Review of Blue Velvet (1986) by Edgar C — 18 Dec 2012

Blue Velvet's a fairly simple premise, David Lynch wanted to tell a story in which a supposedly idyllic suburban setting was exposed to have an appallingly dark underbelly. It's an intriguing if not overly complex concept, but the follow through is where he admittedly begins to run into trouble. The film was besot by troubles from its Producer Dino DiLaurentis back when that was a thing, DiLaurentis requiring Lynch to cut the film down to Two hours exactly for fear of losing audiences with its previous longer running time given how in a lot of the movie not much is happening. The deleted scenes rather than being preserved, were placed in a vault somewhere and remained missing until last year when Lynch managed to find a few rendering a Director's Cut or whatever Lynch who doesn't believe in them is equivalent would be a non possibility. But still with the notable but blowhard exception of Roger Ebert, the film was extremely well received by critics so surely it doesn't need one. For such an odd movie to have stayed in the public conscious this long surely it must have been at least worth watching in its published form? Let's take a look that's god damn suave, you suave mother fucker.

The stories protagonist is Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) a college student who returns to his suburban home in a Middle America lumberjack town after his father is involved in an accident mowing the lawn. While there he discovers a human ear which he takes to a detective who's daughter he once knew, and together he and the daughter Sandy Williams (Laura Dern) become embroiled in their own investigation into the source of the ear. The search leads him to nightclub songbird Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) who's husband and son are being held hostage by violent crime figure Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) a vile and profane thug. Booth who inhales an unknown drug through a gas canister throughout the film, uses this as leverage to engage in a horrifyingly abusive sexual relationship with Dorothy Vallens in which he acts out his most warped fantasies. But Jeffrey has plans to stop him and his whole operation once and for all, though not if he too becomes sucked up in his infatuation with Dorothy.

There are some things I think this movie does rather poorly, though the story itself is not necessarily the most important part of the film and I'm not sure how seriously we are meant to take it the pacing feels a bit rushed in places particularly when it comes to Jeffrey and Sandy's romance. A lot of this could have probably been solved with the numerous deleted scenes, particularly their relationship as after viewing the montage of still from the deleted scenes on my DVD it seems scenes involving them were most of what was cut. But even criticizing what is there its handling of the message of there are sick, horrible people everywhere in the world is handled less than admirably. The character of Frank far from being humanized is simply portrayed extremely pathetically in some scenes to prevent him from being an entirely one dimensional cartoon. Hell half the reason Hopper's so quotable in the role besides his manic performance is that while most of the other character's dialogue is cheesy and uninspired to paint a wholesome 50s Americana in contrast with the disturbing scenes we see Franks is peppered with fucks and god damns and loud demands for awful beer and drugs. In fact there are a lot of characters in this we are not meant to like, who are unfortunately portrayed as one brain celled violent simpletons a lazy and vindictive writing technique in contrast with a lot of the bigger ideas and brilliant symbolism we see elsewhere in the film. I was particularly fond of the beautiful opening shot which creates an allegory between bugs hiding in blades of grass on a beautiful lawn with scumbags living amongst squeaky clean all American blue bloods. Many of the faults I found in the story which frankly felt like the most personal Lynch has ever written for better or worse, I think they were far overshadowed however by the stunning direction, high minded ideas in presenting the flawed stories and noteworthy performances. Besides Hopper MacLachlan is ridiculously likable in the lead role a bit of a stand in for Lynch's idealized version of his younger self. He reads a lot of his lines like he's in an after school special as intentionally befits the script at times but when it comes time to deliver he gives one of his best performances, if not his very best. Rossellini to me is the standout however not Hopper as the abused nightclub singer, painting a character who is at once broken and a violent live-wire lashing out at Jeffrey over her circumstances. Her literally bare-all performance is one of the more remarkable parts of the film.

I take issue with somethings in the movie as I stated above. I really, really like it nonetheless but I'm not an acolyte of Lynch and can see his faults that were so glaring in the 80s on full display here. But I think when you balance it out you still get a damn fine movie and one of his greatest. Maybe it's because noiresque surreal crime thriller is so far up my alley but I still find this to be my favorite Lynch film and the one I see as most enjoyable, as well as one of the most enjoyable art house films I've ever seen at all. The soundtrack and stunning visuals combine to make a sublime portrait of American culture that is captivating and easy to get absorbed in. This movie will make you think, and question your reaction to it and there is nothing wrong with that.