THE CONTROVERSY
Blue Velvet polarized viewers and reviewers alike in the Fall of 1986 when it was released theatrically in the U.S. Some critics – like the renowned Roger Ebert – didn’t care for it, while others – the venerable Pauline Kael, for example – praised the film. Ebert went so far as reviewing the film twice , just in case he didn’t get it the first time. He still didn’t like it the second time around; however, he conceded that Blue Velvet was not simply an exploitation film, but a very personal statement by director David Lynch.

While on the surface it may seem that a consensus found the film to be at least "unique," some even criticized the film’s primary theme of uncovering evil beneath a sunny surface as being trite and uninspired.

Why is it then that Blue Velvet is a favorite film of many sane, rational people? I’m not going to focus on the technical aspects of the film, which I feel are excellent, but instead study Blue Velvet conceptually.

THE PLOT
College student Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle Machlachlan) lives an uneventful life in small-town Lumberton, until he comes across a gruesome discovery in a field. He enlists the help of Sandy Williams (Laura Dern), the daughter of the detective assigned to the case. Jeffrey’s pursuit for answers leads him to a disturbed cabaret singer, Dorothy Valens (Isabella Rosselini), and into a dangerous underworld of crime, violence, sadomasochistic sex and perversions, led by the frightening Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper).

ON THE SURFACE
Blue Velvet is an engrossing, intense and disturbing film experience. Like the best films of another challenging director – Stanley Kubrick – Blue Velvet gets better and better every time I see it. It may be a rough ride, but at the end of this complete journey, one (hopefully) feels cleansed. And this is the problem for many people who don’t like the film: they don’t like being dragged around in the mud in the process.

The dynamic range of Lynch’s vision is shocking as well. Are we watching a black comedy? A mystery? A horror movie? A love story? All of the above? The tone of Blue Velvet turns on a dime many times throughout its two hours, leaving the viewer either mesmerized or frustrated. One minute, Lynch’s view of a small-town, American sensibility borders on cheesy, and the next, we’re watching Frank Booth unleash his horrific pathology on characters that might still be redeemed of corruption. Since the film deals with extremes – good and evil, the mundane and the complex – I found the drastic shifts of tone to
be particularly appropriate and an intriguing stylistic choice.

I submit that Blue Velvet is not just a parable of "uncovering and fighting evil," but a film that also examines the risks we take when we indulge our obsessions. At what point in our lives do we become our pathologies? When do idiosyncrasies and eccentricities take us over to the point of no return? For some of the characters in Blue Velvet, there is no turning back.

Much like the plot of the film, there is a world of resonating ideas tucked away under the surface of "good vs. evil uncovered." As viewers, we can take comfort in the safety of sunlight and come away from Blue Velvet with just the basic theme embedded in what appears to be a bizarre film, or we can be dangerously adventuresome – like Jeffrey Beaumont – and dig deeper.

DIGGING DEEPER
Jeffrey is an adventure seeker in a town where the excitement for many locals is watching creepy crime shows on TV from the safety of couches. The extent of evil in Jeffrey’s perceived world is the stroke that afflicts his father. But as Jeffrey begins to unravel the mystery, he begins to transform into a version of himself he finds equally attractive and repellant. As his corruption begins, he drags Sandy into this world, and she is equally intrigued. She admits that Jeffrey himself is a mystery, and that’s enough excitement for her to deviate from her safe existence. She is the lifeline holding Jeffrey above destruction (psychological, emotional and physical). As we move down the abyss, farther and farther from salvation, we find Dorothy barely hanging on to Jeffrey with her child, teetering above the lost souls of Frank and Company below.

On first viewing, Frank’s fetishistic fascination with "blue velvet" (the song and the fabric), sexual and physical abuse, and drug use appears cinematically exploitive. But there is a glimmer of this character’s former innocence in his perverted relationship with Dorothy. What attracted him to her in the first place? His mutterings of "mommy," "daddy’s coming home," "now it’s dark," and his insistence that all aspects of his surroundings be just right for him to "perform," offers a window into the family life of a boy that has been corrupted (almost) beyond recognition.

Dorothy Valens’ characterization begs the question: why is she mixed up with these sordid types, and why does she allow herself to be so manipulated and violated? Again, what appears on the surface as an exploitive move by Lynch, proves to be another study in corruption. To Lynch’s credit, he gives us enough clues to infer that her husband probably put her in harm’s way by participating in some shady deals with Frank and Company. She is a truly selfless human being, bending to the whims of those around her. Unfortunately, the folks around her are not nice people. Her personality never included her desires – until she meets Jeffrey, who gives her hope. She calls it "a disease" that he has infected her with. Hope and corruption – like diseases – keep spreading until they’re wiped out.

POSSIBLE SPOILER (WARNING)
Some viewers and critics feel that the film’s final moments are tongue-in-cheek and satirical. I don’t think so. To accept Lynch’s argument that hell exists on Earth and that the price of admission is a corrupted soul requires one to also accept the opposite: heaven exists on earth for those who have been saved. For the film to end any other way, conceptually, would have been irresponsible and manipulative.

THE DVD
When word first leaked out that MGM acquired the DVD rights to Blue Velvet from Warner Brothers and that the non-anamorphic, letterboxed transfer of the laserdisc from the early ‘90s might be recycled for the DVD, many fans were
appalled. It was a very pleasant surprise to find out just prior to its release that a new anamorphic transfer in the original Panavision 2.35:1 aspect ratio was completed for the DVD.

Resolution is outstanding and colors are rich without a hint of over-saturation. Blacks tend to gravitate toward the dark-grays, but shadow detail is exceptional. An A-B comparison with the old laserdisc reveals a striking improvement.

The audio, while not re-mixed to 5.1 channels (which would have been amazing), is still incredibly strong in its original two-channel Dolby Surround mix. Lynch has always been as meticulous with his audio as with his visuals – and Blue Velvet is no exception. A French two-channel surround track is included as well.

The disc is bare, as far as added content is concerned, with only a "collectible" booklet and original theatrical trailer included. To be fair, the booklet actually has some nice anecdotes and quotes on the ideas and approaches to the dark material, and how the initial idea of Blue Velvet came about.