Skip to main content

I don’t know if you’re a detective or a pervert.

Blue Velvet
(1986)

(SPOILERS) Revisiting Blue Velvet, what’s most striking is how this is really the start of Lynch’s career proper. Admittedly, a great many will tout Eraserhead as his masterpiece (I’m not one of them), and in perma-hallucinatory form it certainly sets up his stool, both tonally and audibly, but its sprawling doodle of a severely-leaking cranium doesn’t provide the insight into his subsequent approach to narrative that Blue Velvet exemplifies. And The Elephant Man and Dune, as merit-worthy as the former most definitely is, are high class director-for-hire affairs; it’s as if, no sooner had he begun his career proper, than he took a decade out before resuming his magnificent obsession. It was worth the wait, though, because Blue Velvet is his true masterpiece.


It’s impossible to watch the picture now without the marbling effect of his subsequent forays taking informative hold, most notably Twin Peaks. There’s the obsession with drapes (colour not withstanding), logging (Lumbertown), the darkness beneath the veneer of white picket fences (albeit that micro-interrogation of elements, found in the bugs in the opening scene here, combined with the omni-present – when there isn’t a lush, mournful or melodramatic score over the top – auditory rumble/disturbance, runs uninterrupted through Eraserhead and The Elephant Man), the demonic force of inexplicable evil, both personified and as pervasive atmosphere (Frank here, Bob in Twin Peaks), Angelo Badalementi’s synths, Julee Cruise’s vocals (and dialogue, “Now it’s dark”), the facility for the uncanny tableau (most notably when Jeffrey enters Dorothy’s apartment to find the yellow man slumped upright, having taken a gunshot to the head, and her earless husband dead in a waxwork death throe), and a thing for psycho-erotica that would only be trounced in the disturbing stakes by Fire Walk With Me. And then there’s Kyle MacLachlan.


Lynch’s oddness would be allowed the luxury of time to embed itself on a TV show, but it’s in abundance here, from his riveting of ‘50s wholesomeness to the seedy  and unseemly present day, so manifesting in a very different way to the nostalgia (Back to the Future) or looney tunes satirical swipes (Gremlins) that had manifested on screen over the previous couple of years when referencing the world of three or four decades prior. Lynch has one of the supporting characters (George Dickerson’s Detective Williams) speak entirely as if he has stepped out of the Eisenhower era infotainment, with stiff, nuance-free cadence (“Yes, that’s a human ear, alright” he says to Jeffrey, without a trace of irony; at the climax, after Jeffrey has shot Frank in the head, and Williams bursts in too late, he offers a redundant “It’s all over, Jeffrey”).


Lynch’s isn’t throwing straight-up non-diegetic sequences at the viewer, yet he’ll give us a plain-as-mud fake “robin” (with a real bug in its mouth) to symbolise Sandy’s dream that the world was dark, “when, all of a sudden, thousands of robins were set free” (“I could never eat a bug” advises Aunt Barbara). Dorothy (Isabella Rosellini), after their first encounter, tells Jeffrey “I looked for you in my closet tonight”, as if he might be magicked there every evening. And, in a Lynch universe of moving paintings and backwards-talking little people, that wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility.


Jeffrey (MacLachlan) is a Lynch alter-ego, infested with the eccentric insights and attitudes of his creator. A creator likely to give commentary on the enormous tongue of an old school friend, or inform his Aunt Barbara (Frances Bay) “I love you, but you’re going to get it”. It’s interesting to see how self-assured MacLachlan is here, in only his second role, and telling how, even though Jeffrey is the innocent, and in way above his head, MacLachlan doesn’t play the character as transfixed and terrified on being plunged into Frank’s world.


Mainly because Jeffrey wants this adventure, this twisted rites of passage, having come home from school to a small home town with big ideas on his mind (After Hours has nothing on Jeffrey’s night out with Frank). And, for all that Jeffrey ponders “Why are there people like Frank? Why is there so much trouble in this world?”, perhaps he has his answer when Frank attests “You’re like me”. Perhaps Jeffrey’s insatiable inquisitiveness, his capacity for exploring the limits, is what leads to a Frank? Otherwise, Jeffrey would have rejected the invitation “I want you to hurt me”, and wouldn’t have slipped into the demonic, slurred parallel reality that is their sadomasochistic entanglement (and which conforms to Frank’s visage during the earlier assault). Of course, the manner in which Dorothy repeats Frank’s railings on Jeffrey also suggests something almost communicable.


And Frank. In a sense, there’s a reason nothing Lynch has done since (though Mulholland Drive comes very close) has equalled Blue Velvet, because it commands you to sit up and take notice in such an unrivalled manner. Wild at Heart may have topped it in gaudy excess, but it’s Lynch’s equivalent of shouting, in capitals, where Velvet is fully of carefully positioned, deliberately-dealt punctuation marks.


Dennis Hopper, fresh from rehab, would reignite his career with this and River’s Edge, but he’d just as soon sink into self-caricature again, with the odd noble exception (True Romance might even be his one-scene masterpiece; certainly, the most empathic he’s ever been as a performer).


Rosellini has mentioned that she couldn’t understand how Lynch would be laughing away at the deeply disturbing “Baby wants to fuck” scene, but the truth is, it’s so extreme, so pushing the boundary of the absurd, that it is funny at times; whatever twisted place drug dealer Frank Booth is in doesn’t mean laughter as a natural defence mechanism isn’t legitimate (although who knows precisely what tickled Lynch).


Certainly, Frank’s later interactions are a deliriously threatening hoot, from his contempt for Jeffrey’s taste in beer (“Heineken! Fuck that shit! Pabst Blue Ribbon!”) to his veneration of Dean Stockwell’s Ben (“Suave. Goddam, you’re one suave fucker”). Such is Hopper’s presence, from whatever he’s inhaling to his disappearing act (“Let’s fuck! I’ll fuck anything that moves!”), pretty much his every line here has entered the quotable lexicon (the only way to top it was to come back with a silent monster in Bob). Frank is a creature of Lynch’s ID environs, an arena that co-exists with our own that, Lovecraft-like, only partially extends into this one, and which he’d explore a great deal more of in the subsequent decade.


About the only thing more unnerving than Frank is Laura Dern’s face when Sandy witnesses the extent of chanteuse Dorothy’s relationship with Jeffrey. I don’t think I was ever that bowled over by Dern in this, but that’s part and parcel of Sandy. In contrast, Rossellini’s performance is extraordinarily raw and damaged, only occasionally punctured for relief (Mike’s reaction when she wanders on to the scene naked is to ask what Jeffrey’s mother is doing there, before breaking into wickedly funny sincere apologies; “I’m really sorry”).


And Dean Stockwell. Well, he really is fucking suave, coming on like Andy Warhol on laudanum as he mimes In Dreams and then illustrates he isn’t quite the doped-up luvvie we’ve assumed by landing one to Jeffrey’s gut. About the only unforgivable thing is casting Brad Dourif and having him do absolutely nothing.


Perhaps the real trick with Blue Velvet, something Lynch has been less bothered by since, is that, in having a solid narrative surround – such that Blue Velvet frequently plays with walking the line of the proficiently straight thriller (in particular the walkie-talkie climax) – all the other elements can comfortably group and unfold in whatever manner he chooses.


I don’t think he’s found such a comfortable format since. Not even Twin Peaks, where he fought against the procedural trappings in a manner that was ultimately the show’s undoing (to not have solved Laura Palmer’s murder was delusional thinking on his part – if he ever considered it would fly –  not just for the studio, but also for viewers). There are elements here that don’t quite work (Frank’s disguise never seems entirely relevant), but the fact that the mystery is so thin doesn’t matter when everything else bears such darkly narcotic fruit.


As Jeffrey says twice in the course of Blue Velvet, “It’s a strange world, isn’t it?”; through Lynch’s prism, doubly so. The director leaves us on a note of order restored, of mothers reunited with children and Sunday lunch prepared by picture-perfect young lovers. But it amounts to restored order with robotic birds and yukky bugs, so it’s never, ever going to match that surface, white picket fence level (however mock-soothing the score is).


Rossellini said of the Lynch that he exudes what he is thinking, rather than articulating it, and there are times in his work where you are left merely baffled, rather than struck by his genius. Blue Velvet, by embracing melodrama, Hitchcock by way of Bunuel, with even a touch of Sirk, but drip-fed into a nightmarishly hyper-sexual dreamscape, might be the most accessible of his true “Lynchian” films, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still his best. And it really does feel like a movie made by Jimmy Stewart from Mars.





Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There