[MEOW] Blue Velvet

[Kyle]

This is the discussion thread for the All New Nerd Pride Radio Movie of the Every Other Week!

This thread is only for those who have seen the movie recently. Commentary from people who haven't seen it will be deleted.

This Every Other Weeks Movie: Blue Velvet, selected by Kyle

WARNING- ALL SPOILERS FOR THIS MOVIE ARE ALLOWED! For real, if you haven't seen it, don't read any further!

Discuss!

[Mike]

Woo! I saw this movie in college and I hated it. My opinion has changed.

I had a problem that through the first third of the film, I couldn't immerse myself in it or feel any particular sympathy for any of the characters. Kyle MacLachlan's affect was so flat throughout most of this that I was relying on context clues to infer what we were going for. On top of that, I spent this first 45 minutes actively analyzing every stylistic choice and the underlying meanings of everything. Fascinating, but distracting. My experience was too clinical, I think. But having said all of that, somewhere around the 45 minute mark, I began to settle into it. I became emotionally engaged and enjoyed the crap out of the whole thing. I will likely watch it again to get the full experience. There's a lot to unpack.

I was thrown by the cheesiness of the 1950's sitcom style of the "wholesome" parts, but ultimately, juxtaposed against the gritty violence and perversion of Dennis Hopper, it worked for me. I liked that all the wholesomeness in the movie came off as clearly fake, while the horribleness was a bit gonzo and super-disturbing but at least felt more real.

Except for Isabella Rossellini. I thought she was terrible. I remember that when this movie was made, she was one of the most beautiful women in the world, but I couldn't get around that Frank N. Furter wig she wore. And her acting was so B-movie damsel-in-distress. I thought that maybe Lynch made a stylistic choice to have her be so over-the-top, but if that was a conscious choice, it was a misstep, IMO.

Laura Dern was awesome. She was Jeffrey's bridge between these two worlds, and as such, she was the most vibrant and real part of the cheesy half. She was what ultimately grounded me in this movie, and she was the one person I was rooting for.

There's so much more in here, starting with the opening scene as the suburban idyll turns to tragedy and ultimately zooms in on the insectile monstrosities chewing away beneath the surface, all the way to the return to the wholesome veneer at the end. I fully expected the final shot to end on something that reveals the dirtiness and corruption that still lies hidden beneath the surface, and I was shocked and then pleased when it didn't. Pleased because it didn't NEED that. We all know it's still there, and the whole point is that you don't see it. That final moment is where I finally fell in love with flick, in spite of all its flaws.

[Tahlvin]

Teenage me would probably like this because of the nudity. Adult me thought it was a steaming pile of shit. Really, what police officer would not jail this college kid right away for interfering with an ongoing investigation? Let alone let his daughter date him! And the way over the top villain. I can’t give it any stars.

[Mike]

[buckett]

[Zombie]

Can't believe it has taken me this long to watch something from Lynch, but that's why MEOW is great. I really liked this movie and I'm excited to add more Lynch to my need to watch list.

I thought the opening montage was a masterclass of establishing story setting and audience expectation. Cliche shots of suburbia are interrupted by Jeffrey's father's heart attack/stroke and that zoom in on the insect underbelly of it all. With no dialogue, Lynch has subverted the white picket fence setting with Jeffrey's escapism as he struggles to understand this world after visiting his father. In order to do this, he plays detective to this underbelly, discovering the insect-covered ear, and kick-starting the noir.

The mystery leads us to Dorothy and it's here that Jeffrey, and us as the audience, flirt with the fine line between detective and voyeur. As we cross it, we are introduced to Dennis Hopper's animalistic, evil performance which is both mesmerizing and terrifying to watch by design. The worst scene hits like a gut punch. A punishment for creeping in that closet. Buckett is on point with Frank's representation here, and I agree that Jeffrey is appalled while also being intrigued. If we are having trouble connecting with Jeffrey here, then look no further than the popularity of true crime dramas and our propensity to be curious about evil.

If Frank is our worst instincts unfiltered, then Sandy is pure goodness. She's idealistic to the point where she literally manifests from the shadows. I think it was interesting to juxtapose film noir with a Grease like high school romance. These movies typically play out like fairy tales and Lynch pulls from these cliches - think hot rod driving boy picks up girl from school, boy and girl have soda date at diner, angry football player boyfriend. But these are just settings that don't play out like a fairy tale. Jeffrey always steers the conversation back to the mystery, and pulls Sandy toward the gritty reality of this world. This is wrapped up perfectly in the heartbreaking genre-mash of a climactic scene where Jeffrey and Sandy's squabble with her ex is insignificant compared to the discovery of a battered and nude Dorothy.

Speaking of Dorothy - what a tragic character. Does she represent celebrity as a commodity? We are so invasive to her space that even at home she doesn't have the chance to be herself. Anything personal to her has to be hidden, or has already been taken away from her. Physical violence is the only way she can feel anything anymore. I'm reaching a bit here, but I'd be curious to get everyone's take on her.

I agree with Mike about the ending. We've reached Sandy's dreamlike utopia. But even here her robin of love isn't real, it's mechanical, perhaps indicating that life is somewhere between these two extremes.

What a strange world.

[buckett]

I think it's interesting that even Sandy has a bit of a voyeur streak into her - she listens in on her father's investigations and it doesn't take too much nudging to get her to play along. She's definitely Wholly Good, and is never really tempted or corrupted by that underbelly like Jeffrey...but she's still curious.

I definitely think that by the time we meet Dorothy she has been so traumatized that she's basically a hollow shell. I think Mike is right that she's sort of an over the top damsel-in-distress, at least to Jeffrey. Jeffrey's desire to save her overlaps with Frank's need to control her. She's also a pop singer, and at least twice in the movie we see a direct line being drawn between these innocent pop songs and Frank's primal urges. (also forgot to mention that Dean Stockwell is pretty great in his appearance too).

As a side note, Lynch LOVES The Wizard of Oz, there are really obvious references to it in Twin Peaks, and Wild at Heart is a blatant retelling right down to there being an evil and a good witch. So I can only think the Dorothy name is a purposeful choice.

[Zombie]

That's a great point about Sandy. She's definitely curious about the case, and feeds him the information he needs that her father isn't willing to give him. I was probably too quick to put her in a box.

I had no idea about the Wizard of Oz thing. I'll definitely be looking for it as I watch his other work.

[Tahlvin]

Listening to you guys, I realize how little I pay attention to who directs a particular movie. Not that it would have changed my opinion of this movie, since there isn't a whole lot of David Lynch's other work that has really appealed to me. But I really do need to start paying more attention to that sort of thing.

Also, perhaps my opinion of this movie would have been a bit different had I had the time to sit down and really focus on it and think about it. Or perhaps doing so would only have resulted in me shutting it off without finishing it. As it was, I had it on while I was working, so the movie did not have 100% of my attention all of the time.

[Kyle]

NOTE- I deleted poorpete's comment because he said he hasn't seen it since college. No offense to pete, but the price of admission is rewatching it, so if you don't watch it and post up, expect your post to be deleted. I still love you pete.

Sorry I'm late to this- I watched it before Sunday, but then was in classes all week and away from my computer.

I kind of didn't like it. I find Lynch's style and direction a little off-putting (which I know it's supposed to be) in the same way Tim Burton's has become. I understand that this is in a surreal world, not the real world, but there's a tv/soap-opera quality to the framing and filming that I just don't like. And I understand that Lynch is doing that on purpose, and I understand- particularly in this movie- the message behind the way he does that. It just takes me out of the movie.

Obviously there's a large statement here about the underbelly of suburbia, but others have addressed that, so I won't reiterate those points, other than to say I LOVE the way Lynch weaves the gross/perverse/shame through each of the characters throughout the movie.

So as I watched this movie, it's clear that it's saying something about voyeurism, right? But as I watched it, I also thought it was trying to say something profound about the male gaze and the objectification of women. Dorothy is intentionally portrayed as a damsel in distress because that's the way Jeffrey sees her. In this heightened world, she's becoming what he perceives her to be. But then there's the reality check at the end- she's a mother, with a child, and it's a glimpse that there's a complex character with complex motivations that we don't see because Jeffrey sees "hot Tim Curry" and that's all he sees. The male gaze commentary is explored even more through Frank's character (which I agree, is one of the more terrifying, unpredictable villains ever) who is awful-- but Jeffrey and Frank both view Dorothy the same way.

What's weird about this criticism of the male gaze to me, though, is that I felt that the commentary was also from a male viewpoint, right? Maybe I'm getting too meta with this, but the female characters had no agency at all. This was a man's story. So I felt it was a little off because I felt like this criticism and analysis was from a male perspective for other male perspectives to consider. Does that make sense to anyone else? Maybe I have my head up my own ass too much, but I feel like this movie would have been very different if it was done by a female David Lynch.