I read the old threads on Blue Velvet and I don’t mean to ask what the film is about or the underlying symbolism. My question is why is this considered a good or important film? Isabella Rossellini and Dennis Hopper give convincing performances as total nut jobs. I’m not sure it was great acting, but I’ll admit it wasn’t halfhearted. Other than that the neo-noir story doesn’t do much for me. The plot isn’t terrifically interesting or even eventful.
So basically, you’ve got manic actors, a weak plot, and a bunch of drugs, sex and violence and general weirdness. Does that a cult classic make? Apparently, but am I alone in thinking this film isn’t worth the hype?
Nah, I’d say I have a pretty catholic taste in films, and the aggressively violent and pointedly symbolic doesn’t turn me off. (I think Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia was Peckinpah’s best film, I can watch Bergman or Antonioni all day, and I count Being John Malkovich as one of the greatest comedies ever.) But Blue Velvet–which is supposed to be some kind of biting, insightful parody of “Suburban America” and its dirty hidden secrets–just really doesn’t do it for me. In general, I think Lynch is just pretty full of himself and how is films are elaborate puzzles; they’re complex, sure, but I don’t ever get the sense that even he really knows what ideas or themes he’s trying to convey, although at least *Blue Velvet had an actual plot, unlike, say, Mulholland Dr. So, I can’t answer your question, but I can join you in offering the film a big “meh.”
Then there’s David Cronenberg; somebody get him a Xanax, will you?
The attraction of the young man to evil, even though there’s the obvious and easily gotten good future
How him and everyone around him want to pretend that there is no such thing
Lynch’s direction, which makes it seem throughout the movie like it will all somehow all turn out as a fantasy at the end, but nope–it was all real, and all that evil is, even boringly, real.
The story itself is indeed minimal and certainly not worth mentioning.
I disagree. I don’t think that’s what it’s *about *at all; I just think that’s the context in which it takes place. I think it’s *about *teenage sexual hysteria. I also think it’s important to keep in mind that none of it really happens: it’s the masturbatory fantasies of a hormonal teenage boy. Rosselini represents the darker, dirtier fantasies, and Laura Dern represents the sunny, supposed-to-get-married kind of fantasy. My “proof” of this theory is that the camera enters the severed ear at the beginning, and comes out of Mclachlan’s ear at the end; everything that happens in between is fantasy.
Not sure I completely agree with you, but I will note that a great many settings in the film are certainly not period specific. There are moments in the film where it looks to be a 1950s setting, and then there are other moments where it could be the late 1980s.
It’s weird. I started off Lynching with Muholland Drive. It seemed like an overly long wankfest and an excuse for lesbian action. After reading all about him and his movies and how much he sucks ass and is pretentious and how horrible Eraserhead was and whatever whatever whatever, I found it at the library and picked it up. I love it. It’s not my top 20 films or anything, but it is a perfectly watchable film that doesn’t rely on too many classic film conventions. If you go in expecting to be shocked, punished, or annoyed, don’t. Except what it is, on its own terms, and its a great film. Does it really happen? Is it a dream? Who cares.
After Eraserhead, I decided I needed to see Blue Velvet. Same thing happened. I didn’t find it overly violent, overly suburban angst, or overly anything. It was an excellent thriller, on it’s own terms. Sure, there was some unexplainable random shit in there, but who cares? Except that it happens and you’ll enjoy the movie a lot more for not taking it too seriously.
Well, except, that I agree that it’s intended as a comedy by Lynch. Now, obviously, his sense of humor is hardly . . . what . . . universal. But still, I think BV works best if you keep two things in mind: it’s *supposed *to be funny; and none of it really happens.
Oh, I don’t necessarily agree that Lynch intended it to be a comedy. Lynch’s sense of humor tends to be much more…hmmm…slapstick isn’t the right word, although he does love a head trauma-related pratfall as anyone lucky enough to catch On the Air can attest. Broad, I guess is as good a word as any. And not terribly funny, unfortunately. Maybe it’s fair to say that Lynch had one great comedy in him in BV and he blew out his comedy wiring while making it.
This movie really got between Siskel and Ebert. Siskel loved it (comparing it to “Psycho”) while Ebert gave it 1 star. A clip from their original show is on the DVD.
They even came back to it later and debated it more. Back then, if you wanted to start a fight with them, you just had to mention “Blue Velvet.”
Here’s an article by Ebert talking about the different views some critics had about the movie. It links to Ebert’s review.
Presumbly, the old S&E show is in the new online archives at the site.
I love “Mulholland Drive”, so I’m not a Lynch-hater. But this is a movie where seeing it once is enough.
Dennis Hopper has done that high-strung violent weirdo routine to death now, but at the time it was fresh and unexpected. I’m sure there’s all sorts of deeper meaning to it, but most of the people I know who liked it liked it because it was violent and bizarre.
I prefer PBR to Heineken myself. They’re both watery pilsners.
FWIW, **Blue Velvet ** has got to rank in the top 0.001% of all movies when it comes to garnering attention from academics in film criticism and theory. Somewhere in my [somewhat disorganized] library there’s a film theory book on Blue Velvet, and it’s not even one of the books listed here. I can’t recall the title or author or enough about it to comment on it, except that the book left me partly bewildered, as the film had.
I will say this, though: that movie has one of the best match cuts ever. It occurs when the ear is being examined by a cop/detective/M.E. who says that it appears to have been severed with scissors – [CUT TO:] – a close-up shot of an oversized pair of shears cutting through crime scene yellow tape.