Why Roger Ebert Couldn’t Handle the Truth in David Lynch’s ‘Blue Velvet’

by

I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around the fact that David Lynch, this incredible surrealist, is no longer among us. Few contemporary filmmakers could match his unique, impactful style that resonated with an entire generation of directors. There wasn’t anyone else in the industry who could so skillfully merge 1950s kitsch with haunting visuals, all while dancing on the fine line between campy humor and a disconcertingly eerie ambiance. At the core of his work was a lifelong exploration of the delicate balance between light and darkness in our daily lives, how they intersect, and their profound influence on each other.

Among Lynch’s numerous masterpieces, none quite encapsulated that distinctive dynamic like the film “Blue Velvet“. Initially drawing controversy for its graphic sexual content, it was still highly praised by critics, marking a comeback for Dennis Hopper and a launching pad for both Kyle MacLachlan and Isabella Rossellini. However, despite being hailed as one of the greatest films ever made today, “Blue Velvet” has had its detractors, perhaps most notably the late, esteemed Roger Ebert.

Why Did Roger Ebert Hate ‘Blue Velvet’?

Although Roger Ebert is often recognized as one of the most influential film critics in history, known for his focus on populism and emotion within an elite-dominated field, it’s important to note that he wasn’t infallible. He didn’t shy away from going against the grain at times, even giving unfavorable reviews to films now regarded as classics such as Fight Club, Full Metal Jacket, and The Usual Suspects. Interestingly, he was also the sole major critic who defended the much-maligned film Cop and a Half.

However, among all his reviews, none sparked as much debate as his scathing critique of Blue Velvet. He found the film utterly repugnant, awarding it just one star and criticizing David Lynch for tackling disturbing themes in a manner he deemed overly sarcastic. While he acknowledged the acting prowess of the cast, he argued, “The erotic content in Blue Velvet is so unsettling, and Isabella Rossellini’s performance is so authentic and brave, that it calls for a film that matches its intensity… considering the impact of the darker scenes in this movie, we are all the more disappointed that the director refrains from fully exploring the implications of his observations.

Furthermore, he criticized Lynch’s treatment of Rossellini’s character: “She is degraded, slapped, humiliated on camera, undressed, and subjected to such experiences. It is expected that when you ask an actress to go through these ordeals, you should honor your part of the agreement by casting her in a significant role.” This statement ignited a heated debate with Ebert’s previous co-worker, Gene Siskel, who appreciated Blue Velvet, acknowledging that Rossellini was aware of the material she would portray and willingly agreed to it.

In my perspective, for quite some time, I, too, found myself at odds with the acclaim that enveloped the works of David Lynch. Every film of his, until “The Straight Story” in 1999, received unfavorable remarks from me, as I perceived his creations as merely eccentric for the sake of it. However, my viewpoint underwent a significant shift after penning a glowing review for “Mulholland Dr.” It was then that I truly recognized Lynch’s cinematic prowess. Yet, my disdain for “Blue Velvet” persisted until the end, and I must confess that I occasionally leaned towards moralism when it came to excessively violent content. This was evident in my strong words for films like “Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter,” which I famously branded as an “immoral and reprehensible piece of trash.

Why Roger Ebert Missed the Mark on ‘Blue Velvet’

It’s understandable that Roger Ebert, despite being an esteemed critic, could occasionally misjudge a film. David Lynch’s unconventional filmmaking approach might have been too challenging for Ebert, leading him to possibly confuse his personal feelings towards the films with objective truth. Interestingly, even Ebert seemed to acknowledge this in his later years when he reviewed Mulholland Dr., stating that there was no clear explanation or mystery and that Lynch intentionally pushed the boundaries of what was frustrating in some of his earlier works.

However, it’s not difficult to sense that Ebert may have misjudged “Blue Velvet” in his critique. To start, as Siskel pointed out, it was unjust for Ebert to criticize Lynch for degrading Isabella Rossellini when she voluntarily took on the role and was aware of its content (and Rossellini confirmed this herself). Furthermore, Ebert felt that transitioning from the unsettling sexual scenes to the satirical depiction of 1950s Americana weakened the material’s impact.

The statement you’ve presented couldn’t be more opposite – Lynch’s career has predominantly revolved around portraying tranquil suburban life juxtaposed with the hidden, unsavory aspects lurking beneath. This contrast was strikingly evident in Twin Peaks, where the death of Laura Palmer served as a springboard to uncover the dark mysteries shrouding what appeared to be an idyllic small town. For Lynch, acts of disturbing violence or sexuality were just as integral to life as cherished pie and exceptional coffee. Presenting these contrasts merely mirrored the inherent absurdity that pervades reality itself.

Despite Ebert not fully appreciating the brilliance of Blue Velvet (he might have found it unsettling, just like many viewers), it’s heartening to know that he eventually acknowledged Lynch’s genius. It’s even more inspiring to learn that Blue Velvet is now widely recognized as a masterpiece and one of the gems in the illustrious career of an iconic filmmaker. And guess what? You can catch Blue Velvet streaming on Max right now!

Read More

2025-04-05 18:32