I find it interesting how much Ebert hated that movie. I'm not sure how I feel about it myself, tbh, but I am certain I don't have his conviction to state it clearly and unambiguously. The film certainly made me feel things no other movie has.
I think if you're giving original opinions about movies it guarantees that you're going to be on the wrong side of history eventually. His reviews aren't any less interesting even when you disagree with him.
I think Ebert didn't grasp what Lynch was going for with the Dorothy character, because I don't think anyone else in Hollywood was thinking like Lynch at the time.
Blue Velvet challenges you as a viewer to look at the abuse Dorothy suffers and to be a witness -- and that's hard to do as a viewer because it is ugly. Ebert did what a lot of people did and attempted to defend Isabella Rossellini, who had signed on to the movie knowing full well what would be required.
Lynch made two other movies in that same "the audience needs to bear witness and empathize" theme (Fire Walk With Me, Lost Highway) before Ebert caught on with Mulholland Dr.
I'm not really convinced he's on "the wrong side"—we're entitled to strong opinions about the role of film in society and this is either value-oriented or subjective. But I emphatically do admire his willingness to stake his claim without ambiguity.
> His reviews aren't any less interesting even when you disagree with him.
But for the sound track. The scene where Kyle and Laura are in the car and she's talking about — what — birds? The scene, with that sound track, is so haunting.
I find it interesting how much Ebert hated that movie. I'm not sure how I feel about it myself, tbh, but I am certain I don't have his conviction to state it clearly and unambiguously. The film certainly made me feel things no other movie has.
I think if you're giving original opinions about movies it guarantees that you're going to be on the wrong side of history eventually. His reviews aren't any less interesting even when you disagree with him.
I think Ebert didn't grasp what Lynch was going for with the Dorothy character, because I don't think anyone else in Hollywood was thinking like Lynch at the time.
Blue Velvet challenges you as a viewer to look at the abuse Dorothy suffers and to be a witness -- and that's hard to do as a viewer because it is ugly. Ebert did what a lot of people did and attempted to defend Isabella Rossellini, who had signed on to the movie knowing full well what would be required.
Lynch made two other movies in that same "the audience needs to bear witness and empathize" theme (Fire Walk With Me, Lost Highway) before Ebert caught on with Mulholland Dr.
Agreed. I disagree pretty vehemently with him wrt Blue Velvet but he's one of the few reviewers I trust(ed)
I'm not really convinced he's on "the wrong side"—we're entitled to strong opinions about the role of film in society and this is either value-oriented or subjective. But I emphatically do admire his willingness to stake his claim without ambiguity.
> His reviews aren't any less interesting even when you disagree with him.
100%
I'm with Ebert, I hated it. Not because it wasn't effective. It was convincing, but such a bad experience I'll never watch it again.
But for the sound track. The scene where Kyle and Laura are in the car and she's talking about — what — birds? The scene, with that sound track, is so haunting.
EDIT: yeah, this scene: https://youtu.be/ncnq2pu4PlE
It certainly changes how you feel about listening to Mr sandman
The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference