Emily FinlayMovie Review: Blue Velvet
October 28th 2007 06:56
David Lynch is a bit of a mad genius. He's eccentric about his films (he doesn't like scene selection on his DVDs, as he believes they need to be watched in their entirety every time). I'd seen Twin Peaks before, but my main introduction to Lynch was through Lost Highway, a movie experience akin to having brain freeze underwater (yet still excellent). Next, I watched Mulholland Dr., a genius piece of work, and more recently, this film, which I must discuss now because I can't get it out of my head.
Blue Velvet
David Lynch
Rated R 18
1986
There's a feeling, when writing about Lynch, as though you're taking a risk. Blue Velvet, of all his movies I've seen, is the least risky to discuss- I don't have to admit that I had no idea what was going on but loved it anyway (Lost Highway), nor do I feel the need to discuss the greatness of any lesbian sex scenes at great length while fighting desperately to describe the plot, which I feel like I almost grasp, but ultimately failing (Mulholland Dr.). Blue Velvet is much more straightfoward than either of these movies, even if it does mess with your head quite a bit. This is rather curious, really, as not only is it a Lynch film, but it's clearly heavily inspired by film-noir, a genre of films that are notoriously hard to follow.
The plot centers around Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan), a young lad who, whilst in the midst of dealing with his father's recent stroke, discovers a severed ear in a field. Going to the police but finding them unable to do much about it, Jeffrey befriends Sandy, the daugther of a local detective (Laura Dern), leading him to conduct his own investigation based on her leads. Jeffrey soon finds himself involved in the life of Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini), a woman tied to Frank (Dennis Hopper), a perverse, evil man at the center of Jeffrey's investigation into the missing ear.
When it came out in 1986, this film was a huge, steaming bowl of Controversy Soup. There are a few main reasons for this:
1. The sex scenes are perverse, bizaree and terrifying.
2. Dorothy's ordeal in the movie is very, very intense. Roger Ebert's original review of the film condemned it for making him watch Isabella Rossellini get degraded on the screen in such an intense fashion.
3. There's some pretty heavy violence and swearing.
4. Frank is, to put it mildly, bloody terrifying.
This last point deserves essays, thesis', entire books written on it, but I've only got a paragraph to spare, so here goes- Frank is the absolute epitome of evil, not just in the sense of what he does, but the fact that he represents just about every dark, underground, seedy aspect of society you could imagine. His sexual fetishes are all over the place (he refers to Dorothy as 'mummy', and at one point cries out 'Baby wants to.....' well I can't repeat the last word without having to 'Mature Content' label this entry, but you get the idea), and the initial 'rape' scene between Frank and Dorothy is just....wow. I want to call it horrific, but that kind of detracts from how amazing the whole sequence actually is.
Aside from all this, he swears constantly, breathes in nitrous oxide through a mask, and does various other things I can't really talk about without ruining the plot. Given half a chance, he'd eat babies. And he's played with such power by Dennis Hopper. It's not hard to believe, after watching this movie, that such a figure could exist, which is a frankly terrifying thought.
Sidenote: At one point, Jeffrey questions 'Why do there have to be people like Frank?'. If you're an Arrested Development fan, you'll find that funny.
As you may have gathered, this is an immensely intense film. Jeffrey, the main protagonist, is just a college kid- his life in suburbia is heavily contrasted to the 'underground' he uncovers (there's a lot of clever visual metaphors throughout the film representing this). He has a sweet, clumsy sort of romance blooming with Sandy, but at the same time has a twisted sort of sexual relationship with Dorothy. Sandy is a figure of purity throughout the movie (although not all that pure- she dumps her boyfriend for Jeffrey, and is well-versed in her father's cases), but ultimately the movie hints at the fact that her idea of a happy, loving society is probably never going to get past the realms of fantasy.
The more I write, the more I realise that trying to tell you, in words, why Blue Velvet is such a great movie is somewhat fruitless. It's a movie all about the experience of being slapped around, and a movie built more for post-watching discussion than the initial convincing stage. If you think you can take it (not everyone can, in my experience), slap this into your DVD player, dim the lights and prepare to be shocked by David Lynch's world.
Speaking of David Lynch, Inland Empire is finally getting released over here next month. Exciting stuff.
David Lynch
Rated R 18
1986
There's a feeling, when writing about Lynch, as though you're taking a risk. Blue Velvet, of all his movies I've seen, is the least risky to discuss- I don't have to admit that I had no idea what was going on but loved it anyway (Lost Highway), nor do I feel the need to discuss the greatness of any lesbian sex scenes at great length while fighting desperately to describe the plot, which I feel like I almost grasp, but ultimately failing (Mulholland Dr.). Blue Velvet is much more straightfoward than either of these movies, even if it does mess with your head quite a bit. This is rather curious, really, as not only is it a Lynch film, but it's clearly heavily inspired by film-noir, a genre of films that are notoriously hard to follow.
The plot centers around Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan), a young lad who, whilst in the midst of dealing with his father's recent stroke, discovers a severed ear in a field. Going to the police but finding them unable to do much about it, Jeffrey befriends Sandy, the daugther of a local detective (Laura Dern), leading him to conduct his own investigation based on her leads. Jeffrey soon finds himself involved in the life of Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini), a woman tied to Frank (Dennis Hopper), a perverse, evil man at the center of Jeffrey's investigation into the missing ear.
When it came out in 1986, this film was a huge, steaming bowl of Controversy Soup. There are a few main reasons for this:
1. The sex scenes are perverse, bizaree and terrifying.
2. Dorothy's ordeal in the movie is very, very intense. Roger Ebert's original review of the film condemned it for making him watch Isabella Rossellini get degraded on the screen in such an intense fashion.
3. There's some pretty heavy violence and swearing.
4. Frank is, to put it mildly, bloody terrifying.
This last point deserves essays, thesis', entire books written on it, but I've only got a paragraph to spare, so here goes- Frank is the absolute epitome of evil, not just in the sense of what he does, but the fact that he represents just about every dark, underground, seedy aspect of society you could imagine. His sexual fetishes are all over the place (he refers to Dorothy as 'mummy', and at one point cries out 'Baby wants to.....' well I can't repeat the last word without having to 'Mature Content' label this entry, but you get the idea), and the initial 'rape' scene between Frank and Dorothy is just....wow. I want to call it horrific, but that kind of detracts from how amazing the whole sequence actually is.
Aside from all this, he swears constantly, breathes in nitrous oxide through a mask, and does various other things I can't really talk about without ruining the plot. Given half a chance, he'd eat babies. And he's played with such power by Dennis Hopper. It's not hard to believe, after watching this movie, that such a figure could exist, which is a frankly terrifying thought.
Sidenote: At one point, Jeffrey questions 'Why do there have to be people like Frank?'. If you're an Arrested Development fan, you'll find that funny.
As you may have gathered, this is an immensely intense film. Jeffrey, the main protagonist, is just a college kid- his life in suburbia is heavily contrasted to the 'underground' he uncovers (there's a lot of clever visual metaphors throughout the film representing this). He has a sweet, clumsy sort of romance blooming with Sandy, but at the same time has a twisted sort of sexual relationship with Dorothy. Sandy is a figure of purity throughout the movie (although not all that pure- she dumps her boyfriend for Jeffrey, and is well-versed in her father's cases), but ultimately the movie hints at the fact that her idea of a happy, loving society is probably never going to get past the realms of fantasy.
The more I write, the more I realise that trying to tell you, in words, why Blue Velvet is such a great movie is somewhat fruitless. It's a movie all about the experience of being slapped around, and a movie built more for post-watching discussion than the initial convincing stage. If you think you can take it (not everyone can, in my experience), slap this into your DVD player, dim the lights and prepare to be shocked by David Lynch's world.
Speaking of David Lynch, Inland Empire is finally getting released over here next month. Exciting stuff.
| 80 |
| Vote |
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I'll have to watch it properly soon.
Michaelie
Comment by Susan Keeping
Two friends of mine who were big fans of the film chose Blue Velvet to be the first song they danced to at their wedding. Their families had no idea how perverse a song it was to them.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Exposing the hidden secrets of a sleepy looking middle american town, Blue Velvet is a unique ride full of twisted suspense. Love Hopper on his machine and even Kyle MacLauchlan suits the part.
A film I have been meaning to review for sometime, just haven't got to it...probably because Ive done a few film noirs already, maybe Lynch's Eraserhead instead..
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
This film is certainly one I put in the wierd basket, but that didn't detract from my enjoyment of it, nor that I also own a copy - although I haven't watched it a second time - go figure?
I loved the way this film portrayed the rotting core of the middle classes in the most 'civilised' country on the planet... the one every other one is trying to emulate... not that it couldn't happen elsewhere mind, and I'm sure it does. What I guess it shows is that nowhere is immune.
As a female viewer I find rape disturbing, but to be repeatedly 'visited?' ... I would have killed Denis Hopper and couldn't understand why she didn't?
Lilla ...