Re: Richard Schickel

Like Kat says, perhaps Blue Velvet is supposed to be a commentary on reality—if so, I completely missed the point. I was too distracted by the seemingly superficial, corny characters and the bizarre events to even look for its underlying criticism of a society that chooses to ignore the not-so-pretty parts of the past and present. Schickel says “less than six weeks after seeing it I could not recount its story and, frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn,” but that “its subversive imagery…had been granted a lifetime lease inside my skull.” I have to disagree and say that I DO give a damn whether or not I remember the story. Movies that have stayed with me and impacted me are always ones in which the storyline made a strong impression—I don’t watch a movie for its subversive imagery. I may notice that in a film but it’s not what constitutes a good movie to me. I think to veteran film critics such as Shickel, films like Blue Velvet are what do it for them and I’m not saying every movie has to have a clear, predictable storyline. However, I think Lynch could have gotten his point across in Blue Velvet while still including some elements that would have caused it to make a longer lasting impression on me. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think it defeats the point when a movie tries to make a statement and it misses the mark so that no one understands or tries to understand it. Or maybe I’m just super shallow and lazy, just the type of person Lynch is parodying. :)