David Lynch’s Eraserhead Explained!

Eraserhead is one of David Lynch’s most recognized films; it was also his first, which by the way took about six years to make while Lynch studied at the American Film Institute. Now for those of you who don’t know a blip about David Lynch’s films, they often times defy interpretation, they’ll make you wonder just what the hell the filmmaker is trying to say with them. Sometimes a David Lynch film will be so surreal that you’ll want to see it again instantly! Or not. You see, Lynch is a very polarizing director, you either fall in love with his style of filmmaking or you don’t. I personally love Lynch’s films because of how challenging they are. I like films that defy me to interpret them, I love films loaded with symbolisms and Lynch’s films are like that. Eraserhead for example is one of those films that everyone always tries to figure out after seeing. Ask anyone about any David Lynch film and they’ll give you their own interpretation of it because his films work that way, they could mean anything to anyone. So here I offer you guys my interpretation of Lynch’s Eraserhead! Cause the way I see it, it’s not as much of a mind twist as most make it out to be! This article is goes into detail about specific moments in the film and its themes so if you haven’t seen the film, skip it and come back after you’ve seen it.

CHAPTER I: HENRY WORRIES ABOUT BEING A FATHER

From its very first frames, Eraserhead challenges you to interpret what you are seeing and you definitely get the idea that you’re in for a surreal film. During the whole film, we constantly revisit what’s going on inside the head of Henry Spencer, the films main character, which is why the film starts out by showing us one of Henry’s many dreams. In this first dream, we see Henry’s head, floating through space. Now apparently, what Henry is having is a nightmare involving something that looks like a giant sperm coming out of his mouth, floating through space. This is not the only reference to sperm that we see in the film by the way; which kind of lets us know what the film is really about! So anyhow, this evil looking man called “The Man in the Planet” pulls a lever, and out comes the sperm from Henry’s mouth, flying through space. The Man in the Planet could represent many things, but since the film addresses sexual themes, I’m gonna go down as saying that this Man in the Planet could possibly represent Henry’s sexual desires? At any rate, this ominous character represents something that controls Henry, and what’s more controlling than our sexual desires? Do they not sometimes control us like a puppeteer pulling strings? So anyhow, as the giant sperm floats through space, it ends up on a planet, as it keeps going down; the sperm thing goes into a dark crevasse. Now it doesn’t take much to figure out that a sperm going into a crevasse would represent impregnation? Taking in consideration that this film is all about the horrors of unwanted pregnancy, well, if you put one and two together you’ll understand that what we are seeing here is Henry Spencer impregnating his girlfriend, Mary X. But this is all happening in Henry’s mind, so what we’re really seeing here is Henry having a nightmare about the possibility of having gotten his girlfriend pregnant.

CHAPTER II: HENRY’S HUMBLE AND DEPRESSING LIFE

Fast forward to Henry coming home from work walking through an industrial wasteland; this is where we learn just what a decidedly bleak landscape Lynch wants to paint with this film. Henry not only leads a depressing lonely life, he lives in a depressing looking city, made this way by industrialization. This is a city without trees, without beautiful looking anythings, this city that Henry lives in and walks through every day from and to his job is one industrial nightmare. It seems post apocalyptic, abandoned, an utterly sad place to live in. The apartment building in which Henry lives in is equally depressing. Henry is portrayed as the quintessential, low income blue collar worker who can only afford to live in these sad circumstances, with only the bare necessities, in an apartment filled with dirt and dying vegetation. Here is where we find out that this is definitely a man who does not have the means to bring a child into this world and care for it properly. He can barely take care of himself.

CHAPTER III: THE WORST DINNER EVER

Next, Henry gets a message from his sexy, provocateur neighbor that he has received a phone call from Mary X, inviting him over for dinner so he could meet her parents, a notion that completely horrifies Henry. He doesn’t seem to be in love with Mary at all and Mary doesn’t seem to be head over heels for Henry either, but something is bringing them together tonight, what could it be? This is where the main theme of the film is revealed. Their unwanted pregnancy and all the awkward, uncomfortable and downright horrifying situations it will create. Henry has to face the possibilities of having to marry Mary, a girl which he obviously doesn’t love. And that’s the worst part about it, by the way they behave around each other, it’s quite obvious that Henry and Mary had a one night stand type of deal and that no love was involved. But here’s Henry, months after having had intercourse with Mary, facing the realities of being a father. Mary asks Henry “You wouldn’t mind marrying me would you Henry?” to which he nervously answers “Well….no.”

"Just cut em up like regular chickens"

Onward we go to meeting Mary’s parents. Mr. and Mrs. X, and boy is this encounter one of the most awkward situations every filmed. First, Henry meets Mary’s mother and of course she begins everything by asking Henry what he does for a living, because all she cares about is how Henry is going to take care of her daughter. Everyone in this room seems to be uncomfortable around one another, everything we see, a dark omen of the negative energies floating around that living room! At one point Henry looks at the floor and sees a dog, feeding her puppies, all of them sucking on her mother’s breasts like mad little doggies. Henry looks at this image and it horrifies him because it obviously reminds him of the responsibilities that await him as a father; it’s here that he realizes that from here on in, a child will depend on him for all of its needs! The energies on this room are so negative that the lamps on the room begin to flicker on and off until the light bulb explodes! Next we meet Mary’s father, a man who is not all that different from Henry, a blue collar worker as well, who has been apparently driven insane by 30 years of hard labor. Same as in many films, the father character is represented as being aloof, apparently not at all there, not even aware that his daughter has given birth to a baby! He just casually converses with Henry about the weird little chickens they are about to eat, which by the way are simply there to make matters even more uncomfortable. How uncomfortable? Well, as Henry begins to cut up the “man made chickens” that the family is going to have for dinner, they begin to bleed profusely! As you can see, nothing in this moment is right, everything is some sort of negative bad omen, it’s as if Henry was not meant to be here at all. In fact, he wouldn’t be here if he hadn’t gotten Mary pregnant. Here Lynch is accentuating the uncomfortable situations brought on by an unwanted pregnancy, it seems that now Henry is going to become a part of this weird ass family unit? All throughout, Henry’s face is telling us he is cursing himself for not having used a condom.

CHAPTER IV: HENRY LEARNS HE IS A FATHER

Next, Mary’s mom takes Henry aside and asks him if he had intercourse with Mary because there’s a baby in the hospital and he is the father! Henry is so nervous he doesn’t know how to answer the question, but under pressure, he tells Mrs. X that he ‘loves’ Mary! The mother keeps pressuring him, asking about the intercourse, all while viciously licking Henry’s neck! Henry calls out to Mary who walks in on Mrs. X salivating over Henry, Mary is horrified. So this is how Henry learns that he is the father of a baby…weird part is that Mary tells Henry that the doctors don’t even know if the baby is really a baby or not! Apparently, Henry and Mary’s baby is not your normal every day baby! The doctors don’t even know what it is! So anyhow, fast forward a couple of days and we see Mary moving in with Henry. Sure, all he’s got is this little apartment, but he is a father now and he has to man up and deal with this new situation in his life! It’s his baby after all; right?

CHAPTER V: MEET THE BABY!

So from this moment in the picture, we meet Henry and Mary’s baby. And let me tell ya, it’s not a pretty sight! The baby looks like some sort of mutant, half formed and incomplete and to top things off, sick. Here the film really starts to test your boundaries. Can you take it? Why is this baby so ugly, so monstrous? I believe that the idea behind making the baby in the film so ugly and downright disgusting is to accentuate the idea that this baby was not planned, it is unwanted. The fact that he is sick, always hungry and crying is meant to remind the viewer of the things that a baby can bring into your life. Now I personally think that under the right circumstances, a child is a reason for happiness and joy in your life, but I also understand how having one when you are not ready can become a burden, and not only that, it can and probably make your life miserable. Let’s say you’re young and are in that part of your life where you just want to party and have fun, well, that’s all over because now you have a baby to take care of and feed and nurture. You gotta worry about earning enough money to give the child everything it needs. Once a baby is born, you sacrifice a lot of yourself in order to take care of that child and if you are not ready for that in your life, you will more than likely be miserable. In Eraserhead, the child never stops crying, never stops being hungry; it is a constant nag in Henry’s life.

CHAPTER VI: MARRIAGE IS AS UNWANTED AS THE BABY

And how about those people that get married because they suddenly face the prospect of having a child? You’ve seen it happen a thousand times. Two kids have unprotected sex, choose not to abort the baby and so they figure they have to get married. If two people get a surprise pregnancy and they love each other, cool beans, get married! Have a family! Be happy! But what of those that have an unwanted pregnancy and don’t feel they love each other? What if all you had was a one night stand? What if you were simply having casual sex? Do you have to marry that person? Should the child be aborted? Do you want to be entangled with a person you barely know? It seems to me that if you marry a person this way, you are forcing things, doing something that doesn’t come out of you naturally. Chances are that this type of marriage will not end up well, and so, this is what happens to Henry. Henry and Mary are trying to force something that’s not cemented on love. Should they have aborted the baby? Would they have been happier? Henry and Mary’s marriage is portrayed as a very uncomfortable thing. Henry isn’t even comfortable with Mary sleeping next to him! She fidgets and moves around and doesn’t let him sleep. To make matters worse, the baby never stops crying! After a while Mary herself can’t take it anymore and moves out, running, like a crying baby to her parents house. This lets us see that even Mary herself, the mother of the child, was not ready to be a mother. She’d rather crawl back to the safety of her parents’ house, which she does. She leaves Henry alone with the monstrous baby!

CHAPTER VII: A TRIP INTO HENRY’S SUBCONSCIOUS

How do we know that Henry is not ready to be a father? Well, aside from the fact that he is obviously distraught by the constant crying of the baby and the fact that the baby is sick and bursting with these ugly warts all over its body, he also starts dreaming about all the things that are going through his mind. First up, he dreams about his next door neighbor, the provocative lady who is constantly flirting with him. And this is where we once again, dive deep into the mind of Henry Spencer through one of his dreams. In his mind Henry has sex with the next door neighbor in a pool of milk! He completely submerges himself in it, letting us see that he wishes he could be fulfilling his sexual desires with women instead of being with Mary X and taking care of a crying baby. Again, Henry wasn’t ready to be tied down by marriage. Even further than that, Henry ends up dreaming with this woman singing on a stage, as she sings, little spermatozoa falls from above, barely missing her. She then proceeds to step on the sperm, alluding possibly to the fact that the mother of the child possibly didn’t want to be a mother either.

Still, this is not the end of Henry’s nightmares, as we go deeper in his mind we see his dream extend and in it he ends up in some sort of judicial court room with the baby as part of the jury! The baby judges Henry and decides it’s off with his head! So Henry’s head pops off and falls to the floor!  This of course all means that if Henry’s child was to judge him for how he is performing in his role as a father, Henry would be found wanting and guilty as charged!  So these dreams within dreams that Henry has all have to do with his preoccupations about being a father, that’s understood. It is quite obvious Henry would rather forget the whole thing; he wishes he could erase the whole thing from his mind, which makes perfect sense when we see what follows. At this point in the dream, Henry’s head is found by a child who takes the head to a pencil factory. In the pencil factory, a worker takes a part of Henry’s brain and turns it into the eraser of a pencil. He then tests the eraser and blows on the residue left by it, as the residue of the eraser blows in the wind, we see the image of Henry’s head superimposed over it. The Meaning behind it all is that Henry wants this whole mess with the deformed baby out of his mind! Erased, forgotten. Unfortunately, the reality is another one. The baby is still in his apartment!

CHAPTER VIII: FILICIDE – MURDERING YOUR OWN CHILD

Then it’s back to reality and we see Henry heading back to his apartment. At first he tries to connect with the sexy neighbor; unfortunately she’s busy with some other man. Frustrated by this Henry returns to his apartment only to find his baby sicker than ever! The warts on the baby have gotten worse and it appears to be choking to death! Henry than decides to cut open the bandages that cover the lower half of the creature before him, you see, till this point in the film we’ve only seen the baby’s head, the rest of its body is covered in bandages. So Henry cuts open the bandages and we discover the baby has no lower body, it’s simply composed of a pair of lungs and its innards! Henry can’t take it anymore so he begins to stab the abomination before him to death! Now this is quite possibly the films most shocking moment because of the idea involved: killing one’s own child. Once Henry is through stabbing the baby, it begins to scream in the midst of a horrible gooey mess, it gushes blood and who knows what else! The energies in this room are so awful that the lights begin to flicker on and off (as they often do in a Lynch film when things are too intense) then the baby grows to gigantic proportions, the lights go out and we fade to black! According to the book David Lynch: Beautiful Dark by Greg Olson, the original ending for the film would have been the baby gobbling up Henry, but for some reason this wasn’t filmed, I would have loved to see that ending, but I guess they couldn’t pull it off. So there you have it ladies and gents. Eraserhead, as seen by The Film Connoisseur, obviously the film might have meant a whole other thing to you so don’t worry if none of this makes any sense, still, I hope you found my interpretation of it interesting. 

David Lynch and Jack Nance, fooling around on the set of Eraserhead

Blue Velvet (1986)

Title: Blue Velvet (1986)

Director: David Lynch

Cast: Isabella Rossellini, Dennis Hopper, Laura Dern, Kyle MacLachlan, Dean Stockwell, Brad Dourif, Jack Nance

Blue Velvet came around the time when Lynch was trying to bounce back from the financial disaster that was Dune (1984). Now if you ask me, I’m one of the ones that loves Lynch’s Dune, always have and always will, but more about that on my review for Dune! So for whatever the reason, audiences just didn’t engulf Lynch’s vision of Frank Herbert’s Dune universe. Did this mean Lynch was a bad director? Hell no, he’d already proven himself to be a force to be reckoned with Eraserhead (1977) and the incredibly moving The Elephant Man (1980), both mind blowing in their own ways. Dune was just a hiccup along the road. Dune tanking at the box office was not going to stop Lynch from making more movies. So, thanks to the benevolent help of producer extraordinaire Dino DeLaurentis, Blue Velvet got the green light. The trick to getting this film made was making it for very little. Blue Velvet was a risky picture to commit to because it dealt with both sex and violence and it was a very dark picture. Some sacrifices were going to have to be made if Blue Velvet was ever going to see the light of day, and so, with everyone getting a pay cut, Blue Velvet was made with a mere six million dollars.

On this film we meet Jeffrey Beaumont, a college kid who’s coming back home to see his father who’s suffered from a devastating stroke. While wandering through his old neighborhood, Jeffrey stumbles upon a human ear decaying on the grass. Jeffrey is a good natured kid; he has a very positive, generally happy outlook on life, you get the feeling that he hasn’t seen enough of the world to become bitter and angry. Jeffrey is also a naturally curious young man, so he picks up the ear and takes it to the police, who decide to investigate further. Problem is that Jeffrey thinks he can investigate faster on his own, so he takes it upon himself to go deeper down the rabbit hole. Where will his investigations take him, especially considering the strange world we live in?

Blue Velvet is all about sex and violence, and how sometimes both of these worlds can get entangled to the point where they are difficult to differentiate. At which point are you "roughing it up a little" during sex and at which point does sex become sadomasochistic? Jeffrey Beaumont is a character who is exploring his boundaries, he wants to see that dark side of life that he’s never seen, he wants to see what’s hidden underneath, the taboos, the things no one wants to talk about. This is one of the defining themes of this film; that maybe the picture perfect world we see in front of our eyes isn’t as picture perfect as we’d like to think. I loved how Lynch mixes snap shots of a suburban neighborhood, picket fences, flowers and shinny new cars, with the horrors that are hidden underneath it all. Here, Lynch shows society living a façade. On the surface we see beauty, but if we look just a bit deeper, we see there are some pretty nasty things going on in this world. An example of this is Jeffrey, walking about this grassy knoll only to find a dead, decaying human ear when he decides to look where he’s walking. There are many references to darkness beneath the light in the film, for example, we see the picture perfect neighborhood, while inside of the houses, people are watching violent mystery stories on television, alluding to humanities allure with violence.

On the sexual side of things is where Blue Velvet really takes off though. We are presented with Jeffrey Beaumont and his new girlfriend Sandy Williams (18 year old Laura Dern) both of whom represent innocence and purity. They are so pure that they can’t stop giggling all the time; they can’t help being excited by the mystery that’s unfolding before them, like two little kids. They learn the hard way that some things are better left alone. On Blue Velvet, Jeffrey’s “innocence” is corrupted when he meets Dorothy Vallens, played by Isabella Rossellini, a battered character that’s emotionally and psychologically broken. Rossellini conveys all these emotions wonderfully through her performance which comes off as a woman who can’t escape the darkness she’s in, she’s gone in too deep; to top things off, she’s grown into a masochist. This desire to get pleasure from pain comes as a shock to Jeffrey, who’s only about caring for others. While Jeffrey asks “are you okay?” to Dorothy, she asks him to hit her. So we have to diametrically opposed characters, attracting each other because of their differences. Jeffrey is attracted by Dorothy’s intensely erotic nature while Jeffrey’s tenderness is something new to her. He’s a good natured kid getting mixed up with a damaged soul.  So these two worlds are clashing with each other, there’s no way that Jeffrey is going to come out unharmed from all of this. Yet there’s nobility to Jeffrey. He doesn’t have to get mixed up in this, but he does, because he feels sympathy for Dorothy. By the way, this is a very vulnerable performance from Rossellini, she bares all in a character that’s worth exploring.

Enter Frank Booth, one of the most evil, dark, twisted characters you will ever meet on any film. He’s the kind of character that comes off as truly scary, Frank will make you scared of the idea that there are people like him roaming the world. Dennis Hopper delivers an amazingly demented performance, very intense. He represents the worst thing that a man can become and that’s abusive of women. And this is one of the most important questions the film asks: “Why are there people like Frank in the world?” There's a scene where we are in the backseat of a car as Frank Booth is driving, Dennis Hopper plays it so evil that you get this feeling that you do not want to be there! Why are their people so messed up that they have to abuse women? That they get pleasure out of inflicting pain? Men who have to show that they are the alpha males, that they are the ones with physical power and that they can abuse it. With Blue Velvet Lynch once again addresses the theme of psychologically and physically abused women. He also played with these themes in Inland Empire (2006) albeit in a slightly more surreal fashion, but it’s in Blue Velvet that he explores them most deeply. Isabella Rossellini is the poster child for abused women as Frank Booth is the poster child for abusive men. I did like how not all men are portrayed as abusive, because while Frank is all that can be evil about a man, Jeffrey is the complete opposite. He cares for women and wants to show them tenderness and care.  

Women have always made up a huge part of Lynch’s body of work. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992) is yet another film about abused girls. Mulholland Dr. (2001) also centers on women. Same as Federico Fellini, women are a favorite topic of Lynch’s and same as many Fellini films, an admiration, an adoration of the female is felt. There are many other elements to Blue Velvet that will remind you that it’s a David Lynch film; the art direction, the colors in a room, the mellow lighting, the peculiar looking lamps; that droning sound and same as in many Lynch films, somebody singing a sad song from a stage will always figure into the story, in this case its Isabella Rosellini herself who will hypnotize you while singing ‘Blue Velvet’. Lynch’s love for a good mystery is also at the heart of Blue Velvet. We discover this intricate mystery as we follow Jeffrey, deeper and deeper into this dark, dark world. Also, there are wonderfully weird moments that will let you know you’re in Lynch territory, like this scene in which Dean Stockwell sings Roy Orbison's 'In Dreams', wow, now that's weird! These scenes will stir emotions in you that you didn’t know you could feel, and that’s what is so great about Lynch. He creates premises so strange, so surreal that they’ll trigger an emotional reaction out of you, even if you don’t fully comprehend what you are seeing. But speaking of coherence, Blue Velvet is actually one of Lynch’s most linear films; it just goes into really strange, dark places. But, like any good mystery, you’ll end up loving it and wanting to see it all the way through, like Jeffrey,  Lynch will turn you into a voyeur who can’t stop watching.  

Rating: 5 out of 5     

Spring Breakers (2012)

Title: Spring Breakers (2013)

Director: Harmony Korine

Cast: James Franco, Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, Rachel Corine

Watching a Harmony Korine film can be a grueling experience, don’t know how many of you out there have seen Korine’s first film Gummo (1997), but it is such a raw and crude film that it can prove to be too much for some people. But then, the thing about Korine’s films is that most of the time they mix the real with the fictional until the lines blur and you don’t know which one is which. There’s lots of improvisation to his films, magical moments are provoked and end up happening in front of the camera, take for example a scene in which one of the girls puts a gun in James Franco’s mouth and he begins to start giving the gun a blow job. That scene was improvised! On Gummo we meet these two hill billy teenagers whom we follow through a day in their life, in their neighborhood. Man, let me tell ya, you never saw America look so ugly! You know how most films will film in these squeaky clean beautiful locations? Well, not Korine, for Gummo he went to the ugliest, scummiest parts of America to capture a side of American life you probably don’t want to see. Which is why Korine’s latest, Spring Breakers,  surprised me a bit. I mean, first thing I thought when I heard about this movie having girls in bikini from beginning to end was how Korine had sold out! I was like, damn, he finally broke down and did a commercial film! Which is like the furthest thing on my mind when I think of an ateur like Korine, but there it is. Spring Breakers. A "commercial film" that made its budget back more than three times over!

Spring Breakers is all about these four girls who are bored of college and want to have fun, they are ready to cut loose and live life to the fullest; squeeze it for all it’s worth. Basically they want to fulfill every hedonistic desire they can think of. So they do what any penniless college girls would do, they rob a restaurant, take the money and run. For a while, their plan works, but then things take a turn towards the dark side. Will they end up living the American Dream or the American Nightmare?

Spring Breakers was a confusing film for me because the marketing made it look like one of those dumb movies about young kids partying like animals, you know, like Project X (2012) 21 & Over (2013). I personally don’t like these types of movies;  don’t know why, I guess they feel overtly stupid to me somehow. So I kind of let Spring Breakers slip by me because of this preconception of the type of movie it might be. But deep down inside I thought to myself that Harmony Korine was not the kind of guy who’d sell out like that. I mean, his movies were always so shocking, like a solid punch to your gut! They  aren’t pretty things, they focus on the dark side of humanity. Some of his films, like for example Mister Lonely (2007) are incredibly surrealistic, feeling like something Alejandro Jodorowsky might have directed. So yeah, it surprised me then that Korine was suddenly doing this movie filled with sunsets and beaches and beautiful people in bikinis. So was Korine betraying himself with Spring Breakers? I get what he did here. Korine's films never made money. They were always art house films deemed too shocking or weird for mass consumption, but you know how the movie world is; directors have to walk that fine line between making art and making money if they want to stay in the game. And so girls in flourescent bikinis was a smart move on Korine's part; yes my friends, sex will always sell. But did Korine sell out all the way? Hell no!  

The deal with Spring Breakers is that from a distance, it looks like your typical party film about young people getting drunk and doing stupid things. And for a while, this movie is about that. These girls go into the heart of Spring Break in Florida and go all out, they smoke their weed, do their coke, have sex like maniacs, basically these girls party like animals, but like most films about excess, there’s the dark side. The side where life shows you that going over board has its limits and that having your brain on stupid mode for so long will blind you to the consequences of your actions. I liked how the film starts out in a beautiful place and slowly descends into a very dark place. We are talking about young girls who like the dangerous side of life, they like to test their limits, they want to see how far they can go without getting in trouble. Hell, these girls are described as having “demon blood” in their veins! It’s no wonder they end up being soul mates with ‘Alien’ the drug dealing character played by James Franco.

And speaking of James Franco, wow, what a performance. I have to say the guy really surprised me with this one. I mean, I’ve always admired his work but honestly? To me this is his best performance yet, he really created a character here. When the girls fall into Aliens hands, you worry for their safety. Alien exudes true evil, they kind of evil that comes from a person who understands the hypnotic influence of words, money and power! He brought to mind a similar character played by Gary Oldman in Tony Scott’s True Romance (1993), remember that one? The crazy white pimp who thought he was black? Alien has this out of control quality to him that’s scary, but also get the vibe that the guy is smart, he knows what to say and how to say it, especially to impressionable young girls. So be ready for a bravura performance, I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets a nomination come Oscar time! In embodies his character so well it reminded me of the Daniel Day Lewis transforming performance in Martin Scorsese’s  Gangs of New York (2002). This is the kind of performance that an actor gets lost into. There’s some controversy concerning this character because supposedly, James Franco based his character on a real life rapper called Riff Raff? The full story is that Korine offered this role to Riff Raff, who turned down the role, so then it went to Franco. So the movie comes out and Riff Raff decides to sue Korine for 10 million dollars because he feels the character is based on him. Franco says no way, the character is based on another rapper called ‘Dangerous’. Controversy aside, the performance is phenomenal, not to be missed.

Sometimes you watch a movie and suddenly you know you’re watching one of the best movies of the year, and this is what happened to me with Spring Breakers. After a while I was just being floored away by this movie. The visuals are amazing, the party scenes were filmed with gusto, they don’t feel staged, they have that realism that I’ve come to expect from a Korine film, I’m sure they just filmed a real life party, you get the feeling things are unfolding in front of the camera naturally. Then there are the colors of the film which are intoxicating! Korine did things with fluorescent colors all throughout the film; the colors on this movie are loud and beautiful to look at. Kudo’s to Korine for trying something different, sometimes his films are so gritty and real, so harsh, but this one feels like some feverish drug addled dream; a different color from every pill taken in the film. The first few scenes filmed in St. Petersburg Florida look amazing, they make you want to pack up your bags on go on “Spring Break Forever”. Korine also did this great thing where he plays with images and dialog, to the point where they collide, juggling the two and making this interesting mix of dialog taking over the images and vice versa, loved that. Spring Breakers is a Korine film masqueraded as a commercial film, it’s the film that Oliver Stone’s Savages (2012) should have been, it has that edge that Savages was desperately in need of. Everyone talks about this one as “the movie with the four girls in bikini from beginning to end” and you might make the same mistake I did, mistaking it for a stupid movie, well, let me tell ya, it isn’t. This movie might just knock your socks off and become one of your favorite movies of the year.

Rating: 5 out of 5   

Nadja (1994)

Title: Nadja (1994)

Director: Michael Almereyda

Cast: Peter Fonda, Galaxy Craze, Jared Harris, Elina Lowensohn

Vampires by way of David Lynch? Sign me up! So you get David Lynch to not only produce your vampire movie but to cameo in it as well? You lucky bastards you! So anyhow, here we have an art house vampire flick; which is not the rarity you might think it is. True, there are many crappy vampire films being produced every day (way too many if you ask me) but you’d be surprised at just how many ‘art-house’ vampire flicks are out there as well.  I remember  a few of them, let see, there’s Blood for Dracula (1974), made artful simply by the fact that it was directed by Andy Warhol himself, then we have Tony Scott’s The Hunger (1983), Blood and Donuts (1995), Romero’s Martin (1976), Del Toro’s Cronos (1993) to mention just a few of the most prominent examples. These are vampire films that don’t concentrate so much on the gore and guts; rather, they focus on presenting us with a more artful and original takes on the vampire genre.

Nadja does the same thing that a lot of contemporary vampire movies do, they play out their story in a modern setting, but it essentially plays with all the characters and situations presented on Bram Stoker’s famous novel. So on Nadja we have a Dracula, a Dr. Van Helsing, a Lucy, a Reinfeld and so on. But don’t mistake Nadja for just another retelling of Bram Stoker’s novel, instead, the film plays like a day in the life of the Dracula family. You see, according to this film, Dracula had many children over the centuries, and now they roam the earth, feeding on humans. Nadja is the daughter of Dracula, and when we first meet her, she is on her way to meet her brother, to let him know that their father has truly died. Along the way, Nadja falls for and seduces a blond girl by the name of ‘Lucy’ and after their lustful encounter, Lucy can’t forget her. Will Lucy turn into a full vampire? Or can Van Helsing and his nephew save her from the clutches of the vampire family?

So first things first, Nadja is not only artsy fartsy, it is extremely artsy-fartsy! Starting by the fact that the film is in black and white, which by the way I found very pleasing to the eye. I am not a black and white hater, in fact, for certain projects I say it fits perfectly, for example in Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City (2005) the black and white augments the sense of film noir and the feeling of reading one of Frank Miller’s black and white comic books. The black and white goes with Nadja because the filmmakers obviously display a certain admiration for old school horror movies like White Zombie (1932) and Dracula (1931), going as far as actually using some scenes from White Zombie as part of the film; which brings to mind how Nadja turned out to be a straight forward vampire film, I was expecting even more subtlety with the vampire themes, but nope, it’s pretty straight forward. It might as well have been called Daughter of Dracula or something! In Nadja we meet Dracula’s daughter and she’s this slick lady who loves to smoke her cigarettes by the pale moon light walking around the city looking all sorts of mysterious and sexy. The black and white also gives Nadja the feel of an experimental film, which in many ways it is.

The blurry effect

For example, the director decided to use a blurry vision effect to demonstrate how it would feel to be under the power of a vampire. During these scenes, the image of the films looks as if it’s being filtered through some sort of really low definition camera that’s out of focus as well, so we see these blurry images. I say this effect works within the context of what the director is trying to achieve, but I also think he over used it; for example there were various scenes in which I was digging the crisp black and white imagery and suddenly the director would switch back to the blurry vision thing, to me it got in the way of enjoying the black and white cinematography which was beautiful; though I will admit the blurry effect also adds to the strangeness of the film. Nadja certainly exudes a strange vibe, that feeling of being somewhere in the middle of the city during the deep hours of the night, when the freaks come out. So just be ready for a film that takes many risks by trying different visual techniques like these.  

Like many vampires who have walked for eons upon the earth, the vampires in Nadja like to philosophize about life and muse about the way things are, it’s one of the things I liked about the film. Something might be happening and suddenly one of the vampires starts philosophizing, handing out golden nuggets of wisdom. They say things like “The pain I feel is the pain of fleeting joy” referring to her passing relationships. And speaking of relationships, this is yet another lesbian vampire film to add to the list. Nadja likes the ladies and falls for one of her victims, just like in VampyrosLesbos (1971), Daughters of Darkness (1971) and Vampire Lovers (1970). In fact, at times Nadja felt like a remake of Vampyros Lesbos with regards to the character of Lucy and the relationship that develops between her and Nadja. They meet in a bar, hit it off and end up having a crazy night together that ends in seduction. The day after, Lucy can’t think of anything else but being with Nadja! Same thing happens with the two romantically entangled lady vampires in Vampyros Lesbos. But this shouldn’t surprise anyone, vampires have always been the embodiment of seduction.  

The actress who plays Nadja, Elina Lowensohn is so beautiful and exotic looking, I add her to that roster of actresses who’s look is so otherworldly that they light the screen on fire whenever they appear. Elina Lowensohn’s performance as Nadja brought to mind the equally seductive performances of actresses like Nastassja Kinski in Cat People (1982) or Anne Parillaud in Innoncent Blood (1992), you know sexy, dangerous, exotic looking female fatales. Bottom line with Nadja is that it’s a very somber film, with lots of serious vampires smoking cigarettes and musing about life. At its core is a story centered on family “as you get older you begin to realize that family is the only thing that matters” and relationships but told through the filter of the whole Dracula mythology. During the film we follow Dracula’s siblings and discover they’ve been feuding for years; can they deal with each other after years of avoidance, especially now that their father's death has brought them together? At the same time, you’ll find some comedy squeezed in between all the seriousness; but it’s very subtle, never in your face. Peter Fonda’s Dr. Van Helsing is an amusing performance, he offers up some of those subtle yet effective comedic moments. The thing with a movie like this is that you gotta be in a very mellow vibe to watch it; you gotta want to watch a slow, quiet film about brooding sad vampires. Save it for one of those nights when you want to see something different, artful and experimental in nature, hey it was produced by David Lynch (he even cameos in it!) what’d you expect? Normality?

Rating: 3 out of 5   

David Lynch cameos in Nadja

The Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

Title: The Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

Director: Jean Rollin

Cast: Alexandra Pic, Isabelle Teboul, Bernard Charnace

This film comes to use from one of the great French horror directors, Jean Rollin. Now this of course depends on who you ask because some critics dismiss Rollin as a pornographer, an amateur filmmaker or simply a maker of sleazy, gratuitous b-movies. But I beg to differ, I really do. Sure Rollin’s films had gratuitous nudity and violence, but to me Rollin’s films are also poetic and haunting and though some of them might come off as empty examples of style over substance, I also find relevant themes in his films. Take for example The Two Orphan Vampires, one look at it and you might say the film is paper thin, with little in the way of plot. And in a way you’d be right, because it is a simple film, but if you give this film a deeper look you’ll find a film that comments on religion and the contrasts between new ways of thinking versus the old.

In The Two Orphan Vampires we meet Henriette and Louise, two young girls living in a catholic orphanage. Their unique situation is that they are both blind, nobody knows why, nobody knows how, they simply are. One day, an ophthalmologist comes visit the orphans to inspect their eyes and soon decides to adopt and take care of them, he becomes their father figure, taking them from the orphanage and welcoming them into his home. The nuns are happy the orphans finally have a home, the orphans are happy they are finally out of the orphanage and the doctor is happy to help these two blind girls. But unbeknownst to all these people, the two orphan girls are only blind during the day! At night they become vampires and can see just fine! When night unfolds, the two girls roam the city streets looking for victims to feed on. How long will they continue this charade before others discover their secret? Will they ever be caught?

Thematically speaking, The Two Orphan Vampires is all about beliefs. First off we have these two girls living a lie. They live in a catholic orphanage, where they give this façade to the nuns, making everybody believe they are these two angelical blind girls. Now the meanings behind the girls being blind while living in a catholic orphanage are pretty obvious, this was Rollin’s way of addressing how religion can blind people, shutting their eyes to the realities of life. Humans are always drawn towards the lurid, seedy aspects of life, this is why the girls go out at night. It’s after they sneak out at night that these girls enjoy life, it’s at night that their vision returns, it’s when they escape the confines of the orphanage that they have their fun in the world, this is the time when they really see life for what it is. A mix of fun and struggle to survive, a dog eat dog world with moments of wonderment as well as suffering, a bitter sweet existence. An interesting aspect of all of this is that the girls are teenagers, a time when most people succumb to the more rebellious aspects of life; the teenage years are a time when you question everything and want to push your limits. This is why the girls escape their elders to smoke their cigarettes and drink their alcohol. So the film depicts two rebellious teenage girls giving their backs to Christianity in order to have their fun in life.

At the same time, the film addresses existential issues. The two orphan vampires are constantly questioning who they are and where they come from. They are vampires who have died many times over and have come back to life, with foggy memories of who they use to be. Problem is they can only remember a few of the lives they have lived, they can’t go that far back into their existence, so they start to wonder who they used to be in earlier lives and they come upon this book about Aztec civilization that gives them the idea that they were these ancient Aztec gods. Kind of like how humanity has a recollection of past civilizations, but at some point our history becomes foggy and we end up asking ourselves where we all really come from? Same as the two orphan vampires, we too have a foggy memory about these things. The two girls can only imagine they were Aztec gods, they are not certain, the same way we cannot find the answers to the big questions in life, so we make up answers and call these answers religion.

The Two Orphan Vampires features Rollin’s signature poetic visuals, the film is also told at Rollins usual slow pace, as if it was in no hurry to tell you its story, it simply unfolds at the pace it wants to whether you like it or not. I’ve grown to like this aspect of Rollins films because to me they are a breath of fresh air when compared to the frenetic pace of some of today’s films. So in that sense Rollin fans will find this to be like many of Rollins other pictures. But where this one takes a left turn is in the absence of nudity and violence, there’s very little of both on this film. Also, those looking for lesbianism will find the film lacking in that aspect as well, for while the girls hug a lot, it is never implied that they are in love. They function more as sisters. There is one scene where they are naked together, but it’s a completely unnecessary scene and seems to be spliced in the movie only to appease the producers who always asked Rollin to fill his films with nudity and violence. When compared to previous Rollin films, this one feels restrained in these areas, which was something that hardcore Rollin fans didn’t like about this film, personally, this didn’t stop me from enjoying this one.

The Two Orphan Vampires was made late in Rollins life, he was into his sixties when he made this one, and very ill I might add, yet the film still retains many of the aesthetically pleasing elements that I enjoyed about his earlier works like The Grapes of Death (1978), The Living Dead Girl (1982) and Fascination (1979), and though this film isn't nearly as good as these I've mentioned, there are still many good things to say about The Two Orphan Vampires, for example, the beautiful localizations are present…this was one thing that Rollin loved about filmmaking, shooting in actual beautiful locations, so we still have these beautiful shots of actual places, sometimes Rollin would compose these shots on the spot, an aspect of his films that I love. True, this is not Rollins best film, it has a few flaws, like the actresses who play the orphan vampires, though beautiful this was the first feature film for both, so sometimes their performance isn’t the best. The bad dubbing kind of hinders the enjoyment of the film; it makes the poetic dialog come off as robotic and unnatural. Still, I enjoyed the visuals, the music and the themes, it is not the disaster that some would have you believe. Sure it was late in Rollins career, but wow, the guy made this film through some serious illness, sometimes going from the hospital to the set, it’s a miracle he managed to pull off a beautiful looking film and on such a low budget! Admirable in deed.

Rating: 3 out of 5