.
It is a favorite among favorites.
Yes, it does have a dream (even nightmare) quality, like most of David Lynch's films.
@@kamuelalee Oh absolutely.
Eraserhead and Inland Empire are perhaps the most dreamlike for me.
Not creepy? OK Mr. Cool. But yes you can describe why it makes you feel that way, it doesn't have to be intellectualized, just use your words. Easy.
@@jon4715 It's not creepy for me, as it presents a world and reality which I find comfortable.
And it is likely from the juxtapositions.
The mechanized industrial hellscape and the cramped but cozy confines of Henry's apartment.
The cold dark rain and the warmth of his radiator.
The muffled drone of the outside world and the quiet still of his room.
These are the reasons I am comforted by the movie, rather than repulsed by it.
Have you ever layed in the dark while a hurricane roars outside?
It's _that_ kind of feeling.
Like I said, it's difficult to put into words.
Lynch's movies elicit an emotional response more than an intellectual one.
It's why I love them.
The eggheads can jaw about it all they want.
More power to them.
That's just not my scene.
@@joelbizzell1386 I don't suppose you've read Songs of a Dead Dreamer by Thomas Ligotti, have you? Vastarien, The Greater Festival of Masks, The Troubles of Dr. Thoss: all eerie stories which are a pleasure to walk around in.
Eraserhead's still creepy, but.
The “L’Age D’or” comparison is on point
The meaning of Eraserhead rests on nightmares and subconscious, in some place between real and dream world
If you reject that idea...you won't be prepared for the movie
“Oh you are sick”
I think everyone over analyzes Eraserhead. It was Lynch doing his first real feature as such, given free reign to work with a hand-picked
gang of friends and recommended colleagues (Alan Splet, et al.), and he's said many times that it was mainly an attempt at creating
kind of a self-contained pocket universe of sorts, surreal, an allegory, whatever you want to call it. People used to watch it with me
and ask me Scott, what the fuck is the point of this nonsense, and my response is, the point is that it creates a strange world
that you go into (Lynch often talks about how that excites him as a reason to want to make a film) and come out of. If you're
expecting Eraserhead to be like some conventional Hollywood narrative film, well, you can forget it. It's also kind of a backhanded
tribute to Philadelphia and the milieu that Lynch lived in for years attending art college and learning to be a painter and multimedia
artist first, and then filmmaker second. If it is "arty" well it is the product of an artist! It wasn't supposed to be Star Wars. Elephant
Man creates a similar world but it's a more familiar one, based in historical reality, and Lynch didn't write it, it wasn't his "baby" (haha) as it were. Blue Velvet was a breakthrough because after the DUNE disaster, Lynch was given more free reign to make a more
personal project, but it's kind of an uncompromising film that takes you into a weird noir world of smalltown corruption that
at least meets Hollywood halfway, by then Lynch had some commercial clout (even after Dune), and he managed to produce
a very surreal and strange film that still had some commercial trappings or potential. That's a difficult balancing act. But anyway
like all of Lynch's early short films, Eraserhead really was experimental filmmaking and I don't think it makes any apologies
for being so. Like Jodorowsky, he wasn't making the film for the multitudes, he was making it for himself and his friends,
primarily.
always enjoy siskel + ebert especially interviews with both
Siskel and Ebert were Hollywood yes men.
Pretty sloppy comparison with Bunuel's "Golden Age" They both use surrealism but the main themes of each film couldn't be more different.
Siskel is a sharp tack but he was typically the villain when it came to movies like this.
To be fair, Ebert panned each and every one of Lynch's films - including "The Elephant Man" - up until (I believe) "The Straight Story" and "Mullholland Drive". I can understand Lynch's other movies not being to everyone's tastes.....but "The Elephant Man"? :P
Wow, Ebert breaking out his hard-core film studies knowledge there at the end.
Ebert sums up my feelings, but his bad trip analogy would neatly work with Evil Dead 2, various Cronenberg films, probably Argento (though I’ve never seen) and Carpenter’s The Thing, you get my drift.
This is not a popcorn movie. This is not for the average or mundane movie goer. This is surrealist art and very complicated. His greatest masterpiece is Mulholland Drive,
Man these guys suck way too often. Eraserhead is profoundly symbolic film about a man who wants physical intimacy with females so badly, but at the same time is terrified of commitment, marriage and being a father. He wants it to be like heaven, but it's really like hell to him. That's all it really is about.
This. I heard that Lynch got the inspiration from it when his wife was pregnant and he was worrying about becoming a father.
You're one of the very few who understands what this is about. Good on ya.
It is profoundly symbolic, but I disagree that that's "what really is about". The fact that is profoundly symbolic means people are gonna interpret it in many different ways. This is one of my favorite films, and yet I don't agree your interpretation at all. That doesn't make it any less valid, if that's your point of view then great, but that's still not "what is really about". No one knows for sure, and that's the beauty of it.
Lynch himself has admitted that his relationship with his then wife and terror at becoming a father was the film's inspiration...add to that living in a Philadelphia tenement, where he realized that all that separated him from the outside was a brick wall.
Ok. I prefer Steven Seagal flicks where he goes around killing loads of people and blowing stuff up REAL GOOD.
I have heard it said that we do not choose Heaven, Heaven chooses us, I think that is one of the main themes in the film.
Everyone giving Siskel guff here.... I'll remind you Ebert HATED Blue Velvet and A Clockwork Orange.
He loved Synecdoche New York, though, which is at least as weird as Blue Velvet. And the book Blood Meridian, too, though that's far more violent and nihilistic than A Clockwork Orange.
When I saw the chain restaurant Twin peaks, I thought of the chickens scene in Eraserhead.
The oldest thing is that after saying he didn't like it, Siskel went on to pretty much nail the point of the film. If he'd maybe realized that, maybe he would've viewed it a different way.
In her review of Lynch’s Elephant Man , the late great Critic Pauline Karl prefaced it with a comment on Eraserhead . “ I thought David Lynch was a true original “. Ditto that but like Last Tango in Paris it took me several viewings .
I miss these guys
I would like to thank mister ebert for alerting us to john prine all those years ago😊
Much as Siskel didn't like it and couldn't see the point, he got pretty close. I relate a lot to what happens to Henry in this film. Well, not directly luckily.
One of the great movies of all time😮
Man, I thought it was a comedy?
The first half most certainly is. David Lynch has said that half was a dark comedy, so that the next half would be completely unsettling.
A narc and a square acknowledge a movie on a show where their thumbs are a metric of quality
When we were 16 we watched this high on cough syrup. It was horrifying and transcendent. We tried to watch it again months later and it was unwatchable.
Highly recommended but you have to be in the right mindset.
So Roger liked it. He’s not exactly sure why he liked it but I think I reacted that way also the first time I saw almost any David Lynch film. I liked it but I needed to watch it a few more times to find out why?
This film is up to interpretation like, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey. I guess that one is bad too.
”Shot in a crude way”... yeah, sure.
Did you.... watch the movie?
@@Lalo-dh8xq It was shot on a small budget, but in no way was Eraserhead "crude". The baby effect is still a mystery to most people and it was incredibly effective.
I like the creepy industrial feel and the sounds of machinery ,trains and such, but David Lynch needs to explain some stuff which he refuses to do.Like why is there plants in piles of dirt on the night stand that isn't in a pot?Why does the lady in the radiator have giant cheeks?I like arty films,but I like a coherent story.Lynch is great at setting a mood but some one needs to help him with the script.
If they hate it you know it’s good. Just like if rotten tomatoes hates it you know it’s good.
Tell that to Cats the movie
That’s not always the case. I have to go by multiple sources. A lot of times rotten tomatoes is right, but usually if a movie is less than 6.3 on IMDb then it’s no good. I find that more reliable than rotten tomatoes.
Only a dumbsith deals in absolutes
People don't generally seek out the "bad" part of a trip.
L’age D’or plug for fifty points. Nice play.
The appeal is in the film's use of visual and aural language to communicate an everyman's anxieties about parenthood and sexual intimacy against an intimidating modern, industrial backdrop. It's one of the best films I've ever seen, but one has to know how to read it. Much of what you see an hear is exaggerated and not meant to be literal.
I think you have the date wrong. They speak about Blue Velvet, which came out in 86. This had to have been after that, though Eraserhead DID come out in 77.
It's in the description: "Taken from a 1987 episode reviewing cult movies"
The thumbnail lol
I miss intellectual discussions about film.
Fair review!
"...okay" at the end LOL
Well, what do you expect from a guy whose favourite film is SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER?
Bald guy and people like him will never understand it. It's the love of art, the weirdest we can be around one another and even beyond that. That is what David Lynch doesn't care to casually show.
You realize “bald guy” was greatly defending Blue Velvet when Roger Ebert panned it, right? Siskel actually seems to really like David Lynch, he just didn’t like eraserhead. Stop getting upset with people for not liking movies like eraserhead. As a fan of it you can’t deny that it’s WAY fucking outside normal barriers, in fact I can almost guarantee that is one of the main reasons you enjoy it so much.
@@ianbeach23 I did not know that. Thanks for the new perspective
Are your feelings hurt when someone doesn't like a film that you do?
Really tough one...appreciate the individuality of it. No desire to get thru it.
I totally get what people are saying when they say that Siskel can be annoying sometimes with his unwillingness to better appreciate some of the more abstract/surreal films such as this one. But I still really respect the guy because at least he gives reasons and explanations for why he feels how he does. Regardless of whether those reasons make sense or not. At least he gives a reason. What I can't stand is when people just say "It's just shit and that's all I have to say". Why do you feel that way? "Cuz it just sucks. That's my reason." .... -_- ....
From a critical standpoint ( and despite their physiques) Siskel was Sancho to Ebert's Don Quixote
It's a masterpiece. It's a horror dream.
What an opinion. “The only people who like it are college kids” now and then plenty of grown adults love it, but he can’t even try to THINK about
It he just passes it off as “of edgy teens feel lost and need something to identify with so they like weird pointless violent shit”
Sometimes this film is straight up comedy. But scary if you don't get the jokes.
The films appeal IMHO is that it is the very best non traditional story telling u will ever see bc it's out there way way way out there but its also either intentionally or unintentionally very funny u decide but Def see this movie bc there's absolutely nothing like it anywhere in film😮🎉❤
I mean they hate it but Ebert does argue for some of its merits.
Ebert was a film connaisseur. Siskel was a comb over enthusiast.
You can tell who is able to think outside the box and view things artistically and who can't here...LOL
I remember watching this episode on cable during the era when eyeglasses made everyone look like owls.
I’m not sure if this is true or not since I wasn’t around back then, but did the owl eyes make everyone seem vulnerable & innocent? Childlike? More trustworthy? Just the vibe I get when seeing old pictures & videos.
I have yet to see the movie but from what I’ve read, the lady in the radiator represents death. The man who runs the gears represents God. Seems like an interesting premise in a way.
Endelusia, slicing up eyeballs
Debaserhead
and that's the last nice thing Roger Ebert said to David Lynch.
Ebert didn’t really like Lynch movies. He did like The Straight Story, and I THINK Mullholland Drive! But other than that (Did he like Twin Peaks?)?
The whole movie is a dark comedy on new Fatherhood. What's the big mystery?
Two years ago?
JOHN Nance or JACK Nance?
hack frauds
Siskel was right. I hated Eraserhead as well.