list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Blue Velvet on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Blue_Velvet/3830/default.aspx Title: Blue Velvet
Year: 1986
Director: David Lynch
Plot: Director David Lynch crafted this hallucinogenic mystery-thriller that probes beneath the cheerful surface of suburban America to discover sadomasochistic violence, corruption, drug abuse, crime and perversion. Kyle MacLachlan stars as Jeffrey Beaumont, a square-jawed young man who returns to his picture-perfect small town when his father suffers a stroke. Walking through a field near his home, Jeff discovers a severed human ear, which he immediately brings to the police. Their disinterest sparks Jeff's curiosity, and he is soon drawn into a dangerous drama that's being played out by a lounge singer, Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) and the ether-addicted Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper). The sociopathic Booth has kidnapped Dorothy's young son and is using the child as a bargaining chip to repeatedly beat, humiliate and rape Dorothy. Though he's drawn to the virginal, wholesome Sandy Williams (Laura Dern), Jeff is also aroused by Dorothy and in trying to aid her, he discovers his dark side. As the film nears its conclusion, our hero learns that many more indivduals are tacitly involved with Frank, including a suave, lip-synching singer, Ben (Dean Stockwell), who is minding the kidnapped boy. Director Lynch explored many similar themes of the "disease" lying just under the surface of the small town, all-American façade in his later television series Twin Peaks (1990-91). ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 55
Number of Lists: 67
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 9
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:02:44 GMTBlue Velvet1986David LynchDirector <a href="/players/P___100454/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>David Lynch</a> crafted this hallucinogenic mystery-thriller that probes beneath the cheerful surface of suburban America to discover sadomasochistic violence, corruption, drug abuse, crime and perversion. <a href="/players/P____44254/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kyle MacLachlan</a> stars as Jeffrey Beaumont, a square-jawed young man who returns to his picture-perfect small town when his father suffers a stroke. Walking through a field near his home, Jeff discovers a severed human ear, which he immediately brings to the police. Their disinterest sparks Jeff's curiosity, and he is soon drawn into a dangerous drama that's being played out by a lounge singer, Dorothy Vallens (<a href="/players/P____61690/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Isabella Rossellini</a>) and the ether-addicted Frank Booth (<a href="/players/P____94825/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dennis Hopper</a>). The sociopathic Booth has kidnapped Dorothy's young son and is using the child as a bargaining chip to repeatedly beat, humiliate and rape Dorothy. Though he's drawn to the virginal, wholesome Sandy Williams (<a href="/players/P____18704/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Laura Dern</a>), Jeff is also aroused by Dorothy and in trying to aid her, he discovers his dark side. As the film nears its conclusion, our hero learns that many more indivduals are tacitly involved with Frank, including a suave, lip-synching singer, Ben (<a href="/players/P____68385/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dean Stockwell</a>), who is minding the kidnapped boy. Director Lynch explored many similar themes of the "disease" lying just under the surface of the small town, all-American façade in his later television series <a href=/films/36146/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Twin Peaks</a> (1990-91). ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide55Tag Target (>10)67394http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t18656l90in.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Blue_Velvet/3830/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_17_In_The_Nude/625/37420/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/18/2008 8:43:22 PM
Body: So many to list . . . so how about I go with the most shocking (to me). Julianne Moore / Heather Graham / Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights Kevin Bacon in Wild Things Never have I wanted to rip out my eyes so badly before. Denise Richards in Wild Things Makes up for Kevin Bacon. Kate WInslet in Titanic Jennifer Connelly in Requiem for a Dream Holly Hunter in Crash Mena Suvari in American Beauty Michael Pitt in The Dreamers Kate Hudson in Almost Famous Get your pause buttons ready. Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love Monica Bellucci in Irreversible Laura Harring in Mulholland Dr. Out of the middle of nowhere, BAM! Lesbian Sex Scene! Elizabeth Berkley / Gina Gershon in Showgirls From Saved By The Bell to this. Nice transition. Jaime King in Sin City Vinessa Shaw in Eyes Wide Shut Wait? She was wearing a mask? I didn't notice. Milla Jovovich in The Fifth Element Selma Blair in Storytelling Some people only saw a big black censored square over her. Find the unrated version of the film. Selma Blair in A Dirty Shame So they are obviously fake, but holy &#$%! Uma Thurman in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen So she's almost completely naked. Who cares! Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me They couldn't do that on television! Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation Erika Eleniak in Under Siege Happy Birthday to me! Erika Eleniak in Chasers Amy Adams in Psycho Beach Party Before she was an Academy Award Nominee. Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier Heather Matarazzo in Hostel 2 Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan WOW! Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet Ewan McGregor in Velvet Goldmine Emmanuelle Seigner in The Ninth Gate Straddling Johnny Depp next to a burning castle. Hot! Demi Moore in Striptease I think that's enough for now. And yes, I am a pervert.
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:43:22 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme11/18/2008 8:43:22 PMSo many to list . . . so how about I go with the most shocking (to me). Julianne Moore / Heather Graham / Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights Kevin Bacon in Wild Things Never have I wanted to rip out my eyes so badly before. Denise Richards in Wild Things Makes up for Kevin Bacon. Kate WInslet in Titanic Jennifer Connelly in Requiem for a Dream Holly Hunter in Crash Mena Suvari in American Beauty Michael Pitt in The Dreamers Kate Hudson in Almost Famous Get your pause buttons ready. Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love Monica Bellucci in Irreversible Laura Harring in Mulholland Dr. Out of the middle of nowhere, BAM! Lesbian Sex Scene! Elizabeth Berkley / Gina Gershon in Showgirls From Saved By The Bell to this. Nice transition. Jaime King in Sin City Vinessa Shaw in Eyes Wide Shut Wait? She was wearing a mask? I didn't notice. Milla Jovovich in The Fifth Element Selma Blair in Storytelling Some people only saw a big black censored square over her. Find the unrated version of the film. Selma Blair in A Dirty Shame So they are obviously fake, but holy &amp;#$%! Uma Thurman in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen So she's almost completely naked. Who cares! Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me They couldn't do that on television! Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation Erika Eleniak in Under Siege Happy Birthday to me! Erika Eleniak in Chasers Amy Adams in Psycho Beach Party Before she was an Academy Award Nominee. Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier Heather Matarazzo in Hostel 2 Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan WOW! Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet Ewan McGregor in Velvet Goldmine Emmanuelle Seigner in The Ninth Gate Straddling Johnny Depp next to a burning castle. Hot! Demi Moore in Striptease I think that's enough for now. And yes, I am a pervert. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_September_29_Gimme_Some_Drugs/625/35767/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: unclefestering
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/1/2008 12:59:01 PM
Body: If we're gonna talk about coke, then you have to look at Robert Downey Jr., essentially playing himself in Less Than Zero. I don't think I saw anybody bring up Dennis Hopper and his tanks of nitrous oxide in Blue Velvet. Although I don't remember any body doing drugs in Brick, it all revolved around heroin. Brent Easton Ellis always loves his characters to be using and abusing. I think that they did everything in Rules of Attraction.
]]>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:59:01 GMTunclefesteringWeekly Theme10/1/2008 12:59:01 PMIf we're gonna talk about coke, then you have to look at Robert Downey Jr., essentially playing himself in Less Than Zero. I don't think I saw anybody bring up Dennis Hopper and his tanks of nitrous oxide in Blue Velvet. Although I don't remember any body doing drugs in Brick, it all revolved around heroin. Brent Easton Ellis always loves his characters to be using and abusing. I think that they did everything in Rules of Attraction. http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_Re_We_don_t_need_to_discuss_or_debate_any_furt/104/35273/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 9/18/2008 12:19:01 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="Edmund"] I submit "Blue Velvet" as a nominee for the top spot; again, not because what they did wasn't well done (as some say), but because of what was done.[/quote] What WAS done in Blue Velvet? [/quote] Ha, great question. Doctor Gore aka The Body Shop, a torture porn gore-fest from 1972, was one of the most soul-sucking movies I've ever seen. The most enjoyable moment comes in a special feature as schlock director Herschell Gordon Lewis talks about Doctor Gore writer/director/star J. G. Patterson, Jr. Lewis makes two very charming blunders when he says, "J. G. Patterson is a consummate actor, with implicit stage presence." Lewis pronounces consummate as "con-SUMmit." The movies itself is not charming in the least. You know how a movie can be "so bad it's good" (SOBIG)? I think I grinned for about 45 seconds into Doctor Gore, but by then it explodes through the SOBIG threshhold and was more like SOPLEASETURNITOFFPLEASE. But I'd still watch Doctor Gore a second time over Sydney White, or a Kathleen Turner movie like Undercover Blues! What gives?
]]>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:19:01 GMTSkyPilotWorst Movie Ever9/18/2008 12:19:01 PM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="Edmund"] I submit "Blue Velvet" as a nominee for the top spot; again, not because what they did wasn't well done (as some say), but because of what was done.[/quote] What WAS done in Blue Velvet? [/quote] Ha, great question. Doctor Gore aka The Body Shop, a torture porn gore-fest from 1972, was one of the most soul-sucking movies I've ever seen. The most enjoyable moment comes in a special feature as schlock director Herschell Gordon Lewis talks about Doctor Gore writer/director/star J. G. Patterson, Jr. Lewis makes two very charming blunders when he says, "J. G. Patterson is a consummate actor, with implicit stage presence." Lewis pronounces consummate as "con-SUMmit." The movies itself is not charming in the least. You know how a movie can be "so bad it's good" (SOBIG)? I think I grinned for about 45 seconds into Doctor Gore, but by then it explodes through the SOBIG threshhold and was more like SOPLEASETURNITOFFPLEASE. But I'd still watch Doctor Gore a second time over Sydney White, or a Kathleen Turner movie like Undercover Blues! What gives? http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_August_4_Let_s_Talk_About_Sex/625/33611/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/6/2008 3:21:57 AM
Body: [quote user="Smooth_J"] If you're looking for more sadomasochistic sex, I really dug Videodrome and it's whip cracking protagonist Max Renn, who pierces his woman's ear to get her and him off and is completely turned on by whipping a television set with the image of said woman on it. There's some pretty sick sexual stuff in there. Blue Velvet also explores these realms, but it's not so central to the story and more of an asset to it. My favorite line that demonstrates this is probably "Baby wants to (bleep)! Baby wants to (bleep) Blue Velvet!" There's so many others that are slipping my mind right now--I thorougly enjoyed Cronenberg's scenes in A History of Violence, how the one is so innocent and childish and the later one is so abusive and dominating. Cronenberg seems like the kinda' guy that really does highlight all of the f*ck scenes. [/quote] With Lynch it's Mulholland Dr. all the way. With most of the film being a masturbatorial fantasy (depending on your individual analysis) it should definitely be given an honorable mention. I like Blue Velvet, but Crash (1996) is by far my favorite Cronenberg and I can't believe I left it out of my original post. Considering the DVD I own comes complete with both the R-rated version and an NC-17 version, it's naturally chock full of sex, sex and more sex. A couple of car crashes. Some sex, and some sex after a car crash. Yay for bizarre fetishes.
]]>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:21:57 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme8/6/2008 3:21:57 AM[quote user="Smooth_J"] If you're looking for more sadomasochistic sex, I really dug Videodrome and it's whip cracking protagonist Max Renn, who pierces his woman's ear to get her and him off and is completely turned on by whipping a television set with the image of said woman on it. There's some pretty sick sexual stuff in there. Blue Velvet also explores these realms, but it's not so central to the story and more of an asset to it. My favorite line that demonstrates this is probably "Baby wants to (bleep)! Baby wants to (bleep) Blue Velvet!" There's so many others that are slipping my mind right now--I thorougly enjoyed Cronenberg's scenes in A History of Violence, how the one is so innocent and childish and the later one is so abusive and dominating. Cronenberg seems like the kinda' guy that really does highlight all of the f*ck scenes. [/quote] With Lynch it's Mulholland Dr. all the way. With most of the film being a masturbatorial fantasy (depending on your individual analysis) it should definitely be given an honorable mention. I like Blue Velvet, but Crash (1996) is by far my favorite Cronenberg and I can't believe I left it out of my original post. Considering the DVD I own comes complete with both the R-rated version and an NC-17 version, it's naturally chock full of sex, sex and more sex. A couple of car crashes. Some sex, and some sex after a car crash. Yay for bizarre fetishes. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_August_4_Let_s_Talk_About_Sex/625/33593/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/5/2008 9:10:38 PM
Body: If you're looking for more sadomasochistic sex, I really dug Videodrome and it's whip cracking protagonist Max Renn, who pierces his woman's ear to get her and him off and is completely turned on by whipping a television set with the image of said woman on it. There's some pretty sick sexual stuff in there. Blue Velvet also explores these realms, but it's not so central to the story and more of an asset to it. My favorite line that demonstrates this is probably "Baby wants to (bleep)! Baby wants to (bleep) Blue Velvet!" I mean, American Pie is pretty much a given, as is every other turn of the millenium high-school to college sex comedy spinoff that came after it. 40 Year Old Virgin could pretty much be classified as mostly about sex, considering the general plot line. There's so many others that are slipping my mind right now--I thorougly enjoyed Cronenberg's scenes in A History of Violence, how the one is so innocent and childish and the later one is so abusive and dominating. Cronenberg seems like the kinda' guy that really does highlight all of the f*ck scenes. (Trademark Slap Shot)
]]>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:10:38 GMTSmooth_JWeekly Theme8/5/2008 9:10:38 PMIf you're looking for more sadomasochistic sex, I really dug Videodrome and it's whip cracking protagonist Max Renn, who pierces his woman's ear to get her and him off and is completely turned on by whipping a television set with the image of said woman on it. There's some pretty sick sexual stuff in there. Blue Velvet also explores these realms, but it's not so central to the story and more of an asset to it. My favorite line that demonstrates this is probably "Baby wants to (bleep)! Baby wants to (bleep) Blue Velvet!" I mean, American Pie is pretty much a given, as is every other turn of the millenium high-school to college sex comedy spinoff that came after it. 40 Year Old Virgin could pretty much be classified as mostly about sex, considering the general plot line. There's so many others that are slipping my mind right now--I thorougly enjoyed Cronenberg's scenes in A History of Violence, how the one is so innocent and childish and the later one is so abusive and dominating. Cronenberg seems like the kinda' guy that really does highlight all of the f*ck scenes. (Trademark Slap Shot) http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/6/19/31433.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 6/19/2008 6:01:33 PM
Body: The mystery list is another one that seems poorly conceived. Unlike animation, “mystery” may be a genre, but the way it is defined and applied in the AFI list leads to a muddled selection of films.The AFI defines mystery as “a genre that revolves around the solution of a crime”. I'm not convinced that that adequately describes the films on the list, or, even if it does, it is absurdly reductive. Most ironically, the definition seems least appropriate when applied to the list's top selection, Vertigo (1958), which does not actually revolve around the solution of a crime at all, but a domestic mystery, and is really about Scottie's (Jimmy Stewart) inner-demons and obsessions in any event. Similar questions can be raised about other movies on this Top 10. For example, the second film on the list, Chinatown (1974), certainly starts with a mysterious murder, but part of the point of the film is that some “crimes” aren't illegal at all, and may even be facilitated by laws. The plot of The Third Man (1949) involves the unveiling of criminal activity, but the central mystery, on more than one level, proves not to be a crime, or at least is vague enough for questions to be raised about whether it is or isn't. And, as was highlighted on the broadcast, Dial M for Murder (1954) is really more about the commission of a crime than its solution. You get the picture: the AFI definition for this genre is fine as far as it goes, but it misses the nuances in most of the films on the list. In fact, it can be argued that most of the films on this Top 10 are typically considered to belong to more refined categories than “mystery”. Chinatown, The Third Man, and The Maltese Falcon (1941) are better thought of as Film Noir, as should North by Northwest (1959), though I recognize that that may be a less typical way of understanding that movie than it is for the others. Another segment of the selections – Vertigo, Rear Window (1954), Dial M for Murder – are more precisely “suspense” movies or “thrillers”, wherein mystery, rather than being the point of the narrative, is merely a device for exploring the human psyche. This leaves three movies as the “true” mysteries on the list. From what I know of Laura (1944), I've not seen it, this seems like a fair enough categorization, and I think that “mystery” is reasonable as a way of thinking about The Usual Suspects (1995). Blue Velvet (1986) I'm tempted to say belongs to the genre of “David Lynch,” but it is also clearly the case that a mystery drives much of the film's action. What's curious about the AFI's choice to use and apply “mystery” to the films that it does is that the alternatives I suggest, “noir”, “suspense”, “thriller”, are also well-used genre categories, and ones that better capture one of my points above: these movies largely use mysteries to explore other themes – power, obsession, fear, evil. There are, however, films where the mystery is the thing. Think The Thin Man series, or the incarnations of Nancy Drew, or adaptations of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple books. I suppose the orchestrators of these lists may have considered this, and decided that there aren't enough such movies to “honor”, but that's not only narrow-minded, especially in the context of genre entertainment, it also begs the question of why “mystery” and not “noir”, “thriller”, etc. Assessing the individual selections is made complicated by the underlying categorization question. I can see where each of the films on the list can and should be honored on a Top 10 in “x” genre, even if I don't quite see it for this particular accounting. However, Vertigo is, like The Searchers and Shane from the Western list, one of those highly regarded “classics” that I don't quite get. To me it seems dated in its fascination with mid-century popular psychology, and its visualizations of feelings of vertigo don't hold up well at all. That the latter is important to me is probably a function of the former. I vastly prefer Rear Window, and, as to the non-Hitchcock on the list, Chinatown is one of those films I will routinely cite as my absolute favorite when asked. Everything else more or less depends on context and I'm not sure that the AFI has provided the right one here. Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:01:33 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog6/19/2008 6:01:33 PMThe mystery list is another one that seems poorly conceived. Unlike animation, “mystery” may be a genre, but the way it is defined and applied in the AFI list leads to a muddled selection of films.The AFI defines mystery as “a genre that revolves around the solution of a crime”. I'm not convinced that that adequately describes the films on the list, or, even if it does, it is absurdly reductive. Most ironically, the definition seems least appropriate when applied to the list's top selection, Vertigo (1958), which does not actually revolve around the solution of a crime at all, but a domestic mystery, and is really about Scottie's (Jimmy Stewart) inner-demons and obsessions in any event. Similar questions can be raised about other movies on this Top 10. For example, the second film on the list, Chinatown (1974), certainly starts with a mysterious murder, but part of the point of the film is that some “crimes” aren't illegal at all, and may even be facilitated by laws. The plot of The Third Man (1949) involves the unveiling of criminal activity, but the central mystery, on more than one level, proves not to be a crime, or at least is vague enough for questions to be raised about whether it is or isn't. And, as was highlighted on the broadcast, Dial M for Murder (1954) is really more about the commission of a crime than its solution. You get the picture: the AFI definition for this genre is fine as far as it goes, but it misses the nuances in most of the films on the list. In fact, it can be argued that most of the films on this Top 10 are typically considered to belong to more refined categories than “mystery”. Chinatown, The Third Man, and The Maltese Falcon (1941) are better thought of as Film Noir, as should North by Northwest (1959), though I recognize that that may be a less typical way of understanding that movie than it is for the others. Another segment of the selections – Vertigo, Rear Window (1954), Dial M for Murder – are more precisely “suspense” movies or “thrillers”, wherein mystery, rather than being the point of the narrative, is merely a device for exploring the human psyche. This leaves three movies as the “true” mysteries on the list. From what I know of Laura (1944), I've not seen it, this seems like a fair enough categorization, and I think that “mystery” is reasonable as a way of thinking about The Usual Suspects (1995). Blue Velvet (1986) I'm tempted to say belongs to the genre of “David Lynch,” but it is also clearly the case that a mystery drives much of the film's action. What's curious about the AFI's choice to use and apply “mystery” to the films that it does is that the alternatives I suggest, “noir”, “suspense”, “thriller”, are also well-used genre categories, and ones that better capture one of my points above: these movies largely use mysteries to explore other themes – power, obsession, fear, evil. There are, however, films where the mystery is the thing. Think The Thin Man series, or the incarnations of Nancy Drew, or adaptations of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple books. I suppose the orchestrators of these lists may have considered this, and decided that there aren't enough such movies to “honor”, but that's not only narrow-minded, especially in the context of genre entertainment, it also begs the question of why “mystery” and not “noir”, “thriller”, etc. Assessing the individual selections is made complicated by the underlying categorization question. I can see where each of the films on the list can and should be honored on a Top 10 in “x” genre, even if I don't quite see it for this particular accounting. However, Vertigo is, like The Searchers and Shane from the Western list, one of those highly regarded “classics” that I don't quite get. To me it seems dated in its fascination with mid-century popular psychology, and its visualizations of feelings of vertigo don't hold up well at all. That the latter is important to me is probably a function of the former. I vastly prefer Rear Window, and, as to the non-Hitchcock on the list, Chinatown is one of those films I will routinely cite as my absolute favorite when asked. Everything else more or less depends on context and I'm not sure that the AFI has provided the right one here. Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/6/13/31214.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 6/13/2008 12:39:11 PM
Body: I recently saw Eraserhead, after months of waiting for it come back into stock on Amazon.com, and I loved it. It was, without a doubt, the strangest film I've ever seen, surpassing anything I've seen as of yet by far. I watched it with my sister, and she was actually disturbed for several days after watching it and I felt really bad...especially since I found it so amazing. Throughout the film, I kept thinking whether or not it was good that I saw the extremely similar Pi before I had seen Eraserhead. Pi is a very obvious tribute to this movie in more ways than one, and in more ways than the extremely obvious black and white (15mm?) film and the general surreal, bizarre tones. Both films are centered around a misfit, probably early 20s, disillusioned male in worlds and societies that neither of them can really even begin to understand. They both live in small, secluded inner-city apartments with very sexy neighbors that they are obviously very attracted to but are too scared to pursue. These are the basic similarities, but there are also some very strange (maybe not even intentional) tributes/similarities: Both films contain an electric drill to the head; in both, at some point, when a certain object is poked, a crescendo of sounds occurs until it is not being touched anymore; and both have a fascination of strange objects of paranoia, such as a computer screen and a disembodied brain (Pi), and a radiator and a mutant baby (Eraserhead). The point of the matter is, these films are incredibly similar, yet extremely different at the same time. Their respective auters, David Lynch and Darren Aronofsky, are both revolutionary film-makers. Lynch is a legend, and Aronofsky is definitely soon to be one (especially after Requiem for a Dream, which is already considered a classic). But, the strange thing about Pi and Eraserhead being so similar lays in the fact that their styles are so inexplicably different. Lynch's films are all slow-paced, brooding, dream-like odysseys into unknown psychological territory. He explores the dark sides of human conciousness by making incredibly weird occurrences seem like commonplace in all of his films, and despicable and often annoying characters that seem demonic yet unreal at the same time; unreal, of course, being the operative term for any work that Lynch has ever done (with the exceptions apparently being The Straight Story and The Elephant Man). Aronofsky, however, makes his films fast-paced, emotionally draining assaults on the senses. Requiem was probably one of the saddest movies I have ever seen. It is a complete and total downer, but it is not by any means slow; it pushes forward towards its devastating climax at a breakneck, non-stop pace, all the while shocking and assaulting the viewer with images and scenes both beautiful and disgusting. Pi was just as fast paced; so much was crammed into the ninety-something minute runtime that you were left wanting so much more, for the film to go on forever. The quick edits, the strange sounds and phenomena associated with taking drugs (also VERY apparent in Requiem), and the brutally catchy techno soundtrack all make the viewer on the edge of their seat, in an entranced adrenaline rush unlike anything else. These same techniques are also used in the not-so-emotional (in fact, it's quite lifeless) The Fountain. I really hope that was just a hiccup in Aronofsky's career...not that it was bad, I just feel it 4 years too late and 10 million dollars underdone. (The story of his attempts to make the film are actually more upsetting than the film itself.) Now, there's the issue in my theory that Lynch's films are also assaults on the senses, more "experience" films than anything else; that's true, but the styles of these two directors are so different that it's just sort of irrelevent to discuss. Eraserhead and Pi were Lynch's and Aronofsky's (respectively) first feature films, which is an interesting comparison. The most effective explanation for this is that both films were very possible to make on a shoe-string budget, and would not have even worked if too much money had been spent. It would have given a too refined feel to the productions, instead of the achingly personal feel that they ended up with. Both films almost feel as if the main character is in fact an incarnation of their directors, written to express their inner-anguish and apparent paranoias towards the world. The final point I would like to make pertains to the directions both directors went in their careers. At first glance, it seems like they took complete polar opposites in terms of film choices--however, after examining their filmographies, their choices are actually remarkably similar. Both followed a critically acclaimed (or at least critically noticed) low-budget debut with an emotional film that garnered world-wide and popular attention (The Elephant Man for Lynch, and Requiem for Aronofsky). Both films received Oscar nominations (Lynch's first directing nod) and other awards attention. And then (this is the most noticable correlation) both made bigger-budget, high-brow, studio sci-fi films that divided audiences and critics. Lynch made Dune, a classic wrong-move in his career, and he battled to get it made the way he wanted. The studio cuts literally destroyed the film. Aronofsky made The Fountain, which was also a commercial failure, and started its downfall years before with fights with the studio over budget and script issues. And then, this is where Aronofsky's career cuts off; he has several upcoming movies that I am not quite familiar with, but I'm hoping will be returns to form for him. Lynch's next film after Dune certainly was--he went on to make Blue Velvet, which garnered him worldwide acclaim and yet another Oscar nomination (I have got to see that movie...). Lynch went on to have a long, illustrious career, and is still making movies and being an overall weirdo to this day. Hopefully, Aronofsky will take another page from Lynch's book and do the same. And now back to a question that I find reoccurring on every movie site I go to: Which is better, Pi or Eraserhead? Personally, I connected more to Eraserhead's bizarre symbolism and dream-like tone. However, I definitely found myself to be more enraptured overall by Pi's fast-paced, crank-like hallucinations. Overall concensus? Who cares? (Hah)
]]>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:39:11 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog6/13/2008 12:39:11 PMI recently saw Eraserhead, after months of waiting for it come back into stock on Amazon.com, and I loved it. It was, without a doubt, the strangest film I've ever seen, surpassing anything I've seen as of yet by far. I watched it with my sister, and she was actually disturbed for several days after watching it and I felt really bad...especially since I found it so amazing. Throughout the film, I kept thinking whether or not it was good that I saw the extremely similar Pi before I had seen Eraserhead. Pi is a very obvious tribute to this movie in more ways than one, and in more ways than the extremely obvious black and white (15mm?) film and the general surreal, bizarre tones. Both films are centered around a misfit, probably early 20s, disillusioned male in worlds and societies that neither of them can really even begin to understand. They both live in small, secluded inner-city apartments with very sexy neighbors that they are obviously very attracted to but are too scared to pursue. These are the basic similarities, but there are also some very strange (maybe not even intentional) tributes/similarities: Both films contain an electric drill to the head; in both, at some point, when a certain object is poked, a crescendo of sounds occurs until it is not being touched anymore; and both have a fascination of strange objects of paranoia, such as a computer screen and a disembodied brain (Pi), and a radiator and a mutant baby (Eraserhead). The point of the matter is, these films are incredibly similar, yet extremely different at the same time. Their respective auters, David Lynch and Darren Aronofsky, are both revolutionary film-makers. Lynch is a legend, and Aronofsky is definitely soon to be one (especially after Requiem for a Dream, which is already considered a classic). But, the strange thing about Pi and Eraserhead being so similar lays in the fact that their styles are so inexplicably different. Lynch's films are all slow-paced, brooding, dream-like odysseys into unknown psychological territory. He explores the dark sides of human conciousness by making incredibly weird occurrences seem like commonplace in all of his films, and despicable and often annoying characters that seem demonic yet unreal at the same time; unreal, of course, being the operative term for any work that Lynch has ever done (with the exceptions apparently being The Straight Story and The Elephant Man). Aronofsky, however, makes his films fast-paced, emotionally draining assaults on the senses. Requiem was probably one of the saddest movies I have ever seen. It is a complete and total downer, but it is not by any means slow; it pushes forward towards its devastating climax at a breakneck, non-stop pace, all the while shocking and assaulting the viewer with images and scenes both beautiful and disgusting. Pi was just as fast paced; so much was crammed into the ninety-something minute runtime that you were left wanting so much more, for the film to go on forever. The quick edits, the strange sounds and phenomena associated with taking drugs (also VERY apparent in Requiem), and the brutally catchy techno soundtrack all make the viewer on the edge of their seat, in an entranced adrenaline rush unlike anything else. These same techniques are also used in the not-so-emotional (in fact, it's quite lifeless) The Fountain. I really hope that was just a hiccup in Aronofsky's career...not that it was bad, I just feel it 4 years too late and 10 million dollars underdone. (The story of his attempts to make the film are actually more upsetting than the film itself.) Now, there's the issue in my theory that Lynch's films are also assaults on the senses, more "experience" films than anything else; that's true, but the styles of these two directors are so different that it's just sort of irrelevent to discuss. Eraserhead and Pi were Lynch's and Aronofsky's (respectively) first feature films, which is an interesting comparison. The most effective explanation for this is that both films were very possible to make on a shoe-string budget, and would not have even worked if too much money had been spent. It would have given a too refined feel to the productions, instead of the achingly personal feel that they ended up with. Both films almost feel as if the main character is in fact an incarnation of their directors, written to express their inner-anguish and apparent paranoias towards the world. The final point I would like to make pertains to the directions both directors went in their careers. At first glance, it seems like they took complete polar opposites in terms of film choices--however, after examining their filmographies, their choices are actually remarkably similar. Both followed a critically acclaimed (or at least critically noticed) low-budget debut with an emotional film that garnered world-wide and popular attention (The Elephant Man for Lynch, and Requiem for Aronofsky). Both films received Oscar nominations (Lynch's first directing nod) and other awards attention. And then (this is the most noticable correlation) both made bigger-budget, high-brow, studio sci-fi films that divided audiences and critics. Lynch made Dune, a classic wrong-move in his career, and he battled to get it made the way he wanted. The studio cuts literally destroyed the film. Aronofsky made The Fountain, which was also a commercial failure, and started its downfall years before with fights with the studio over budget and script issues. And then, this is where Aronofsky's career cuts off; he has several upcoming movies that I am not quite familiar with, but I'm hoping will be returns to form for him. Lynch's next film after Dune certainly was--he went on to make Blue Velvet, which garnered him worldwide acclaim and yet another Oscar nomination (I have got to see that movie...). Lynch went on to have a long, illustrious career, and is still making movies and being an overall weirdo to this day. Hopefully, Aronofsky will take another page from Lynch's book and do the same. And now back to a question that I find reoccurring on every movie site I go to: Which is better, Pi or Eraserhead? Personally, I connected more to Eraserhead's bizarre symbolism and dream-like tone. However, I definitely found myself to be more enraptured overall by Pi's fast-paced, crank-like hallucinations. Overall concensus? Who cares? (Hah) http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_The_Differentiation_Of_Horror_Films/222/18505/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 8/21/2007 8:20:23 PM
Body: [quote user="Dr_Gor"] I would have to agree with 'sonofkinski' on one thing... every David Lynch movie I've ever seen is most certainly a Horror movie. These would be "Blue Velvet" , "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" and "Lost Highway" . I don't think I've seen any others of his. And, yes, I think every Cronenberg movie I've ever seen would be a horror movie as well... Including "Dead Ringers" ... (appearently there was something very interesting about Genvieve Bujold's nether regions!) ... Anyhow, thanks for reviving this discussion, guys! It was (and IS) an interesting one! [/quote] Well, David Lynch did one explicitly non-horrific movie, The Straight Story. And of course Dune is sci-fi, not really horror. Elephant Man, that's stretching it, unless you want to argue that it shows the horrific cruelty man is capable of inflicting on other men.I wouldn't call Crash, by Cronenberg, a horror film. Nor would I call eXistenZ. But yes, both David's usually find a way to inject horrific scenarios into all their work. They're the best horror directors not considered horror directors.
]]>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:20:23 GMTTheWorkingDeadHORROR MOVIES 1018/21/2007 8:20:23 PM[quote user="Dr_Gor"] I would have to agree with &#39;sonofkinski&#39; on one thing... every David Lynch movie I&#39;ve ever seen is most certainly a Horror movie. These would be "Blue Velvet" , "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" and "Lost Highway" . I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve seen any others of his. And, yes, I think every Cronenberg movie I&#39;ve ever seen would be a horror movie as well... Including "Dead Ringers" ... (appearently there was something very interesting about Genvieve Bujold&#39;s nether regions!) ... Anyhow, thanks for reviving this discussion, guys! It was (and IS) an interesting one! [/quote] Well, David Lynch did one explicitly non-horrific movie, The Straight Story. And of course Dune is sci-fi, not really horror. Elephant Man, that&#39;s stretching it, unless you want to argue that it shows the horrific cruelty man is capable of inflicting on other men.I wouldn&#39;t call Crash, by Cronenberg, a horror film. Nor would I call eXistenZ. But yes, both David&#39;s usually find a way to inject horrific scenarios into all their work. They&#39;re the best horror directors not considered horror directors. http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_The_Differentiation_Of_Horror_Films/222/18501/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 8/21/2007 6:53:55 PM
Body: I would have to agree with 'sonofkinski' on one thing... every David Lynch movie I've ever seen is most certainly a Horror movie. These would be "Blue Velvet" , "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" and "Lost Highway" . I don't think I've seen any others of his. And, yes, I think every Cronenberg movie I've ever seen would be a horror movie as well... Including "Dead Ringers" ... (appearently there was something very interesting about Genvieve Bujold's nether regions!) ... Anyhow, thanks for reviving this discussion, guys! It was (and IS) an interesting one!
]]>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:53:55 GMTDr_GorHORROR MOVIES 1018/21/2007 6:53:55 PM I would have to agree with &#39;sonofkinski&#39; on one thing... every David Lynch movie I&#39;ve ever seen is most certainly a Horror movie. These would be "Blue Velvet" , "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" and "Lost Highway" . I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve seen any others of his. And, yes, I think every Cronenberg movie I&#39;ve ever seen would be a horror movie as well... Including "Dead Ringers" ... (appearently there was something very interesting about Genvieve Bujold&#39;s nether regions!) ... Anyhow, thanks for reviving this discussion, guys! It was (and IS) an interesting one! http://www.spout.com/blogs/el_aaron/archive/2007/6/29/12636.aspx Post By: El_Aaron
Post To: El_Aaron Blog
Post Date: 6/29/2007 6:09:16 PM
Body: And I thought I had a strong stomach!
]]>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:09:16 GMTEl_AaronEl_Aaron Blog6/29/2007 6:09:16 PMAnd I thought I had a strong stomach! http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Quirky/MemberTagFilms.aspxQuirky
Number of films tagged: 131

Number of people who tagged: 110

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT131110249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/teenagers/MemberTagFilms.aspxteenagers
Number of films tagged: 3025

Number of people who tagged: 97

Number of times used: 398

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT302597398Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mystery/MemberTagFilms.aspxmystery
Number of films tagged: 154

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 206

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:33 GMT15482206Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Creepy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCreepy
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 211

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT17081211Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/surreal/MemberTagFilms.aspxsurreal
Number of films tagged: 73

Number of people who tagged: 73

Number of times used: 134

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT7373134Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rape/MemberTagFilms.aspxrape
Number of films tagged: 1050

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 124

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:36:01 GMT105054124Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/kidnapping/MemberTagFilms.aspxkidnapping
Number of films tagged: 2851

Number of people who tagged: 49

Number of times used: 172

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:42 GMT285149172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/psychological/MemberTagFilms.aspxpsychological
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 74

]]>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:37:13 GMT484174Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/smalltown/MemberTagFilms.aspxsmalltown
Number of films tagged: 913

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 86

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:20:15 GMT9133786Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/strange/MemberTagFilms.aspxstrange
Number of films tagged: 174

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 49

]]>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:38:27 GMT1743249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nudity/MemberTagFilms.aspxnudity
Number of films tagged: 297

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 99

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:36:31 GMT2973199Tag