I have a strange fascination with David Lynch. I've seen a couple of
his movies now and half of Twin Peaks (don't spoil me!), and even
though I don't particularly like or dislike his films (or know what the
hell is going on half the time) I am compelled to continue watching
them.
I think part of the allure is I feel like there's some point he's trying to make, but I just haven't figured out how his fucked up head works yet so until I do, his movies are going to leave me confused. That if I see enough of his work suddenly something will finally click and everything will be revealed. Part of me is concerned that he's being weird just to be weird and that I'm being conned into thinking that there's brilliance beneath the surface. I'm cynical. But so many people love him, so there has to be something deeper there, right?
That said, Blue Velvet was surprisingly straightforward as far as plot is concerned. You have to keep in mind that the other movie of Lynch's that I've seen is Mulholland Dr., so I wasn't really expecting things to make sense. That's not to say that there was't a plethora of WTF moments, like everything that came out of Frank's mouth and, basically, every scene Frank was involved in. There are many parts of the movie that still make little sense to me, but I was able to follow the main plot easily. Huzzah for me!
What sort of annoyed me though is we're never told why Frank does these things to Dorothy or why he's involved with the man in the yellow jacket. Mysteries are fun, but if there's no explanation as to why a character has done X, Y or Z, then it's ultimately a waste of time. I've read that the original edit was four (!) hours long, so perhaps some of the exposition I want was left on the cutting room floor. I can't help but wonder if more of the cuts could have been left in the story if the scenes - dialog in particular - were tighter editing-wise (who talks like that in real life?!), but that's neither here nor there, as it seems to be a quirk in Lynch's style of directing.
I can't say I enjoyed Blue Velvet, but I didn't actively hate it while I watched it, either (I'm looking at you, Kids!).
I think part of the allure is I feel like there's some point he's trying to make, but I just haven't figured out how his fucked up head works yet so until I do, his movies are going to leave me confused. That if I see enough of his work suddenly something will finally click and everything will be revealed. Part of me is concerned that he's being weird just to be weird and that I'm being conned into thinking that there's brilliance beneath the surface. I'm cynical. But so many people love him, so there has to be something deeper there, right?
That said, Blue Velvet was surprisingly straightforward as far as plot is concerned. You have to keep in mind that the other movie of Lynch's that I've seen is Mulholland Dr., so I wasn't really expecting things to make sense. That's not to say that there was't a plethora of WTF moments, like everything that came out of Frank's mouth and, basically, every scene Frank was involved in. There are many parts of the movie that still make little sense to me, but I was able to follow the main plot easily. Huzzah for me!
What sort of annoyed me though is we're never told why Frank does these things to Dorothy or why he's involved with the man in the yellow jacket. Mysteries are fun, but if there's no explanation as to why a character has done X, Y or Z, then it's ultimately a waste of time. I've read that the original edit was four (!) hours long, so perhaps some of the exposition I want was left on the cutting room floor. I can't help but wonder if more of the cuts could have been left in the story if the scenes - dialog in particular - were tighter editing-wise (who talks like that in real life?!), but that's neither here nor there, as it seems to be a quirk in Lynch's style of directing.
I can't say I enjoyed Blue Velvet, but I didn't actively hate it while I watched it, either (I'm looking at you, Kids!).