The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTrevor Lynch Archive
Blue Velvet: The Lost Footage
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
ORDER IT NOW

This article began as a reply to a comment by Alex on my essay on Blue Velvet at The Unz Review. Alex asked for my take on the 53 minutes of lost footage included in the Criterion Collection’s new BluRay of Blue Velvet. Does this footage in any way alter my reading of the film’s psychological and political meaning? The short answer is no, but read on.

Blue Velvet was released as a 2-hour film, but originally the film was about 2 hours and 50 minutes long. The material Lynch removed is not raw footage that was never part of the film. Instead, it was edited into the film, scored by Angelo Badalamenti, and then removed by Lynch. For years, this footage was lost, but we knew the basic content from the shooting script and still photos of the scenes. But, to quote Lynch, through some “amazing grace,” what once was lost has now been found, and thanks to the Criterion Collection, now we all can see.

Lynch does not present the lost footage in the order in which it appeared in the film, but my commentary on it will mostly follow the story.

In the theatrical release of Blue Velvet, we first glimpse Jeffrey Beaumont walking across a field to a hospital to visit his father. In the lost footage, our first view of him is at college, in the basement of a dorm, hidden in the dark, watching a couple kissing on a mattress. As the woman’s demands to “stop” become more strident, Jeffrey shouts, “Hey, leave her alone!”—the very words he later says to Frank Booth when he is pinching Dorothy Vallens’ breasts.

This opening strongly establishes two themes that are prominent throughout Blue Velvet: Jeffrey’s peeping Tom behavior and the connection between sex and violence. This scene also foreshadows the questions the movie raises about the blurry lines between rape and role-playing, victim and perpetrator, for the couple do not react as if Jeffrey has just stopped a crime. In fact, the woman looks at her partner with an expression that seems to say: “Are you gonna take that? Are you going to allow this guy to stop you?”

Jeffrey receives a phone call from his mother, telling him that his father has been stricken with a mysterious ailment and is in the hospital. She tells Jeffrey that he will have to withdraw from college and come home for good because of the expense of his father’s illness and the need for him to help run the family hardware store. This scene is vintage Lynch, with excellent music by Badalamenti and quirky touches like the mother’s bedside table cluttered with prescription bottles and the dirty, cracked mint green walls the camera lingers on.

It also reveals dimension of the mother’s character entirely absent from the finished film. She is sinister and manipulative, giving the strong vibe that she is less concerned with having Jeffrey take on adult responsibilities than on reeling him back in to the nest before he can fully escape.

The other scenes with Jeffrey at college—including a surreal sock hop and Jeffrey’s farewells with his friends and his insincere, airheaded girlfriend Louise—are completely dispensable. Like practically everything that Lynch cut, they feel like TV.

Night time. A small airplane lands. Jeffrey’s mother picks him up at the airport. At first we wonder why Jeffrey is riding in the back seat like a child. Then we see that his aunt Barbara is in the front passenger seat. We see the car pull into the driveway, the family enter the living room, Jeffrey ascend the stairs. He surveys his childhood room. Returning feels like defeat. Then he goes to the blinds and peeks into the night, more peeping Tom behavior foreshadowing him spying on Dorothy Vallens through the slats of her closet door. The whole sequence really adds nothing. It is TV-like padding for people who can’t imagine characters traveling from point A to B without actually seeing it.

The following morning at breakfast Jeffrey’s mother asks him not to mention to his father than he has withdrawn from college, adding to her manipulative quality. Then, finally, we arrive at the point where Jeffrey first appears in the final release, on his way to the hospital to see his father.

There are several more scenes with Jeffrey’s mother and aunt Barbara: the women singing “Clementine” as they wash the dishes, the mother receiving a shot from a Dr. Gunn for some unknown ailment, the mother waiting up for Jeffrey in the dark and startling him when he comes come. (He has just seen Frank Booth for the first time and doesn’t need any more surprises.) And finally an amusing sequence where aunt Barbara hunts for termites and leaves her quarry with a note to Jeffrey on a table next to an overflowing ashtray.

There are a couple of entirely dispensable scenes at the house of Detective Williams. In the first, Jeffrey has coffee and cake with Mrs. Williams while waiting for her husband to return. In the final version, we cut directly to the conversation with Detective Williams, although without establishing that he has just come home, it seems odd for him to be wearing his shoulder holster in his house. The other sequence involves a dinner with Jeffrey, the Williams, their daughter Sandy, and Sandy’s boyfriend Mike, which establishes nothing except that Mike is jealous of Jeffrey, and that Mike is a vitamin-popping prude whereas Jeffrey (like Lynch) loves sweets and coffee. There is also a brief scene where Jeffrey and Detective Williams look at crime scene photos and Jeffrey focuses in on a swatch of (dunn-dunn-dunn) blue velvet. It all feels like TV and is well lost.

The sequence in which Jeffrey and Sandy go to the Slow Club to see Dorothy Vallens sing is much longer. Their car’s approach is dragged out, but the music is gorgeous. The club itself is quite droll, with its Maitre D’ and uniformed waiters clashing with the background twitter of electronic games. The opening acts are pure Lynch. First, we see a dog eating from a green bowl, a neon rabbit above his head, and the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” on winds being looped in the background. Then we are treated to an excruciating comic to the accompaniment of “Beautiful Dreamer” and an exotic dancer. Both acts go on much, much too long.

There are three additional scenes with Frank Booth. In the first, Jeffrey tails Frank to a field on a windy night, watching him moving frantically through the dark to Dorothy Vallens’ apartment, then emerging sometime later. Frank is shot at such a distance that it is hard to see who he is, much less understand what he is doing.

In another scene, Jeffrey calls Dorothy’s apartment, and Frank answers. There are a few seconds of seething tension followed by Frank’s terrifying “Speak, fucker!”

The longest sequence takes place after Frank and his gang arrive at This Is It. In the theatrical version, they simply enter Ben’s apartment. Originally, the sequence was much more complex. A grotesque old black man sings about a dog chasing a rabbit, accompanied on guitar by a white man, while a vacant, topless whore stares off screen. It goes on much, much too long. This is apparently the back room of a bar/whorehouse. Frank and his crew burst in the front, then head straight to he back where Frank threatens the life of one of the male customers.

None of these scenes and anything to the story, but the brief phone call is genuinely terrifying.

There are two scenes involving Dorothy Vallens. One is an alternative take of Jeffrey’s second visit to her apartment. In this version, the yellow man (Detective Gordon) shows up briefly to hassle Dorothy while Jeffrey hides in the closet and eavesdrops. But from his point of view, we can barely make out the dialogue. It adds nothing.

In the second scene, Dorothy and Jeffrey go to the roof of her building. Dorothy tries to throw herself over the parapet, but Jeffrey drags her back. Then they make love on the rooftop. The whole scene is murky, both visually and psychologically. The only loss is Angelo Badalamenti’s truly wonderful music.

There are a few other bits that I will not discuss: just hellos, goodbyes, phone calls, and other filler, none of it a loss.

Every fan of Lynch and Blue Velvet will love this footage. But Blue Velvet is a better movie without it. Some of the lost scenes underscore themes found in the final cut, particularly Jeffrey’s scopophilia, the association of sex and violence, and the association of bugs and evil. We also get a bit more of eccentric aunt Barbara and Jeffrey’s playful relationship with her. But really the only surprise is the sinister side of Jeffrey’s mother. Cinematically, only Jeffrey’s phone conversations with his mother and Frank, as well as the scenes at the Slow Club and This Is It, are distinctively Lynchian.

Will there ever be a “director’s cut” of Blue Velvet? Lynch had complete creative control over Blue Velvet, so the theatrical version is the director’s cut. It is nice to have the lost footage, but it should not be part of the film.

What does the lost footage reveal about Lynch as an artist? Some of the lost scenes are fluff and filler. Some are self-indulgent and boring. Some are interesting and well done. But none of them were essential to the story. This is why their removal does not fundamentally alter Blue Velvet’s meaning but instead brings it into greater focus.

 
• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Movies 
Hide 14 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. David Lynch movies are movies made by perverts for perverts. If you like these movies, you are a disgusting pervert.

  2. Greg,

    Do you plan on reviewing Tarantino’s new movie?

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  3. Gordo says:

    Trying to make the best of Hollywood movies is like trying to find gold in sewage.

    Not a criticism of your reviews, just saying it would be great to have a decent movie industry in the Anglosphere.

  4. MEH 0910 says:

    Blue Velvet Deleted Scenes

  5. @obwandiyag

    The word you’re looking for is probably “prevert”.

  6. May I sincerely ask:

    Who gives a fuck?

    Why are you writing this nonsense?

    Thsi cut and that cut? They all seem like a TV movie?

    Everything this cat has ever done is mediocre.

    Who cares about this idiot?

    Why are you gong on and on about more minutes of utter mediocrity?

    • Replies: @anon
  7. @obwandiyag

    Just stick to Archie Comix, bro. That’ll keep ya out of trouble.

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
  8. Simon says:

    Just watched “Velvet” for the fourth or fifth time, so this piece was of considerable interest; and thanks to MEH for supplying the missing footage (though you make a convincing case that the film worked just fine without it). Especially enjoyed the hapless standup comic.

    I think it’s Lynch’s best film. I’ve always regarded it as a sort of surreal Hardy Boys adventure — menacing criminals doing their mysterious nefarious stuff amid a campily wholesome small-town setting, along with some memorably titillating sex. Our Scout-ish hero turns detective, solves the mystery, gets the girl. In short, every boy’s fantasy.

  9. anon[368] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    Well, someone has to keep useless eaters like you occupied.

  10. @Kevin O'Keeffe

    David Lynchs movies are often a dark take on wholesome Archie style Americana. Its quite possible Archie formed an inspiration of sorts for Lynch.

  11. Film’s history is ripe with cases such as that of Dodes’ka-den, where Kurosawa’s intended story was some 7 hours (if memory serves), some 4 or 5 of which were publisher-crossed.

    I wonder what a seven-hour version of the film would have been like.

  12. JRM says:

    I was fascinated by this film when I saw it on its original release. Watched it three or four times thereafter, though at this moment I haven’t seen it in years. I need to rewatch.

    At any rate, I enjoyed both articles on the film. I question those readers who chime in with simplified views like “these movies are by perverts for perverts”, or the even more elucidating “who gives a fuck?”.

    Good Lord, if you are going to go to all the trouble of posting, tell us *why* you think we shouldn’t care about films like these; or tell us what made you hate it. It might actually make for an interesting post. As they stand, these comments are about on the level of a 4chan poster refuting a post by calling the poster an “incel”. And that’s the whole (fucking) argument.

    • Agree: Logan
  13. I wonder how much Lynch was affected by the 60s.

    His drug-taking surely. But many of his cultural references are from an earlier era.

    https://www.city-journal.org/charles-manson-murders

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Trevor Lynch Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?