Blue Velvet (1986)

Can't believe how well this movie holds up! The cinematography is luscious. Every quirky shot and piece of dialogue lead to heighten the drama. BRAVO MR LYNCH!

This rating is probably inflated due to the name David Lynch and the respect I have for some movies he directed, such as Eraserhead and Elephant Man. The way the plot was constructed was simply inexcusable, with 0 to no logic. Some aspects I feel were just fillers and had no consequences whatsoever, basically pointless. I am talking about Jeff's father being injured and just remaining umentioned for the rest of the movie. Sandy's boyfriend whose only somewhat relevant appearence is in the end as well, when he tails Jeff and Sandy because he is jealous, but then that scene becomes irrelevant and nothing happens to Jess because they find the singer injured in that particular location for no reason. And the one which bothers me the most is when the singer confesses Jeff is her secret lover, Sandy cries about it but then forgives him. WHY DID THAT SCENE HAPPEN? If the answer is some corny pretentious symbolism, spare me. Also, the dialogues were so underwelming, unnatural, almost ressembling 7th grade play (written by the students). I honestly don't know how this movie has 2 hours, as so many interesting aspects, such as the relationship between the singer and his son and her husband, hell, he could have dedicated some time to explaining the singer's situation, we just learn about it through an assumption Jeff pulled out of his ass and happened to be 100% accurate. Also, the vast majority of the characters, such as the son and the husband, are only mentioned very superficially. I kind of think that most of the hype around this comes from the shock value of the sordid, violent sex scenes, and the waky crazy Frank (another character who was so superfitial and lazily constructed around the fact he is a maniac). The visuals are very impressive, but that doesn't change anything about the frankly medíocre, at best, plot of this movie.

Right now, while I'm trying to get some inspiration, the melody of "Blue Velvet" is playing in my memory and I can't get that "she wore blue velvet" out of my head... you expect movies to fascinate you on a visual, emotional and intellectual level but it's often the music that ends up winning you. But is that really a surprise for a movie whose starting point is the discovery of a severed ear.The film opens with the now iconic shot of the beautiful flowers towered by proud, white picket fences, a jolly fireman waving at the camera, images of a perfect and harmonious suburb in some middle town of America... but it immediately invites us to look closer and what we see are crawling bugs under the land. All it takes is just to be curious enough to make the ugliest discoveries. And Lynch sure knows how to make ugliness hypnotically attractive.And even beauty can have the opposite effect. I know it's a movie that invites for a deep analysis and I'm never stingy on paragraphs when a film arouses my mind and my feelings, but I want to give a personal and sincere approach to "Blue Velvet". And for that, I'll mention the first Lynch work I was familiar with, "Twin Peaks". I was a kid when the TV series aired and there was so much publicity that I started to watch it, I wanted to know who killed Laura Palmer and I really expected a banal detective mystery. After three or four episodes, I gave up as it became too creepy for my taste.But Friday was the 'Twin Peaks' day and even though I was watching another program, I was always tempted to have a peek on the series, as but I felt weirdly drawn to it. And you know what scared me the most about it? The ending credits' sequence, for some reason, the prom picture of Laura Palmer scared the hell out of me, not because of the picture but for all the creepiness it carried, all the secrets lying behind that adorable face. It was the symbolic content. That is how Lynch movies works, nothing is about what it seems to be about, and beauty and ugliness are such intertwining notions that you can only take some perspective by admitting that the world is strange.So "Blue Velvet" starts with a severed ear that leads to one discovery after another : a beautiful singer named Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini); then another a pervert sadomasochistic man named Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) and as the investigation progresses, so many new strange protagonists unfold, it just gets out of control. "Twin Peaks" started like routine murder investigation and see how it ended. But I think "Blue Velvet" works better than "Twin Peaks" because the investigators are amateurs.Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) discovers the ear and stars his journey into the heart of the city's darkness with the help of Sandy, a perfect pretty blonde girl played by Laura Dern. The most emblematic moment is when Jeffrey hides in a closet and watch Dorothy getting naked and just when you thought you're watching a beautiful woman, she opens the door, threatens to kill Jeffrey... but it's all an act, she's actually aroused. And when Frank comes, she literally gives herself, but it's a rather one-sided sex that ensues, and disturbing."What a strange world we live on" is the comment Jeffrey shares with Sandy, and it's quite neutral. Sandy is shocked. Both youngsters embody our own point of view, we're disturbed but aroused, it doesn't just work on a rational level, that's how it surpasses "Twin Peaks". That the two sleuths fall in love isn't even surprising, it represents the side of our perspective that wished they could just drop the whole case and enjoy their growing attraction. And again, music always finds a way to seal a relationship like "Blue Velvet" is Dorothy's seduction weapon, there's a beautiful romantic dance scene between Jeffrey and Sandy that elevates the film as a tender romance.Yes, tender. Sandy wonders if Jeffrey's a detective or a pervert, but strangely enough, I never questioned his moral outlook, and I knew he cared for Dorothy out of sympathy and decency. The film never plays it like a love triangle and I applaud Lynch for not having swum in the usual waters. The film is noir in its themes and motifs but the characterization is rather straight, we know who the victims, villains and heroes are. The film is considered one of the greatest mysteries, but I doubt it has to do with the crime but on the thought-provoking questions it raises: , why are we attracted by what can kill us? Why do we take risks? Maybe because that's the most thrilling part of life. Maybe for ethical reasons, to help those who can't be seen? Maybe that's what this ear found on the ground is about people who scream every day but we can't hear them, the film invites you to look and hear closer, for you might confront a Frank once in your life. Fear doesn't avoid danger. "Blue Velvet" is a movie so rich and visionary that it can easily fool you at a first viewing, it even fooled Ebert who got the raw realism of the darker scenes right but took the other ones with "corny" dialogues as artistic licenses meant to distract from the gripping realism. I don't think it did that more than it established the contrast between two worlds that are so close they might represent the own duplicity of our soul, from the secrets and fantasies hidden in our souls' closets.This is a disturbing movie raising disturbing questions. And it's so beautiful; I wouldn't mind asking myself as many disturbing questions as it'll take to admire its beauty.

First, the plot lacks credibility. Jeffrey's father gets a serious stroke and Jeffrey should be more concerned with his father. However, in the movie, Jeffrey acts like a SJW and a pervert. He messes up with a married woman Dorothy, and fights with the bad guys that torture Dorothy. Jeffrey almost ignores his father. Secondly, the storytelling is horrible. Telling a simple story in a complicated way, is the last thing a director should do. The narrative is just unfocused. What is the point of the sex scene between Dorothy and Jeffrey? Third, character development is a total failure. Who does Jeffrey love? Dorothy or Sandy? I'm afraid even himself does not have an answer. Why does Sandy give up on Mike? What is in her mind? The main antagonist, Frank, is just flat and one-dimensional, and nobody knows his motive. He is just a psychopath? Fourth, the music score is strange. It always appears at an improper time with no purpose.Finally, with nothing in stake, there is no thrill at all. It should not be called a thriller. Instead, we can categorize it as a non-thriller. All in all, the rating for this movie is 0/10.