Velluto blu

I've been a fan of David Lynch ever since watching Twin Peaks for the first time around five years back. Embarrassingly, it's taken me forever to get to the rest of his filmography. Blue Velvet returns to the weird, the bizarre, the wacky, after Elephant Man played it fairly straight.

When I finished it, I wasn't quite sure what to think. I waited, then the day after I found myself re-watching scenes. The lip-sync sequence in particular was so rich and rewarding. Lynch is the only director I've seen that really nails what a dream feels like. The most unnatural things could happen; characters with juxtaposed emotions are in the same space, and it all feels rhythmic, just supposed to be.

The film doesn't just excel there.

Frank Booth is a force of nature, and I can't stop watching his moments, rare as they are.

The intro itself is among the best I've ever seen. Good and evil, life and death, are intertwined more than we'd hope. Not just in the picket fences, and the dirt, but the characters too.

Blue Velvet was an incredible experience. If anyone was in the same boat as me, being a fan of Twin Peaks, do yourself a favour and give this a go. I'm actually rather annoyed I didn't watch it already. Though, not annoyed enough to start huffing gas.

What surprised me was how very different this was from the two other great David Lynch films I'd seen: "Lost Highway" and "The Straight Story", which are in turn very different from one another. I'd been told by a disappointed David Lynch fan, back in 1997, that the only reason I was so deeply impressed with "Lost Highway" was that I hadn't seen "Bue Velvet", in which he does much the same kind of thing better. "Blue Velvet" may indeed be better (I wouldn't want to say), but in no respect is it the same kind of thing. (The only instance I've encountered so far of Lynch making the same film twice is "Lost Highway" being remade as "Mulholland Drive", which partly accounts for the latter film being so stale and uninvolving.)

"Blue Velvet" is a simple amateur sleuthing story, but the genius is in the telling of it. It's hard to avoid the feeling that something supernatural is somehow involved, although it isn't, and we know that it isn't. It looks and feels as though we're watching the world through a special enchanted (or cursed) prism: the image has been pulled apart, ALMOST into two distinct images, with the elements of pure evil and pure wholesomeness now distinct from one another, sitting just millimetres apart.

Unrelated to this, but still contributing to the intense suspense and the overall creepiness, is Lynch's ability to make us familiar with a few ordinary locations, which grow more sinister - or at least more meaningful - every time we see them, until the sight of a simple concrete stairwell in the dark is enough to make us start to panic.

Oh boy, what a weird movie. How can I even comment it.

David Lynch films are not easy to get into (at least for me). Usually I don't like them upon first viewing, but at least Mulholland Drive has slowly become my super favorite. I don't expect Blue Velvet to climb as high, but there is some grower potential.

I liked the beginning the best, when it's like a murder mystery. But then it goes crazy in all directions and I don't really know what to think. But some things are certain: the cinematography is beautiful and atmosperic, and there is a lot of great acting. Dennis Hopper is totally crazy in this film, but others aren't bad either.

If you like strange movies, see this one. But only if you can stomach some violence and sexual weirdness as well. I will probably get an urge to want to see it again at some point because it has such a distinct atmosphere and style.

The sexual revolution in film came some ten years after the label's coinage in the late Sixties. It probably began with Last Tango in Paris. Directed by the acclaimed Bernardo Bertolucci, Last Tango is notorious for a sex scene involving Marlon and roughly a third of a stick of butter. Theretofore sex in film could potentially be used as a means of revealing the lightest or the darkest character's traits: primarily, vulnerability, instinct, sadism and impulse. Blue Velvet is a good example of a movie using such a dynamic. Blue Velvet is not a film that is easily appreciated. Likewise, it is not a film that is easily forgotten. It is a timeless controversy, and it is a vision demanding attention if not praise.

Set in a small American town, Blue Velvet is a dark, sensuous mystery involving the intertwining lives of four very different individuals. The film's painful realism reminds us that we are not immune to the disturbing events which transpire in Blue Velvet's sleepy community. There is a darker side of life waiting for us all. And as a critic said 'you either think it's dementedly wild at heart or a lost highway to nowhere'. Even some eighteen years after the release of Blue Velvet its vision remains wildly adamant relative to the stride of other works of contemporary noir. There have been many films about suburban crime, but none as dangerously imposing as this. Why is that so?

If Blue Velvet might not be labeled as a masterpiece one has to acknowledge that there are in this movie a lot of so called 'masterpiece element' and if Blue Velvet will never be considered as Mr. Lynch best feature, I personally can see a lot of David Lynch's genius flowing in that movie.

First of all, the way David Lynch makes Blue Velvet increasingly disturbing is a perfect example of how pristine the dynamics of weirdness and tension are built (remember Eraserhead and Elephant Man). Through this process Mr. Lynch indeed deconstructs the audience expectations. The film setting and mood are introduced in an exposition lifted directly from older films (there are numerous references to It's A Wonderful Life). In result the film is initially expected to follow a particular path. The way Mr. Lynch associate elements of classic narrative methodology and 'his dynamics of noir' (previously explained) appears to be original at worst 'avant gardiste' at best.

Second of all, the opposition between the creepiness of the plot and the setting of it is definitely for me a masterpiece element. The film is set in Lumberton. This does not represent a quaint, small town by similarity; it is one. Lumberton is filled with characters that are completely typical. I can almost see the cops eating doughnuts in the coffee shop and the local football star dating the head cheerleader. This typicality is definitely not out of coincidence but of intention. In fact these characters function to punctuate the story, not to distinguish it. The 'infamous' individuality of Lynch's vision is established in the darker side of Lumberton. Our perspective throughout the film is fixed on Jeffery, and is deliberately biased by his good nature. Jeffery is portrayed with great subtlety by Kyle MacLachlan (FBI agent from "Twin Peaks"). He is paired with Sandy (Laura Dern), the daughter of a neighborhood investigator who epitomizes to perfection the 'girl-next-door'; in Blue Velvet it is her literal function. Completing this diverse list of roles is a haunting and brief performance by Dean Stockwell as well as Dennis Hopper who creates a flabbergasting portrait of unrepentant and irredeemable evil. The confrontation or those characters or the collision among themselves makes for a mesmerizing experience.

Once again Mr. Lynch succeeds in the masterful exercise of controlling the audience's attention. Most of us will not quite know what to make of it and we can disagree on the value of such a cinematic experience. However audacious, erotic, disturbing, haunting are adjectives that will always be linked with Blue Velvet. The 'Thriller' has just been re-invented by Mr. Lynch right in front of our eyes.

A very strange movie but incredible. A young man (Kyle MacLaclan) comes home to help care for his sick father. Soon he's in love with a detective's daughter (Laura Dern) and mixed up in a mystery involving Dorothy Valdes (Isabella Rossellinni) and psycho Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper).

Probably David Lynch's best film. The story has gaps in logic, but it's secondary to some incredible wide screen imagery (this has to be seen letter-boxed...no two ways about it). Lynch has said in interviews that he thinks of the image first then works it into the movie. You can tell...things that make no sense at first gradually make sense later on. This movie also demands multiple viewings...I was so shocked the first time I saw it, I couldn't concentrate on it...it took THREE viewings to finally get it.

As to what the movie is about...it depends who you ask. Some people said it's the Hardy Boys on drugs...others say it's about a boy's sexual awakening...others see it as good vs. evil...each one is a valid statement! To me, that's a true art film...one that means multiple things all at once.

The performances are top-notch. This film made MacLachlan...him and Laura Dern work well together and give nice low-key performances. Dern is just great...but she does look pretty silly when she tries to cry. Rossellinni is nowhere near as good as her mother (Ingrid Bergman) was, but she deserves credit for taking such a risky role. She's pretty good. Hopper is WAYYYYYYY over the top as Booth...he's both horrifying and hilarious...a great performance. And let's not forget Dean Stockwell as "suave Ben". His "performance" of "In Dreams" is a definite highlight.

Be warned--the film is very extreme. There's explicit violence, plenty of nudity, sex and tons of profanity. Not for the squeamish. Still, I loved it from beginning to end. One of my favorite films of all time.