Re: Richard Schickel

Richard Schickel explains that Blue Velvet’s seemingly unimportant plot and flat characters are exactly what makes this movie work. The focus of the movie is then on its subversive imagery and the feeling that it evokes in the viewer. Schickel’s comments about the plot of the film being unmemorable and unimportant really struck me, because I completely agree that with a insignificant plot like in Blue Velvet, the viewer is forced to see deeper into the movie; however, I do not agree that this is necessarily a good tactic for directors to utilize.

After viewing Blue Velvet a second and third time it was even more apparent that the plot is not what the movie is about. Like Schickel writes, the plot of a movie is always what is remembered in a film. The plot is always what is reviewed and passed on, yet in this movie, the plot is not the center point. Anything in the plot could have been substituted for a similar situation and no drastic changes in the movie would have been made. As long as Jeffrey came back in town and found some sort of sign that led him into the case involving Dorothy, the movie would still retain its general points, without the exact same plot. The same could be said about the two protagonists, Jeffrey and Sandy. There is nothing note worthy or particularly vital about their characters, other than their stereo-typical attitudes and flatness. The viewer is then forced to delve further into the movie and pick up on less obvious points. This method of having a trivial plot and characters who the viewers cannot relate with does seem effective if the director wants to focus on the subversive imagery, but it’s not effective if the goal is to get general audiences to enjoy the film.