Wikipedia:Peer review/Eraserhead/archive1

Eraserhead

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this fella's heading to FAC within the next few weeks and I'd like a few extra stern sets of eyes on it in the meantime. There's only one more major source for me to find and include; the DVD has a 90-minute feature which I'm hoping will let be expand the post-production information a little but I would assume it will repeat a lot of what is already present. I'm also not too concerned about the breadth of the Themes section as every author has a different take and rather than list every single interpretation I've gone with those that seem to be common to a few authors; though obviously there's still room to improve it. And for those who haven't seen the film yet, go do so. It's good.

Thanks, GRAPPLE X 06:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Great to see your work here Grapple X. I'm popping out the house soon, but just gave the introduction a quick look over, with a few points of improvement:
  • If you link to body horror then you should probably link to surrealism too.

    Got it. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd mention that either the film is American or that Lynch is American. Perhaps refer to "American filmmaker David Lynch" ? All too often, pages reach FA-status without even mentioning that the subject of the article is American; this clearly betrays an ingrained American bias within the English-language Wikipedia, an assumption that being American is somehow the assumed norm. Not to attack you for this Grapple X, but its just something that Western Europeans like myself get up in arms about!

    See, I had assumed that the mention of the American Film Institute covered this enough to avoid repeating it elsewhere; much as how I wouldn't specify that the British Academy of Film and Television Arts are English. I could slot it in if you'd like but if I did then I'd probably rework the first two paragraphs to move the AFI mention into the second one instead to avoid repetition. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe that it is repetitive to state both that Lynch is American and that the film was produced through the American Film Institute. It is perfectly plausible that a non-American might study at that particular institution, just as Lynch himself tried, in early life, to study in Europe. I don't really mean to be pushy here, but I really think the inclusion of "American filmmaker David Lynch" would be of real benefit to the average reader Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, added. Was toying with the idea of going for state of origin but since it's Pennsylvania and not Montana that figures heavily in the film I figured it would just confuse things. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• • "through the American Film Institute during the director's time studying there" : where is the American Film Institute ? You should mention that it is in Philadelphia because that city was so influential to Lynch's mindset when creating the movie.

    It's in California; Philadelphia is where Lynch had lived before moving there (and where he had studied fine art). I've added a mention of the AFI's location though that really strengthens my belief that calling either the film or Lynch "American" might be redundant to having specified it was produced in America by the AFI.

    • Ah, my mistake. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "in a strange industrial landscape" needs to be changed. "Strange" is a very POV word; what one person considers strange might be perfectly normal to another. Perhaps replace with "unnamed industrial landscape" or something of that nature ?

    That was meant to imply the surrealism of the film; would just using "surreal" work instead? GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "surreal" could be used, but again, I don't think everyone would necessarily concur that the industrial landscape was particularly "surreal" seeing as how there are parts of the world that genuinely look rather like this; instead, it is the events and characters of the film that are more "surreal". It would also be problematic because we already use the word "surrealism" in the opening sentence, and it fits nicely there. We could use something like "anonymous industrial landscape" perhaps, to emphasise that the location of the film is left a mystery ? Midnightblueowl (talk)

I've gone with "desolate". It might seem a little strong but the actual exteriors in the film are generally devoid of anyone but the immediate focus of the scenes (mostly just Spencer but there's the kid who finds his head too). It covers the emptiness that "anonymous" would suggest while also suggesting the off-putting nature of it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• • I think that this single sentence on the film's plot could be extended or complemented by a second sentence, discussing some of the other activities that Henry gets up to in Eraserhead.

    Added a second sentence mentioning the dream vision stuff, and naming the Lady in the Radiator. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "locations owned by the AFI" -- who are the AFI ? I assume that they are the American Film Institute, but you have not mentioned this acronym previously in the introduction.

    Got it. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you could mention that this was Lynch's first full-length feature in the introduction ? Not essential, but could be of benefit.

    Added, along with the below point. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps mention that the film is in black-and-white (although I assume that there is a better technical term for this) ?
• I'll go through the rest of the page when I get the chance. All the best from a fellow Lynch-lover, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments, I look forward to anything else you have to offer. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm all happy with the Plot section as it currently stands. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Pre-production" section:
  • Perhaps give Lynch's birth year in brackets ? Not essential, but it might interest the reader to know how old he was when he created Eraserhead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    Added it in prose; "However, by 1970, he had switched his focus to film-making, and at the age of 24 he accepted a scholarship at the American Film Institute Centre for Advanced Film Studies". GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • In the first paragraph, you use "However" to open two sentences in succession; one of these will have to be removed (I recommend the latter). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    Removed the second one. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Lynch disliked the course, and considered dropping out when he was offered the chance to produce a script of his own devising." This could be misconstrued as implying that Lynch was considering leaving because he has been offered to produce his own script, so I recommend we change this wording.

    Done. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "In addition, Greystone Mansion, also owned by the AFI, was used for a large number of scenes" – add the "for" in, as it is currently missing from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    Yep, added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Several board members at the AFI were still opposed to producing such a surrealist work" – only a few sentences previously, you have referred to "such a surrealist", so I think that in this instance we need to find a replacement.

    Changed the first instance to "figurative" ("such a figurative, nonlinear script"). GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Include the years of publication of Metamorphosis and "The Nose" in order to inform the reader that these works were not contemporary with Lynch.

    Done. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • You include a picture of Kafka, but why not Gogol too ? We could stick the two of them in a double image box.

    Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "a rough neighborhood in Philadelphia" – is there a better way of phrasing this ? "a poverty-stricken neighbourhood with high crime rates" ?? Something like that; again, not essential.

    Hmm. Crime is mentioned quite quickly afterwards and I'm not convinced the sources portray poverty so much; there's no indication that the Lynchs were struggling to get by for example. I've changed it to "a troubled neighborhood". GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Who is Greg Olson. Is he a film critic ? An academic ?

    Film critic, I believe. Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "In one extreme example of this labored schedule, one scene" – the word "one" is used here in quick succession.

    Changed to "an extreme example". GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "and retained his unorthodox hairstyle for the entirety of its gestation" – nowhere previously have we mentioned the hairstyle (one to which I must admit to having sported at a certain point of my life :p) and so the reader might be a little bemused here. I think greater explanation is needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    Clarified a little; there's also the film poster to demonstrate it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Filming" section:

• "of the AFI wishing" – "of the AFI's wish" would read more smoothly

  Done. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• If we link to sound design then we should probably also link to cinematography.

  Fair enough; I went with the former as it's more uncommon but both doesn't hurt. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• "the bizarre child" is POV wording; what is "bizarre" to one individual is not to another. How about "deformed child" ?

  Fair enough. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe add the dates of The Elephant Man and Dune in brackets; after all, we state the date of Twin Peaks' Episode 2.

  Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe link to vegetarianism; surprisingly perhaps, the very concept is unknown in large swathes of Europe and perhaps other areas of the world too.

  This may explain why my old flatmates were so loudly evangelical about it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Post-production" section:

• Perhaps link to test screening ?

  Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Soundtrack section seems fine to me.

Regarding the Themes section:

• "in films such as David Fincher's 1995 film Seven and the Coen brothers' 1991 film Barton Fink" – the word "film" becomes a bit repetitive here.

  Changed one "works", one to "thriller" (Seven) and one to "comedy" (Barton Fink). That should lessen the use of "film" throughout the heading from 14 to 11 uses. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps a bracket date for Blue Velvet and The Angriest Dog in the World ?

  Done. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps link to subconscious, pacifistic and fatalistic ?

  Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Release" section seems fine as it is, but I wonder if it could be extended with a short discussion of the midnight movie scene of the 1970s, perhaps with reference to the likes of El Topo and Pink Flamingos. Eraserhead was, after all, a key part of this scene.

There's mention in the "Legacy" section of a documentary that covers this scene; I could expand it there by a sentence to mention that the doc also covers those two films (as well as Night of the Living Dead, The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Harder They Come). GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd definately include a sentence or two on the role Eraserhead played in the midnight movie scene, and perhaps explain what that scene was to start with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Reception" section:

• Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or could have dates bracketed to them; as should Georges Franju film Blood of the Beasts.

  Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• We should mention Luis Buñuel in the text if we are to include a picture of him.

  Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you link to body horror then you should probably also link to black humour

  Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• "acid-tripping" should be linked to LSD.

  Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Legacy" section:

• Perhaps include dates when referring to Lynch's many other works.

  Any not already dated now are. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Add the date for Begotten.

  Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that that's about it from me, Grapple X. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your article and heartily congratulate you for it. It has my support for going on to achieve FA status, and feel free to gimme a message if you ever need someone to help you in achieving that or reviewing any other Lynch-based articles. Best Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot; your comments have been really helpful. My next FAC's definitely going to be Lynch-based; either this or another Twin Peaks episode, so I'll keep you posted if you'd like. Thanks again! GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:
• What does "The film was produced through the American Film Institute (AFI) during the director's time studying there." this mean, specifically that "film was produced through the American Film Institute". Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  The conservatory would have supplied the cameras, microphones, lighting etc, some limited funding, and that kind of thing. I haven't seen any specifics but given the equipment that, for example, Alan Splet had access to despite the budget problems, it's safe to say that the AFI, like any university's film school, was the one handing out the gear. GRAPPLE X 22:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Gardenback was a surrealist script about adultery, which featured an continually growing insect representing one man's lust for his neighbor. Gardenback..." Is there a way to avoid starting consecutive sentences with the same word here? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Changed it. GRAPPLE X 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• What makes "Stewart, Mark Allyn (2007). David Lynch Decoded. AuthorHouse. ISBN 1434349853." a reliable source? AuthorHouse is a Self-publishing company. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  Nothing really stands out but the sole use of the book is to cite his own interpretation of the film's themes, which is directly attributed to him in-text; it seemed an interesting interpretation which added something to proceedings rather than repeating them. I could find something else instead but the source isn't being used to ascribe words, actions or facts beyond what the author's own opinion is. GRAPPLE X 17:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, use your best judgment then, but it might come up at FAC too. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. A book with a similar publishing history (Michelle Bush's Myth-X) was used for my last FAC (Deep Throat (The X-Files episode)) for a similar purpose so I'm confident it should be okay; I doubt I'd consider using the source if it wasn't just to cite its author's opinion. GRAPPLE X 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• "It has been speculated that the prop may have been constructed from a skinned rabbit or a lamb's fetus." This is basically Ok, but you might want to note someone notable who speculated this. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  Added. GRAPPLE X 17:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure if there's a good way around it, but the last paragraph of "Filming" feel like it doesn't flow well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  It is a bit kitchen-sinkish. Any suggestions on where the information might be better put to use? GRAPPLE X 17:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, but I'll keep my eyes open. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• "BBC's Almar Haflidason awarded Eraserhead three stars" Should this be "The BBC's Almar Haflidason awarded Eraserhead three stars"? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'll double check but you could be right. I have an ohrwurm of Fiona Bruce just saying "something something from BBC" but at the same time I can picture George Alagiah using the article. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, "the BBC" would be correct (at least according to BBC). Fixed it. GRAPPLE X 18:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  lol. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of "Reception" is pretty heavy on the word "described" or different forms of it, try for some more variation. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)