Friday, December 10, 2010

Blue Velvet

Blue Velvet presents a hyperreal “good” and sinister “evil,” showing Lynch’s mockery of 1950s ideals. Yet, it seems as though he brings a more conservative view to the film that shows the need for morals. I don’t necessarily follow the opinions on Lynch’s belief in the innocent. His characters both in the “good” and “bad” worlds both show dynamic characteristics on both sides of the spectrum, showing a how characters and people can easily switch to the other side of the spectrum when a moral system is lost.

This film to me seemed to present an internal struggle to maintain moral ground. I approached this film with a more psychoanalytical approach after seeing a focus on human psyche. The entire emergence of the darker world unseen in the 1950s nostalgic world comes to existence because of Jeffery’s internal desires, causing him to view a scene that could represent a primal or subconscious desire of the character. Frank shows a clear Oedipal complex. As he reverts back to an Id like state, primal and instinctual, Jeffery witnesses an abusive relationship, which begins the sharp focus on morality (Super-Ego) in the film. Had Jeffery properly suppressed his desires, which are not to solve crime but are sexual, the evil would have been avoidable. Jeffery, like many of Lynch’s characters as explained by the reading “The Po-Puritan”, surrenders himself “to the inexplicable forces beyond their conscious control.” Even more terrifying is that these forces exist within him, suppressed into his subconscious and emerge into his Ego when he makes a “bad” decision, lurching him into a world without morals where his pleasure principle comes to the forefront. Sexual perversions would have been an acute interest during the 80s when the film was made, as the AIDs epidemic and resurgence of an intense Christian moral majority altered the more open sexual exploration of the 60s that carried into the 70s. Sandy was justified in her remark to Jeffery about whether he is a detective or a pervert.

Music in the film played an interesting role. It seemed to be a portal allowing good and evil to merge as a relatively safe exploration and portrayal of subconscious desire. When Dorothy sings, Frank is mesmerized and so is Jeffery and for those fleeting moments, they cohesively live on the same plane where “dreams [subconscious] and reality conjoin.” I took Frank’s drugs use represents, another portal to an ulterior perception and existence. His constant use can be seen as Lynch again showing the importance of maintaining a moral code and not letting oneself slip too far into perverse desire. An example of an artist delving too deeply into this state, the Van Gogh reference is even more support of this, offering a physical and visual example of perversion. With his filmmaking, Lynch could himself be exploring his own perversions in a morally “right” way.

I agree with the reading in quoting about Protestantism in relation to Lynch and its “reform of the individual.” Through the use of archetypal characters and the an idealized nostalgic setting, the 1950s back when America was still in its mind relatively a good place where nothing is expected to go wrong, Lynch’s shows how the moral weakness of his characters results in evil. Unlike other 1980s films like Repo Man the critique is not on industry or Reagan era politics but on the individuals struggle, “scoring his individualist’s mark of survival like a scar across the prairie.” References to brands and labels seen in postmodernism appear in this film as well but are consumed at the giving in of the character. Ultimately Blue Velvet on the surface is a narrative about a character seeking truth “in the dark crevices between the material world” and the world of subconscious desire tamed by the moral self. Truth is never found, there is no singular reality, and Lynch ends again with idealized images and subconscious is repressed but not resolved.

7 comments:

  1. On Matt's Blog,I made a statement regarding the idea of the nostalgic look back to the 1950's that was going on in this time. What I had said was that Lynch in this movie, at least it seems to me, took that nostalgic view and flipped it over, so as to have instead of people looking back to better times, we have characters to are looking ahead at the mess ahead in the near future. The reason I bring that up again on you blog is because of one of the first statements you made. You said that you do not think that Lynch believes in innocent characters. I personally think that he does and that I can prove it with this reading of the movie. If Lynch indeed did take these nostalgic "yearnings" for a better time in our history, and flip it over as I described, then his characters can absolutely be innocent. That is until they are tainted by the sadistic Dennis Hopper and drugs and fields with body parts laying around. The way I saw it, Lumberton was an innocent and untainted place, until Frank came, until the drug trafficking came, and until the cops turned dirty. Point being that their innocence was disrupted, and what we saw was the brewing disruption bubble finally bursting. You talked about how Jeffery wasn't innocent because of how he ended up having sex with Dorothy, and hitting her etc, but looking at it this way, the only reason he lost his innocence was because of the evil that came with Frank and the drug trafficking and all that. This might sound like to simple of a way to explain things, because it ignores a couple of things, like the obvious idea that Jeffery could have not had sex with her and all of that, but technically, in his defense, at their first encounter, she did have a knife, and in that scene I feel that he was forced into "losing his innocence".(no pun intended) The point of that being that he could either continued down the slippery slope, which he sort of started to do and end up like Frank, which pays homage to Franks line "You're just like me", or take the other road and try to make up for the faltering and put an end to the whole mess by going to the cops and and all of that. Other than that another reason why I think Lynch does believe in the innocent is because of the ending. Now everyone is going to say that it was obviously "fake" and over idealized, but one way to see is that innocence can rebound, but not to a full extent. People will see the bad things that the world has come too, but afterwords, they'll still lay out in the yard, they'll still be called in for lunch, the fireman will still wave at the camera, and the robins will totally come back, except we won't get real robins, seeing as innocence cannot rebound to its full extent, so we get the next best thing, chirping thing with plastic feathers that doesn't blink. But hey, its way better that Dennis Hopper smearing lipstick all over your face then beating the crap out of you with his friends.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My argument was the Jeffery can not be innocent because he sought out, by choice, to sneak into a woman's apartment, knowing the risks this would involve. He shows a dimension of good and bad that is certainly not innocent. The evil in the world is brought through once Jeffery makes this choice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess I just don't see that him sneaking into the apartment is what made him not innocent. I was going with the notion that he still had good intentions as to figuring out exactly what was going on with the ear and all that when he did so. If I remember correctly, he did not plan for Dorothy to be there at the same time, which would explain the whole plan of Sandy beeping the horn to alert him. It's wasn't his fault that he had to go to the bathroom thus rendering himself unable to hear the alert. I'm not saying that he is totally innocent, I'm just saying that I think the means by which he loses his innocence is taken out of his control.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is his fault that he broke into an apartment, which is illegal. The fact that he has Sandy honk the horn, signaling Dorothy's arrival, shows that he knows that he is doing wrong and does it anyways. Personally I wouldn't describe someone who breaks in and enters as being "innocent."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm just saying that it isn't as cut and dry as that. He didn't go into the apartment to get his jollies off, he went in there to look for clues. He had good intentions of wanting to help with the case, but looking at it your way it's like saying that he didn't have any good intentions at all, he was just a perv, so if he was just a perv why at the end, after Dorothy shows up on his lawn, did he go back to her apartment? If he was such a bad person why did he put his life on the line?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you refer back to my blog, you will see my argument was that I don't think that Lynch believes in the innocent, rather he believes people have both good and evil and that a strong sense of morals are necessary in order for an individual not to give in to subconscious "evil" desires. I agree, I don't think it is that black and white, I'm just saying that I don't think Jeffery is innocent but I didn't say he was a "bad" person.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting discussion! And Lynch really is that complicated--it's possible to make completely opposing interpretive arguments where he is concerned. And you've both hit the heart of why the morality he portrays really is so hard to sort out.

    Ann, you're delineating a really complex argument, about experience, repression, and ideas of innocence and (experience? As opposed to guilt? But again, not so easy with Lynch, as I think he does draw extreme polarities between extreme innocence and extreme depravity, between which his main characters tend to oscillate).

    This statement though:

    >>Had Jeffery properly suppressed his desires, which are not to solve crime but are sexual, the evil would have been avoidable

    doesn't work so well in the context of the argument you're trying to make, because in Freudian terms, evil is the _result_ of repression. It's the full examination and acknowledgment of the darker side of one's nature that in Freud's system leads to healing and integration, not the avoidance of evil for the sake of good (which is very American and very according to a specific sort of Christianity, which is Jeff Johnson's point).

    But then you come to a point of greater clarity at the end, when you point out that the world of 'evil' is more or less successfully repressed the film, but 'never resolved.'

    What's complicated about the sex scenes involving Dorothy, to my mind, is not how they represent a slippery slope to the dark side as a fall from grace to evil sort of thing, but because those scenes, like Frank Booth himself, revel in the perverse. She _likes_ violence, or part of her does. And so, apparently, does Jeffrey. Which we didn't have enough time to talk about in class, but that whole point of pleasure in perversity, sheer glee in it, is what complicates Lynch's otherwise almost tiresomely Manichean worldview.

    ReplyDelete