(David Lynch, 1986)
(essay by Kevin)
[This is a repost of an entry I did on the subgenre of Neo-Noir a while back…I am leaving it untouched here for one purpose: I have not added any addendums to this essay about whether or not Blue Velvet is a ‘horror’ film; so, let’s discuss whether it is or isn’t in the comments.]
If Chinatown uses the style of noir to create an atmosphere of loneliness and despair – revealing the corrupt truths of America the way Gittes reveals the corruption of the Cross case; and if Blade Runner uses noir’s style to look into the future to raise the level of awareness about a kind of hyperreality we live in; then David Lynch’s Blue Velvet is an attack on the ideological nostalgic 1950’s America filtered through Lynch’s twisted, microscopic lens. Lynch’s film peers into the secrecy of our lives in order to see what lies underneath the façade of Everytown, USA. Blue Velvet involves families, strokes, teenagers in love, severed ears, murder, drugs, and yes, sadomasochism. And yet Lynch does in deed bring all of these elements together in noir fashion to create an ethereal experience, something so surreal and so bizarre, it is as if the viewer is taking hits from Frank Booth’s gas tank.
What Lynch does so brilliantly, and the reason why people refer to Blue Velvet as a neo or postmodern-noir, is through an ideological lens he paints a picture of how we wished the small American town actually were so squeaky-clean and upheld the ideals of Americana. At the time Lynch was making the film, 1986, this was a powerful response to Reagan’s America. The film has two kinds of scenes: (1) The everyday small-town scenes, in which people go out on dates to the soda fountain and drive around town in shiny cars, and (2) the subterranean scenes in which the most unspeakable acts take place behind closed doors (i.e. the reasoning for the severed ear…not only are we blind to such things existing around us, now we have become deaf). We see this common thread running through both Chinatown and Blade Runner but something new comes into play with Blue Velvet: The theme of exhibitionism, and how no matter how badly we may want to turn away, we cannot help but look; and that if we look hard enough there is corruption and perversion underneath every seemingly perfect small town (John Cheever’s brilliant short story “The Enormous Radio” comes to mind, too).
Lynch offers two key visuals to guide the viewer as they wade through these troublesome postmodern waters: The first symbol is at the beginning of the film in the form of a severed ear. We come to find later that the ear does indeed belong to someone important to the story; however, more than mere foreshadowing and plot device, Lynch is asking the audience to remember the visual throughout the film. It is a reminder that drugs and sadomasochism are protruding this small quiet town and that if you look hard enough, you can find just about any kind of unspeakable horror in your seemingly contented existence. The other meaning behind the ear seems to be more politically charged. Through Lynch’s own warped and darkly comedic way (Blue Velvet is all at once a comedy, a horror film, and a noir) he is reminding us that we have turned a deaf ear to the things we choose not to listen or look for in our own small town America’s. Notice how the films opening is in slow motion, people smiling, white picket fences, firemen, dogs, and friendly neighbors waving at the camera. Lynch juxtaposes this ideological world with the ear, the representation of the outside world that is about to assault this small town.
The other key visual is more of a technique, and one that is crucial to any good noir film: lighting. Lynch uses many of the techniques of noir, but the film isn’t as toned down with drab colors or shadows like those in Chinatown and Blade Runner. Lynch uses specific, vibrant colors, focusing them on one part of the screen creating an almost uber-glossy rendition of noir, with its night clubs and nightmare sequences being drenched in spotlight, where the lighting seems non-existent – this is a dark world where there is rarely any room for light to enter – there is also an emphasis on disorientating color schemes (Lynch is a painter in addition to a filmmaker) to create a world of both illusion and allusion. The film is both dreamy and grotesquely real, there is almost a hazy feel throughout the film, the feeling between being asleep and being awake throughout the nightclub scenes and especially the nightmarish scene where Jeffery and Dorothy are taken to the strange house of Ben (Dean Stockwell), the man holding Dorothy’s child. And yet, the film is beautiful to look at, an allusion to some of the great noir films like Double Indemnity, T-Men, White Heat, and Touch of Evil; Lynch is obviously aware that pastiche is the ultimate postmodern trope.
Even some of the films most uncomfortable and horrifying scenes (i.e. Frank coming by for his required sex with Dorothy) are lit with beautiful soft light and framed with a kind of innocence that would exist in the 1940’s era Lynch is definitely mimicking (or mocking). For example, the scene where Jeffery is witnessing Frank torture Dorothy is seen through his point of through the blinds of a closet. The scene is framed and portrayed in way where Jeffery is almost like a child, witnessing for the first time the uncertainties of sexuality. He’s peering through the blinds of the closet, what he is witnessing is cut-up, fragmented. Lynch uses this visual to create a sense of confusion. Is what he’s seeing erotic or unlawful? Jeffery’s thoughts are ambiguous at first, but when he is caught the scene plays out like that of twelve-year-old boys being caught “experimenting” with their mother’s Cosmo magazines. Thus begins the journey of Blue Velvet, it is from that point on that Jeffery just keeps going down, further and further into the abyss bringing everyone “innocent” with him.
Another way Lynch comments on the small town is through the visitation of Jeffery. Jeffery used to live in the town and is visiting from college because his father had a stroke. Once he left for college, one can see how Lynch suggests that he became “wise” to the world, he is no longer deaf or blind to what is happening around him. This is why in one of the films most uncomfortable scenes, when Dorothy stands on Jeffery’s front lawn naked, he is seemingly unfazed by the event and hurries to cover her up and save her, leaving his girlfriend Sandy (Laura Dern) to wonder what is happening. She doesn’t understand and begins crying, storming home angry at Jeffery. The next scene, Jeffery has taken Dorothy home and is seen speaking with the angered Sandy on the phone, and to hammer the point home, Lynch has Jeffery say very little and has Sandy forgiving him for everything, even though Jeffery has in fact continuously rendezvoused with Dorothy for sex. Sandy, still blinded by teenage romance and unable to see the big picture because she is trapped by the ideals of her small town, is willing to exculpate the problems of her and Jeffery’s relationship caused by Dorothy. She is blind to the possibilities of Jeffery even having a sexual relationship with Dorothy. This is another reason why in the first scene that we are introduced to Frank and Dorothy (the closet scene mentioned earlier), Lynch has Jeffery in the closet and not Sandy. He represents that outer world; he’s rightly placed amidst the other outsiders of the story.
And finally Lynch’s film is cyclical, it ends the same way it begins, minus the stroke victim, but added is the reconciliation of Dorothy and her son. Throughout the film, as is the case with Blade Runner, there is a plot revolving around an absent center. Lynch gives us this de-centered, de-stabilized universe while keeping the main themes circling around this absent center; this is the vortex that Jeffery finds himself pulled down into the more he discovers about Dorothy and her situation. The last shot of the film suggests that even though we see Dorothy with her son, the film remains cyclical in the sense that there will always be corruption and horror beneath the surface of things (in our towns, in politics, etc.), and that even though there may be these outsiders that invade these small towns – invaders that come in and try to help the ideological small town open their eyes to the “real” world – there is no point, there will always be that corruption and horror (this is the nihilistic Lynch kicking in here), and America will forever remain deaf to the cries of the Dorothy’s of America.
In film noir ordinary people find out that evil lurks just beneath the surfaces of their lives; they inevitably get caught up in the shadow worlds, they find themselves capable of committing unspeakable acts. A proper film noir is, contrary to the limitations of genre labeling, not usually a gangster or crime film, but the story of how evil enters everyday lives. The genre is profoundly pessimistic; it does not show bad people doing bad things, but average people doing bad things. This complicates things and makes it all the more ambiguous because the implication is that we are all capable of evil.
(this film appeared on Troy’s list at #5, Kevin’s at #8, Robert’s at #13, and Jamie’s at #23)
The remaining 4 days will be our individual Number 1’s, since we each had a different film taking the top spot. So, from here you will see ‘1 of 4’ accompanying the films title at the top, and you shouldn’t worry about the order of the films presented.
I say no to horror. As a huge fan of David Lynch I have never looked at his films as being part of the genre. Eraserhead and Lost Highway share some similarities but even those I remain skeptical about. Blue Velvet I don’t see at all to be honest. Clearly neo-noir in my eyes. Regardless, it’s a great movie and if you four consider it horror than a high placement is more than warranted. Whatever genre it is mentioned in it deserves massive recognition.
‘Blue Velvet I don’t see at all to be honest.’
Really? You don’t see ANY Horror in ‘Blue Velvet’? We are talking about the Lynch film right?
Your like a little kid that takes his ball and runs home when someone doesn’t agree with you. No I don’t see this as horror….. reminds me more of Leave It To Beaver but realistic.
Hardly…
I’m just asking ‘you don’t see ANY Horror in this film, None?
Ok.
If I’m the boy that takes the ball and runs home when someone disagrees with me, then you are the guy that sits around waits for hours while Kevin painstaking creates the ball, then when it’s put into the game you don’t commend him or contemplate the work it took to create the ball, you just run to it, grab it and hold it for 3 seconds dismissively then you pop it. Then you look at all the others wanting to play and say “sorry, that’s just how it is, and if you disagree it’s YOUR problem”.
I compliment everybody. I’ve given Troy so many raving pleasantries he might take me for a stalker soon. The reason I said no to horror and made that the focus of my comment is something called….. the first paragraph of this essay. Read it. I’m discussing what Kevin explicitly mentions as a possible debate….. if anything I’m the guy who brings a glove to the stadium hoping to catch the ball so I can tell my family and friends what a wonderful game I just saw…….
so you start (and end) a discussion with “Blue Velvet I don’t see at all to be honest. Clearly neo-noir in my eyes.”
How does anyone ‘pick up the ball and continue’ the discussion?
We can move on though, it’s all good.
I was just expressing my views that the film is not horror as requested by Kevin to discuss the validity of it as such. Kevin’s piece is wonderful as always. I think it becomes monotonous to always praise the writer. All four of you are extremely capable and the regulars at WITD have let you all know beyond a shadow of a doubt how accomplished your skills are. Of course there is a horror/scary element in Blue Velvet…. no different than Pinocchio. Neither in my eyes are horror. Just stating my opinion.
You continue the discussion by saying something like “Well I disagree with Maurizio because………..”
Seeing horror and being horror are different in my opinion.
Well it’s tough Maurizio because if you recall before this thing started we–at length–stated how we define and see horror, and what is needed in a film to be considered as such. So we are working on a defined position, you, to my knowledge have not. So, as you have countless times during this countdown, stated ‘this film isn’t Horror’, I don’t know what to say because you are still yet to state or define what a Horror film is to you. So I’m left to just believe you don’t think this is Horror, because you just say it isn’t. We, (or you) can look at this film (I started doing this below) and just check off where it satisfies how we’ve already defined Horror.
There, that’s more clearly stated so you can see where I’m coming from.
_ _ _ _ _
I also want many films that aren’t generally considered Horror to at least be looked at in that way, when applicable of course. This one is easy as many already consider it as such (all 4 members of our panel considered it easily), but doing this to other films is what I find fascinating.
In other words, as Troy and I discussed quickly once, I want to define the ‘New Horror Canon’, not work off ‘The Horror Canon’ that already exists and you can buy countless books on Amazon describing. I want to act like we are starting from scratch, because in my mind we are (and what scares people should be done like this as it’s an individualistic genre), and I’m starting to REALLY expand on this idea with my Top 500 Horror films idea.
I also am trying to break a wall or two for you so when you start your Noir countdown (you’re doing that right?) you don’t get smart ass comments like: ‘this is a gangster picture not a noir’ or ‘this is a crime picture not a noir’ or ‘this is a police procedural not a noir’ etc.
Noone can ever agree what film noir is. I’m sure these same situations will pop up then. I have no problems if you or Kevin consider this horror. I guess I exclude Lynch for the same reason I would exclude Bergman. Both are not technically working within a genre but expressing highly personal visions. When Kubrick made The Shining he was cognitive of the fact that he was making a horror film to scare people. The same with Halloween by Carpenter or Psycho by Hitchcock. With Lynch or Bergman I do not feel this is the case. While their movies may have horrific elements they seem to be almost oblivious to genre concerns and feel apart from any such canon. I guess that is why a term like Lynchian exists…..
funny you mention the term ‘lynchian’ today…
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t have thought of this film as horror pre-countdown but I love the “open” approach you guys are taking, as it allows me to see many familiar films in a new light I hadn’t thought of before. So thumbs-up from me. Though I’m sure it doesn’t matter as this comment has an invisibility cloak around it. 🙂
Some marginalia about the film — the severed ear in “Blue Velvet” has always reminded me of the shower drain in Hitchcock’s “Psycho,” a portal to some secular hell, the unmentionable beneath the glassy surface of some uniquely American denial of reality. While Hitchcock’s drain is swirling with blood, Lynch’s ear is swarming with insects – a tip, perhaps, to Bunuelian ants and severed hands.
The other surreal touches in “Blue Velvet” seem quaint in comparison — the pop-art picket fence and red flowers, the obviously fake mechanical robin, the slo-mo smiling firemen — but these images do release us from the nightmare which has pummeled us mercilessly for 2 hrs. Just like the emergence of Hitchcock’s car-with-the-corpse ( Ms. Leigh’s remains hideously decomposed and skeletal by now) pulled from that swamp or suckhole at the end of “Psycho” finally releases us from the horror of Hitch’s modern-goth hell. One can only suffer so much of the invisible macabre that surrounds all of us every day, before we gratefully return to our individual (and comforting) banalities.
An addendum.
For me, “Blue Velvet” is neither horror nor dark comedy, but rather a type of aesthetic porn that has seduced a lot of people into thinking it a deep commentary on a 1950’s age of innocence that never really existed in the first place, inferior to Hitchcock and Bunuel, but derivative of both.
My best of all time horror films would include Murnau’s “Nosferatu,” Lon Chaney’s silent “Phantom of the Opera,” Browning’s “Freaks.” As for contemporary horror Philip Kaufman’s remake of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” is a neglected nugget, even better than the original (for semioticians a take on 50s paranoiac anti-Communism).
Also, “The Exorcist” and “Alien” scared the bejesus out of me. I suppose “Psycho” is some sort of macabre masterpiece. It’s certainly the granddaddy of all slasher films and the sickest joke in movie history.
I leave it to the youngsters (I’m just an old fart who once briefly met Kael at a book-signing in SF — she was charming to me) to savor the bloody viscera of today’s brand of overly explicit Grand Guignol. Just not my bucket of gore. When it comes to horror, less is more.
I have racked my brains for days trying to figure out the top five, and I failed to foresee BLUE VELVET. I am still struggling with the top 4 (and I love the strategy you came up with here) and can only come up with Hitchcock and Carpenter. Even that may not pan out.
I don’t see BLUE VELVET as a bonafide horror candidate, but this countdown has emplyed overlap to great effect and delicious suspense. There are some extreme horrific elements in it, and while it’s also neo-noir and surrealist fantasy, there’s no question it’s an unsettling experience. This is a marvelous piece of writing by Kevin, who has framed this film with every idea and contention one could possible pose in regards to this film.
I love this:
“Blue Velvet involves families, strokes, teenagers in love, severed ears, murder, drugs, and yes, sadomasochism. And yet Lynch does in deed bring all of these elements together in noir fashion to create an ethereal experience, something so surreal and so bizarre, it is as if the viewer is taking hits from Frank Booth’s gas tank.”
But obviously that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Sam my predictions…..
Jamie–Don’t Look Now
Kevin–Black Sunday
Troy–Psycho
Robert–Halloween
I’d say you’re right on the money with the predictions!!!!!!
Maurizio, BLACK SUNDAY is one of my absolute favorite horror films, but I was under the impression it appeared already!!!!!
OMG.
Robert, and I discussed a few weeks back how much we disliked ‘Black Sunday’. Not saying Kevin feels the same, but take that how you will.
Not sure I’d put ‘Black Sunday’ in a Top 200 I’d compile, but as always, different strokes for different folks.
The screen capture of the ear is a classic.
My proposal: Blue Velvet is a dark comedy. Think of the dialogue.
Kevin, Troy and Jamie can’t be touched in this countdown.
I see I rated this the lowest (though still 23 is nothing to scoff at), I suppose this is because I think Lynch’s ultimate Horror statement was/is LOST HIGHWAY which I ranked in the top 10 (9 if I recall correctly).
I recall discussing this film when Hopper died, and I watched it that week in honor of him. I still think the initial scene where he gets (I believe) Dean Stockwell to sing ‘Blue Velvet’ and has everyone else shut up is one of the great cinema moments I’ve ever seen. He’s so plaintive and stoic as if to cry, but there’s a glint in his eye that almost states: if anyone ruins this moment before I’ve had my fill I will slit your throat (and everyone assumes he’ll do it). It’s both one of the creepiest moments I’ve ever seen, and at the same time one of the most beautiful.
Kevin points all this out and more, and I like all his comments on the (clear) Reagan America condemnations going on. That last scene, often forgot by me as it seems almost tacked on really brings this all home.
This film has so many of our Horror trademarks we already laid out at this countdowns start: it scares you (duh), it has tons of creepy atmosphere (duh), it has a movie monster to rival Dracula or Frankenstein (off the top of my head he might be THE Horror monster of the 80’s, only Freddy seems close), etc. Oh and it starts with the strange evocation to violence (that severed ear), plus many of the scenes work or are created to exist in a Horror template (one such easy example is screencap 2 in the closet– we’ve seen that image in Horror countless times).
I believe Jamie has previously said that he considers any movie that scares him to be horror, so by that criteria Blue Velvet works for me. But where does that put The Wizard of Oz, which also used to scare the hell out of me (when I was kid), and is meant to do just that? That’s the reason I tend to avoid genre labels in the first place — in music it’s at least as bad — because they are inevitably inadequate in practice and often it’s the gray areas that produce the most memorable work. That’s certainly where I would put Blue Velvet. On the other hand, I have enjoyed this countdown quite a lot, reaped a good many titles I am now looking forward to seeing, and looking forward to the science fiction countdown (is that next?), which no doubt will be just as exasperating and rewarding for what’s in and out. Thanks to Jamie, Kevin, Robert, and Troy for all their obviously hard work! (And thanks also to Maurizio and Dennis for needling away at them, that’s been enjoyable too.)
That means Jaws is horror too, no?
I suppose so, but I’m not comfortable with that label on Jaws either. But I guess that’s the fun of these exercises.
JAWS made our list somewhere in the 70’s or 60s I believe.
PETER-I’m in agreement with you on JAWS. I too, feel totally uncomfortable in designating the film as an out and out horror flick when it’s base genre is most definately in the action/adventure department. JAWS, while it has some terrifying horror moments (the pre-boat killings of the girl, the Kintner boy on the raft, the discovery of Ben Gardner and the Fourth of July disaster in the bay), is really about three totally different personalities getting together and working together to overcome and insurmountable old. Like the old swashbucklers of the 1930’s like CAPTAIN BLOOD, JAWS is more of an adventursome character piece about forced comraderie and a triumph over a natural whirlwind of unstoppable force. Horrifying? Yes, at points… Horror Movie? No, not quite…
Still, it does frighten a helluva lot better than most films in the field of horror and most of the films in the count. I don’t think too many would argue that…
I give the guys kudos for considering it amongst the greatest scary pictures of all time…
JAWS is, easily, my favorite movie… EVER!
Yeah, I don’t see BLUE VELVET as a horror film either. If any of Lynch’s films is a candidate for the genre it would be the TWIN PEAKS film. You’ve got Laura Palmer as the “final girl” and BOB as the monster trying to possess her. Not to mention a lot of the film’s iconography is steeped in the horror genre. Anyways, I will be making a case for it on my blog on Friday.
You don’t see LOST HIGHWAY? To me that is HIS Horror film, it’s a Horror film pretty much throughout, and scaring the audience seems to be the intent. All his films do exist in a wiggle room of several genre(s), but LOST HIGHWAY seems to be about 95% Horror.
Like BLUE VELVET, LOST HIGHWAY does have its moments of horror but I wouldn’t say that collectively these moments make these films of the horror genre. As others have said, they arre both routed in noir whereas FWWM feels and looks like it belongs in the horror genre. It just oozes dread and unease throughout and BOB is a truly horrifying figure. That scene where he/Leland comes into Laura’s bedroom at night still freaks me out.
I agree with JD – TWIN PEAKS: FWWM is pretty damn close to being straight-up horror (only that there is no suspense in that we know how it ends) – but the plot, imagery, pacing and themes (child sexual abuse, nightmares and the murder of a teenage girl) are horror in my book. The lack of humor in it, as well, leads me to think Lynch’s intention with TP: FWWM was to horrify – and on multiple levels…not just with the story, but also meta-horrify the critics and the TV show’s fans. ERASERHEAD (though dreadfully funnier) could be argued as horror as well.
I think LOST HIGHWAY is often misinterpreted as being horror because it is literally Lynch’s darkest film. Some scenes come across as being completely black. It’s straight-up noir to me though, and like much of his work, a black comedy to boot.
BLUE VELVET, because of the monstrous Frank Booth character, straddles both genres to a degree…but is really noir at heart.
I love the creativity and genre-crossings of this list, though…and this was a delightfully wicked surprise. Whoever said horror should only be judged by what scares ya is right… and I’m all for the free form tag-team listing.
Frank Booth still scares the shit out of me to this day.
In dreams….
There is some humor in FWWM, mostly in the first third with Agents Desmond and Stanley which mainly involve the beligerent local cops (“We got a phone. It’s got a little ring.”) and the strange locals (“I don’t know shit from shinola.”) which are Lynch at his dry, absurdist humor best, IMO. But you’re right, once we move to Twin Peaks, there is very little to no humor.
Totally agree that FWWM is the most conventionally “horror” of Lynch’s oeuvre; I was kind of thinking it would place on here but with this so high it doesn’t seem terribly likely.
You’re writing something on Twin Peaks : Fire Walk With Me, J.D.?
I look forward to that.
I agree that Blue Velvet probably shouldn’t be in this category (Eraserhead is probably the closest of any Lynch film to be considered horror), but nonetheless it gives us a reason to talk about on of the greatest American films ever. A truly brutal and strange trip, starting out looking like a Hardy Boys style mystery but then slowly turning into psychotic thriller that goes further and darker than anything done by Polanski, DePalma, Charbol, or even Hitchcock. I guess the scenes with Frank Booth alone probably puts this among the greatest horror films ever but I still feel Eraserhead better fits the description better and who knows, it could be in the top 4 (you really never know with this list). With the list coming to an end soon, I hope to be surprised when number 1 is revealed.
I definately feel that of all of Lynch’s work, the one that standds as a true out-and-out horror film is LOST HIGHWAY…
That said, I’m afraid I have to agree with JAMIE in the sense that BLUE VELVERT does also qualify as a horror film is you take into account the day that poor Jeffrey is living through.
Also, take into account that monsters don’t always come in the standatrd guises that so many horror movies of the past place them in. Dennis Hopper’s Frank Booth is as frightening a monster that has ever been seen or depicted on screen and his moments in the living room as he rapes the shit out of Isabella Rossolini’s character is one of complete terror. I feel Frank’s character is always on the verge of snapping into one enourmous blood-bath and at any given second. He’s a deranged, drug-fueled, sexually arrogant and hyper-active presense of pure malevolance. As effectively creepy as Hannibal Lecter, Norman Bates, Henry Lee Lucas, John Doe, he’s what Dr. Chilton (in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS) calls a “pure psychopath.” He has no conscience and is only after the rewards of his actions that benefit him immediately.
Take into consideration the juxtapose in the visual styles that seperate the “happy” world and the “underworld” that Lynch is getting at, and you have what is, on visual terms, a descent into a hell that is right around the corner.
Is BLUE VELVET and out-and-out horror film?
No. I wouldn’t go that far because the film has so many different stylistic elements that can corral it into numerous categories. However, one of those sub-categories is horror and, in my mind anyway, validates its inclusion into the genre of horror and this count….
IMO….
I don’t find Frank Booth terrifying. I look at him as a Dr Strangelove kind of guy. Funny but with a crazy dark side and an explosive temper. He doesn’t really scare me as I feel, like Peter, that Blue Velvet is more of a black comedy. I would say that Twin Peaks Bob and whiteface Robert Blake are more frightening though still not scary.
One man’s comedy is another mans horror, my dear Maurizio. I find the pent up explosiveness of Frank Booth beyond frightening. Matter of fact i see his building rage as lunatic and psychotic.
Scary? Absolutely. I’d never want a guy like this in my house. You really need to ask yourself a few questions about what is scary (like “would i be able to handle a guy like this in a one-on-one conversation?” or “what if this guy asked me to go on a joy ride”) before you start sounding off, definatively, about the character. FRANK BOOTH is one of the great scary monsters in cinematic history. No resaoning in the world, if he put a gun to your head, would keep him from dislodging your brain from your skull.
THAT’S SCARY…
Yeah. This is not a horror film. You could call it a thriller, a satire, a neo-noir, an sado-masochistic erotic drama. But horror? No. The acts of violence aren’t there so much to scare you as they are to shock and disturb. You could call some of “Twin Peaks” horror, and possibly “Lost Highway”. But not this.
Not horror either, it shocks you, it disturbs you, but not horror, at least not for me.
As much as I love Lynch, and this is one of his best movies (in an usually great career), I find that he does references the feeling of horror, may it be through direct references to movies (Blue Velvet always makes me feel as if it were a vampire film, don’t ask why) or through what we see in the faces of the characters confronted with the shocking evidence presented.
Yet, none of his films is horror, at least his feature films. “Eraserhead” comes close, but I saw it more as a disturbing Freudian fairy tale. “The Alphabet”, a 4 minute short, that is his horror exercise, and a very good one indeed.
Not even “Lost Highway”, one of the best movies of the 90’s comes close to the feel of horror a movie like “Psycho” can give. I agree that some people feel shocked or disturbed by it, but my reaction to a horror film, may it be a good or a crappy one, is different from a David Lynch film, or any dubious horror-like film.
For me, Lynch is an experience, a visual communion with a superior order of meanings and feelings. Horror is a direct connection to my inner senses, a more ‘palpable’ experience, felt in the stomach, neck, arms or throat.
Anyway, that’s only my take.
To the horror crew – just sent an e-mail but you may see it quicker here anyway. What time does the first #1 go up tomorrow?
Great conversation here, everyone! I’m sitting back and enjoying the debate. I will briefly add for now that we are really trying to redefine the horror genre with this countdown. And I purposefully selected the Bergman and this film to showcase because I know that people don’t think of those films as horror films. I promise my entry for tomorrow is MUCH more normal.
But sadly some of you are wrong. My final choice is not Italian. Crazy I know! Haha.
My thoughts on this film are somewhat unusual – it doesn’t work for me the way it seems to for other people. I find it fascinating, but quite alienating, not immersive like most of Lynch’s other movies (particularly his later ones). I reviewed it a while back and my thoughts are still pretty much the same. A couple key passages:
“Blue Velvet is often portrayed as both a classic deconstruction of American picket fence myths and a prototypical tour of Lynch’s peculiar and unique world. But this is a misleading way to set up the film. Firstly, Blue Velvet’s world isn’t really suburban at all. If anything it’s “small town,” yet it doesn’t fit squarely into Norman Rockwell land either. The town center is full of tall brick buildings which aren’t exactly warm and welcoming and even the brightly lit house’s interiors have a cold, hollow quality. Something is empty and alienating from the get-go and so the myths that Lynch supposedly wallows in before puncturing them with Hopper’s psychosis are never really there. The film, despite being at least partially set in a world of lumber yards and homes with front lawns, has a weirdly urban feel to it.”
“Perhaps most distinctively, Blue Velvet lacks the dreamy quality of “Twin Peaks” or Mulholland Drive. It does have the appearance of a nightmare, but a kind of sickly, feverish nightmare, not one that taps into the collective unconscious. Put another way, the movie is far more Freud than Jung. I haven’t seen Lost Highway or Inland Empire but per my understanding, they too crackle with mystical overtones and spiritual depths. Above all, Blue Velvet is firmly secular – this is partly where that paradoxically “urban” quality comes from, and it helps explain the sickly, hollow feel that those bright interiors exude. It also may explain why so many cultural critics embrace this film above all the others; it’s the least TM of Lynch’s works. The classic auteur Lynch most resembles in directing Blue Velvet is Bunuel (who truth be told is my least favorite of the Old Masters) he of the sunshine surrealism and determinedly materialist outlook. And as such, I’ve found Blue Velvet hard to get into, to the point where many passages leave me cold, which doesn’t usually happen with Lynch.”
Interesting take on Blue Velvet Joel. I find it to be just as dreamlike as the ones you mention but different. The warped surrealism of the latter works is largely missing during long stretches. I find that Blue Velvet is closer to Twin Peaks the show than the actual prequel in tone and spirit during large portions of its running time. Regardless, I enjoy it all and must urge you to see Lost Highway immediately. Along with Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks FWWM, and Mulholland Drive it is a masterpiece.
I really enjoyed your essay, Kevin. It carries some very well-obseved and important factors about Blue Velvet’s troubling atmosphere. Your striking phrases as to an “absent center,” neglect of “the big picture,” and “average people doing bad things” zero in on what is arguably the most crushing thing about this movie, namely, despite a blue-chip semester, Jeffery’s ending up a small-town boy.
Wow, turn off my computer for a day and I miss the whole debate here…
I had the movie rated the highest (I think it’s the best film of the 80’s) yet knew that Kevin had already written extensively about it (I remember reading a paper he wrote on it several years ago for school, of which either some or all of this post originated), so was happy to have him write on this, as it’s a fascinating essay.
I’ll admit that I didn’t put much thought into the “is it or isn’t it horror” debate when I put it on my list. All I did was thumb through my Horror Film Encyclopedia to put together my “to see/seen” list, there it was in the 1986 listing between APRIL FOOL’S DAY and Ruggero Deodato’s CAMPING DEL TERRORE. So on my top 100 list it went.
I liken it to a nightmare and it has enough imagery that is definitively surrealistically horrific (the ear, the drive in Frank’s car, the odd scene at the end with the Yellow Man, the image of Frank in his disguise, the mechanical bird). It’s the horror that is implicit in behind the facade of small-town USA (and I think of Eisenhower’s America rather than Reagan’s America when I see this — isn’t Lynch apolitical anyways?).
Of course, it’s easier to use the term “Lynchian” as others have, because he really has created his own style of the twisted and bizarre, but barring the use of that term, I think this film is just as saturated in horror trappings as it is in noir.