Siskel was on the right track. The reason the day scenes were campy and silly wasn't just to "throw the audience off", it was to contrast the seedy underground world of the night. The whole movie is about two worlds existing at once within the same town.
Definitely, and this disorienting clash in tone is characteristic of Lynch’s best work. This film followed two movies (Eraserhead and Dune) where Lynch was trying to do very different things, so I can sort of forgive Ebert for not recognizing in Blue Velvet that these were conscious stylistic choices… as he hadn’t yet established his signature. It seems lost on Siskel here as well, whose praise of the film seems to rest entirely on its success simply as an engaging thriller and without any note of films’s surreal, dream like elements.
The rare occasion where Siskel nails it and Ebert I think is too sensitive. Still, I agree with everyone who bemoans the fact that we don't have this kind of dynamic duo debating movies intelligently anymore. I really miss them.
At the time, S&E had been working together for 10 years and they had become really good together. In their early days they looked uncomfortable on TV as you would expect. So anyone who wants to be as good as S&E just has to work long and hard. I wouldn't say this kind of wit and skills don't exist anymore. But very few could've lasted over 10 years on this kind of TV show then and now, that's for sure.
"Dynamic duo debating movies intelligently"? I didn't see any evidence of that. This was a pretty boring and mundane take. I know it was five minutes, but they just seem like two average blokes to be honest.
@Joshua McGillivray I watched his actual review of "Eraserhead" sometime in the 80's and he and Siskel both panned it (Siskel moreso). Maybe he changed his mind later on?
@Roger Edgerton um, he had done all of four films at this point. I don't think it's coincidence that he didn't mention the film with a ton of Oscar nominations.
I concur. There is nothing sexual about Isabella's nude scenes. She is a victim of Hopper's character's depravity. And as Gene said she agreed to perform the part This film is very unusual and has peculiarities but is still very intriguing and memorable.
Gene Siskel for the win. Roger Ebert let his own nuances try and direct someone else's vision, whereas Siskel rightly allowed the artist to do his thing without questioning his motives.
Rachel Kern Questioning motives is for police and psychologists, not critics. Critics are supposed to appraise art with objectivity. When you say, "Always question motives," suspicion is implied, and that's the domain of subjectivity. A critic should be disinterested, and as such, he should be unconcerned with an artist's motives. He should concern himself only with the art itself.
The scene that Ebert is so upset about here was actually a big part of the inspiration for Blue Velvet because David Lynch and a friend one time as young boys witnessed a naked woman walking down a street, and they did not giggle or point, they knew instantly that something was terribly wrong there, and they cried. That moment remained with Lynch in his mind, and he included it in the film because it was so moving to him. Isabella Rossellini was aware of that memory because David Lynch clued her in on it when the film was made. Blue Velvet remains an important and amazing movie, an experience that spins an irresistible web of danger, romance, mystery, evil and beauty. This review of Roger's is proof that sometimes a critic completely misses the boat and is left on the shore ... by himself.
He knows, he interviewed Lynch and asked about that very scene and got that very answer. He still doesn’t care for it, I honestly don’t know why in this case but still it’s worth noting
It wasn't happy and funny, it was a façade of small-town virtue and wholesomeness, covering up the seedy criminal underbelly. The idea's cliché now, but at the time it was a novel concept.
@@arglbargl I was just thinking that, that 'idea' may seem old now but back then it was something new and original, that's why people liked the movie so much, now i think it's dated and an empty experience, but in 1986 i probably would have loved it.
I think this is the good thing about this show. They can exchange ideas, this is a respectable thing for both, whether they like the movie or not, they are being fair to it by allowing someone else's voice.
The problem is... too often when one of them liked something, the other would then pick it apart just to create an argument and get viewers hooked into watching their show. Or vice versa... praise something a bit more than perhaps they should because the other one had just torn it down in advance. They knew if they agreed all the time it would make for a dull show and fewer people would watch. I'm not saying they lied about their opinion of a movie just to play devil's advocate, but they certain exaggerated in a direction that would create the most conflict. Trying to mimic narrative structure in their review show for interest creation.
The worst thing you can say about a film is that you don't recall a lot about it. If a film leaves you happy, sad, angry,frightened or disturbed it has done it's job. In that regard Blue Velvet is a home run. It's disturbing to say the least, highlighted by Hopper's brilliant performance as Frank Booth, who is high on my list of most evil characters in movie history. Not all masterpieces leave you feeling warm and fuzzy, Blue Velvet is a prime example of that.
I actually think the movie has a very happy and satisfying ending when dorothy is reunited with her son. This is one of the greatest most creative movies i have ever seen.
Chris HP Le They were both quick in their ways - And didn't feel the need to arbitrarily tie every movie they reviewed to the current political landscape, if you can imagine that.
Honestly the campy dialogue really heightens the mood in the film. The Daylight scenes are simple and seem like a campy romantic comedy, while the night scenes show the underbelly, the dark side of the happy little town and the darker nature of its inhabitants. It really shows the parallels from the two sides of the town, similar to how Lynch portrays his other famous lumber town in Twin Peaks. This is a motif with lynch contrasting his dark surreal sense of humor with a Leave-it-to-Beaver-esque neighborhood and the intense Horrific underbelly of the town that comes out at night.
It's amazing that Ebert didn't get that when the OPENING SCENES show a bright sunlit town, and then the camera goes down into the grass to show the rotten insects lurking right out of sight. It sets the whole thing up, the contrast you state in your comment is all there, and Ebert misses the inherent duality in the whole thing.
How so when there's no much story to Lynch's work? If anything most of his work comes off as ''pornographic meditations'' and nothing more lol Plus all Lynch talks about is meditation so maybe he thinks nudity and meditation goes together who knows?
I saw "Blue Velvet" at the theater back in '86. I went into it cold, not knowing a thing about it. Blew me away! Still the single greatest moviegoing experience of my life.
@@wirdjadochnichts Oh, yes. Those cats were gods. They belong on the Mt. Rushmore of filmmakers, along with Welles, Chaplin, Ford. "2001," "A Clockwork Orange" and "Paths of Glory" are among my favorite Kubrick films, and "Rear Window," "Psycho," and "Rope" are some of my favorites from The Master. What are some of your favorites?
@@guidosanchez5695 Well i also like the ones that you mentioned. I also loved the shining, psycho, frenzy, vertigo, dr. strange. I hated blue velvet tho i think lynch is a little overrated ^^
Ebert was entitled to his opinion he didnt have to like the film. He didnt like many Lynch films. However i think the film is great but it does make you feel very uneasy watching it particularly Hoppers performance which was frightning. I am big David Lynch fan but there was one time i think he took it too far with violence and that was Wild At Heart and id youve seen it you will know what scene im talking about.
Why people can't understand that a clockwork orange is very hard to watch for some people? Is it obligatory to like it? No,but it deserves admiration. It's not FOR everyone.
+1997residente It's not hard to watch, it was just ahead of it's time. If you have a hard time watching clockwork orange you're probably the type of person who needs a trigger warning for reality, hell a lot of people getting upset over this video probably needed the trigger warning "an old dead irrelevant asshole has an unpopular opinion about one of the greatest movies ever made." But clockwork orange is for everyone, kubrick in general wasn't well regarded in his own time, the controversial nature of that film in particular had nothing to do with it. Is it obligatory to like it? No. But it has nothing to do with the subject matter-to say that is to jump back half a century in time where sex and ultraviolence were still a touchy topic. Grow up, the only reason today not to like clockwork orange is that you aren't' into art house films, there's nothing edgy left about it
+Michael Blackshire Ebert was critical of movies that he considered sensationalist or needlessly violent. I'm pretty sure he blasted Fight Club as well. I don't blame him for being repelled by certain aspects of these films but I think he could be a bit shallow at times.
Siskel is 1,000X more on point here than Ebert, and the fact that this actress responded to Ebert's concerns and said something like "I'm fine. I was acting. What you saw was all pretend." was brilliant!
I think u missed what he acutally said. He said, that he doesnt want to see something like this UNLESS it has a point. But it had none. A lot of people hype this movie because these scenes are shocking, but u can get the same feeling by watching violent pornography instead. I dont want lynch to get away with "well in the end the movie is about how its all a facade and this is whats underneath".
@@zeltzamer4010 Yeah, but how much sense this scene itself makes? Lynch just brings back something he experienced as a child, that's about it. Perhaps he just wanted to see Rossellini fully nude? Could it be this trivial? And the poor & naive Lynch artsy fartsy fanbase keeps overhyping this as being valid etc. lol
@@jeshkam Makes quite a lot of sense in that context. Also it’s funny, intentionally. Kyle MacLachlan finally gets together with Laura Dern and a completely naked lady shows up and starts talking about him putting his disease in her.
Why is a film being uncomfortable to watch a bad thing? In all the films ive watched in my life I would say Blue Velvet is at the very least in the top 5, its creepy, leaves you on edge, questioning everyday life, distrusting, and feeling absolutely filthy. Its quite simply brilliant.
I respect Ebert, but he's being a total hypocrite. What about what he did to John Lazar in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls? That was completely arbitrary and shocking for shock's sake and actually ended Lazar's career. Isabella Rossellini knew what she was getting into, and this film cemented her status as a great actress.
+Barry Strickland It has heaps of cringy dialogue which could be interpreted as campy and adolescent. What Ebert might not realise is Lynch wanted it this way.
Exactly. Lynch wrote it like that to reflect the trite and simplistic stereotypes of Americana. The gang members are by far the most complex characters in the film for a reason.
In fact, Ebert was pretty aware that it was an artistic license from Lynch, he actually makes his point in a more articulate way in his review. But that doesn't justify the argument either, by punctuating the film with deliberately corn dialogues, Lynch didn't intend to minimize the raw realism of the sex scenes, I think it is more a statement about the baffling naivety of the two young protagonists who try as hard as they can to believe that the world is (or should be) all sunshine and rainbow and the perfect incarnation of the American Dream (while it's not). Yet even this vision of America is handled in a beautifully and poetic way, showing that Lynch didn't just want to make a psychological thriller. I think Ebert got the 'dark' part of the film right but not the other... and you can't properly judge the film if you don't get both of them. Anyway, he's just babbling in this review, his written one was more constructive.
PABST BLUE RIBBON! But personally, I think campy dialogue is an instrumental part of David Lynch's movies. It creates a sort of atmosphere where you feel safe as a viewer because the movie is entertaining and making you laugh, and then randomly the whole facade is dropped (see the audition scene in Mulholland Drive for a perfect example of this). A lot of times it's hard to tell if a director is doing this on purpose, so I can forgive Ebert's criticism of the campy dialogue.
To be honest, I respect Ebert's work through the years, but never really liked his bitchy winey attitude about the edgier themes explored by some films. Siskel should've said more because he was very very right.
Of course your defending the guy who hated Taxi Driver (although I'm sure he went on to like it), Scarface , Silence of the Lambs...all of which Roger gave thumbs up.
+J Lock, you're allowed to not like those movies (I personally think Scarface is pretty so-so, if fun). I bet I could point out acclaimed films you didn't like, but that wouldn't make your judgement any more or less questionable. I don't like Inception. Does that make me a moron that doesn't understand the brilliance of cinema? Well, I hope not. Downplaying the weight of emotions in our response to movies is the worst thing possible for film criticism, because there's only so much technical merit can do for a movie. What ultimately decides whether or not we not only like a movie, but think it's good, comes from within.
Pay attention to this line: "We can't divorce our reactions. It's not about how isabella rosalini reacts to the fact that she's standing their nude and humilated on the lawn of the police captain's house with people watching. It's about how *I* react. And that's painful to me to see a woman treated like that and I want to know that if I'm feeling that pain that it's for a reason that the movie has other than to simply cause pain to her." It's about the pain it causes YOU, not HER. He completely missed the point even though he just said it. Sooo close and yet so far.
Obviously he couldn’t attain that suspension of disbelief. Fair enough. But yes, the film is supposed to be a brutal experience-for the audience. You want sadism to actors? Watch The Shining or a Kinski flick.
@@jordil6152 wait are you addressing me or ebert, because i dont believe rosilini was being tortured like in shelley duval was or anyone in a kinski film, so im not sure why youd be addressing me
Siskel had a very insightful voice for the praise of Blue Velvet. The film is about 33 years old, I've only watched it for 10 years, and it really hasn't lost its touch as a standout breakthrough in American independent cinema. It's a bizarre and nightmarish journey from slick small town life into its darker dirtier underbelly that's testing the young hero's boundaries and confronting the dangers of voyeurism and lust. It's a strong film that says something about those darker sides and how they clash with the idyllic rosy existence of safety and innocence.
gene got it. thats what lynch does here. he digs beneath the beautiful veneer of the suburbs and finds the ugly side of people. he later explored it thoroughly in twin peaks.
though i enjoyed the Siskel Ebert show when it started There was nothing like it at times. i have to say they both came off as simpletons with limited knowledge . On a Jay Leno show when Jay gave them a trivia quiz on films. They did not even know or recognize that hideous demon from Night of the Demon
Ebert was WAY too hung up about "poor" Isabella Rossellini -she knew what she was getting into and no one put a gun to her head & said "you have to do this scene, this way, or else..." - Blue Velvet is a classic film and the shocking/disturbing aspects, juxtaposed w/the sunny small town, picturesque view are part of the dynamism of the movie. I always thought Ebert was smarter than that -he sounds like some middle aged church lady who is "shocked, simply shocked" that they could do that in the movie. He makes it sound as if this was a gratuitous scene, when, in fact, it was directly related to what was going on in the film, both manifestly and symbolically.
Yeah. It sounds as if he wants to prohibit all depictions of women being mistreated, as if that wasn’t a relevant topic for a movie. It must all be women superheroes.
One of the few times I actually agreed with both Siskel and Ebert, acknowledging the fact that they had two totally different opinions of the movie. That either speaks volumes of David Lynch, or these two critics. Such as a movie should do. Spark intense debate and uncertainty about every facet concerning its sexuality and its violence. This confrontation actually makes me think more deeply about the film than I ever have, simply because of Gene's comparisons to Psycho... This is one of their best collaborative reviews I've ever seen.
This past fall I showed parts of Blue Velvet to my filmmaking class. This is a generation that supposedly had seen it all. But they were absolutely shocked by what they saw. It was shocking in 1986 and still is today.
Show them acutal violent pornography and they ll respond the same way. This movie is overrated because it did something back then what a lot of movies didnt. That doesnt make it a good movie.
I think Ebert thinks he was played like a piano, he doesn't understand how, when, or why. So he bashes the movie just in case, so we can all feel the same way and problem solved democratically.
Boy I am glad someone brought that shit up. Roger has a lot of gall criticizing any screenplay after being credited for that pile of flaming shit. I heard him years later responding to a question about that film that he was proud of it Russ Meyer must have had pictures of Roger with gerbils or worse.
@@kevinmcdonald6477 Another example of why Hypocrisy in Media is destroying the West. It's like that great meme where a woman is laughing at the people getting pies thrown in their face, but when she gets hit in the face, she goes home to write a article about Comedy becoming too offensive and disgusting. He's a smart man but that Virtue Signaling Lie seems to Strong for anyone remotely close to hollywood.
@@countfloydschillerhorrorth2090 I agree with you he was shamelessly virtue signaling and they both were culpable of doing shit like that on the show throughout the years not just Ebert,but near the end of the program they started changing their mind and denouncing this type of political correctness.
@@bigboysdotcom745 WTF you talking about I can't talk about it, I just did. And a Meme perfectly describes this day and age with their two second brainspan and total incomprehension and lack of self awareness that makes them Instant Hypocrites on nearly any topic they pretend to care and whine about. Stick to your 2 line twits ya twit. Anything more than that is bound to get you out of your comfort zone.
Just watched it for the first time. It's a masterpiece. Perfect length and it had my full attention from start to finish. Siskel was spot on. I have to say after watching most of their reviews I think I agree slightly more with Siskel's opinion. I think he's right about 80 percent of the time where as I agree with Ebert about 60 65 percent.
what a great duo these two were. I'm with Gene here, but you can't dismiss Roger's sentiments either. a thoughtful, intelligent, and witty discussion, as always with these two. I miss them.
I remember when this film first came out. Johnny Carson literally took five minutes to chastise it. After his monologue he came back sitting at his desk. He went on to say how disgusting and depraved the movie was. His biggest grip was that it was set in a small town in the midwest, the same kind he grew up in. The notion that anything bad could happen in his home town really made him crazy. I wish UA-cam had that moment but I can't find it. He also told his audience not to bother seeing it and he walked out.
"Blue Velvet" is a masterpiece: a disturbing one, but an unforgettable masterpiece all the same. The sweet innocence of a young Laura Dern contrasted with Dennis Hopper's maniacal Frank is like night and day, which themselves are contrasted in this film to show how different a community can be when daylight fades to darkness.
Mr. Ebert seems to review the movie like an overconcerned father of the leading actress. "Can't see the wood for the trees".Isabella Rossellini played her part, just as the story demanded of her, and did it very well.
"If somebody wants to play me like a piano, he'd better get some music that's worth listening to." Damn that was a good quick-witted retort by Ebert. I wish I could come up with a response that snappy and sharp off the top of my head.
1.)Opening Scene the evil army like bugs beneath the surface of this Small, Post Card Town America bubbling to the surface. 2.)The Scene where Laura Dern talks about her dream about the robins and how they represent love overcoming the darkness 3.)Ending Scene: The Shot of the Robin with the beetle it its mouth Brilliant simplicity.
This feels weirdly patronizing - both of these dudes seem to suggest that the actress was either forced to take the role, or that she was "too ignorant" to understand what she was doing like she's some kind of child. I don't know, for some reason it just feels uncomfortable for both of them to speak of a grown actress that way.
I rewatched it recently. I was expecting dated cheese. The movie is legit. It takes noir and injects ugliness. It's cool but makes you feel uneasy about thinking it is. Siskel got it.
It's a sick twisted masterpiece. This kinda shit and worse really happens. And about the dialogue, thats the real world jack, when you deal with that kind of people you dont hear Shakespeare.
I thought Lynch got this scene from an occurrence he had as a child where he saw a nude woman wandering outside and was frightened by it. During that scene the last thing I want to do is laugh, it's intended to make you feel uncomfortable. He takes you on an emotional rollercoaster like great filmmakers do. As for the abuse being a turn on for Dorthy, has Ebert ever heard of S&M? Many women are into that, sometimes more so than men. A book series about that became a bestseller for women, written by a woman. And is it possible that a victim could be conditioned to enjoy the abuse they continuously endure as a means of survival?
Ebert missed the point. During the debate, he calls the movie a comedy, which it isn't. (Unless I'm missing out on some esoteric film usage of the word.) Lynch frequently injects humor and naive sentimentality to utilize relief and innocence as a foil for his exploration of the dark underbelly of the human experience. He yearns for the beauty of nostalgic America, while recognizing it's corruption. I saw this movie alone and walked out stunned at it's artistry and I thought about it obsessively for three days straight. Could not get it out of my mind. No other movie has transported me to a place like that, internally.
@@hipsterelephant2660 I don't think Frank Booth could ever be considered comedy or camp.. I'm thinking maybe more like Kyle McLaughlin's Chicken Walk scene, maybe..
Ebert was being patronising. To quote Isabella Rossalini: ''That is suggesting that David Lynch used me or photographed me badly to ruin my reputation. I resent that because first of all I think it would hurt his feelings. But also it takes away from me, from my judgment. It says that I'm so helpless that a director can make me do something I don't want to do. I'm not a kid. I understood the film. It's beyond that - I loved it.''
Siskel was always the my favorite of the two, but I think their open discussions were a good thing for movie criticism no matter who you tend to side with. No matter which I agreed with, they discussed things respectfully in a way nobody seems capable of in the age of twitter.
My fav part is when Ebert says "If a guy wants to play me like a piano he better get some music thats worth listening to". Rather ironic now that Lynch has put out an album.
I'm a little surprised. If the movie shook him that hard, I'd call it a success. Somebody said "art becomes art not when it's good or great, but when it absolutely can't be ignored". I don't know about that, but I do know "Blue Velvet" is a masterpiece.
Ebert had exactly the reaction to Isabella's character (naked on the front lawn) as was intended. According to Lynch it was a kind of re-enactment of when he and his brother saw something similar in his neighborhood as a child. He said it scared him. It's supposed to make you very uncomfortable and it worked amazingly well on Ebert (and myself). It's just a shame that while this kind of discomfort is well accepted in film these days, Ebert just couldn't get behind it because he had such an emotional experience to it - though of course he and Siskel could have been playing "good cop, bad cop" to cater to both audiences but he seemed so passionate about it I kinda doubt that. I find it so ironic that Lynch intended us to feel exactly as Ebert did about that scene ... horrified.
I agree with Siskel here, this is a very good film. Roger Ebert seemed to hate David Lynch, besides giving a thumbs up to Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive. He was definitely wrong about this movie, it is a deserving classic. Gene was spot on.
Roger Ebert is dead wrong here: she knew the script, it was shot in a way that served the script and story, and those scenes are pivotal points to the story. Roger's wrong, Siskel is right
No he wasn't. Have you ever seen his review on silence of the lambs and taxi driver. There just opinions and you need to respect it. I guarantee once you see his reviews of good movies you'll start changing your opinion. Everyone's going to hate a film that everyone likes, it doesn't mean that completely makes all their other opinions invalid.
Agreed. But he's also given his share of bad reviews to brilliant films. For example, I thought it was fucking lame that he said The Terminator looked cheap, he obviously didn't do much homework on the film. It was low budget and very original for cinema at that time.
The characters and actors are absolutely convincing to perfection. It’s as if David tries to see the light in the darkness, and the darkness in the light.
Ebert is waaay condescending in this review. Look at how Isabella Rossellini talks about working on the film. Ebert suggesting she’s somehow Lynch’s ‘victim’ is ridiculous.
I thought roger ebert was one of the most respected film critics of all time.. How in fucks name does he not realise what a masterpiece this movie is? He didn't like it because it made him uncomfortable? what a weak reason
He didn't like Blade Runner's plot&characters but he praised the visuals of Spawn and claimed it was visually one of the greatest movies of all time along with Metropolis and Blade Runner (and even talked about it being art in his written review). You don't know how hilarious that is if you haven't seen how fucking ugly and outdated the CGI in Spawn is (I've got the clip uploaded on my channel).
90sgamer92 Spawn = shit. Blade Runner is a sacred masterpiece. Ebert gave the worst reviews to some of the most influential and important films in cinematic history.
The irony of Ebert's reaction to this film is that he was good buddies and co-writer with Russ Meyer; yes, Russ "I love titties" Meyer. It's incredibly hypocritical of Ebert to criticize Lynch for humiliiating an actress when he literally wrote the script for a cheap camp sex movie like "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls."
Siskel was on the right track. The reason the day scenes were campy and silly wasn't just to "throw the audience off", it was to contrast the seedy underground world of the night. The whole movie is about two worlds existing at once within the same town.
Definitely, and this disorienting clash in tone is characteristic of Lynch’s best work. This film followed two movies (Eraserhead and Dune) where Lynch was trying to do very different things, so I can sort of forgive Ebert for not recognizing in Blue Velvet that these were conscious stylistic choices… as he hadn’t yet established his signature. It seems lost on Siskel here as well, whose praise of the film seems to rest entirely on its success simply as an engaging thriller and without any note of films’s surreal, dream like elements.
Yep, this is exactly right
Nice, well done
it’s about the life of an sexually abused woman! the reviews were because you didn’t get it!!!!
Absolutely right. It's a theme that is expanded more on in Twin Peaks.
The rare occasion where Siskel nails it and Ebert I think is too sensitive. Still, I agree with everyone who bemoans the fact that we don't have this kind of dynamic duo debating movies intelligently anymore. I really miss them.
It was usually the other way around.
Watch RedLetterMedia's Re:view programme. Far more serious than their main show and very informative and intelligent.
Yes, I second this. RedLetterMedia in general is great but their Re:view show is excellent if you happen to not like their particular sense of humour.
At the time, S&E had been working together for 10 years and they had become really good together. In their early days they looked uncomfortable on TV as you would expect. So anyone who wants to be as good as S&E just has to work long and hard. I wouldn't say this kind of wit and skills don't exist anymore. But very few could've lasted over 10 years on this kind of TV show then and now, that's for sure.
"Dynamic duo debating movies intelligently"? I didn't see any evidence of that. This was a pretty boring and mundane take. I know it was five minutes, but they just seem like two average blokes to be honest.
Funny how Ebert doesn't mention The Elephant Man, just Eraserhead and Dune - after all, The Elephant Man was nominated for eight Oscars...
I guess Elephant Man isn't what you would call a typical Lynch film (aside from the intro) but Eraserhead and Dune are.
Maybe Roger Ebert did not like David Lynch
@Joshua McGillivray I don't think he liked "Eraserhead" though, at least, not in the 80's.
@Joshua McGillivray I watched his actual review of "Eraserhead" sometime in the 80's and he and Siskel both panned it (Siskel moreso). Maybe he changed his mind later on?
@Roger Edgerton um, he had done all of four films at this point. I don't think it's coincidence that he didn't mention the film with a ton of Oscar nominations.
The nudity in “Blue Velvet” is there to disgust us, not to titilate. We end up feeling for Rosolini’s character.
Nailed it. You are exactly right. Lynch is no pervert.
I concur. There is nothing sexual about Isabella's nude scenes. She is a victim of Hopper's character's depravity. And as Gene said she agreed to perform the part
This film is very unusual and has peculiarities but is still very intriguing and memorable.
i know Im pretty off topic but do anyone know of a good website to watch newly released series online ?
@Cain Alejandro I watch on flixzone. You can find it on google =)
@Kristopher Phoenix Yup, have been watching on flixzone for since april myself :D
Gene Siskel for the win. Roger Ebert let his own nuances try and direct someone else's vision, whereas Siskel rightly allowed the artist to do his thing without questioning his motives.
Michael Steven Martin Always question motive.
Rachel Kern Point taken, but sometimes in the arts you just have to "let it flow" and not interpret everything to death as some do. Cheers.
Touche. I'm a graphic designer so I hear that!
Absolutely. Siskel had it 100% right on this one, in my opinion. And I usually agree with Roger Ebert, but not this time.
Rachel Kern Questioning motives is for police and psychologists, not critics. Critics are supposed to appraise art with objectivity. When you say, "Always question motives," suspicion is implied, and that's the domain of subjectivity. A critic should be disinterested, and as such, he should be unconcerned with an artist's motives. He should concern himself only with the art itself.
The scene that Ebert is so upset about here was actually a big part of the inspiration for Blue Velvet because David Lynch and a friend one time as young boys witnessed a naked woman walking down a street, and they did not giggle or point, they knew instantly that something was terribly wrong there, and they cried. That moment remained with Lynch in his mind, and he included it in the film because it was so moving to him. Isabella Rossellini was aware of that memory because David Lynch clued her in on it when the film was made.
Blue Velvet remains an important and amazing movie, an experience that spins an irresistible web of danger, romance, mystery, evil and beauty. This review of Roger's is proof that sometimes a critic completely misses the boat and is left on the shore ... by himself.
thank you for the story!
@@yinghanfu9047 Happy to share it.
Ebert comes off as a white knight
He knows, he interviewed Lynch and asked about that very scene and got that very answer. He still doesn’t care for it, I honestly don’t know why in this case but still it’s worth noting
@@mosquerajoseph7305 Thank you
Ebert says don't see Blue Velvet? FUCK THAT SHIT!!! PABST BLUE RIBBON!!!
Fuck every comment up until this one :-)
YEEEEEEEEEAH
I don’t drink PBR.
But I often think that response.
If the moods right and fits the context it’s a great quiet“Freudian Slip”.
"...I think this is a good song." Siskel, at the end, for the win!!
God bless Siskel
I tend to agree with Ebert more than Gene, but this is one where I'm with Siskel. Blue Velvet is a great, edgy thriller.
When the worst words in the history of the world are announced, "edgy" will be a nominee.
A friend of mine recommended this movie to mecwhen it was still in the cinema but added “don’t bring your girlfriend “.
Just watched it. It fucking sucked ass
@@LiterallyGod No ma'am.
You are beyond wrong.
Again.
@@joelbizzell1386 literally nothing happened. Like omg a naked lady wow.
What's intriguing is how Ebert laments Rosselini's treatment in the film, yet she considers Lynch to have been the love of her life.
Take that Elbert lol
@@sweetsongstress7398 this cracks me up. 😂
Having it happy and funny during the day is a good juxtaposition to the nastiness and evil that happens at night
It wasn't happy and funny, it was a façade of small-town virtue and wholesomeness, covering up the seedy criminal underbelly. The idea's cliché now, but at the time it was a novel concept.
@@arglbargl I was just thinking that, that 'idea' may seem old now but back then it was something new and original, that's why people liked the movie so much, now i think it's dated and an empty experience, but in 1986 i probably would have loved it.
I agree with Siskel on this one, but let's not forget he disliked Taxi Driver and Ebert raved about it. Both are landmark films.
I think this is the good thing about this show. They can exchange ideas, this is a respectable thing for both, whether they like the movie or not, they are being fair to it by allowing someone else's voice.
The problem is... too often when one of them liked something, the other would then pick it apart just to create an argument and get viewers hooked into watching their show. Or vice versa... praise something a bit more than perhaps they should because the other one had just torn it down in advance.
They knew if they agreed all the time it would make for a dull show and fewer people would watch. I'm not saying they lied about their opinion of a movie just to play devil's advocate, but they certain exaggerated in a direction that would create the most conflict. Trying to mimic narrative structure in their review show for interest creation.
Taxi Driver is overrated the more I watch it. Blue Velvet, while a lot different, is a better movie by some measure.
@Qwerty123 Actually, he's not.
Siskel changed his mind on Taxi Driver and said it was one of the best films of 1976.
The worst thing you can say about a film is that you don't recall a lot about it. If a film leaves you happy, sad, angry,frightened or disturbed it has done it's job. In that regard Blue Velvet is a home run.
It's disturbing to say the least, highlighted by Hopper's brilliant performance as Frank Booth, who is high on my list of most evil characters in movie history. Not all masterpieces leave you feeling warm and fuzzy, Blue Velvet is a prime example of that.
+GasCityGuy Well said, especially since I usually say the exact same thing...about books.
As for this review, Ebert couldn't be more wrong.
Finely somebody gets it.
@@dabunnyrabbit2620 *Finally
I actually think the movie has a very happy and satisfying ending when dorothy is reunited with her son. This is one of the greatest most creative movies i have ever seen.
David lynch, thanks but no thanks, he's always making the same thing, twin peaks over and over and over ad nauseum
"He better get some music that's worth listening to."
"I think this is a good song."
Siskel, you're a quick one aren't you. Totally agreed.
Chris HP Le They were both quick in their ways - And didn't feel the need to arbitrarily tie every movie they reviewed to the current political landscape, if you can imagine that.
Honestly the campy dialogue really heightens the mood in the film. The Daylight scenes are simple and seem like a campy romantic comedy, while the night scenes show the underbelly, the dark side of the happy little town and the darker nature of its inhabitants. It really shows the parallels from the two sides of the town, similar to how Lynch portrays his other famous lumber town in Twin Peaks. This is a motif with lynch contrasting his dark surreal sense of humor with a Leave-it-to-Beaver-esque neighborhood and the intense Horrific underbelly of the town that comes out at night.
It's amazing that Ebert didn't get that when the OPENING SCENES show a bright sunlit town, and then the camera goes down into the grass to show the rotten insects lurking right out of sight. It sets the whole thing up, the contrast you state in your comment is all there, and Ebert misses the inherent duality in the whole thing.
I love Blue Velvet but I also love Roger Ebert. Rest in Peace Siskel & Ebert.
You don't love Siskel?
I think she already loves Siskel
Ebert got played like a piano by Lynch and he doesn’t even know it.
Also known as Lynch's Sonata in E minor.
He’s dead so you’re right, he doesn’t
@@davidking4838 You may think it’s funny but it’s Sonat.
@@JayAr709 Okay.....but is it still funny?
How so when there's no much story to Lynch's work? If anything most of his work comes off as ''pornographic meditations'' and nothing more lol Plus all Lynch talks about is meditation so maybe he thinks nudity and meditation goes together who knows?
I saw "Blue Velvet" at the theater back in '86. I went into it cold, not knowing a thing about it. Blew me away! Still the single greatest moviegoing experience of my life.
Have u seen hitchcock or kubricks movies?
@@wirdjadochnichts Oh, yes. Those cats were gods. They belong on the Mt. Rushmore of filmmakers, along with Welles, Chaplin, Ford. "2001," "A Clockwork Orange" and "Paths of Glory" are among my favorite Kubrick films, and "Rear Window," "Psycho," and "Rope" are some of my favorites from The Master. What are some of your favorites?
@@guidosanchez5695 Well i also like the ones that you mentioned. I also loved the shining, psycho, frenzy, vertigo, dr. strange.
I hated blue velvet tho i think lynch is a little overrated ^^
Ebert on the wrong side again. Weird take on an actress having to do uncomfortable things on screen. It’s almost like…she’s an actress.
oh hi Gman i didnt expect to see you here , David lynch is doing something here connecting people
Now you know how I felt when you reviewed Sigil.
old mate Gman!
Ironic mr digeridoobies talking about critics being on the wrong side of something on yet another reddit link
Ebert was entitled to his opinion he didnt have to like the film. He didnt like many Lynch films. However i think the film is great but it does make you feel very uneasy watching it particularly Hoppers performance which was frightning. I am big David Lynch fan but there was one time i think he took it too far with violence and that was Wild At Heart and id youve seen it you will know what scene im talking about.
Best closing line for a movie review ever: “I think this is a good song”
Ebert wasn't always right, I mean he gave A Clockwork Orange two stars
Why people can't understand that a clockwork orange is very hard to watch for some people? Is it obligatory to like it? No,but it deserves admiration. It's not FOR everyone.
+1997residente It's not hard to watch, it was just ahead of it's time. If you have a hard time watching clockwork orange you're probably the type of person who needs a trigger warning for reality, hell a lot of people getting upset over this video probably needed the trigger warning "an old dead irrelevant asshole has an unpopular opinion about one of the greatest movies ever made."
But clockwork orange is for everyone, kubrick in general wasn't well regarded in his own time, the controversial nature of that film in particular had nothing to do with it. Is it obligatory to like it? No. But it has nothing to do with the subject matter-to say that is to jump back half a century in time where sex and ultraviolence were still a touchy topic. Grow up, the only reason today not to like clockwork orange is that you aren't' into art house films, there's nothing edgy left about it
+David Topchiev holy shit. you are like the definition of a tryhard. try less bro
+Michael Blackshire Ebert was critical of movies that he considered sensationalist or needlessly violent. I'm pretty sure he blasted Fight Club as well. I don't blame him for being repelled by certain aspects of these films but I think he could be a bit shallow at times.
+Ya Whatever lol nice response
Siskel is 1,000X more on point here than Ebert, and the fact that this actress responded to Ebert's concerns and said something like "I'm fine. I was acting. What you saw was all pretend." was brilliant!
I think u missed what he acutally said. He said, that he doesnt want to see something like this UNLESS it has a point. But it had none. A lot of people hype this movie because these scenes are shocking, but u can get the same feeling by watching violent pornography instead. I dont want lynch to get away with "well in the end the movie is about how its all a facade and this is whats underneath".
@@wirdjadochnichts It has to be shocking and grotesque for that message to come across though.
@@zeltzamer4010 Yeah, but how much sense this scene itself makes? Lynch just brings back something he experienced as a child, that's about it. Perhaps he just wanted to see Rossellini fully nude? Could it be this trivial? And the poor & naive Lynch artsy fartsy fanbase keeps overhyping this as being valid etc. lol
@@jeshkam Makes quite a lot of sense in that context. Also it’s funny, intentionally. Kyle MacLachlan finally gets together with Laura Dern and a completely naked lady shows up and starts talking about him putting his disease in her.
@@jeshkamhe was in a relationship with her so he could see her nude pretty much anytime 😂
The reaction Ebert had is exactly why this film is so good.
Why is a film being uncomfortable to watch a bad thing?
In all the films ive watched in my life I would say Blue Velvet is at the very least in the top 5, its creepy, leaves you on edge, questioning everyday life, distrusting, and feeling absolutely filthy. Its quite simply brilliant.
AdmiralBlake You should read some of the negative Uncut Gems reviews. They’re hilarious.
I respect Ebert, but he's being a total hypocrite. What about what he did to John Lazar in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls? That was completely arbitrary and shocking for shock's sake and actually ended Lazar's career. Isabella Rossellini knew what she was getting into, and this film cemented her status as a great actress.
What did he do to John Lazar?
yeah, what happened?
what happened?
I just posted a comment saying the same thing that you had observed seven years ago.
Where in Blue Velvet is "campy and adolescent dialog"? Siskel is right. Ebert is wrong.
+Barry Strickland It has heaps of cringy dialogue which could be interpreted as campy and adolescent. What Ebert might not realise is Lynch wanted it this way.
Exactly. Lynch wrote it like that to reflect the trite and simplistic stereotypes of Americana. The gang members are by far the most complex characters in the film for a reason.
In fact, Ebert was pretty aware that it was an artistic license from Lynch, he actually makes his point in a more articulate way in his review. But that doesn't justify the argument either, by punctuating the film with deliberately corn dialogues, Lynch didn't intend to minimize the raw realism of the sex scenes, I think it is more a statement about the baffling naivety of the two young protagonists who try as hard as they can to believe that the world is (or should be) all sunshine and rainbow and the perfect incarnation of the American Dream (while it's not). Yet even this vision of America is handled in a beautifully and poetic way, showing that Lynch didn't just want to make a psychological thriller. I think Ebert got the 'dark' part of the film right but not the other... and you can't properly judge the film if you don't get both of them. Anyway, he's just babbling in this review, his written one was more constructive.
PABST BLUE RIBBON! But personally, I think campy dialogue is an instrumental part of David Lynch's movies. It creates a sort of atmosphere where you feel safe as a viewer because the movie is entertaining and making you laugh, and then randomly the whole facade is dropped (see the audition scene in Mulholland Drive for a perfect example of this). A lot of times it's hard to tell if a director is doing this on purpose, so I can forgive Ebert's criticism of the campy dialogue.
Why is there so much wrong in this world? Do you know the chicken walk? King of beers.
To be honest, I respect Ebert's work through the years, but never really liked his bitchy winey attitude about the edgier themes explored by some films. Siskel should've said more because he was very very right.
It's funny, both of these two have done stuff like this. Like Siskel would often whine about movies that had violence for being too violent, too.
Of course your defending the guy who hated Taxi Driver (although I'm sure he went on to like it), Scarface , Silence of the Lambs...all of which Roger gave thumbs up.
+J Lock, you're allowed to not like those movies (I personally think Scarface is pretty so-so, if fun). I bet I could point out acclaimed films you didn't like, but that wouldn't make your judgement any more or less questionable. I don't like Inception. Does that make me a moron that doesn't understand the brilliance of cinema? Well, I hope not. Downplaying the weight of emotions in our response to movies is the worst thing possible for film criticism, because there's only so much technical merit can do for a movie. What ultimately decides whether or not we not only like a movie, but think it's good, comes from within.
You obviously haven't seen some of Siskel's bitchy whiny reviews, particularly of films like Copycat, which he dumped on for that very reason.
Siskel used to clutch his pearls whenever a movie put a child character in danger
Pay attention to this line: "We can't divorce our reactions. It's not about how isabella rosalini reacts to the fact that she's standing their nude and humilated on the lawn of the police captain's house with people watching. It's about how *I* react. And that's painful to me to see a woman treated like that and I want to know that if I'm feeling that pain that it's for a reason that the movie has other than to simply cause pain to her." It's about the pain it causes YOU, not HER. He completely missed the point even though he just said it. Sooo close and yet so far.
indeed
yup
Exactly
Obviously he couldn’t attain that suspension of disbelief. Fair enough. But yes, the film is supposed to be a brutal experience-for the audience. You want sadism to actors? Watch The Shining or a Kinski flick.
@@jordil6152 wait are you addressing me or ebert, because i dont believe rosilini was being tortured like in shelley duval was or anyone in a kinski film, so im not sure why youd be addressing me
Siskel had a very insightful voice for the praise of Blue Velvet. The film is about 33 years old, I've only watched it for 10 years, and it really hasn't lost its touch as a standout breakthrough in American independent cinema. It's a bizarre and nightmarish journey from slick small town life into its darker dirtier underbelly that's testing the young hero's boundaries and confronting the dangers of voyeurism and lust. It's a strong film that says something about those darker sides and how they clash with the idyllic rosy existence of safety and innocence.
I really respect ebert as a critic but i rarely agree with him
Yeah I tend to agree with Siskel a lot more
They were both idiots.. and are both RIP. They should stick to REVIEWING movies instead of criticizing them.
That's was their job!! Reviewing movies, and criticizing them, are one and the same.
well.. kind of... but movie critics have become irrelevant because they are no help in selecting a movie anymore.
if you rarely agree with him, how can you respect him as a critic?
“Certainly in non-porno roles...”
Haha thanks for the clarification, Roger.
gene got it. thats what lynch does here. he digs beneath the beautiful veneer of the suburbs and finds the ugly side of people. he later explored it thoroughly in twin peaks.
Ebert's sentiments while genuine and heartfelt are just completely off base when reviewing "Blue Velvet"
though i enjoyed the Siskel Ebert show when it started There was nothing like it at times. i have to say they both came off as simpletons with limited knowledge . On a Jay Leno show when Jay gave them a trivia quiz on films. They did not even know or recognize that hideous demon from Night of the Demon
Ebert was WAY too hung up about "poor" Isabella Rossellini -she knew what she was getting into and no one put a gun to her head & said "you have to do this scene, this way, or else..." - Blue Velvet is a classic film and the shocking/disturbing aspects, juxtaposed w/the sunny small town, picturesque view are part of the dynamism of the movie. I always thought Ebert was smarter than that -he sounds like some middle aged church lady who is "shocked, simply shocked" that they could do that in the movie. He makes it sound as if this was a gratuitous scene, when, in fact, it was directly related to what was going on in the film, both manifestly and symbolically.
Yeah. It sounds as if he wants to prohibit all depictions of women being mistreated, as if that wasn’t a relevant topic for a movie.
It must all be women superheroes.
This is the review that boosted my respect for Siskel. Both Siskel and Ebert bounce off each other and take turns being the sensitive boy.
It's a sick depraved masterpiece.
Life really gets this seedy at all hours.
One of the few times I actually agreed with both Siskel and Ebert, acknowledging the fact that they had two totally different opinions of the movie.
That either speaks volumes of David Lynch, or these two critics. Such as a movie should do. Spark intense debate and uncertainty about every facet concerning its sexuality and its violence. This confrontation actually makes me think more deeply about the film than I ever have, simply because of Gene's comparisons to Psycho...
This is one of their best collaborative reviews I've ever seen.
And I'm in total agreement with your take on their disagreement. I felt exactly the same after watching the movie and then listening to them here.
This past fall I showed parts of Blue Velvet to my filmmaking class. This is a generation that supposedly had seen it all. But they were absolutely shocked by what they saw. It was shocking in 1986 and still is today.
Show them acutal violent pornography and they ll respond the same way. This movie is overrated because it did something back then what a lot of movies didnt. That doesnt make it a good movie.
@@wirdjadochnichtsagreed.
@@wirdjadochnichtsI don't think anyone is arguing that the shock value is what makes Blue Velvet a good movie
I think Ebert thinks he was played like a piano, he doesn't understand how, when, or why. So he bashes the movie just in case, so we can all feel the same way and problem solved democratically.
I miss these guys. Ebert was a talented writer, too. If Siskel said it was good I usually liked the movie. He had a 95% accuracy, for me.
ebert pls
Jesus Christ, Ebert. Its a fuckin' movie not a snuff film.
He wishes it was a snuff film. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls was his script.
Undressed and humiliated? This is coming from the guy who wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" with Russ Meyer... interesting.
Boy I am glad someone brought that shit up. Roger has a lot of gall criticizing any screenplay after being credited for that pile of flaming shit. I heard him years later responding to a question about that film that he was proud of it
Russ Meyer must have had pictures of Roger with gerbils or worse.
@@kevinmcdonald6477 Another example of why Hypocrisy in Media is destroying the West. It's like that great meme where a woman is laughing at the people getting pies thrown in their face, but when she gets hit in the face, she goes home to write a article about Comedy becoming too offensive and disgusting.
He's a smart man but that Virtue Signaling Lie seems to Strong for anyone remotely close to hollywood.
@@countfloydschillerhorrorth2090 I agree with you he was shamelessly virtue signaling and they both were culpable of doing shit like that on the show throughout the years not just Ebert,but near the end of the program they started changing their mind and denouncing this type of political correctness.
@@countfloydschillerhorrorth2090 you can't talk about the "decline of the west" while also vaguely describing a meme you saw on social media
@@bigboysdotcom745 WTF you talking about I can't talk about it, I just did. And a Meme perfectly describes this day and age with their two second brainspan and total incomprehension and lack of self awareness that makes them Instant Hypocrites on nearly any topic they pretend to care and whine about.
Stick to your 2 line twits ya twit. Anything more than that is bound to get you out of your comfort zone.
Just watched it for the first time. It's a masterpiece. Perfect length and it had my full attention from start to finish. Siskel was spot on. I have to say after watching most of their reviews I think I agree slightly more with Siskel's opinion. I think he's right about 80 percent of the time where as I agree with Ebert about 60 65 percent.
what a great duo these two were. I'm with Gene here, but you can't dismiss Roger's sentiments either. a thoughtful, intelligent, and witty discussion, as always with these two. I miss them.
I discovered that if one looks a little closer at this beautiful world, there are always red ants underneath.
I remember when this film first came out. Johnny Carson literally took five minutes to chastise it. After his monologue he came back sitting at his desk. He went on to say how disgusting and depraved the movie was. His biggest grip was that it was set in a small town in the midwest, the same kind he grew up in. The notion that anything bad could happen in his home town really made him crazy. I wish UA-cam had that moment but I can't find it. He also told his audience not to bother seeing it and he walked out.
Boy oh boy was Carson off. Just think about how small towns are where you'll find the most meth use.
Carson was a mean drunk as well as routinely abusing his sidekick Ed McMahon. I wonder if maybe he saw the dark side in himself?
One of the few times I've disagreed with Ebert. I also disagree with his review of 'A Clockwork Orange' and 'Howl's Moving Castle'
yikes their footage was really bad back then. just saw the movie on blu-ray last week, looked great.
"Blue Velvet" is a masterpiece: a disturbing one, but an unforgettable masterpiece all the same. The sweet innocence of a young Laura Dern contrasted with Dennis Hopper's maniacal Frank is like night and day, which themselves are contrasted in this film to show how different a community can be when daylight fades to darkness.
When they are in the car and Machlachan punches Hopper, the look on Hopper's face was pricelessly wicked.
A great mind in movies, and yet failed the litmus test for appreciating the strange possibilities of cinema.
Mr. Ebert seems to review the movie like an overconcerned father of the leading actress. "Can't see the wood for the trees".Isabella Rossellini played her part, just as the story demanded of her, and did it very well.
Isabella Rossellini dated Lynch seriously. They were clearly very into each other.
a lot of people didn't get blue velvet in 1986...but directors got it & said to themselves: fuck, this david lynch guy is 100 years ahead of us all.
I don’t know how Roger Ebert saw Blue Velvet as a comedy.
"If somebody wants to play me like a piano, he'd better get some music that's worth listening to."
Damn that was a good quick-witted retort by Ebert. I wish I could come up with a response that snappy and sharp off the top of my head.
1.)Opening Scene the evil army like bugs beneath the surface of this Small, Post Card Town America bubbling to the surface.
2.)The Scene where Laura Dern talks about her dream about the robins and how they represent love overcoming the darkness
3.)Ending Scene: The Shot of the Robin with the beetle it its mouth
Brilliant simplicity.
This feels weirdly patronizing - both of these dudes seem to suggest that the actress was either forced to take the role, or that she was "too ignorant" to understand what she was doing like she's some kind of child. I don't know, for some reason it just feels uncomfortable for both of them to speak of a grown actress that way.
Definitely with Siskel here. I think it's a GREAT song. Such beauty, power, and humor in that film.
Easily one of their best exchanges. I understand where both are coming from when experiencing this film.
"And I think he got you!" -Siskel
exactly
I rewatched this on Blu Ray recently. It was the right decision to cut parts early in the story showing Kyle at college and returning home.
I rewatched it recently. I was expecting dated cheese. The movie is legit. It takes noir and injects ugliness. It's cool but makes you feel uneasy about thinking it is. Siskel got it.
Exactly.
It's a sick twisted masterpiece.
This kinda shit and worse really happens.
And about the dialogue, thats the real world jack, when you deal with that kind of people you dont hear Shakespeare.
i'd like to send Ebert a love letter...... straight from my heart fucker. lol
I wish I could just like this comment.
+mackychloe He's dead.
People being tortured and killed, A-OK with Ebert. A woman standing naked on a lawn with people looking at her... the movie becomes unwatchable!!
I thought Lynch got this scene from an occurrence he had as a child where he saw a nude woman wandering outside and was frightened by it.
During that scene the last thing I want to do is laugh, it's intended to make you feel uncomfortable. He takes you on an emotional rollercoaster like great filmmakers do. As for the abuse being a turn on for Dorthy, has Ebert ever heard of S&M? Many women are into that, sometimes more so than men. A book series about that became a bestseller for women, written by a woman. And is it possible that a victim could be conditioned to enjoy the abuse they continuously endure as a means of survival?
+captainpungent Lynch was into cringe before there was even a word for it.
Ebert missed the point. During the debate, he calls the movie a comedy, which it isn't. (Unless I'm missing out on some esoteric film usage of the word.) Lynch frequently injects humor and naive sentimentality to utilize relief and innocence as a foil for his exploration of the dark underbelly of the human experience. He yearns for the beauty of nostalgic America, while recognizing it's corruption. I saw this movie alone and walked out stunned at it's artistry and I thought about it obsessively for three days straight. Could not get it out of my mind. No other movie has transported me to a place like that, internally.
he confused comedy with campiness which was supposed to add to the overall creepiness to Hopper
What "campy comedy" scenes are he referring to? I can't think of any. I guess I gave to watch it again!
@@sumyunguy4150 the over the top nature of Frank Booth is what I presume.
@@hipsterelephant2660 I don't think Frank Booth could ever be considered comedy or camp.. I'm thinking maybe more like Kyle McLaughlin's Chicken Walk scene, maybe..
I wonder if, years later, Ebert changed his mind about this film given David Lynch's brilliant filmography
It seems that Roger Ebert has forgotten that he wrote the script for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
Ebert was being patronising. To quote Isabella Rossalini: ''That is suggesting that David Lynch used me or photographed me badly to ruin my reputation. I resent that because first of all I think it would hurt his feelings. But also it takes away from me, from my judgment. It says that I'm so helpless that a director can make me do something I don't want to do. I'm not a kid. I understood the film. It's beyond that - I loved it.''
Siskel was always the my favorite of the two, but I think their open discussions were a good thing for movie criticism no matter who you tend to side with. No matter which I agreed with, they discussed things respectfully in a way nobody seems capable of in the age of twitter.
My fav part is when Ebert says "If a guy wants to play me like a piano he better get some music thats worth listening to". Rather ironic now that Lynch has put out an album.
I have to say, Ebert is being a good moral guy here, but his reasons are inaccurate.
"Cruelly unfair to its actors"? Really? It's unfair to feature them in some of the most unforgettable scenes in the history of cinema?
I'm a little surprised. If the movie shook him that hard, I'd call it a success. Somebody said "art becomes art not when it's good or great, but when it absolutely can't be ignored". I don't know about that, but I do know "Blue Velvet" is a masterpiece.
Ebert had exactly the reaction to Isabella's character (naked on the front lawn) as was intended.
According to Lynch it was a kind of re-enactment of when he and his brother saw something similar in his neighborhood as a child. He said it scared him. It's supposed to make you very uncomfortable and it worked amazingly well on Ebert (and myself).
It's just a shame that while this kind of discomfort is well accepted in film these days, Ebert just couldn't get behind it because he had such an emotional experience to it - though of course he and Siskel could have been playing "good cop, bad cop" to cater to both audiences but he seemed so passionate about it I kinda doubt that.
I find it so ironic that Lynch intended us to feel exactly as Ebert did about that scene ... horrified.
As far as i know Isabella wasn't forced to do anything.
After seeing this movie, I could never hear "In Dreams" the same way ever.
Blue Velvet = Good song. Solid review
I agree with Siskel here, this is a very good film. Roger Ebert seemed to hate David Lynch, besides giving a thumbs up to Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive. He was definitely wrong about this movie, it is a deserving classic. Gene was spot on.
He loved The Straight Story.
4:52 Ebert: why is it a
comedy?
Huh?? When was this film ever presented as a comedy?
Dark humour, like "Yup - that's a human ear!"
Actually, it is pretty funny... and Pauline Kael (in her very positive review) said it was a comedy.
"Heineken? F*** that s***! Past Blue Ribbon!" -- Frank Booth
Roger Ebert is dead wrong here: she knew the script, it was shot in a way that served the script and story, and those scenes are pivotal points to the story. Roger's wrong, Siskel is right
Siskel W, Ebert L. Though I don't blame Ebert for reacting the way he did. But Siskel got this one right
Siskel was so much smarter than Ebert.
No he wasn't. Have you ever seen his review on silence of the lambs and taxi driver. There just opinions and you need to respect it. I guarantee once you see his reviews of good movies you'll start changing your opinion. Everyone's going to hate a film that everyone likes, it doesn't mean that completely makes all their other opinions invalid.
Agreed. But he's also given his share of bad reviews to brilliant films. For example, I thought it was fucking lame that he said The Terminator looked cheap, he obviously didn't do much homework on the film. It was low budget and very original for cinema at that time.
Luke Nance I think you either love or hate 'Taxi Driver.'
Would have liked to see an ebert siskel discussion on Inland empire
it’s unfair to that woman and it doesn’t matter how she feels about her role it matters I feel about her role. Right wing feminism explained.
You have a good point, but Roger was definitely a liberal.
I would've loved to have seen Siskel & Ebert review Twin Peaks since it was essentially an episodic version of Blue Velvet.
Dat repartee. Where are their modern day equivalents?
You ever see their review of Full Metal Jacket or Cop n a Half?
Roger Ebert is wrong so often... not sure why he is praised so much for his reviews.
Check out their 1976 review of Taxi Driver. Almost the exact same arguments are made only Roger is pro and Gene is con. I find it interesting.
R.I.P Dennis Hooper👼❤
The characters and actors are absolutely convincing to perfection. It’s as if David tries to see the light in the darkness, and the darkness in the light.
Ebert is waaay condescending in this review. Look at how Isabella Rossellini talks about working on the film. Ebert suggesting she’s somehow Lynch’s ‘victim’ is ridiculous.
These two guys were the best most gifted reviewers.
Frank Booth - greatest sicko villian of all time
Hopper gave a terrific performance.
It’s crazy that all actual good films nowadays are all independent films mostly that come from small time directors and writers
I thought roger ebert was one of the most respected film critics of all time..
How in fucks name does he not realise what a masterpiece this movie is?
He didn't like it because it made him uncomfortable? what a weak reason
He didn't like Blade Runner's plot&characters but he praised the visuals of Spawn and claimed it was visually one of the greatest movies of all time along with Metropolis and Blade Runner (and even talked about it being art in his written review). You don't know how hilarious that is if you haven't seen how fucking ugly and outdated the CGI in Spawn is (I've got the clip uploaded on my channel).
90sgamer92
Sometimes he was wrong, but he was a hell of a critic and a great writer on the art and industry of cinema.
90sgamer92 Spawn = shit. Blade Runner is a sacred masterpiece. Ebert gave the worst reviews to some of the most influential and important films in cinematic history.
***** Nope. Movie is great. Viscerally effective while sustaining a quizzical emotional distance.
***** so is 2001 a space odyssey.
The irony of Ebert's reaction to this film is that he was good buddies and co-writer with Russ Meyer; yes, Russ "I love titties" Meyer. It's incredibly hypocritical of Ebert to criticize Lynch for humiliiating an actress when he literally wrote the script for a cheap camp sex movie like "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls."