Originally Posted by Damnationdoormat
While I enjoy most of Lynch's work, I believe his ambiguity is too often mistaken as genius. Such is the case of Blue Velvet, never understood why it's such a big deal to some.
Originally Posted by Milt99
With Blue Velvet, I think you have to put the film into the context of when it was released.
At the time(1986), it was a shocking, dark and explicit film.
Watching it now, not so much although it still does have its moments.
Lynch was comparing the wholesome normal society to the dark underbelly of society across the tracks in Lumberton.
Sandy and Jeffrey vs Frank, Dorothy and the gang.
Jeffery found that ear and his path into the world of Frank Booth.
Originally, Frank was snorting helium but that was quickly sh!t-canned as a munchkin is just not that menacing.
Do it for Van Gogh...
Personally I like Wild at Heart as much as anything David Lynch has done.
Very good takes on Lynch I would agree with it.
The guy is different, and so are his works....
His stuff can get dangerously close to tedious.
With art, weird for the sake
of weird is simply ma$turbation.
However, DL does have an original/unique vision, which is fascinating from my POV.
Without question his stuff isn't for everyone, but there are a lot rewards too.