I'm not the most dedicated cinephile out there, but I'm rather surprised I'd never heard of this movie until recently (and, by recently, I mean today!)
Its critical reviews are strong, and it generated $7 million on a paltry budget of $100,000 for a whopping 70x ROI (only 20% of the movies in my 1000+ title movie ROI database paid 8x or higher!)
So, why is has it remained so relatively obscure?
I'll posit a couple of ideas - its art and its company.
Art
This movie is heavily symbolic. I've seen a gamut of analysis and attempts to explain/understand it. While I have found an explanation that makes the most sense to me (albeit though I haven't even seen the movie yet), I recognize that not all share that view. At any rate, for western audiences, is it a little too artsy?
Note also, when I observe that its reviews are strong, in fact, that was an eventuality. The initial reviews were negative and only became positive over time, as people had more time to reflect on it. And that suggests, to me anyway, that, at the time, it was just too far out there, too artsy, for most critics to appreciate at the time, which would have hampered/minimized the public discourse about it.
Company
The late 70s was a halcyon period in Hollywood, with a bevy of iconic and seminal films that would inform generations of movie making to follow. Here's a list of just some of the hits that released around the year this film was released (1978) -
1976 - Rocky, The Omen, Taxi Driver
1977 - Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind
1978 - Superman, Halloween, The Deer Hunter
1979 - Alien, Mad Max, Apocalpyse Now
The proportional amount of media attention these movies soaked up must have made it difficult for a film like Eraserhead to catch on such that, while all these titles are extremely well-recognized (I'm willing to bet 90% of all who read this post will at least recognize every title I listed, if not also seen every one of them), Eraserhead remains relatively unheard of.
So, is this movie obscure, or am I projecting my cluelesness onto others...?!
And, if it is as obscure as I think it is, are the aspects I listed above legitimate factors? Did I miss any? What other factors may have contributed to this film remaining obscure?
PS - here's a cute anecdote that speaks, one more time, to the artsy argument. Mad Max came out in 1978, the same year Eraserhead came out. I was 8 years old, and neither of these were movies my parents were going to take me to see. I eventually saw Mad Max around 1983 or '84 - a school chum's parents "got it on Betamax", and he invited me over to watch it thusly:
My pal: Have you seen Mad Max?
Me: Nope. What's it about?
My pal: Oh, man, it's cool. It's about this guy who has this cool car...and he wrecks it.
Me: Cool!
Ah, the higher critique of 14 year olds! Given that level of discourse, what in hell would we have grasped from Erasehead?! Meanwhile, regardless the dystopian/post-apocalyptic vision and commentary in Mad Max, it was still accessible to teenagers due to lots of the baser movie vocabulary of fast cars, explosions, crashes, and violence.
Can't find a movie or TV show? Login to create it.
Vil du vurdere eller legge til dette elementet i en liste?
Ikke et medlem?
Svar av JustinJackFlash
den 9 Juni 2021 kl. 11:56 AM
Maybe it's different elsewhere, but here in the UK Eraserhead is very well known. I was aware of it from a pretty young age, before I developed a proper interest in cinema. Of the films you listed I'd probably say I'd heard of it before Close Encounters, The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now. I'm actually surprised that despite it's very artsy nature it's as well known as it is. From what I remember I think the film is about fear of responsibility and fatherhood. The way Lynch films the radiator is so atmospheric and unsettling.
Svar av DRDMovieMusings
den 9 Juni 2021 kl. 1:17 PM
This vividly illustrates the value of diversity to conversation and understanding. I'm in Canada, you're in the UK, we're talking about a movie made by an American, and its reception domestically vs. abroad. One vantage is insufficient to capture the broader scope of reception to this movie.
That blows me away! These three particularly are huge on "this side of the pond."
It's well documented that American film is decidedly less "artsy", introspective, philosophical, abstract, while y'all over there on "the continent" are more sophisticated, refined. Apparently, we over here just have a shorter attention span, and are more interested in shallow fantastic escapism than deeper introspection (generally speaking). Even something as trite as TV commercials are typically "30 second spots" here while commercials in Europe can extend well beyond that. I worked for a car company some years ago, and they had several long commercials in Europe that were really popular, but they'd never try to run them over here because they were "just too long."
Again, it takes some intellect and sophistication to appreciate these nuances.
Sadly, for too many, our 14-year old "Mad Max had a cool car and wrecked it" synopsis is as deep as people want to go. For too many, everything should be obvious, right on the surface, no deeper analysis required or desired, no symbol, no abstract, no art.
There are several films that have layers, and when I attempt to peel back some of those layers, using just the material provided within the movies themselves, or insights by the movie makers about their stories, too many are quick to dismiss the musings, they just do not want to see anything beyond what I believed were symbols representing bigger ideas. Which can make it tough for story-tellers, movie makers and actors to be artists and contribute provocatively to the public discourse.
Svar av tmdb53400018
den 9 Juni 2021 kl. 3:21 PM
Back when House Party was a big deal, I never believed that the very young, black, moviegoing public (part of its intended audience) knew that much about Eraserhead - even though the character Kid's hair is used as a reference point to it in the film.
It's just a thought I had.
Svar av DRDMovieMusings
den 9 Juni 2021 kl. 3:34 PM
Interesting! I've never seen House Party - are there any additional references to Eraserhead in the movie, or is the hair a connection you saw but wasn't really intended by the movie itself?
The latter speaks more to your scope of knowledge in making a connection to Eraserhead, than to the movie itself. And, yes, I agree, its audience most likely would not have caught any such reference - although, I must hasten to add, while I have not seen either movie, just based on all we're discussing here, I'm of the tentative opinion that no part of _House Party'_s audience, black or otherwise, would have caught said reference.
But, I could be wrong, and that might be absolutely reasonable. Do you think non-Black members of the audience were more aware of Eraserhead than the Black members of the audience?
Svar av tmdb53400018
den 9 Juni 2021 kl. 3:46 PM
IIRC, a couple of characters mention the film by name in regard to how Kid's hair sits up high, like Henry Spencer's does in the film under discussion.
I always thought Reggie Hudlin was reaching a little too far with that... I mean, I knew about Eraserhead, but it's a cult film and I didn't see my generation as being particularly into those back then. I liked David Lynch's cinema since seeing Blue Velvet back in the days.
Svar av DRDMovieMusings
den 9 Juni 2021 kl. 3:53 PM
Cool that that was in House Party! Either it was a challenge to the audience to discover/explore Eraserhead, or there are more people like you among the audience than might first have been thought - you may not be alone!
Svar av JustinJackFlash
den 11 Juni 2021 kl. 12:10 PM
They're probably pretty huge everywhere. It's just that I always saw Eraserhead as being huge too. I'd see all four of those consistently pop up in classic films lists.
They probably are more sophisticated in the rest of Europe, but here in the UK people seem similar to America. The artsy people I come across are few and far between. But I have noticed the difference in tv style though. I found it strange how US reality tv seems to consist mainly of just cutaway interviews of the people just describing what happened instead of it actually being shown unfolding which UK reality tv tends to do more. That strikes me as being very hard to watch. Just a series of vacuous interviews. Not that I find reality tv easy to watch anyway. So, yeah, there is definitely a difference in conveying information.