Bitscape's Lounge

Powered by:

Blue Velvet

Seen: 2003-12-19

Overall: *** 1/2

Writing: *** 1/2

Acting: *** 1/2

Cinematography: ****

Music: *** 1/2

Art: ****

Direction: ****

Originality: ***

Enjoyment: ****

Conditions: ** 1/2

Venue: Mom's Apartment

Medium: DVD

More Info

Blue Velvet is trademark David Lynch.

The plot, which is actually quite straightforward in comparison to some of Lynch's other works, centers around Jeffrey Beaumont's quest to delve into the mystery surrounding a severed human ear he discovers in a field near his small town home.

Saying that it involves a bumpy, thematically enticing, yet sometimes gruesome ride into bizarro country is almost redundant, given that I already classified the film as trademark David Lynch.

The standout acting performance comes from Dennis Hopper as the villian Frank, playing the role to its utterly abominable perfection. (Dennis Hopper always makes a good villian, but he's especially nasty in this one.)

Props also to Isabella Rossellini, who had the unenviable task of portraying the haggard femme fatale, Dorothy. (One of the reasons Ebert disliked the film was because of what he viewed as mistreatment of Rossellini's dignity as an actress in the film to no good purpose. I disagree, and Rossellini's statements on the dvd documentary prove beyond any doubt that she herself had no problem doing what was necessary to render a compelling performance of the character. In my view, she, along with Lynch and the rest of the cast, succeeded.)

Not one for the squeamish or pure of mind (at least if such a mind is to stay pure), Blue Velvet is a rockin psychological tornado into the tripped out zone of Lynch land. As Eric Cartman might say, Sweet.

Blue Velvet
by bouncing (2003-12-23 16:44)

Sometimes I think David Lynch is intentionally pedantic about the ambiguity of his plots and their metaphors. However I did not perceive this at all in Blue Velvet's case, as it's a twisted version of an almost classic style of plot. I too would disagree with Ebert's overly sensative view of the movie.

I actually think the way the film unfolded and how Rossellini's part transformed from bold to vulnerable was aided by the graphicness of the film. The emotions that Kyle MacLachlan's character went through are reciprocated in the audience, and perhaps that's what offended Ebert, even though an experienced film critic should be able to look beyond it. Rather than be sympathetic to the protagonist, you feel some of the same disgust and angst he does.

However, for that reason, I put this film in the same category as Eight Millimeter (although not nearly the same extent): A compelling, well made film, but one I perhaps I would not care to see again.