Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
Between two of Lynch's best films I've always felt that while Mulholland Dr. has a lot more to say and is filmed so beautifully that the amazing performances in Blue Velvet overshadow Mulholland Dr. and just nudge it past slightly.
I love both of these films so much, but it's BLUE VELVET that changed cinema forever. It doesn't get any better than these two. Speaking of Lynch: where is ERASERHEAD, Flickchart?
Blue Velvet was good but Mulholland Dr. really got me. It was creepy and awesome. Really good movie. I also liked Lost Highway. I love how confusing David Lynch is.
Mulholland Dr. I love every scene, I still don't really understand it, but I'm fascinated by it.
Mulholland Drive is like a constantly shifting, beautifully hypnotic and nightmarish puzzle, begging to be unwrapped and explained and understood but ultimately perfect in its profundity. Blue Velvet, while daring, surreal and dripping with symbolism with every odd, Lynchian turn, boils down to a simple kidnapping story. I love both, but I'll keep watching Mulholland Drive over and over, probably until I die or go insane.
I am in complete agreement with slvs. As much as I love Blue Velvet, Mulhollhand Dr. is just so bizzare and fascinating that I can't help but pick it.
Blue Velvet was a seminal experience during my formative movie watching days. Mulholland Drive, though entertaining, fails to create the same tingling sensation of awe when I watch it. Like Inland Empire, Mulholland Dr. is interesting just to see what weiredness will occur next, but it rarely makes any emotional connection.
To me, it's really not a contest. Mulholland Drive has strong moments, but nothing really unifying them, and the end goes completely off the rails. And as far as the earlier comment in reference to its "profundity", you'd have to explain to me what's profound about it. Blue Velvet however has a narrative thread, and Lynch does better work when it's tied to an actual story. I think Blue Velvet is Lynch's masterpiece, and Mulholland Drive is a fascinating misfire.
The toughest of Lynch's films to choose between. Mulholland Drive wins by a nose because... it's awesome. Need I say more?
Mulholland Drive, and it's not even close. Blue Velvet isn't bad though. I hear it says something akin to "all that glitters is not gold" or maybe "white picket fences on all black houses" or maybe "an ear on the head is worth two in the bush". Meh, so people are freaky. And actors that portray people in a freaky little towns like to amp up the corny love angle and 50's style, cheesy dialogue. I guess that was an intentional move from Lynch... something about mixing nonchalance and intensity. Whatever, shit happens.
LOL, I just skimmed Ebert's review of Blue Velvet (can't read the full thing, I'm supposed to be working). He's a bit of a hater and his bitterness, this time, seems to be focussed on Blue Velvet's cavalier approach. Hehehe, I guess he wouldn't approve of my previous comment then.
Ebert's complaint was that he didn't approve of Isabella Rossellini's nudity in the film. That's pretty much it. He thought the movie wasn't respectful enough of her nudity. It's probably one of the stupidest criticisms of all time (especially considering that he was friends with Russ Meyer, who had no problem showing gratuitous nudity and violence in his films). Anyway, yeah, Blue Velvet is about the dark side of a small town. And maybe it's satirizing the 50s ideal, or whatever. But the movie has a style all its own that goes beyond the making fun of suburbia thing. If you compare it to, say, a more heavy-handed (and less imaginative) sort of film that has a similar objective, like American Beauty, for example. Blue Velvet is more like a nightmare version of suburbia, not just some simple satire or parody. It may be set in an apparently squeaky clean town, but that's just the launching point for weirder things.
This is the (only) review I read/skimmed: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19860919/REVIEWS/609190301/1023. I think I was right the first time. He does seem upset by the blasé feel of the film. He says things like: "Indeed, the movie is pulled so violently in opposite directions that it pulls itself apart" and "'Blue Velvet' is like the guy who drives you nuts by hinting at horrifying news and then saying, 'Never mind.'" (which sounds eerily similar to my own "whatever, shit happens"). He quite clearly says that all the seriousness of BV (particularly the daunting work of Rossellini) is undermined by the goofy satire. I don't agree with his moral criticism (I like pissing on the sacrosanct) but I can see why others might feel this way. Now I haven't seen too many Russ Meyer films, but aren't most of them all-out crazy and goofy anyway? Or, like BV, do they mix real intensity with campy, aloof humour? Re: American Beauty. I actually think AB is better than BV and I don't really think about its commentary on suburbia or anything (just as you look beyond BV as parody). It's Kevin Spacey's character that I enjoy; the middle-aged, bored shitless dude that just gets caught up in some shit. Feel bad for the guy.
He wrote several articles about Blue Velvet, and they all come down to Rossellini's nudity. He complains about the tone in relation to her being naked. Even if you watch the episode where he and Siskel debate the film, it's primarily about Rossellini. As for American Beauty... I think the Spacey character is a joke. I mean, the guy gives up his responsibilities and starts hanging out with the sage teenage dope dealer. And works out so he can screw a teenage girl. There's nothing interesting or unique about the guy. He's just another mid-life crisis loser. The movie even goes so far as making the homophobe gay and the gay guys perfectly normal citizens. Certainly there are happy, well-adjusted gay couples out there, but the movies contrast is much too obvious. I hate that movie, and Spacey's smug character. It's all a bunch of "normal is abnormal" BS. And my point about Russ Meyer is that his movies are ridiculously exploitative. Ebert complains that nudity should be meaningful, or whatever, but Meyer movies often show violence against women and tons of nudity. Why Ebert was so concerned that Rossellini was naked makes no sense. So what if the movie messed around with the tone?
Oh, and I should add that maybe the "pulled so violently in opposite directions" thing could be seen as a representation of Jeffrey's perception of what is taking place. He is being pulled in opposite directions as well.
Giving up responsibilities (!!!), chilling with pot-heads, working out, trying to screw teenage cheerleaders, staring at plastic bags, BOOM Headshot!!... Eh, it’s all good. I’m sure my mid-life crisis will be an ode to similar goals (hah, actually my current life is pretty much a pursuit of those things). The homo stuff does bug me though (it seems like the most pervasive Hollywood cliché) but given the ending I find it mainly humorous. It IS a bloody stupid statement though... to say that homophobes are in fact latent. I don't know if that's even a real thing and if it is how often is repression the likely cause of hate anyway? Pretty infrequently I'd say. Moving on, does Ebert generally complain that nudity should be meaningful? Or is he just saying that a film like Blue Velvet crosses some threshold of emotional fervor (that tone you speak of) that should maybe preclude zany antics and comic frivolity. Maybe Meyer’s films don’t have the same harrowing atmosphere as BV so he wouldn’t mind the juxtaposition of humour and violence and nudity. Or perhaps Ebert’s just an inconsistent dick. To the latter comment: I dunno, maybe. I wouldn’t put it passed Lynch to try and draw that kind of a metaphor but it still seems like a stretch.
I gave up most of my responsibilities a couple of years ago, but I don't have a family or anyone to answer to. I'm not chasing any teenage tail, though. Or any tail... too much work. Anyway, I understand Ebert complaining about the movie being pulled in different directions. Folks don't have to like that approach. But actress nudity has nothing to do with it. If a performer doesn't want to be naked, they don't have to be. Someone else will do it. Rossellini was a thinking adult. And Ebert even says in another article "Blue Velvet was in some ways a remarkable movie, and my one-star rating probably reflects personal aversion to that particular scene more than a balanced judgment of its artistry." So it really is all about his squeamishness about her being naked, which is irrelevant to the movie itself. (One of these days I'm going to make a movie about a gay guy who doesn't do anything gay. At one point, his gayness will be revealed, but only in passing. Then he'll move on with the story. Maybe I'll have him dance to an ABBA song, but that's it.)
Oh. Well then he straight up admits it. At least he was forthright. Yeah skirt-chasing is definitely taxing on both time and money. But I figure if one's comfortable with serial rejection there's not too much else to spend time and money on.
"I gave up most of my responsibilities a couple of years ago..." It just hit me: this statement sounds a lot like the life of Peter Gibbons from Office Space. Sick. Is it possible that you've made this dream (shared by millions of crazed Office Space fans) a reality? Damn it feels good to be a gangsta!
These are the only two Lynch films I've seen, but I love them both. Mulholland Drive wins though, it's just a much more complex picture and I think it has a lot more to say, despite Blue Velvet being one of the most fascinating mysteries ever.
Blue Velvet made more sense to me...but Mulholland Dr. was just so much more fascinating.
on Mar 26
Blue Velvet. I prefer the cohesive story.