"
Blue Velvet"
**** (out of ****)
It's a strange world says one of the characters in David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" (1986). That is an understatement, especially in the cinematic universe of the acclaimed filmmaker.
Lynch died last year in January at the age of 78 and his "Blue Velvet" is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. I wanted to take this opportunity to combine both of these occasions and honor Lynch and this particular film.
The first time I saw a David Lynch film was back in 2001 with the release of "Mulholland Dr.". I vividly remember several details of the event. I was eighteen years old and was very curious to see the film after reading a few good reviews. Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert even wrote a glowing review for the film, which was unusual because with the exception of "The Straight Story" (1999), Ebert had not been a fan of Lynch's work. To give my story some local flavor, a friend and I took the number eleven Lincoln bus and went to the old Biograph Theater (the bus doesn't run that far anymore and the theater is now called the Victory Gardens Biograph Theater) and caught a matinee.
I didn't have expectations for what I was about to see because I genuinely didn't know what to expect. Within minutes of "Mulholland Dr." two simultaneous thoughts started swimming in my head - "what the heck is this film?" and "Gosh, how is this going to end?" The acting and dialogue seemed almost laughable to me. I didn't know who Naomi Watts or Laura Harring were at the time. I immediately got the impression they were a couple of amateurs but thought to myself, this Watts person might be able to get someplace with more experience (I'm embarrassed to write that now. She has since become one of my favorite actresses). Practically everything about the movie came off as second rate to me. Was this a put on or were these people acting their best? I walked out of the theater absolutely fascinated by what I had seen and took the critical stance that filmmaker David Lynch was a cross between John Waters and Federico Fellini. I went on to declare "Mulholland Dr." as one of the best films of the year and later, when I started writing professionally, included it in my list as one of the best films of the decade.
With my newfound enthusiasm for Lynch, I wanted to continue my high so the next film I watched was "Blue Velvet". I had known the film by name only, having walked passed it at various movie rental stores but never had much of an interest to rent it. Now you couldn't stop me from picking it up. In it's own way "Mulholland Dr." prepared me for "Blue Velvet". I quickly recognized the "second rate" theatrics I saw in "Drive" were not exclusive to that film. It was in fact the Lynch style. I instantly detected those elements in "Velvet". I further noticed a Lynch theme, the conflict between beauty and the grotesque. In "Drive" it was Hollywood clashing with a nightmarish murder story and in "Velvet" it was a picture perfect image of suburbia colliding against an ugly underground dealing with kidnapping and murder. Lynch visually captured this at the beginning of "Blue Velvet" when we see nicely planted flowers as the camera zooms in going into the dirt, literally "underground". Lynch wants to break away from the veneer of prettiness.
As I watched "Velvet" again, for the umpteenth time, in preparation for this review, I remembered the ambiguity of the film's setting. Yes, it's set in Small Town U.S.A. but what year are we in? Lynch deliberately doesn't emphasize a time period. "Blue Velvet" blurs a 1950s sensibility opposite the modernness of the 1980s. While other critics have acknowledged this contrast they explain it as Lynch's way of creating a "timeless" story. That's not a bad interpretation but I think it goes deeper than that. Lynch, I believe, is making a social commentary not just on suburbia but finds a link between the 1950s and the 1980s. Beneath each decade's surface level optimism and congenial leaders there lies a violent society - segregation in the '50s and crime in the inner cities in the '80s and the crack epidemic. "Blue Velvet" may not seem political to an unsuspecting viewer but it is dealing with issues topical in Reagan's America.
It's an interpretation that has the benefit of hindsight and one that has been gaining traction over the years in retrospective viewings thanks to writers like Jenna Johnson. She wrote on the website
Medium in 2019 - "
Blue Velvet was made in a complex moment in American cultural history. The film was released in 1986, during Ronald Reagan's second term in office and at the beginning of the "culture war", a period of debate in which the conservative right, fueled by Reagan's rhetoric, lashed out against increasing "cultural representation within art, media, and education" (Grainge, et al, 491). Though it may seem a timeless tale,
Blue Velvet cannot be fully understood apart from this context." And Christopher Sharrett on the website
Film International noticed similar connections between Reagan and the 1950s.
While I feel the duality between the 1950s and '80s and their connection between surface optimism and underground violence is the dominate theme of the film, another idea came into my head that wasn't written about by other critics in 1986. Why is the film titled "Blue Velvet"? A person giving a surface reading of the film might respond with, because it is a song one of the characters sings in the movie. Another answer could be, it is an example of the '50s / '80s comparison since the song was written in 1951, and a hit for Tony Bennett that same year. But I have a more radical suggestion. Pablo Picasso is arguably the most famous artist associated with the color blue due to his paintings in the early 1900s known as his "Blue Period". These melancholy paintings were the result of a friend's suicide, which led Picasso to fall into a depression. The paintings are known for their social commentary, often reflecting poverty, loneliness, and sorrow. They also focused on marginalized figures in society. The color scheme of the paintings were defined by a monochromatic palette, using deep blues and blue-greens.
It's not an apples to apples comparison but Lynch's film uses a blue palette, deals with marginalized characters, and makes a social commentary. Both Picasso's "Blue Period" and Lynch's "Blue Velvet" were points of maturity for each artists. The two came into their own in terms of artistic expression, moving beyond technical craft. "Blue Velvet" was debatably Lynch's greatest achievement, at that point in his career. He was coming off of the box-office and critical failure, "Dune" (1984) and had previously directed "Eraserhead" (1977) and "The Elephant Man" (1980). Lastly, let us also not forget, besides being a filmmaker, Lynch was an artist and a fan of the Surrealist movement.
Another unusual thought popped into my head. This one hasn't been written about much either. Watching "Blue Velvet" I started to pay attention to the importance of stairs. I've come to the conclusion that Lynch's films are meant to be symbolically interpreted. Sure, you can "turn your brain off" and watch a Lynch film for the sheer entertainment value of it, but Lynch was a devilishly smart and creative filmmaker. Meaning is hidden in his films. The real joy, for me anyway, is to interpret the symbolism. And one big reoccurring image is stairs. Stairs can represent several things in a film - a spiritual journey, obstacles, achievement - Lynch uses stairs at times to suggest those things but I think he primarily uses it to show personal growth and transition.
The first time Lynch emphasizes stairs is when the main character, Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan) is walking out of his bedroom. No lights are on and the camera looks up at him. Jeffrey slowly walks down the stairs and into the light of the living room, where his mother and a friend are watching television. On the television is a suspenseful movie. We see a man gingerly walking up stairs. Lynch creates a contrast in motion, which I found interesting. At this point in the film, Jeffrey is about to embark on a dangerous journey and discover much about this quiet community. He literally goes from darkness to light. Later we see stairs when Jeffrey has to walk up them to get to the apartment of a woman named Dorothy (Isabella Rossellini). In this case the stairs become a symbol of danger, just as they were in the image on the television.
And the appearance of television is used to make a deliberate point in the film. Lynch twice shows us the mother character watching it. Each time it is a suspenseful / gangster film. To me this suggest, these characters view violence as a thing of fiction. It is something you find in the movies but not in the town where these characters live. Lynch could have had the mother character watch anything but he chose something violent. He is setting the viewer up for what they can expect as well.
For my own part, my reaction to the violent nature of the film surprised me. I wasn't put off by it. I say it surprised me because only a couple of years ago, when reviewing Quentin Tarantino's
"Pulp Fiction" (1994), for its 30th anniversary, I wrote the violence in that film bothered me on an emotional level and I didn't find the movie to be the classic others have proclaimed it. Its "charms" have worn off on me. A large reason for why that is, is because I found no great meaning in Tarantino's use of violence, other than a message on the random, chaotic structure of life. In "Blue Velvet" on the other hand, I saw more purpose and commentary into Lynch's dark world. After forty years the film has lost none of its power within those images. They are disturbing and shocking and yet essential because they go deeper than what is on the surface and reveal something about ourselves.
Funny enough, when "Blue Velvet" was initially released other critics didn't spend much time on the violence. The primary focus in their reviews was the kink / erotic factor of the film. The great New York Times critic, Janet Maslin wrote in her review, "Mr. Lynch had already established his beachhead inside the realm of the bizarre, but his latest venture takes him a lot further. Kinkiness is its salient quality." If I had to describe Pauline Kael's New Yorker review, I'd say she describes the film's plot, beat by beat, and interprets everything through an erotic lens. She states, early in her review, "Lynch doesn't censor his sexual fantasies, and the film's hypercharged erotic atmosphere makes it something of a trance-out". Interestingly, neither woman had much to say on the treatment of the female characters, in particular Isabella Rossellini. In the Village Voice critic J. Hoberman concluded, "the heart of the film is a twenty-minute sex scene replete with voyeurism, rape, sadomasochism, implied castration, all manner of verbal and physical abuse, elaborate fetishism, and a ritualized kinkiness for which there is no name." None of these critics condemned the violence. Kael was the deepest of the three, which unfortunately isn't saying much, in trying to psychoanalyze how it all affects Jeffrey.
The one mainstream critic that really stood out for his dislike of the film was Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert. In a famous episode on the movie review program with Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel, the two got into a heated debate. The show didn't provide Ebert with the best outlet to express his dissatisfaction with the film, instead coming off as overprotective of Isabella Rossellini. In his print review Ebert was better able to articulate his objections. Ebert felt the film had "two levels of reality". One was a story of sexual bondage and the other comprised of 1950s sitcom characters. These two "realities", Ebert believed, pulled the film apart. His remarks however on the treatment of Rossellini's character are strong and speak to a broader problem in cinema on how women are portrayed. They are asked to make themselves vulnerable in films that don't deserve it. More could have been done with Rossellini's character to provide her with a better payoff. It is one ugly aspect of "Blue Velvet" that I don't want to go too far out of my way to defend. It may explain why other critics didn't broach this delicate topic in their reviews.
One character that is treated better and given an arc is Jeffrey. In its own bizarre way, "Blue Velvet" is a kind of coming of age story; a young man loses his innocence as he begins to see the darker side of the world. Most revealing is Jeffrey shows tendencies of embracing that darker side as does Dorothy. If we give Jeffrey the benefit of the doubt, he begins his journey in earnest, wanting to help and protect Dorothy from a deranged kinky gangster named Frank (Dennis Hopper), who has kidnapped Dorothy's husband and son. But soon, in a way, Jeffrey takes advantage of Dorothy and the two begin sleeping together.
Lets take for example a scene between Jeffrey and Dorothy. They are sleeping together when Dorothy asks Jeffrey to be a bad boy and hit her. The act is meant to mimic the behavior of Frank, who we see beat Dorothy. In the heat of the moment, Jeffrey reacts with a shocked expression but we can tell there is an immediate temptation to submit to her request. When Jeffrey finally does, Lynch breaks away to a flickering flame to symbolize the passion and destruction within Jeffrey.
It's not too far of a stretch to point out the women in Lynch's film also represent the duality we see onscreen- the quaint suburban setting and the unsettling underground world. Dorothy is linked to the gangsters and eroticism whereas Sandy (Laura Dern) is the cute 1950s teenager you'd expect to find in an episode of "Leave it to Beaver". Is it a coincidence the character is named Sandy, which could be taken as a reference to actress Sandy Dennis, a popular teen actress from the era. Jeffrey has an attraction to both women.
Sandy and Jeffrey, at first, appear to symbolize the same thing - youthful innocence - but notice that Lynch keeps Sandy innocent. She is the daughter of a detective investigating a case involving Frank and Dorothy. She will help Jeffrey but only up to a point while always warning him he is in over his head. She doesn't share Jeffrey's temptation to the darkside. At one point she evens wonders is Jeffrey a detective himself or a pervert?
It is a question that I think purposely makes us think of Hitchcock and the film
"Rear Window" (1954) in particular. In that film Jimmy Stewart is a photographer with a broken leg who spies on his neighbors living in an apartment complex across from him. He may or may not have witnessed a murder. "Window" touched on a theme often found in Hitchcock films, voyeurism. There is a scene in "Blue Velvet" which visually recalls Hitchcock when Jeffrey is hiding in Dorothy's closet and watches her with Frank. We see Jeffrey stand in the dark with the only light coming from the the slits of the door. It illuminates Jeffrey's eyes. It's the exact kind of image that would have made Hitchcock proud.
Like "Rear Window", Lynch is careful however not to have the audience anticipate too much ahead of the lead character. The audience learns information as Jeffrey does. We are there every step of the way, going down this rabbit hole into a wild, violent, and sexually depraved world. And like a Hitchcock film, Lynch blends suspense with dark humor, although unlike other critics, I don't actually consider "Blue Velvet" a comedy, as for example Pauline Kael did. This isn't a side-splittingly funny film. It has moments of satire but I personally don't laugh when I watch this film.
When David Lynch died the fantastic critic Stephanie Zacharek, over at Time, wrote a special tribute for the filmmaker, observing the cultural impact the release of "Velvet" had by writing, "it's hard to convey how the release of Blue Velvet seemed to blow a hole in the world.". "Velvet" became a hugely influential film for future filmmakers such as Darren Aronofsky and Tarantino. For his efforts Lynch received his second Academy Award nomination for best director. His first was for "The Elephant Man". Lynch would go on to receive a third and final director nomination for "Mulholland Dr.". The film would go on to win various film critic association awards as well as two Golden Globe nominations.
In a way my first impression of Lynch wasn't wrong - a cross between John Waters and Federico Fellini - it just wasn't a way most people would word it. If you ever studied film or have done deep research, there is a school of thought that says the films of Waters are social satires and critiques. The best examples of this would be his more mainstream films - "Cry Baby" (1990) and "Serial Mom" (1994). Fellini's films on the other hand are known for surreal non-linear plots that blurred fantasy and reality. They were autobiographical and presented caricature views of society. All of that is present in the works of Lynch and "Blue Velvet".
The world of cinema lost one of its great visionaries when Lynch died. I will forever cherish the memories of my first encounters with various Lynch films and will fondly recall the seemingly endless debates in college as my friends and I tried the interpret his work. That was the beauty of Lynch's films. They were unsolvable puzzles that required multiple viewings. I could review this film in five years from now and focus on an entirely different set of ideas and themes. To me that's the work of a great filmmaker and a great film, one that consistently challenges us and opens our minds, avoiding easy answers.
