First off the characters name is Henry. The fact that you get his name wrong every time only proves more how tunnel vision warped your interpretation is. You're not wrong but you're not right which means no one else is wrong. I feel like this article is trying to state "You've heard it wrong many times so hear it the right way now!". No.
Thank you for the correction. The mistake with the character's name was a simple one, as I accidentally exchanged the actor's name for the character's.
As for the other half of your three-line argument, I'll have to disagree. A good portion of your lengthy defense is occupied by the head-scratching phrase: "You're not wrong but you're not right which means no one else is wrong." Not head-scratching because it doesn't grammatically make sense--although I'd clean up the wording if I were you--but because you somehow mistook a malicious tone in my article, which apparently fueled this well-argued rant of yours.
I'm sorry that whatever you think "this article is trying to state" doesn't coincide with your comfort zone. I have a point and I'm defending it. I spent several paragraphs outlying why I believe the baby to be a recreation of Henry's fears as a parent, and then suddenly I'm presented to defend myself with little to nothing from you. What's the point? It sounds like you have a problem with the "tone" of my article, although we all know tone is lost on the Internet (never more obvious in this case). I'd like to argue that my tone isn't what you believe it to be, but that may very well become the most banal argument of all time.
First off the characters name is Henry. The fact that you get his name wrong every time only proves more how tunnel vision warped your interpretation is. You're not wrong but you're not right which means no one else is wrong. I feel like this article is trying to state "You've heard it wrong many times so hear it the right way now!". No.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the correction. The mistake with the character's name was a simple one, as I accidentally exchanged the actor's name for the character's.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other half of your three-line argument, I'll have to disagree. A good portion of your lengthy defense is occupied by the head-scratching phrase: "You're not wrong but you're not right which means no one else is wrong." Not head-scratching because it doesn't grammatically make sense--although I'd clean up the wording if I were you--but because you somehow mistook a malicious tone in my article, which apparently fueled this well-argued rant of yours.
I'm sorry that whatever you think "this article is trying to state" doesn't coincide with your comfort zone. I have a point and I'm defending it. I spent several paragraphs outlying why I believe the baby to be a recreation of Henry's fears as a parent, and then suddenly I'm presented to defend myself with little to nothing from you. What's the point? It sounds like you have a problem with the "tone" of my article, although we all know tone is lost on the Internet (never more obvious in this case). I'd like to argue that my tone isn't what you believe it to be, but that may very well become the most banal argument of all time.
So OK, if you come back, either A) please educate me on how Eraserhead isn't a film about fear, since about 3/4 of Lynch's films deal with the world's grotesque wonders, or B) explain how you can't seem to fathom that I do IN FACT believe all films are open to interpretation, but that one must defend his/her point well. I realize films extend beyond a single motif/theme (signaled otherwise by your "tunnel vision" comment), but I chose to intricately dissect a single portion of a film, rather than pass off several broad and blasé comments (I'm looking at you) about various portions of the film like every movie critic in the world has done.