Change Your Image
bohlo
Reviews
Eraserhead (1977)
The Language of Lynch
First and foremost, it is not David Lynch's responsibility as an artist to make the meaning of Eraserhead (and by extension, the rest of his films), if indeed there is one, easily apparent. To hate the film because one does not understand it speaks to the viewer's laziness. Most American studio films of the last twenty years or so are easy to understand because they are marketed to teenage boys. Lynch makes films for himself. He does not pander. Furthermore, I appreciate that he does not condescend to the lowest common denominator, but rather puts it all out there for us, as the viewers, to make of his vision what we will.
Lynch follows Shakespeare's advice and "holds a mirror up to nature", but the mirror is decidedly Lynch's. If you've done any research at all on Lynch, including simply watching a "making of" of one his films, then you soon realize that Lynch, blessedly, does not see the world in a conventional fashion. That being so, it is important for anyone who enjoys his work to see this film, if for no other reason than to gain a rudimentary understanding of Lynch's visual palate and the collection of themes that he is continuing to explore to this day.
For example, I recently purchased the Eraserhead DVD which, incidentally, is gorgeously produced and worth every penny. After watching it, I was struck by how many details of camera angles, sound, scenic design, thematic elements, editing, and so on, ad infinitum, appear in his later work. In order to confirm this thought, I watched Blue Velvet again and was astounded by the number of parallels:
*Laura Dern's entrance in Blue Velvet/The Beautiful Girl Across the Hall's entrance
*The passage of the camera (i.e. - the viewers eye) through holes (or portals) to alternate worlds (e.g. - the hole in the planet and the hole in the roof of the shack in Eraserhead and the ear in Blue Velvet)
*The camera's movement over the planet in Eraserhead and the camera's movement through the grass in Blue Velvet
*Henry as a stand-in for Lynch in Eraserhead and Jeffrey as a stand-in for Lynch in Blue Velvet
*Redemption
and so on....
Eraserhead is the key to Lynch's work, but like Lynch, nothing is terribly clear and things are often askew. Possessing the key is not a promise of clarity but it does make getting through to portal to his alternate worlds a bit easier.
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
All I can say is...
...the film broke about 2/3 of the way through at what seemed to be the most exciting part (lots of dragons and explosions and such) and the house lights went on. The audience applauded and left. Need I say more? Marlon Wayans was offensive. He was like one of those parodied in Bamboozeled. Thora Birch was embarrassing, as was the rest of the cast. Just dreadful. Rent Flash Gordon for some good B movie fun. This is plain bad with no redeeming features whatsoever.
Basements (1987)
Not worth the effort
PLEASE NOTE: These comments contain SPOILERS!!
I rented this film with high hopes. Of course, that in itself is usually a recipe for disaster.
The play upon which the movie is based is very dear to me. I have performed in it and directed it three times. Given this, let make plain that I am not adverse to a director having a different vision than my own. That is to be expected and respected. The problem arises when the director has a vision that is counter to the work itself.
First of all, I take issue with the casting of John Travolta in the role of Ben. In the text it is noted that Ben is the senior partner. With that in mind it becomes very difficult to believe that Tom Conti, who clearly has at least 10 years on Mr. Travolta, is the junior partner. Mr. Conti comes off as the world's oldest rookie. The most disturbing aspect of Mr. Travolta's perfomance (or lack thereof) is his horrendous dialect. Mr. Travolta's Cockney makes Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood appear brilliant! One would think that Robert Altman would at least see that a decent dialect coach were hired.
The Dumb Waiter falls into a group of plays by Mr. Pinter that are known collectively as "Comedies of Menace." The setting is the basement of an abandoned building and, in my experience, provides a nicely clautrophobic atmosphere that heightens the sense of aforementioned "menace." For some reason, Mr. Altman chose to set the piece in a huge, airy, well-lit space. Picture the set for The Mary Tyler Moore Show, only bigger.
My final, and most damning criticism of the piece is the ending. HERE COMES THE SPOILER!!!!! In the original text, Mr. Pinter clearly leaves the ending ambiguous. The word comes from on high that the target of the hit is about to arrive. Suddenly, Gus, stripped of his weapon and clearly roughed up, is thrust into the room. Ben instinctually points his weapon at Gus. Blackout. The end. In the film, we hear (but do not see) the shot and, over the credits, the cleaners (think Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction) are seen going to the site of the hit. Part of the beauty of the original is the fact that Mr. Pinter doesn't answer the final question for the audience. Mr. Altman, in effect, condescends to the audience by making that decision for us (and for Ben).
There are far better adaptations of Mr. Pinter's work out there. Don't waste your time on this.