A few days ago, I saw Robert Altman talk about the absence of pure film on Dick Cavett, thinking that film is an extension of text art or other elements; of course, combining Coppola and Scoresese means that film has shown us in the first thirty years of its invention. The full potential of what we have seen so far. ("So far we have seen 5% what film is capable of, and most of that was discovered in the first 30 years of film history"), it seems that we can easily take the film as a The art medium loses confidence.
Show Visual literacy—probably it means using film to tell things that can be clearly stated in words, a level that we can reach a good dramatist, whether it is political, human, or social, I want to be in Elia Kazan or After Alexander Dovzhenko, no one will have more confidence in this road (think about fighting with Elia Kazan with movie narration). After all, many of what we see in A streetcar named desire are universal boss sShakspearian .
With these words as a foreshadowing, the question we asked was whether anyone in the history of film tells us what ideosyncracy is completely independent of other media? What can make film stand out as a medium? Excluding it, it still has the ability to tell us sincere and powerful things, and adapt to many people's creative applications of metaphor, iorny, and double in literature.
If there is, David Lynch’s Eraserhead is the only one. If not, Eraserhead is also the closest work of art to this goal.
Of course, here I filtered out all the works that have poetic expression, high intellectual, and co-developed with other art movements, and ideological in the eyes of zizek... This is not luis Bunnel, sergei prarajanov, jonas Mekas === =
Of course Kubrick thinks this is his favorite movie. I think it's mostly because he knows that a little rascal can't understand sensational to this degree.
In addition, this is not a nightmare or a dream at all. It has nothing to do with any psychoanalysis of Freud and Lacan. If it is relevant, it means that it completely rejects psychoanalysis; Lynch has no bad growth experience. Both parents are very caring people, and the relationship is very harmonious...analyzing the symbolic symbolic value is the most stupid futile effort and a complete distortion of the film. This is not a B picture. If you like the model of B picture, both the seconds and it follows are more suitable for you to understand B picture.
If you ask why you don’t talk directly about anything in the film, I say: that is the fucking point... If it’s luis bunnel or Jean cocteau, I think any film study professor can write a long article or make a comentary —No words can be said—this is the point.
View more about Eraserhead reviews
