Even 30 years after its release people are still deciphering
‘Blue Velvet’, but more importantly people are still talking about ‘Blue Velvet’.
It leaves an impression on all who see it, for better or worse and there are
several reasons for this. The timeless, dreamlike quality of the film, the way
it taps into a primordial impulse that both repulses and fascinates anyone who
watches it, the amazing performances, beautifully haunting visuals and arresting
themes are just some of the reasons the film is still able to provoke such a
strong reaction from those who watch it.
It is extremely easy to turn away from ‘Blue Velvet’ upon an
initial viewing, to shut out the horrors of the world and return to a place of
tranquil bliss. The fact that the film opens on a heavenly picture of suburban America
only makes the ensuing descent into darkness all the more terrifying. As the
camera pans across a freshly mown meadow of lusciously green grass our view dips
beneath the surface to display hundreds of parasitic insects, shown in such
lurid detail that one can’t help but wince at their movement. It may not be the
subtlest metaphor but contrary to popular opinion Lynch rarely plays with
illusive metaphors, his filmmaking is more intent upon capturing the raw
emotional power of life, by whatever means necessary.
When one watches ‘Blue Velvet’ with this mind-set a lot of
creative decisions come into clarity. The characterisations, directorial
decisions and overall structure of the film are not necessarily alluding to
some deeper meaning (though I invite anyone to try and find them because the
film is worth your time and attention) but a means to tap into our most
insecure and vulnerable emotions. One way or another Lynch wants to emotionally
destroy you through your expectations and primordial instincts. What we
rationalise as being acceptable and within the realm of logic is turned on us
almost as quickly as our own subconscious desires. In an era where mainstream
Hollywood was dominated by erotic thrillers in which the sex was just as if not
more important than the plot, maybe Frank Booth’s actions struck a nerve for
more reasons than the taboo nature of them? Maybe audiences were horrified to
see their own subconscious desires rendered on celluloid for the whole world to
see.
Manipulating the emotions of an audience requires a blunt
tool. We are trained to spot the obvious and rarely willing to look deep enough
into obscure metaphors. While a second viewing of a film may warrant hidden
messages for the viewer to decipher, what good will that do when they are never
compelled to revisit the film in the first place? One of the blunt tools that
Lynch uses frequently in ‘Blue Velvet’ is the lighting, going from one extreme
to another and frequently being deployed as an emotive instrument. The lighting
of ‘Blue Velvet’ is what many academics point to as proof of the film being
classified as a noir, and while that may be true to primary purpose of the
light in ‘Blue Velvet’, in my opinion has always been about conveying emotion.
As Lynch draws you into his twisted world he uses the light
to represent entirely different emotions, atmospheres and environments. The
overbearing light that engulfs our characters near the end of a film could be
likened to waking up from a surreal nightmare, the transition from the dark subconscious
world to the morally decent world we have been raised in. The simplest term for
why Lynch uses light in this way are as follows, darkness is bad, brightness is
not. The audience knows that and so does Lynch.
But enough about what’s behind the camera. It would not be
much use if this dreamlike world was rendered in the form of less capable
actors who could not bring these nightmarish creations to life with such
terrifying realisation. The morally grey line that Jeffrey Beaumont treads
throughout the entire film is perfectly brought to life by Kyle MacLachlan (wo
incidentally is also the dad from ‘Inside Out’, so try not to feel a little
unnerved whenever your kids watch that film from now on). Like all of us
Jeffrey is repulsed by this dark world yet also fascinated by it, so as the
nightmare spirals further out of control we can only cling on for dear life and
try not to break down along with him.
The contrast of Laura Dern and Isabella Rossellini’s performance
is another key way to bookend the films constant use of juxtaposition. The
idealised American lifestyle shown next to the epitome of our worst nightmares,
shown by two very different female characters. One of innocence who gets caught
on the fringes of this labyrinth, while the other lies at the very heart of it
in a search for innocence. Once again though for all the Freudian mumbo jumbo
that one can derive from Jeffery’s relationship to both women, it is the
emotive aspect that Lynch seems to revel in the most. He establishes one
character only to offer us the darkest vision of what might become of these
people, letting our imaginations torment us with speculation over what might
happen, only to then show us a vision even more terrifying than we could have imagined
anyway.
Let’s not kid ourselves though, as any analysis of the
performances in ‘Blue Velvet’ would be incomplete without addressing Dennis Hopper.
The gas inhaling, psychosexually stunted, aggressively animalistic and foul
mouthed sociopath otherwise known as Frank Booth may be the most truly disturbing
villain in cinema history. Hopper’s performance is explosive, volcanic or any
other violent sounding descriptive. Without ever overtly expressing his larger
scheme or source of power, Booth’s desires and motives are so personal that you
can’t help but feel even more frightened by how far he has gone to obtain them.
What makes his actions all the more terrifying are the way
Lynch draws parallels to Jeffrey. As the protagonist and source of sympathy
Jeffery represents us, so if Lynch sees an opportunity to unnerve us by making us
view the darkness within ourselves you can bet he will take it. From their
shared relationship with Dorothy to the mere fact that the film takes time to
acknowledge that Jeffrey is a college student courting a girl that is still in
high school. Lynch wants to exploit some perverse inner demon within us all and
force us to confront it, and by rooting that demon within the confines of what
we thought was the idealised suburban dream it only adds to the discomfort. A
monster can come from anywhere and be anything.
Of course, when one looks at the conclusion of the film it
may seem odd that my review would focus only on the darkest aspects of the film
and what it has to say about human nature. It is perhaps one of the most
overlooked aspects of ‘Blue Velvet’ that when taken at face value the film can
be read as appositive message of good triumphing over evil. While that is most
definitely true and far be it from me to subtract that view if it the one you
hold, we also seem to know it is an idealised version. The things we have
witnessed can never be erased and the scars will be felt for a long time. Lynch
knows this just as well as we do and the way he concludes his film is sure to
provoke an emotional response out of the viewer. We may end on happiness but we
have all witnessed what is beneath the surface, the question is have we brought
it back with us?
This leads me back to how I started this analysis though. As
much as we like to drone on about symbolism and hidden meanings we often forget
that films are first and foremost a vehicle for emotion. A recurring element of
Lynch’s films, whether it be ‘Blue Velvet’ or ‘Eraserhead’ or ‘Mulholland Drive’,
is how they are studied. But personally I feel that while analysis is good to a
certain extent, after a certain point the films should just be experienced.
There is not always a need to generalise everything into some hidden allegory.
Lynch makes films about life, in all its horror, joy and mystery, and maybe
there is no meaning but it’s quite an experience all the same don’t you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment