Roger Eberts' (not my) hatred for this film - Blue Velvet (1986) Discussion

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

BLUE VELVET did divide and frustrate some audiences, and critics weren't immune either. Lynch gave his film\story a resolution at the end, even if it still appeared a tad off kilter, like the same bizarre presentation that preceded before it. In keeping with the film's theme, it was still a "strange" world.

I haven't read Ebert's review yet; but if he felt it copped out due to what he refers to as a "nudge nudge, wink wink, I was just teasing", yet he still claims it had a powerful narrative, then what about the dark and disturbing journey that preceded the conclusion? Like any film that can challenge or provoke certain feelings of ambivalence or even hostility toward it, Lynch's style perfectly mirrored his substance, and this usually always makes the best of films work, or at least do what they intended. Woody Allen claimed it has his favorite film of 86', over his own HANNAH. BV, was like CLOCKWORK ORANGE-71' of the 80's. It was a time when film still had the capacity to be original, controversial and shock audiences. Anyway, I would say it is difficult to be objective of a film like BLUE VELVET.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

revised:
Ebert thought many scenes had that cop=out ending, not necessarily the conclusion, implying that Lynch does not think we are adult and tough enough to stomach it, so he needs to "calm" us, as if it's not to to be taken seriously.

He also disliked Wild at Heart, though gave a semi-compliment to Ladd being "unnerving". I might be morphing his criticism of both films for the same reason, I can't recall.

I saw Eraserhead in the early 80's in an art-theatre. I know I was supposed to feel impressed with the nightmarish effect, the surreal quality, the "funny" parts, the fetus.. but I could have cared less; I guess I'm just not artistic or intellectual enough. I must have been thinking "Ok, you want to show us your style, arty technique, the lead's funny hairdo, but get on with it.."

reply

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

So then Ebert, just wanted to be bombarded with sledgehammer blows, which would have only alienated audiences even further and leave them numb? Lynch didn't make the film, just to appease Ebert's sense of entitlement or expectations. The film unfolded it's layered mystery as was designed and intended, plus the dark nature of the film and the strong violent undercurrent, which was more implied than shown, was skillfully executed and directed.

I also love WILD AT HEART, which is my favorite Lynch film, though not what I rate his best—that belongs to BV—and was like a warped Wizard Of Oz and was a truly wild love story. That one also had a light at the end of the tunnel. Ebert wasn't the voice of reason regarding film, even if he was a celebrated critic. How often do they get it wrong and like you have mentioned, change their tune at a later stage?

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

I have read Ebert's review. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986 He sounds contradictory and conflicted, was disturbed, and more importantly, appears appalled by what Isabella Rossellini was put through for some reason, yet also found Lynch's presentation jokey. Well what was it Roger? It was a fool's review, for a professional. In a nutshell, he didn't get the film or connect with the satire, dark presentation or even the art of the production or theme. The comments made by posters on his review, make an interesting read.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] usernumber655321 9 years ago

Ebert really looks bad with his review of Blue Velvet. I am a fan of Ebert and this review is the biggest asterisk in his career. He is patronizing towards Rossellini while feigning to be standing up for her. She is a grown woman making decisions as an artist and Ebert claims she is being exploited. It's really embarrassing how oblivious he was when he wrote that review. His particular criticisms simply show that he didn't understand the film's symbolism.

reply

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

When women are seen as naked or having depraved acts performed upon them in films, it can suddenly be perceived as sexism\misogyny and becomes the male film makers fault for degrading and exploiting her. Of course when these things happen to male actors, sexism and misandry won't exist. That is only condescending and dis-empowering women, as though they don't have a brain and can't make an intelligent choice or decision about what they are doing.

Ebert was frustrated with the film, because like you mentioned, he either didn't get it, or wanted\expected it to be something else that would pander to his own comfort zone, so he could discuss something more tangible about it. If BV disturbed, provoked and scared him, then I would say that Lynch did what was intended. Ebert had egg on his face with this one, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did if for attention too, since the film was getting plenty of critical praise. If he didn't like if fine; but his review was attempting to tell us what was wrong with it, when it can't really be objectified and he ended up sounding more like what is wrong with YOU Roger? Like I mentioned earlier, it was a fool's review.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] I_Love_Hutch 9 years ago

I watched BV last weekend. The Isabella Rosselini character was my favorite one. She was warm, sympathetic, vulnerable and lovable. I also dug her slightly flat rendition of the title song. Lol. I can't see what Roger Ebert's problem was. I mean he gave this zero stars and yet he gave Last House on the Left ***1/2 and that movie had a much, MUCH stronger hold on treating its female characters badly! Yikes! When Isabella was staggering naked on the lawn, I felt the same impulse that Kyle McLachlan felt. You just wanted to protect her. And I didn't like, nor could I fully appreciate, when Laura Dern slapped him. Was she jealous?

I liked the movie quite a bit. It had a slowed down, dream-like quality to it. It had something intangible.

reply

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

Frank was my favorite Mr H, 😨 he was sick, deranged, perverted, dangerous, psychopathic and utterly utterly frightening....."Baby wants to f<>k! Baby wants to f<>k Blue Velvet!" Even then, he appeared to be upstaged by Suave Ben and his icy nonchalant coolness...."Goddamn you're one Suave fu<>er"! Even Frank had to admit his awe of him and admired Ben's own chilling evilness.

As for Sandy, I think it might have confirmed a suspicion she had of Jeffery and Dorothy getting it on. She was giving her jock boyfriend the rub off for Jeffrey and she might have felt betrayed. Remember also, this was Lumberton and there was something not quite right about it, and no-one really acted or said what you would normally expect them too. It might appear heightened to a dreamlike quality, however, at times it also seemed more like a bad dream or even nightmare. Lumberton and it's residents, appeared trapped in some sort of time warp or limbo, as though is was an alternate universe.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

' He is patronizing towards Rossellini while feigning to be standing up for her. She is a grown woman making decisions as an artist and Ebert claims she is being exploited. '
--------------------
Isn't that what feminists say about female porn "artists"?

reply

[–] usernumber655321 9 years ago

No. That is ridiculous. You just nullified anything worthwhile that you could possibly contribute to this topic and also made yourself look like an idiot by saying that. Blue Velvet is not in any way even remotely comparable to porn.

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

oh, it's ridiculous, I nullified... Oh, oh

YOU didn't get what I said, simpleton. What is with people like you who have this short brain-circuity; you see the words, but don't connect the idea. You saw the word "porn", so you thought I was comparing BV to porn.

The comparison is not between porn, as such, and Blue Velvet. What's disturbing is people like you who may sound well-read, but are ignorant below the surface. Hence, you contributed nothing worthwhile here, and not capable of such, troll.

reply

[–] usernumber655321 9 years ago

I "didn't get what you said"? Are you serious? You equated what I said about Rossellini making choices as an artist to porn. You did it. Don't act incredulous about it now that I've pointed out that it was ridiculous. You weren't making some elaborate point which I then distorted.

"the comparison is not between porn, as such, and Blue Velvet"
So then why did you make that exact comparison. You brought up porn. Why?

reply

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

I don't think the poster IY was making a comparison to porn & BV, only Eggbert's comment which sounds like a feminist's opinion.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] usernumber655321 9 years ago

The poster quoted what I said (not Ebert) and compared it to "what feminists say about porn". I have problems with that on multiple levels.

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

I see you having problems on other boards on multiple levels, like your new thread on what's name board, and the entire body is "ridiculous". You're pretentious, yet simpleminded. You don't have reasoning skills.

reply

[–] usernumber655321 9 years ago

"new thread on whats name board"
What? You can't just explain why you brought up porn? Instead, you scramble through my user history in search of something that will soothe your bruised ego? That's weak.

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

what's weak is your superiority complex when you're of less than average intelligence. You're just not aware of it.

reply

[–] usernumber655321 9 years ago

Did you or did you not say (in response to me) ...

"isn't that what feminists say about female porn 'artists'"?

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

It was sarcasm..it was a metaphor..call it an analogy. First, I was being sarcastic due to the word "artist" for actor. But more importantly, I was mocking feminists for claiming woman are entitled to make their own decisions, yet accuse porn-makers of exploiting them*

* <"She is a grown woman making decisions as an artist and Ebert claims she is being exploited. >"

reply

[–] usernumber655321 9 years ago

Ok. I over reacted, but your sarcasm wasn't clear and your generalization about feminists is random and a touch offensive.

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

'Ok. I over reacted, but your sarcasm wasn't clear and your generalization about feminists is random and a touch offensive'.
----------------------------
My sarcasm wasn't clear because you 're incapable of comprehending it. And my generalization about feminists was not random nor offensive. You're just too young to know about what feminists have said about the topic. I could care less if you over-reacted, you're not that special to me.

reply

[–] usernumber655321 9 years ago

Your sarcasm didn't come across because it wasn't clever and I'm not in your head, able to magically appreciate your horrible sense of humor. And I'm "too young" to appreciate your idiotic and puerile generalizations about feminists? That's truly rich. How old am I, my new clairvoyant friend?

reply

[–] wiiztec (260) 3 years ago

It's not a generalization to say feminists have made that argument about porn, self proclaimed feminists have literally made that argument, it's not to say that all feminists have you are just constructing a strawman

reply

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

Perhaps Ebert was a male feminist. His comment reeks of feminist ideals.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (63828261) 9 years ago

Could be, Rascal. Alan Alda has said he's a feminist

reply

[–] I_Love_Hutch 9 years ago

When Ebert gave the excellent "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" ***, I felt he just wanted attention. And he gave "Sophie's Choice" ****, and while the movie is effective in its own way, it also kind of wallowed in its own melodrama. I couldn't see giving it more than **1/2, like the much more reliable Leonard Maltin did. Come to think of it, I think Ebert also gave "Midnight Cowboy" (one of my favorites) ***. What a tool.

I never liked Siskel or Ebert. And their distaste for slasher pics was, I thought, both pretentious and transparent.

reply

[–] jtf1986 9 years ago

Does co-writing three Russ Meyer's movies reek of feminist ideals?

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

Ebert goes into more detail about BV in his long review for Wild at Heart (Cannes winner), and this time citing Diane Ladd as being humiliated due to misogyny. Having not seen it, I don't know what Ladd does. He gives Wild at Heart a better rating, but explains his resistance to Lynch

Gene Sikel very much liked BV, "masterfully done". That on-air debate must be very heated

reply

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

Ladd is terrific and she is like the wicked witch of Oz, trying to anything to keep her baby away from the clutches of Sailor. She is like a slinky manipulating predator and will do anything for the affections of men and do her bidding, yet has a propensity for evil and will destroy anyone who gets in her way. She also comes over as psychotic. If that makes the movie misogynistic because she is portrayed as wicked, then it must also be misandrist, for making some of the male characters weird and evil too. Both Ladd and Dern are excellent. A truly wild film.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] Towelie_Towel (1785) 2 years ago

If you "could have cared less", it means you do care at least a little.

reply

[–] MaxRenn2 9 years ago

I don't have it in front of me, but I recall that the "emperor" comment was in reference to "Wild at Heart" winning at Cannes, not this film.