Six Men Getting Sick

This is the film portion of a sculpture that had images projected on it.

Its basically abstract people getting sick and throwing up.

Sort of.

As I said its all abstract so the figures are only reasonably human.

The image runs about a minute and then is repeated several times, which was then looped into endless illness.

How do you rate that?

I don't know. Its fine for what it is but as anything beyond that it isn't much.

Lynch explains on the DVD that he was inspired to make a moving painting and that is just what he did. As per usual with Lynch, there is no explanation for what is going on (actually, with this short, there doesn't even seem to be a reason for what's going on) but it is somehow beautiful in its repetition.

So nine people have seen this film?

Seeing as the film was essentially a temporary piece of installation art, a loop of film projected onto a sculpture as part of an exhibition back in 1966, I have a very genuine interest in talking to those people - they must have some interesting stories to tell.

This first film from David Lynch is not really a film at all. It is better to think of it as a moving painting. Its origins bear this out. Lynch was working on a picture while studying at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts when he felt a 'little wind' and wished that the painting could move. This set him to work on creating an animated composition which became Six Men Getting Sick.

It consists of a screen with three sculptures built into its top left corner. These three figures are casts of Lynch himself. This screen then has an animation projected onto it. The animation adds a further three figures. It connects the stomachs to the heads. They fill up, hands appear over the distressed heads, the word 'Sick' flashes up and the heads catch fire and vomit. All of this is accompanied by a repetitive siren wail.

Because the image is projected onto a sculpture it's fair to say that this is really a 3D art installation rather than a film. When it was shown at an art competition it was repeated on a continual loop. On DVD this is reduced to six cycles. The repetition does make sense though as it allows you to see different things each time. It certainly indicates what an original artist Lynch was even at this early stage.

WHEN WE SAW this recently thanx to our good friends at TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES we were quite surprised: A) That there really was such a film with such a title, B) That an outfit like TCM actually did televise such, C) That we watched it and finally D) That we are doing a review.

IN MANY WAYS the very brief tidbit of what can only be referred to as limited (very limited) animation. In some respects it appears to be a sort of intentional throwback to the very earliest animation to be committed to film. In our mind, that means the short (3 + minute) titled HUMOROUS PHASES OF FUNNY FACES (Stuart Bracton/Vitagraph, 1906).

IN SOME AREAS, the cartoon succeeds in doing this as an homage to both the artist, as well as to the art-form as well. It is in the beginnings of animation in this embryonic stage and form that started both artist and producer on the road to the shorts and full length features that we take for granted.

IN SHORT, without HUMOROUS FACES, there'd be no FANTASIA.

ON THE OTHER hand, we get the distinct impression that the cartoonist and the producer really did want to gross out the audience and induce gastro-intestinal maladies. This would seem to be superfluous as we don't learn anything that we don't already know and have all experienced for ourselves.

SO SORRY TO report to Animator/Director/Producer Mr. David Lynch, that no one was edified in the extended display of vomiting, puking, wreching, hurling and heaving; nor by displays of dysentery, diarrhea, the runs or the scutters.

WELL SCHULTZ, DO you think anyone's shocked?