One of the worst Lynch movies Ive ever seen. js - Blue Velvet (1986) Discussion

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

You mean in the end, when ambulance takes Dorothy away? Isn´t it sort of self explanatory what had happened to her... as well as Jeffrey?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] bigmac_x 11 years ago

I agree and I'm very disappointed. I thought there was going to be a twist just like in Mulholland Drive. I was going to watch all of his movies but after Blue velvet I don't think I will

reply

[–] CasaK 11 years ago

bigmac, that's one of the most stupid things I've ever read. Since when is a movie disappointing when there's no big twist? That's just ridiculous.

reply

[–] WheezePuppet 11 years ago

Ditto. Mulholland Drive was amazing, but this thing was just totally stupid. Like all the things that were great about MD just gone wrong and pointless.

reply

[–] msa74 11 years ago

Thats a pretty shallow reason not to like the movie. You obviously missed the whole point of the movie.

reply

[–] mariasrt 11 years ago

I agree! I changed my plans, as well, about watching every Lynch's movie after that ! And how about the "love" lines, all around, and the lines Sandy and Jeffrey talk at the beginning, about all these "bad people" out there ? A friend of mine's calls Lynch "disturbingly apolitical" ;i think i got what she means after that movie !

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

Well I sure don´t; what ´does´ "disturbingly apolitical" mean and what has it got to do with Blue Velvet?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] mariasrt 11 years ago

The coming of age of a young boy, through the invasion to a poor woman's apartment and life, because of its fascination and mystery.

A very "bad" police man, really corrupted, who rapes, is a drug-dealer, blackmails people (but is still useful because he serves as an anti-model of the father).

A young girl who loves a boy but changes her mind soon afterwards with the same passion.

The complete lack of doubts of all the people acting in the story, and also the lack of regrets. The quite simple role each one of them is given: "good" (Sandy, Sandy's father), "bad" (Frank ond fellows), "ambiguous" (Jeffrey), "victim" (Dorothy).

Finally, the presentation of a very corrupted police system, and of a society with very ambiguous morals, without the minor commentary from the part of the director.

I am not very sure about all of these, and have not made up my mind radically, but just thinking.

Thank you for answering !

reply

[–] mariasrt 11 years ago

I mean, even if Lynch makes an esoteric story about growing-up and making one's mind, he still uses the society to locate it and make it clear. However, that's the only thing he does with it, uses it to serve his purpose; as if all these stories are only inner ones and not a real part of society, as if we're only individuals, totally independent by the rest of the world. This seems a bit apolitical (if not worse), and also a lot unrealistic.

Don't forget that Margaret Thatcher herself had quoted the following: "there is no such thing as society, there are only individuals". Lynch seems in all of his movies to agree with that, and this makes me very sceptical.

reply

[–] mariasrt 11 years ago

franzkabuki sorry to reply again to my own posts, but just to let you know, I keep re-thinking on what I wrote the other day, and I was possibly wrong. Maybe one part of the whole film is exactly about critisizing the "american dream" thing. I should watch it again before making my mind, I guess !

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

I don´t think I understood everything you´re saying in your posts. And I don´t get why is it bad or disturbing if a film is apolitical (and Lynch´s films indeed are that, by and large). Not every filmmaker is, or has to be, Costa-Gavras or something. But of course people don´t live in a vacuum, sealed off from society and Blue Velvet in particular covers a fair bit of ground in its depiction of a small town community - a cute piece of apple pie Americana in daytime yet a perverse world of deviant violence at night. If you want to see more Lynch stuff with a really broad societal scope, Twin Peaks the TV series comes highly recommended (some of his other films, like Lost Highway or Eraserhead, do tend to zero in rather strongly on their protagonists and their mental landscapes... hardly an unworthy or irrelevant subject matter in itself).

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] dextertrax 10 years ago

Maybe one part of the whole film is exactly about critisizing the "american dream" thing.

Close. It's about peeling back the veneer of normality in suburbia.

Never tell me the odds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvxwf1jxdaM

reply

[–] beetleborgs69 9 years ago

I don't know what you're trying to say when you use the word "apolitical"... every work of art should technically be "apolitical"... but the conclusions you draw about the movie as stated are, as you suspected they might be, shallow and wrong as compared to the depth of the film.

The "coming of age story" only represents Jeffrey's seeing of what is really there. It is never a bad thing to know what is there.

Sandy... I'm not sure what you are saying here. Sandy likes Jeffrey... is confused when she finds out Jeffrey took advantage of a woman in a position of sexual slavery. Forgives him because she empathizes with his sexual confusion.

Not sure what you are saying about "doubts" either... you seem to be insinuating over-handedly that "good" and "bad" are completely subjective terms... well, how about this? I'm going to stab you in the face for no reason... am I "good" or "bad" to you? I am "bad" to you because I am a detriment to your life, and I am attacking you for no reason. This movie suggests that you should always err on the side of "the attacker is bad and you should survive", so long as you haven't done anything wrong to the attacker, and the attacker is insanely attacking you for no reason. That is not a complicated notion, if you think it is then you haven't been in any real-world situations of peril, and should not be talking about "real-world" politics in any intellectual manner until you have had some experience... bad is bad and good is good.

And what are you suggesting here? That a police system cannot be portrayed as corrupted in a film without an alternative to said police system also being presented? Well... this isn't a piece of propaganda, it's a piece of art. If you look at it and think something is wrong with the film, then there you go. If you look at it and think something is wrong with "real-world" politics, well, it made you think so that's what a piece of art is meant to do and I guess that's good, right?

reply

[–] StarskyandChinaHutch 11 years ago

Inland Empire... I hated it.

Everyday when you're walking down the street
everybody that you meet has an original point of view

reply

[–] gorbals406 11 years ago

(in your rather, shall we say, not exactly intellectually stimulating opinion)

...but oh so eloquently articulated.

reply

[–] surgecess 11 years ago

If you don't mind me asking, what were some of the things about Blue Velvet that you liked? I hope we can both agree that the music was incredible.

reply

[–] theoddvibration 11 years ago

I think most of the issues you seem to be having with Blue Velvet can be remedied by perceiving everything in the film that occurs after Jeffrey finds the ear, as a dream sequence, that doesn't end until Jeffrey wakes up at the end.

The subconscious mind is a strange thing, and I believe a lot of the things that happen in this film reflect Jeffrey's inner most primal impulses.

I don't think the plot is meant to be taken seriously so much as you are supposed to draw things out of it.

reply

[–] craigstampermovies 11 years ago

I think you've stated it very well. I would only add that, although there is a dreamlike quality to the film, since it's essentially a mixture of noir and surrealism, I think a good deal of the dreamlike content is purely surrealistic in the fantastical sense.

reply

[–] gorbals406 11 years ago

I don't think the plot is meant to be taken seriously

What plot? If you find one, let me know. I think indulged, self-indulgent, pretentious "writer/directors" like Lynch substitute weirdness for plot deficiency (absence?). Can't come up with a strong story line that can stand on its own? Just make it weird. What a pretentious load of sh*te!

P.S. For the WORST movie of all time, try sitting through Tree Of Life from start to finish. It even puts this film into the "also-rans" bin.

reply

[–] StarskyandChinaHutch 11 years ago

A movie that tried to rise above the rest, even if it failed (in your rather, shall we say, not exactly intellectually stimulating opinion), cannot be the "worst" film of all time by default. Leave that to the obvious soulless cash-ins of the world.

Welcome to the ignore list, by the way.

reply

[–] gorbals406 11 years ago

OMG, sentenced to your ignore list? How shall I ever cope? Goodnight, troll.

reply

[–] wdashton43 9 years ago

You seem to be focused on how a film can entertain you. If that's what you are exclusively looking for, there are plenty of "movies" out there you can watch instead. And I don't mean that condescendingly. I like a good popcorn flick too. But within the World of film there are true storytellers like Lynch and Malick - artists that use film as a form of self expression. So when they try new styles or avoid plot cliches, they aren't doing it to be pretentious or weird. They are creating something from a very honest place and often an abstract place because that's how they approach the medium. And what form of art isn't self-indulgent?

This shark, swallow you whole.

reply

[–] richard2robinson 10 years ago

I agree with you, one of the worst I've seen too, but I'm surprised none of the other commenters seem to mention the things that bugged me:

wooden dialogue
and
unconvincing acting.

Plus after having seen quite a few of his films I am beginning to find his trademark style rather mannered, and I would agree with one of the comments that yes, he is apolitical, the goal of human existence seems to be to avoid getting your brains squashed out in a car accident or being blown out by a firearm. In Lynch's world we are nothing but bodies.

But I have to confess his films are spellbinding. I just wonder how... nourishing they are.

reply

[–] GrahamtheDesigner 10 years ago

Having seen The Elephant Man and Mulholland Dr. (also, Eraserhead, Twin Peaks, etc, anyway not the point) before Blue Velvet I can totally understand those who didn't like this film. Even though I loved it I felt it different from the other Lynch works but for some reason it worked. What works for some people may not work for others. After all, we all have different tastes right? My two cents, just that.

Break the rules and in a couple of years you will have a hell of a story to tell.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ItsNotJust-a-flick 10 years ago

wooden dialogue
and
unconvincing acting.

Those things bugged me, too, for sure

Though I understand it is the postmodernist approach of incorporating low-art forms into a high-art piece of work, and following words from Ebert certainly reinforce that understanding. "On one level, we're in Lumberton, a simple-minded small town where people talk in television cliches and seem to be clones of 1950s sitcom characters. On another level, we're told a story of sexual bondage, of how Isabella Rossellini's husband and son have been kidnapped by Dennis Hopper, who makes her his sexual slave."

Even after having all these things in mind, I still got a feeling that this approach didn't work here, and that "wooden dialogue and unconvincing acting" was simply that - wooden dialogue and unconvincing acting.

***70s - the time when even Stallone had to make a decent film***

reply

[–] wdashton43 9 years ago

@richard2robinson

I think Lynch is apolitical in the sense that he doesn't want to manipulate the viewer with his personal beliefs and/or risk the fear of the film becoming a propaganda piece. He lets the viewer bring what they want to it and connect to it in their own way. I would argue that his films are really the equivalent of artwork by an expressionist painter. Even you admitted that his films are "spellbinding." I think you feel this way (as do I) because his films are better felt than they are explained. Sort of like a great piece of music.

I understand your point about the dialogue and acting in Blue Velvet, but remember that the film is very satirical of that sort of 1950s bubble gum image of small town America. The acting and dialogue is purposefully exaggerated in order to reveal the ridiculousness of that sort of Leave It To Beaver "reality" that many movies/television shows created in the 50s/60s. This is a version of reality that Lynch understood not to be real at all. That even the most pristine looking places have something dark hidden beneath them, which is really one of the biggest themes of the movie. Think about that and watch it again -- I think it might change your opinion.

This shark, swallow you whole.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]