Blue Velvet (1986)
Some masterpieces don’t age well.
Presentation:
David Lynch attempts at a nightmarish, dark, voyeuristic thriller, which is perhaps visceral for its time but is nearly cringe compared to thrillers today. It’s in the awkward transition period of classic thrillers of Hitchcock and modern thrillers of 90s Fincher, losing a lot of bite while not having the safety net of classic cinema. Anamorphic in suburban America, the film starts off strong with an engaging opening with memorable closet scenes, but there’s not much else this film provides. The sexual aspects are evocative, but when you consider the absurd circumstances it just feels fake. Kyle MacLachlan’s acting is so weak it’s no wonder you won’t see him outside of Lynch’s projects. He just randomly has romantic relationships with anyone for no reason, it’s like a horny teenager’s wet dream is the inspiration for this film. Dennis Hopper’s performance isn’t scary nor menacing, it’s hysterical and nearly embarrassing, he doesn’t feel intimidating at all no matter how many swear words he loudly spews out.
Conclusion:
This is one of Lynch’s supposed best films. But to call it a masterpiece is an insult to actual masterpieces. It’s not nearly as dark nor disturbing as it makes it out to be, which feels more like a surface level suburban thriller. I can see it hitting close to home for a film in 1986 like Get Out did for modern audiences, but all the circumstances the protagonist puts himself in feel unrealistic and there never felt like any convincing danger from the laughably cartoonish villain. I don’t understand the appeal of this film, or perhaps more-so Lynch’s style, which feels extremely derivative of Hitchcock without the artistry.
Recommendations
Some masterpieces don’t age well.