Blue Velvet is a strange one. David Lynch's take on what goes on behind the scenes of suburbia is surprisingly straightforward in terms of plot, but is of course less pleasant than it sounds. It's full of good cinematography, clever ideas, and well-done scenes. Examples include the opening shot that dives beneath the fresh lawn to reveal the darker realm of the insects, and the faux fairytale setting of the conclusion. The characters are well written, with Hopper's performance as Frank the maniac and Isabella Rossellini's turn as Dorothy, the woman on the edge, standing out most.
It does all however beg the question of why. Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan) digs beneath the surface of suburbia, perhaps accidentally (finding the ear is a bit random), and while what he finds certainly is bizarre, isn't it weirder to go looking for these things in the first place? While Lynch's take on small-town life shows its audience that people you may know can live lives like these, who really wants to know?
So, Blue Velvet. While the small-town crime story with the unpleasant and far-reaching Oedipal twist may be well done, are you really better off for having seen it? Is this entertainment? It's a "good" film, but I can't really say I enjoyed it.
It does all however beg the question of why. Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan) digs beneath the surface of suburbia, perhaps accidentally (finding the ear is a bit random), and while what he finds certainly is bizarre, isn't it weirder to go looking for these things in the first place? While Lynch's take on small-town life shows its audience that people you may know can live lives like these, who really wants to know?
So, Blue Velvet. While the small-town crime story with the unpleasant and far-reaching Oedipal twist may be well done, are you really better off for having seen it? Is this entertainment? It's a "good" film, but I can't really say I enjoyed it.