Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 30, 2005 20:04:56 GMT
Blue Velvet David Lynch 1986 USA A young man discovers a severed ear, and, investigating with the help of the local policeman's daughter, uncovers the darkness beneath the innocence of his suburban town. Lynch creates a believably dangerous, surreal world by presenting it as a sort of nightmare, zooming into and out of, respectively, a rotten ear at the beginning and a healthy ear at the end. Told entirely from the point of view of its young male protagonist, it is a complex film, not least due to the disturbing voyeurism which drives the hero's investigations and thus the narrative. It means that there is always a tension present, not in the way which, say, Carpenter creates in Halloween, with points of view from the killer, but instead by filtering the narrative, and thus visual composition, through its hero's perceptions. A fantastic, multi-layered thriller, always dark, often funny, and very unique.
|
|
|
Post by Valenti on Dec 30, 2006 7:00:07 GMT
I just saw this, and I have to say that it seems like Lynch's most accessible thing to date.
Great performances by almost--at the time--unknown actors, a compelling story, beautiful imagery, and a great score.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 18, 2007 22:38:43 GMT
I had mixed feelings. A lot of build-up, for me at least, as the master of strange's masterpiece. I had seen I think 2 Lynch's previous, and 2 since, and although I loved Hopper's performance, I felt like overall it was sub-par Lynch.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 21, 2007 21:27:16 GMT
My original proview. Blue Velvet (1986/Lynch)Only my 3rd Lynch, which is surprising how much I enjoyed Mulholland Dr. when I first saw it maybe 6 months ago. Trademark Lynch oddity here all throughout, whether it be the outright disturbing psychosexual scenes or the fraudlent happy-go-lucky nostalgic scenes with that constant weird undertone. I'm just now realizing the genius of Dennis Hopper, as I've barely seen any of his films. The rest of the cast was decent. Not quite sure why this is considered Lynch's best, I mean it was decent and obviously quite unique, but I personally enjoyed Mulholland Dr. more. Could it perhaps have something to do with its release in the middle of a decade that was notoriously poor for American cinema? Looking forward to getting to more Lynch either way.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 28, 2008 19:09:38 GMT
Blue Velvet(1986/David Lynch) [Second Viewing] A college student returns to his small town and discovers sinister figures.Lynch borrows from the narrative structures and character conventions of classic film noirs, but at the same time, he wonderfully inserts his own bizarre sense of surrealism and disturbing imagery and encounters. Showcasing a tense hybrid of violence, sexuality, and profanity, Lynch is not only able to uncover the evil existing underneath a small town setting (the brilliant opening sets this into motion), but using Kyle MacLachlan's character Jefferey and his voyeuristic obsessions, he is unable to channel deeper into the mentalities of film goers alike, and human being's general fascination with the "weird". Lynch also goes as far to suggest that the same evil exists within of all us. Perhaps narratively it is one of his more straightforward films, but it's also one of his most ambitious and rewarding. Dennis Hopper displays a level of genius that does not stray far from Lynch's own.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 28, 2008 20:29:08 GMT
Upon reading the script, Hopper apparently said something along the lines of, "I need to play Frank Booth. I need to, because I am him."
(I think; unless I have his roles horribly mixed up in my head.)
The last time I saw this film (hosting a "film noir night" at my student house), I said to friends, "That's the best film I've ever seen."
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 28, 2008 23:36:04 GMT
Upon reading the script, Hopper apparently said something along the lines of, "I need to play Frank Booth. I need to, because I am him." (I think; unless I have his roles horribly mixed up in my head.) The last time I saw this film (hosting a " film noir night" at my student house), I said to friends, "That's the best film I've ever seen." Yeah, I think I've read that as well. Hopper is very interesting, being young in Hollywood in the 1950's along with his friend James Dean, smoking pot with Sam Peckinpah in the 1960's while both struggled in Hollywood, to eventually achieving success with "Easy Rider", and beyond. And I would LOVE to show this film to people, just for the reactions. "Eraserhead" too.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 29, 2008 17:13:57 GMT
Upon reading the script, Hopper apparently said something along the lines of, "I need to play Frank Booth. I need to, because I am him." (I think; unless I have his roles horribly mixed up in my head.) The last time I saw this film (hosting a " film noir night" at my student house), I said to friends, "That's the best film I've ever seen." Yeah, I think I've read that as well. Hopper is very interesting, being young in Hollywood in the 1950's along with his friend James Dean, smoking pot with Sam Peckinpah in the 1960's while both struggled in Hollywood, to eventually achieving success with "Easy Rider", and beyond. And I would LOVE to show this film to people, just for the reactions. "Eraserhead" too. BLUE VELVET might be Lynch's most mainstream accessible picture (it was a box-office hit back in 1986 that got Lynch an Oscar nod) but if you really want to give people a visceral experience they'll never forget, like or hate it... Try ERASERHEAD.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 29, 2008 18:00:01 GMT
BLUE VELVET might be Lynch's most mainstream accessible picture (it was a box-office hit back in 1986 that got Lynch an Oscar nod) but if you really want to give people a visceral experience they'll never forget, like or hate it... Try ERASERHEAD. I've yet to watch "The Straight Story", but I feel that it would, along with "The Elephant Man", fit into that category. I imagine that if I showed "Blue Velvet" to others, that would follow along fine until Frank shows up.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 30, 2008 17:16:32 GMT
I actually think the strangeness of Blue Velvet, its apparent perversion and ability to disturb, lie with Dorothy, not Frank. She's the moral pivot around which all of the heartbreaking, disturbing-to-watch scenarios revolve, on which all questions of morality rest. The submissive, deranged pleasure with which she says, "Mammy loves you" to Frank; the way in which she whispers to Jeffrey, "Do you like talk like that?" after threatening to kill him; the way she offers Jeffrey sex immedietaly after meeting him; her cutting, defeated remark to him when he and Sandy find her naked: "I still have your disease inside of me".
Not to mention Jeffrey's voyeurism, and how that lets us into this dark new world (people are fine with that, and might even laugh along when Sandy says, "I don't know whether you're a detective or a pervert", and he responds, "That's for me to know and you to find out".) The core thread of the narrative, the entire moral question of the film, rests with Jeffrey's relationship with Dorothy, not Frank.
Frank's the maniac "father" figure of the film (Jeffrey's father is incarcerated in hospital, remember), Dorothy's the "loving" mother who puts up with him, and Jeffrey's this sort of lost little boy who wants to experiment, sexually, and must overcome the darkness of that new world.
Anyway, The Straight Story is Lynch's most straight, accessible film. It's beautiful.
|
|
Blib
Ghost writer
Posts: 623
|
Post by Blib on Jun 7, 2009 23:39:37 GMT
Very strange film. I really enjoyed the 30 minutes stretch starting with Frank catching Jeffrey coming out of Dorothy's apartment but the rest didn't blow me away, although I'm not ripping it either. Dorothy was almost scarier than Frank, just in a different way.
|
|