"Blue Velvet" (1986) On TCM Yesterday [Like "I Spit on Your Grave"]
Old Movie Fan
Hope Lange and Isabella Rossellini and your seeing a violent & shocking
(X-Rated) film with violence, full frontal nudity and a nauseating
redundance of the 'F' word.
The film affected me exactly the same way as the other mentioned in my
subject.
That's voyeurism for you. Even if you don't like it, you must watch it
through to it's conclusion. It's a sick film that makes you ashamed of
the human depravation. But that's exactly it's intent.
Director:
David Lynch
Writer:
David Lynch (screenplay)
Release Date:
19 September 1986 (USA) more
Genre:
Drama | Mystery | Thriller more
Plot:
After finding a severed human ear in a field, a young man soon discovers
a sinister underworld lying just beneath his idyllic suburban home town.
Awards:
Nominated for Oscar. Another 17 wins & 10 nominations more
Cast
(Cast overview, first billed only)
Isabella Rossellini... Dorothy Vallens
Kyle MacLachlan... Jeffrey Beaumont (as Kyle Maclachlan)
Dennis Hopper... Frank Booth
Laura Dern... Sandy Williams
Hope Lange... Mrs. Williams
Dean Stockwell... Ben
George Dickerson... Detective Williams
Priscilla Pointer... Mrs. Beaumont
Frances Bay... Aunt Barbara
Jack Harvey... Mr. Beaumont
Ken Stovitz... Mike
Brad Dourif... Raymond
Runtime:
120 min
Country:
USA
Quotes:
[first lines]
Radio announcer: It's a sunny, woodsy day in Lumberton, so get those
chainsaws out. This is the mighty W.O.O.D., the musical voice of
Lumberton. At the sound of the falling tree, it's 9:30. There's a whole
lotta wood waitin' out there, so let's get goin'.
Review:
A mesmerizing piece of cinema with element of masterpiece..., 26 July
2004
Author: auberus from Paris
Theretofore sex in film could potentially be used as a means of
revealing the lightest or the darkest character's traits: primarily,
vulnerability, instinct, sadism and impulse. Blue Velvet is a good
example of a movie using such a dynamic. Blue Velvet is not a film that
is easily appreciated. Likewise, it is not a film that is easily
forgotten. It is a timeless controversy, and it is a vision demanding
attention if not praise. Set in a small American town, Blue Velvet is a
dark, sensuous mystery involving the intertwining lives of four very
different individuals. The film's painful realism reminds us that we are
not immune to the disturbing events which transpire in Blue Velvet's
sleepy community. There is a darker side of life waiting for us all. And
as a critic said 'you either think it's dementedly wild at heart or a
lost highway to nowhere'. Even some eighteen years after the release of
Blue Velvet its vision remains wildly adamant relative to the stride of
other works of contemporary noir. There have been many films about
suburban crime, but none as dangerously imposing as this. Why is that
so? If Blue Velvet might not be labeled as a masterpiece one has to
acknowledge that there are in this movie a lot of so called 'masterpiece
element' and if Blue Velvet will never considered as Mr. Lynch best
feature, I personally can see a lot of David Lynch's genius flowing in
that movie.First of all, the way David Lynch makes Blue Velvet
increasingly disturbing is a perfect example of how pristine the
dynamics of weirdness and tension are built (remember Eraserhead and
Elephant Man). Through this process Mr. Lynch indeed deconstructs the
audience expectations. The film setting and mood are introduced in an
exposition lifted directly from older films (there are numerous
references to It's A Wonderful Life). In result the film is initially
expected to follow a particular path. The way Mr. Lynch associate
elements of classic narrative methodology and 'his dynamics of noir'
(previously explained) appears to be original at worst 'avant gardiste'
at best. Second of all, the opposition between the creepiness of the
plot and the setting of it is definitely for me a masterpiece element.
The film is set in Lumberton. This does not represent a quaint, small
town by similarity; it is one. Lumberton is filled with characters that
are completely typical. I can almost see the cops eating doughnuts in
the coffee shop and the local football star dating the head cheerleader.
This typicality is definitely not out of coincidence but of intention.
In fact these characters function to punctuate the story, not to
distinguish it. The 'infamous' individuality of Lynch's vision is
established in the darker side of Lumberton. Our perspective throughout
the film is fixed on Jeffery, and is deliberately biased by his good
nature. Jeffery is portrayed with great subtlety by Kyle MacLachlan (FBI
agent from "Twin Peaks"). He is paired with Sandy (Laura Dern), the
daughter of a neighborhood investigator who epitomizes to perfection the
'girl-next-door'; in Blue Velvet it is her literal function. Completing
this diverse list of roles is a haunting and brief performance by Dean
Stockwell as well as Dennis Hopper who creates a flabbergasting portrait
of unrepentant and irredeemable evil. The confrontation or those
characters or the collision among themselves makes for a mesmerizing
experience. Once again Mr. Lynch succeeds in the masterful exercise of
controlling the audience's attention. Most of us will not quite know
what to make of it and we can disagree on the value of such a cinematic
experience. However audacious, erotic, disturbing, haunting are
adjectives that will always be linked with Blue Velvet. The 'Thriller'
has just been re-invented by Mr. Lynch right in front of are eyes.
nick
> What a surprise to watch a film with Dean Stockwell, Dennis Hopper,
> Hope Lange and Isabella Rossellini and your seeing a violent & shocking
> (X-Rated) film with violence, full frontal nudity and a nauseating
> redundance of the 'F' word.
> The film affected me exactly the same way as the other mentioned in my
> subject.
>
> That's voyeurism for you. Even if you don't like it, you must watch it
> through to it's conclusion. It's a sick film that makes you ashamed of
> the human depravation. But that's exactly it's intent.
It was described by a college reviewer at the time as "Christian
pornography" which I'm not sure is corrrect but the phrase has stuck
in my head ever since.
tomcervo
performance by Dean Stockwell
That little flash in his eyes as he toasted Frank: "Here's to your
FUCK Frank."
One suave fucker.
nick
> In article <19920-4B412180-2...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> >Hope Lange and Isabella Rossellini and your seeing a violent & shocking
> >(X-Rated) film with violence, full frontal nudity and a nauseating
> >redundance of the 'F' word.
>
> had been rated X and don't think it particularly deserved it, but it was
> 1986.
Blue Velvet was never rated X. I don't know about overseas but in the
US, it's always had an R rating.
Old Movie Fan
>I saw it for the first time, it was okay I guess. I
> didn't even realize it had been rated X and
> don't think it particularly deserved it, but it was
>1986.
>From: nickmacp...@AOL.com (nick)
>Blue Velvet was never rated X. I don't know
> about overseas but in the US, it's always had
>an R rating.
I'm the only one to give it an X rating in attempting to describe this
offensive film. It had more than enough profanity, sex, raw disgusting
violence against women (and men), plus lots of depravity. These are the
types of films that stay in your mind forever.
If it doesn't deserve an X rating, then what does a film have to do or
show to be restriced (to only adults), these days?
I wouldn't want my grown children to be able to see this.
Kingo Gondo
But I have even less use for a dickhead like you.
David Oberman
Fan) wrote:
> I'm the only one to give it an X rating in attempting to describe this
>offensive film. It had more than enough profanity, sex, raw disgusting
>violence against women (and men), plus lots of depravity. These are the
>types of films that stay in your mind forever.
>
> If it doesn't deserve an X rating, then what does a film have to do or
>show to be restriced (to only adults), these days?
>
> I wouldn't want my grown children to be able to see this.
I watched it just the other night. All I can say is that it's
certainly a far cry from "National Velvet"!!!! & not at all what I
expected.
Kingo Gondo
"David Oberman" <DavidO...@att.net> wrote in message
news:l6n5k59058c2kohjg...@4ax.com...
Do you desire films to be what you expect?
If so, you are officially an old fart.
moviePig
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:23:29 -0500, BigMovie...@webtv.net (Old Movie
What else would you expect as the blue version of NATIONAL VELVET...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Francis A. Miniter
>> (Dennis M) wrote: �
>
>> I saw it for the first time, it was okay I guess. I
>> didn't even realize it had been rated X and
>> don't think it particularly deserved it, but it was
> >1986.
>
>> From: nickmacp...@AOL.com (nick)
>
>> Blue Velvet was never rated X. I don't know
>> about overseas but in the US, it's always had
>> an R rating.
>
> I'm the only one to give it an X rating in attempting to describe this
> offensive film. It had more than enough profanity, sex, raw disgusting
> violence against women (and men), plus lots of depravity. These are the
> types of films that stay in your mind forever.
That it stays in your mind forever would indicate it is a
well made film. Do you object to being shocked? Must
films be all pablum? Personally, I cannot stand cookie
cutter films that are all the same plot described recently
as: act one, put the hero in a tree; act two, throw rocks
at him; act three, get him down from the tree.
>
> If it doesn't deserve an X rating, then what does a film have to do or
> show to be restriced (to only adults), these days?
>
Try "Le malizie di Venere" aka "The Devil in the Flesh"
(1969), an excellent Italian film that, in its uncut
version, is quite explicit, make that very explicit. But it
is not all sex. There is much about the red brigades and
trials of communists and student protests.
The "X" rating was long ago replaced in the USA with the
NR-17 rating. The first to receive that rating was "Henry
and June", also an excellent film based on Anais Nin's book
of the same name about her and Henry Miller and his wife June.
In the same line, you might want to try "Last Tango in
Paris", which explores the relationship between anonymity
and sexuality.
How would you rate "The Cook the Thief his Wife & her
Lover", a Peter Greenaway film - or another Peter Greenaway
film, "Prospero's Books", or - again, Greenaway, "8 1/2
Women"?
Then there was the non-explicit, fact-based film "Savage
Grace" (2007) which can shock while displaying nothing.
Happy viewing.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Francis A. Miniter
I remember the description, "The Hardy Boys go to hell."
tomcervo
> How would you rate "The Cook the Thief his Wife & her
> Lover", a Peter Greenaway film - or another Peter Greenaway
> film, "Prospero's Books"
I loved the Detroit Free Press scribe who said in the capsule review
that it was rated X for nudity and formalism.
nick
I loved The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover when it was first
released but I've never wanted to go back to it. If any movie seems
isolated to a moment in history--in this case, the beginning of the
end of Thatcher's England--it's Greenaway's cock-eating opus. If
anything, it deserves a place in film history for being disgusting
enough that Ken Russell walked out on it.
Flasherly
>
> It was described by a college reviewer at the time as "Christian
> pornography" which I'm not sure is corrrect but the phrase has stuck
> in my head ever since.
Good one. So sweet...that burning flame, the woosh of fire, when he's
first detected hiding in the closet, coming out to her, as she pulls
him mockingly into pointedly a play, bendedly upon knees before her,
with her holding jabbing knife candidly inches in front his face.
It did have a few priceless things to say, though.
The guy, Mr. Oh-So Sauve, holding a lamp beneath his face, a
microphone of light, miming salient expressionism into some do-wop
song...putting the lamp down as the strains end, smiling beatifically
grateful in character long enough to sucker-punch the Christian kid in
the stomach. A surprisingly strong crescendo which threatened to
upstaged Hopper's own ultimate realization -- donning lipstick while
two pigs in gunny sacks clogged ontop the Sixpack Dodge SuperBee to
Roy Orbison -- kissing the Christian kid fully on the mouth to convey
the imperative of what the Candyman song means with a bullet in the
brain.
Such platonic essence of timeless worth for Lynch to dramatise.
--
He who has not the spirit of this age, has all the misery of it. -
Voltaire
Cindy Hamilton
> >(Dennis M) wrote:
> >I saw it for the first time, it was okay I guess. I
> > didn't even realize it had been rated X and
> > don't think it particularly deserved it, but it was
>
> >1986.
>
> >Blue Velvet was never rated X. I don't know
> > about overseas but in the US, it's always had
> >an R rating.
>
> I'm the only one to give it an X rating in attempting to describe this
> offensive film. It had more than enough profanity, sex, raw disgusting
> violence against women (and men), plus lots of depravity. These are the
> types of films that stay in your mind forever.
What a wussie.
> If it doesn't deserve an X rating, then what does a film have to do or
> show to be restriced (to only adults), these days?
>
> I wouldn't want my grown children to be able to see this.
If your children are old enough to fuck, they're old enough to hear
the
word "fuck". I was 29 when I saw it; I recall I laughed a lot at it.
The stuff was so over-the-top, it was laughable, like the geyser of
blood in Army of Darkness.
Cindy Hamilton
Old Movie Fan
>If your children are old enough to fuck, they're
>old enough to hear the word "fuck". I was 29
> when I saw it; I recall I laughed a lot at it.
>Cindy Hamilton
So, what year would that be? 15?
If my children were adults (over 21) like you were, then they would
not be children any longer. Being X rated would not have prevented them
or you from seeing the film.
You were fully an adult when you saw it. Now, imagine just for a
moment that you saw this when you were 15. Would you still have laughed
a lot?
The use of classic ballads and ugly women really added to the overall
depraved beauty of this very violent film, giving it a surreal
atmosphere. Yes, it's an amazing film, but like "Spit on Your Grave,"
it's also a violent, troubling story.
Since the plot concerned a severed ear (which one had already been
found), When she held the knife on the side of his face,I could imagine
seeing her wack his ear off instead of only making a small cut on his
face. But it was too early in the story.
When she kneeled in front of his naked body (knife in hand) after she
order him to strip, I half expected to see a blow job, while she held
the knife to his shaft.
My last question never got answered. What does it take to get a film
rated X (for Adult Audiences Only) today?
What did this film not have that kept it from being X rated in 1986?
Not that it matters anymore.
william
>
> My last question never got answered. What does it take to get a film
> rated X (for Adult Audiences Only) today?
> What did this film not have that kept it from being X rated in 1986?
>
late that by creating an X category that porn could then be
mainstreamed into theatres since it had a legitimate rating. X was
quickly dropped and NC-17 added at some later date allowing X to
define porn but not to have porn seem to have an MPAA rating or
endorsement. That's how I remember it and that memory might be shakey
as to details. The films that had been labeled X, eg, Last Tango and
Midnight Cowboy, were reclassified as R. So the answer to your
question is the MPAA no longer uses an X rating so a film can't get
one.
Hope that helps,
William
www.williamahearn.com
Old Movie Fan
>So the answer to your question is the MPAA
> no longer uses an X rating so a film can't get
> one.
>Hope that helps,
>William
So, NC-17 eventually replaced the discarded X rating, making 17 the
offical Adult age.
Thank you William for clarifying this since I've never had to pay
attention to ratings. Before I was an adult, there weren't any films
like this being shown to the public.
Rich Wagner
william
>
> So, NC-17 eventually replaced the discarded X rating, making 17 the
> offical Adult age.
> Thank you William for clarifying this since I've never had to pay
> attention to ratings. Before I was an adult, there weren't any films
> like this being shown to the public.
>
theoretically -- make films that are "adult" in nature. Having said
that, I think "Blue Velvet" is a fake and pretentious bucket of
middleclass delusions. In that film, the "evil" is as fake as the
"good." It's junk but I'll defend David Lynch's right to spill his
thin as ice soul to the last bucket of popcorn.
William
www.williamahearn.com
tomcervo
I can forgive anything that brings me Dean Stockwell's Ben.
Francis A. Miniter
>> From: angelica...@yahoo.com
> My last question never got answered.
Then you did not read my first response on 1-5-10.
> What does it take to get a film
> rated X (for Adult Audiences Only) today?
> What did this film not have that kept it from being X rated in 1986?
>
> Not that it matters anymore.
>
The X rating was replaced by the NC-17 rating in 1990.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system
The films I mentioned in my first post received either X
ratings or NC-17 ratings or none at all.
For a list of all films rated NC-17, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC-17_rated_films
You will note that there are many films with edited (R)
versions and unedited (NC-17) versions.
In retrospect, I should have included in my list of powerful
X or NC-17 films, the 1975 film Histoire d'O - Story of O.
Invid Fan
<e7074c8e-7740-4584...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 9:21�pm, BigMovie...@webtv.net (Old Movie Fan) wrote:
> >
> > � My last question never got answered. �What does it take to get a film
> > rated X (for Adult Audiences Only) today? �
> > � What did this film not have that kept it from being X rated in 1986? �
> >
> The MPAA hasn't used X as a rating since the 1970s. It realized too
> late that by creating an X category that porn could then be
> mainstreamed into theatres since it had a legitimate rating.
No, the problem was they didn't copyright the 'X' rating so any movie
could use it without having to be submitted to the MPAA. Thus it became
associated with pure porn and not actual "adult" movies from Hollywood.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
william
>
> No, the problem was they didn't copyright the 'X' rating so any movie
> could use it without having to be submitted to the MPAA. Thus it became
> associated with pure porn and not actual "adult" movies from Hollywood.
>
for films with an X rating no matter where the X came from so that --
especially in those pre-net days -- killed it more than anything else.
Thanks for the copyright info. As I wrote, I did it from memory and
not Ella.
William
www.williamahearn.com
S D
william
> Lover", a Peter Greenaway film - or another Peter Greenaway
> film, "Prospero's Books", or - again, Greenaway, "8 1/2
> Women"?
>
problem is, I never want to see them twice. "Prosero's Books" is over-
wrought, self-indulgent, pseudo-intellectual, pompus and pretentitous
drivel that owes far more to the set decorator and the caterer than to
Greenaway. It's godawful. CGI may ruin many a recent movie but in
"Prospero's Books" the image manipulation and self-conscious editing
overwhelms everything else (including the gaudy sets) negating the
"naturism" intent. It's putrid junk. If you need a Greenaway fix, see
"The Pillow Book" instead. I own a copy of "Prospero's Books" and I'll
never watch it again unless psychoactive drugs, power tools and a gun
are involved.
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
wrote:
>I try and see Greenaway's films just to see what he's up to. The
>problem is, I never want to see them twice. "Prosero's Books" is over-
>wrought, self-indulgent, pseudo-intellectual, pompus and pretentitous
>drivel that owes far more to the set decorator and the caterer than to
>Greenaway. It's godawful. CGI may ruin many a recent movie but in
>"Prospero's Books" the image manipulation and self-conscious editing
>overwhelms everything else (including the gaudy sets) negating the
>"naturism" intent. It's putrid junk. If you need a Greenaway fix, see
>"The Pillow Book" instead. I own a copy of "Prospero's Books" and I'll
>never watch it again unless psychoactive drugs, power tools and a gun
>are involved.
Another one who hated that film was Richard Schultz.
Flasherly
>
> My last question never got answered. What does it take to get a film
> rated X (for Adult Audiences Only) today?
> What did this film not have that kept it from being X rated in 1986?
>
> Not that it matters anymore.
The United States Supreme Court in the case of Freedman v. Maryland
380 U.S. 51 (1965) effectively ended government operated rating boards
when it decided that a rating board could only approve a film; it had
no power to ban a film.
Legally, the rating system is entirely voluntary.
The MPAA [a secret organizational for deriving ratings, claims to be a
board representative of parents -f] does not release specific
guidelines as to what content will receive which rating. However, they
do state that many factors are considered including content such as
sex, violence, nudity, language, adult topics and drug use. The MPAA
cites ratings are substantiated by the Opinion Research Corporation of
Princeton, New Jersey, in that parents find the ratings useful.
Critic Kirby Dick responds: this proves only that parents find the
ratings more useful than nothing at all.
X - The precursor to the current NC-17 rating that unlike the other
ratings was not trademarked. Because it was not trademarked it became
so widely used by the U.S. pornography industry that the MPAA replaced
it with the NC-17 rating in 1990. This has led to the misconception
that NC-17 means pornographic in content.
Blue
> What a surprise to watch a film with Dean Stockwell, Dennis Hopper,
> Hope Lange and Isabella Rossellini and your seeing a violent & shocking
> (X-Rated) film with violence, full frontal nudity and a nauseating
> redundance of the 'F' word.
> The film affected me exactly the same way as the other mentioned in my
> subject.
>
> That's voyeurism for you. Even if you don't like it, you must watch it
> through to it's conclusion. It's a sick film that makes you ashamed of
> the human depravation. But that's exactly it's intent.
>
> David Lynch
>
> Writer:
> David Lynch (screenplay)
>
> Release Date:
> 19 September 1986 (USA) more
>
> Genre:
> Drama | Mystery | Thriller more
>
> Plot:
> After finding a severed human ear in a field, a young man soon discovers
> a sinister underworld lying just beneath his idyllic suburban home town.
>
> Awards:
> Nominated for Oscar. Another 17 wins & 10 nominations more
> Cast
> (Cast overview, first billed only)
> Isabella Rossellini... Dorothy Vallens
> Kyle MacLachlan... Jeffrey Beaumont (as Kyle Maclachlan)
> Dennis Hopper... Frank Booth
> Laura Dern... Sandy Williams
> Hope Lange... Mrs. Williams
> Dean Stockwell... Ben
> George Dickerson... Detective Williams
> Priscilla Pointer... Mrs. Beaumont
> Frances Bay... Aunt Barbara
> Jack Harvey... Mr. Beaumont
> Ken Stovitz... Mike
> Brad Dourif... Raymond
>
> Runtime:
> 120 min
> Country:
> USA
> Quotes:
> [first lines]
> Radio announcer: It's a sunny, woodsy day in Lumberton, so get those
> chainsaws out. This is the mighty W.O.O.D., the musical voice of
> Lumberton. At the sound of the falling tree, it's 9:30. There's a whole
> lotta wood waitin' out there, so let's get goin'.
> Review:
> A mesmerizing piece of cinema with element of masterpiece..., 26 July
> 2004
> Author: auberus from Paris
> Theretofore sex in film could potentially be used as a means of
> revealing the lightest or the darkest character's traits: primarily,
> vulnerability, instinct, sadism and impulse. Blue Velvet is a good
> example of a movie using such a dynamic. Blue Velvet is not a film that
> is easily appreciated. Likewise, it is not a film that is easily
> forgotten. It is a timeless controversy, and it is a vision demanding
> attention if not praise. Set in a small American town, Blue Velvet is a
> dark, sensuous mystery involving the intertwining lives of four very
> different individuals. The film's painful realism reminds us that we are
> not immune to the disturbing events which transpire in Blue Velvet's
> sleepy community. There is a darker side of life waiting for us all. And
> as a critic said 'you either think it's dementedly wild at heart or a
> lost highway to nowhere'. Even some eighteen years after the release of
> Blue Velvet its vision remains wildly adamant relative to the stride of
> other works of contemporary noir. There have been many films about
> suburban crime, but none as dangerously imposing as this. Why is that
> so? If Blue Velvet might not be labeled as a masterpiece one has to
> acknowledge that there are in this movie a lot of so called 'masterpiece
> element' and if Blue Velvet will never considered as Mr. Lynch best
> feature, I personally can see a lot of David Lynch's genius flowing in
> that movie.First of all, the way David Lynch makes Blue Velvet
> increasingly disturbing is a perfect example of how pristine the
> dynamics of weirdness and tension are built (remember Eraserhead and
> Elephant Man). Through this process Mr. Lynch indeed deconstructs the
> audience expectations. The film setting and mood are introduced in an
> exposition lifted directly from older films (there are numerous
> references to It's A Wonderful Life). In result the film is initially
> expected to follow a particular path. The way Mr. Lynch associate
> elements of classic narrative methodology and 'his dynamics of noir'
> (previously explained) appears to be original at worst 'avant gardiste'
> at best. Second of all, the opposition between the creepiness of the
> plot and the setting of it is definitely for me a masterpiece element.
> The film is set in Lumberton. This does not represent a quaint, small
> town by similarity; it is one. Lumberton is filled with characters that
> are completely typical. I can almost see the cops eating doughnuts in
> the coffee shop and the local football star dating the head cheerleader.
> This typicality is definitely not out of coincidence but of intention.
> In fact these characters function to punctuate the story, not to
> distinguish it. The 'infamous' individuality of Lynch's vision is
> established in the darker side of Lumberton. Our perspective throughout
> the film is fixed on Jeffery, and is deliberately biased by his good
> nature. Jeffery is portrayed with great subtlety by Kyle MacLachlan (FBI
> agent from "Twin Peaks"). He is paired with Sandy (Laura Dern), the
> daughter of a neighborhood investigator who epitomizes to perfection the
> 'girl-next-door'; in Blue Velvet it is her literal function. Completing
> this diverse list of roles is a haunting and brief performance by Dean
> Stockwell as well as Dennis Hopper who creates a flabbergasting portrait
> of unrepentant and irredeemable evil. The confrontation or those
> characters or the collision among themselves makes for a mesmerizing
> experience. Once again Mr. Lynch succeeds in the masterful exercise of
> controlling the audience's attention. Most of us will not quite know
> what to make of it and we can disagree on the value of such a cinematic
> experience. However audacious, erotic, disturbing, haunting are
> adjectives that will always be linked with Blue Velvet. The 'Thriller'
> has just been re-invented by Mr. Lynch right in front of are eyes.
60 miles