I am not really familiar with David Lynch other than The Elephant Man and I actually didn't even realize he directed that. I knew Lynch's name through Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet which I have heard really good things.
I liked Blue Velvet but I didn't love it. There are things I found really intriguing and other things I found head scratching. I guess I don't really understand the juxtaposition between the darkness of the sexual encounters with the almost campy setting of the film. Is there a point in contrasting the twisted sadomasochism with this Pleasantville-style suburban utopia? That there are dark secrets underneath the surface? Okay that I can get with, but it just feels much more self important than it really is and creates an odd balance to the film.
The film opens with Jeffery (Kyle MacLachlan) returning home from college to visit his father in the hospital. On the way home he discovers a severed ear in a field. His curiosity leads him to discovering a dark and twisted underworld hidden beneath the surface of seemingly perfect suburban life. It is highlighted by the intensely sadomasochist sexuality of Dorothy (Isabella Rossellini) and her encounters with both Frank (Dennis Hopper) and Jeffery.
I appreciated how well shot the film is. The very opening sequence where Jeffery's father has a heart attack is really well shot (sorry I can't really describe it any other way than that). The whole film is full of imagery and symbolism.
Reading more about Lynch and Blue Velvet on Wikipedia, one of Lynch's common motifs is this hidden underworld. Jeffery even says something to that effect in the film, stating that he is seeing something that was always hidden. I suppose the point is that there is no such thing as perfect, that behind the doors there is something dark hidden inside. However, I feel like Lynch could have went all out on the sexuality and violence rather than mask it behind the rest of the film to make it really powerful.
Dennis Hopper as Frank is so insane that it is hard to really judge his performance. I thought he was great, but it made me wonder if I was supposed to understand more about his character other than that he is a complete psycho. Was I supposed to read more into it than that?
I liked Blue Velvet. It had a lot of good parts to it and I liked how strange it was, but at the same time I felt the strangeness might have actually detracted a little from the overall effect.
Grade: B
I liked this one too, mostly because Dennis Hopper kills it. Yes, he very much is a nut. And a great villain. Apparently this role rejolted his career at the time. The part where he puts on the lipstick was great.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't mention my favorite scene, so I'm going to have to do it! I don't remember the weirdo's name, but remember the guy that does the song and dance and is crazy Hopper's buddy? That scene in his house is amazing.
I agree with you that the movie is frickin' weird, and all of Lynch's stuff is... but definitely dig it (more so than the other stuff of Lynch's I've seen) and would probably give it a similar grade that you did, if not maybe a B+.
Now I want to find that crazy scene I'm talking about to provide a better description... ha ha. I just remember loving it.
Oh and a fun little factoid. I guess Hopper's role was turned down by Willem Dafoe... and Dafoe regretted it later so signed on to play a weirdo bad guy in Lynch's Nicolas Cage starrer, which movie title is escaping me now, but is way crazier than this one... so crazy in fact that by the end of my viewing I had enough and would not actually recommend it unless you're in a weird nutso mood. I can only take so much crazy!!! In any event, Dafoe is good in his role.
ReplyDeleteIs the scene you're talking about around the same part of the movie where Hopper goes all crazy with the lipstick? I remember thinking the whole scenario was a little outrageous. I didn't really know what to make of it.
ReplyDeleteoh btw, I watched this movie on your recommendation. i always knew you were a little sick in the head, ha!
ReplyDelete