By this point, I don’t even need to explain that I adore David Lynch. Every review of his work I write ends up being just a radical praising of his career as cinema’s greatest surrealist. Yet, here we are again, and today I’m going to be reviewing arguably his most important film, Blue Velvet. The reason I call this his most important film is because while this was technically his fourth feature film, it was the film that launched Lynch into the territory of true greatness, where his trademarks were fully established and made very clear. It is the film that took him from simply being a fascinating filmmaker to one of the most important artists of his generation. It was the first Lynch film I truly loved – I may not have been the most ardent lover of Eraserhead, even if I have a wild respect for the audacious debut, as well as The Elephant Man being in need of a rewatch, and my incapacity to bring myself to watch Dune, mainly because my mind lives in an alternative universe where Alejandro Jodorowsky got to make his Dune and Lynch rather went on to make Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi. This is also the same alternative universe where The Godfather: Part III doesn’t exist, and Michael Keaton won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his role in Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), but I digress.
What is there not to love about Blue Velvet? Perhaps it is a good time to consider that this masterpiece of American (and by extension, global) cinema was not particularly loved in its day, and it still remains with its detractors today. I can understand why this film seemed jarring back when it was originally released – it is an overly-dark, excessive psychological thriller with questionable characters with murky motives, which is graphic in its violence and attraction towards showing the seedy underbelly of suburban life, serving to be a masterful satire as well as a deeply unsettling film that approaches the region of horror. Not only that, it is just so utterly absurd at various points, one can’t help but to laugh, if for nothing more than to simply break the awkward tension that exists within this film. It is fully understandable that very few people found Blue Velvet to be, well, understandable. However, watching this today, through a postmodern lens, we can see what Lynch created here was not an ultraviolent expression of the darkness that resides in the most placid locales, but also a great suburban satire and more than anything else, a shockingly brilliant psychological mystery film that allowed Lynch to use his wild and unique imagination to create something wonderfully special and completely unforgettable.
I am hesitant to discuss what this film is actually about – mainly because I feel that anyone who would be interested in watching this movie has either already seen it, or will quite possibly want to be left to watch this film without any prior knowledge, because when it comes to Lynch, it is always better to go in unprepared. Moreover, I am terrified that the premise of this film is so bizarre and jarring, it may terrify people who would otherwise be slightly interested away. However, I’m sure there is some strange individual out there looking for further motivation to watch this odd film, and this may just be the deciding factor. Personally, it was Roger Ebert’s outright pan of this film that motivated me to watch Blue Velvet, because a film that can elicit such a disgusted response from undeniably the world’s greatest film critic needs to be something that needed to be seen. Either way, I do digress (it is so odd that Lynch is one of the few filmmakers that brings out so much excitable schoolboy passion in me, that I just want to talk about him, his movies and the culture that surrounds his movies. That could be entertaining to read, but it makes for terrible film writing and probably very dull reading. But look at me, I’m doing it again, so forgive me).
Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) returns to his home of Lumberton after his father suffers a major medical emergency. One day, while walking in a field, Jeffrey stumbles upon a severed human ear, and his curiosity sets off a chain of events that leads Jeffrey into the fell clutches of the underworld of his otherwise idyllic suburb, presided over by the utterly sinister Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper). Jeffrey tries to do the right thing by protecting vulnerable nightclub singer Dorothy Vallens, while still courting the smart but reluctant Sandy Williams (Laura Dern), the daughter of the detective who is handling the case. As Jeffrey finds himself thrust deeper and deeper into the harsh world of criminals and deviants, he starts to realize, as the good man himself said both overtly and through implication in the beautiful and shocking opening scene of this film, ” that if one looks a little closer at this beautiful world, there are always red ants underneath”
I did try and give away as little of the plot as possible because Blue Velvet is one of those films that have so many nasty and vicious surprises that are better off being experienced first-hand rather than through someone telling you about them. There are a number of words one can use to describe Blue Velvet – grotesque, revolting, distasteful and even immoral (I love that one) – but very few people actually consider Blue Velvet to be a beautiful film, both in terms of theme and design. There is so much going on within this film, it is impossible to not be in awe of its singular beauty in approaching the story from the entire sensual spectrum. I wouldn’t say the story itself is anything close to being beautiful – it is a dark, cold and terrifying psychological horror about someone venturing into the world of pure, unadulterated debauchery and utter evil. Yet it just looks so good while getting there, and the deep cadences in abstract meaning that accompany the beautiful design only accentuate the brilliance of David Lynch. Yet, we need to star somewhere with discussing this film properly, so let’s take a look at the performances:
Kyle MacLachlan is a truly tremendous actor. Not only did he do some incredible work in Twin Peaks, he collaborated with Lynch far earlier, in far more intriguing projects (I consider Dune an intriguing film, mainly being I’m intrigued as to how I’m going to bring myself to watch it – being a completionist can sometimes result in some excruciating experiences, but I once again digress). Blue Velvet shows MacLachlan at his most vulnerable and honest, playing the good-hearted but tragically curious Jeffrey, who (to be reductive) simply gets in trouble by following the dangerous road of curiosity. MacLachlan sells the character well, showing him as a flawed but good-natured young man who simply wants to help people and do the right thing. However, his character is far more complex than just the typical “good guy” protagonist – shown constantly throughout this film, he is someone who is driven by his urges, as well as not understanding the world that exists around him. He’s a complicated character, portrayed as being unable to find a proper route and choosing to follow an instinct that perhaps forever changes his life, for better or worse (as well as oftentimes almost ending it, which could not have been a very enjoyable experience). MacLachlan has remarkable chemistry with Laura Dern (who went on to become another constant Lynch collaborator and someone who worked with Lynch on a variety of projects, each one better than the last). Dern is also absolutely tremendous here, if not a little underdeveloped and used mainly as a plot device more than anything else.
I read that Dennis Hopper demanded the role of Frank Booth, citing the fact that “I need to play Frank! I am Frank!”, which is a hilarious and deeply unsettling thought. Frank Booth is one of the most bizarre villains ever shown on screen. Seemingly unstoppable and utterly despicable, he is also a bleakly hilarious figure in many ways, his cartoonish villainy standing out alongside more nuanced (but no less strange) Lynchian villains. His unhinged, terrifying performance as Frank enters into the canon of most excessive antagonists in art history – and he’s well-remembered for it because his utter craziness in Blue Velvet was as joyful to watch as it was disturbing. His first scene with Isabelle Rosselini (who is absolutely excellent in this film, perhaps as good as she was ever been and likely will ever be) is terrifying, intense and just so overly ridiculous. If you don’t believe me, go watch the scene. It is one of the most insanely bizarre moments in Lynch’s entire oeuvre. Special mention must go out to Dean Stockwell in his small, one-scene cameo as the effeminate and demented Ben, as well as Isabelle Rossellini, who I mentioned a few sentences ago, but will never ignore the opportunity to praise her some more. I also loved seeing Jack Nance in this film – there needs to be justice for Pete Martell…there was a fish in his percolator (as well as everything his wife did to him on Twin Peaks, but I digress once again).
Visually, Blue Velvet is absolutely stunning. From the first moment, where we see the blood-red roses against the snow-white picket fence, we are fully engrossed in the odd world of David Lynch. There are images in this film that just linger on my brain, and just serve to be so utterly unforgettable. David Lynch is a filmmaker who understands the value of color, and Blue Velvet is the epitome of a film made by someone who actually cares about the visual environment in which he places his characters. Everything in this film is so perfectly-designed and even the most pleasant-looking moments of this film turn out to be deeply disturbing. It should come as no surprise that Frederick Elmes filmed Blue Velvet, being the genius behind some of the most gorgeous independent films ever made, such as many films by Jim Jarmusch. David Lynch is a filmmaker who created and maintains an eccentric and offbeat world, and he does tremendously in collaborating with people who are able to bring out those zany and sometimes completely unsettling ideas and putting them on screen with the utmost precision.
In terms of themes, Blue Velvet is one of those films that tend to be overanalyzed and torn-apart by desperate people looking for some meaning behind it – and while I am somewhat guilty of doing the same, I did find Blue Velvet to be more valuable on near-surface level, as a bitterly dark satire on suburban society, by way of a seamless blending of genres such as film noir, thriller, horror and black comedy. There are moments in this film that may not be necessarily funny but do have the same absurd sense of humor that Lynch has shown throughout his films. This amalgamation of genre accentuates the inner-workings of this film, and by extent Lynch’s creative process, the manner in which he constructed this suburban horror, and how he executed it with such absurd, oddball terror. There are some truly shocking moments within Blue Velvet, some of the darkest content Lynch has ever worked with, but it all works towards establishing the dominant message of this film, which can be summarized by the aforementioned quote by Lynch (I won’t repeat it here, even if it is one of my favorite quotes of all time).
I absolutely adore Blue Velvet. It is a film that isn’t afraid of being shocking, and terrifying audiences with its clearly relevant scathing satire on modern suburban culture. The performances from the cast are wonderful, and the film is made with such darkly dazzling beauty. It was a high point in David Lynch’s already fascinating career, but it took him to a place of acclaim and artistic integrity that he is still within, without any chance of coming down from that pedestal of absolute genius. Blue Velvet is a brilliant film and a truly incredible piece of art made by a man who can truly attest to being a genuine and wholly unique artist in every sense of the word.
The Postmodern Pelican 