How does Blue Velvet have so much High Octane Nightmare Fuel?

I know this may seem like a dumb question at first, but I keep reading that the Nightmare Fuel in this movie is in spades, or at least it says that in a couple of places. Okay, so I don't watch many R-rated flicks, but this one is an exception since it seemed to be done so well. First of all, I can definitely see how any of the main parts with Frank Booth are scary,as well as some of the underlying themes and acts of violence he commits offscreen. Other than the material involving him, what else is really considered scary in this movie? Up until he showed up, I actually thought this movie was relatively tame (for an R-rated film anyway). So please, could anybody give me examples of parts in the movie that could be considered "scary" that don't involve Frank (or even that do if you can't think of anything else). I just think it's unfair to label the ENTIRE movie as disturbing, that's all. It definitely had its lighter moments for me.

Do the words "Directed by David Lynch" mean anything to you? He's a master of High Octane Nightmare Fuel!

Also, Dennis Hopper was a master of playing Large Ham Nightmare Fuel characters.

edited 29th Jan '12 8:32:30 AM by Buscemi

Dennis Hopper is probably the only person who can make the line "Heineken? Fuck that shit! PABST BLUE RIBBON!" sound genuinely unnerving and menacing.

But, yeah, the High Octane Nightmare Fuel isn't uncommon at all in David Lynch works. Hell, even his newly released music album (Crazy Clown Time) is frightening!

edited 29th Jan '12 9:09:07 AM by HerrKman

There are probably a few reasons. In TV Tropes terms, it's possibly just to save time and space. A lot of the film, while arguably not "terrifying" is certainly unnerving in several of its components, but it's hard to describe how little pieces of the film really build to the overall effect altogether. I think one largely unsung achievement in Blue Velvet is the way Dorothy's apartment block is presented for example, but it's hard to really discuss that without, as far as entry pages tend to go, waffling on a bit. And even then, it's all subjective bro.

This is a wild card, but I also think that there might be a degree of Seinfeld Is Unfunny when it comes to looking at how it communicates its voyuerism themes, considering the number of films that are bit more direct (some would say crass) about feeding you all the wrong (in the realm of decency) things. Blue Velvet builds most its most striking visual punishments out of distanced, lingering shots (Ben's Orbison impression, Dorothy emerging onto Jeffrey's lawn and the climax in Dorothy's apartment spring to mind particularly here).

Also, "I'LL FUCK ANYTHING THAT MOVES! A-HAHAHAHAHA!" (disappears)

   DON'T YOU FUCKING LOOK AT ME    *smack*

Anyone seen the mash-up "Blue Peanuts"? Snoopy is Frank in it and it's hilarious.

I think the "Love Letter" scene (and the corresponding quote) is the peak of Hopper's truly insane, hypnotically terrifying performance as Mr. Frank Booth.

Thank you. Yes, these are all pretty good points. My point is that I do know that David Lynch is very good when it comes to High Octane Nightmare Fuel, but in this case, I feel like other than the scenes with Frank, the movie doesn't really seem that scary. This is just a personal opinion, but when you think about it, doesn't he pretty much single handedly provide all the scary bits in this movie? Even some of the more nasty bits without him such as the severed ear and Dorothy getting beaten really badly and stripped naked are a result of his actions offscreen. I just want to know if any of you agree that he's the primary source of the nightmare fuel that this movie has. I think so. Once again though, thanks for answering some of my questions so far. I'm fairly new on this site as a troper, and while a lot of these things interest me, it's hard to have the same amount of intellect that people who have been on here for months, or even years have since this is obviously their specialty. What can I say though, I'm doing my best.

No worries dude, I'm only a lurker extreme around here at best so we're probably in similar boats

Character-wise, Frank is all that's within the underworld of Lumberton in setting up the dynamic between itself and the all-round goodly white picket fence exterior of the town. In that way, Frank is easily the most frightening character like you say because he must therefore stand in for so many critical narrative coupons - in addition to beating Dorothy and leaving her for dead, severing the ear to provide the Eraserhead-esque lead-in, he's also responsible for the sole cases of police corruption and drug dealing that we see... in that wider frame, they're pretty scary too.

It's when you look at individual scenes formalist-ically, those where Frank isn't present particularly, that singular components used to heighten unease are noticed. Going back to what I said about Dorothy's apartment block earlier, you first have the broken lift. The dread of the place gets shifted onto that endless frail staircase (which, granted, does set up for a frantic chase with Frank), where you're interested in what's going to happen when Jeffrey reaches the apartment and yet we get a couple of shots showing the anticipation (or anti-anticipation?). Then you have the sound. Blue Velvet is really a film that needs to be watched in silence, because you pick out these audio prompts throughout the whole thing that really shouldn't be there... it gives you this other-worldy impression, which is weird when you consider that supposedly simple dynamic above.

Also worth noting is that the film on at least one occasion takes advantage of how we take Frank to be the root of all evil, for example when Sandy's boyfriend chases down Jeffrey in his car. We all assume that Frank has come back (its shot great, and the sudden music ramping up really helps), and when it turns out not to be him, the guy backs down and apologises in no time after being confronted with the battered and bruised Dorothy. Arguably, Frank is the root of non-emotional evil at least.

Which is, like you say, why he's so darn scary.

Yes, very true. Another thing I have to give this movie credit for is that it's very good at building up suspense even when nothing bad is really going to happen. For example, my 14 year old cousin actually got intrigued to see what this movie was like, so when we were visiting each other, we watched most of the movie together on the computer (I skipped some of the Frank scenes since I'm especially uncomfortable watching those sort of things with another person around). Anyways, when Jeffrey is walking up the stairs and down the hall for the first time to Dorothy's apartment, my cousin actually asked me if something was about to happen. I assured him nothing would. He then said later on that if this were a typical horror movie, there definitely would have been a jump scare or two during those parts. And he's right. The apartment does manage to have that creepy vibe like something bad's going to happen, even when there is no real danger. So I will credit this movie for being very suspenseful by simply treating the atmosphere a certain way, but I still didn't find much of it actually scary.

Frank Booth, on the other hand, is high octane nightmare fuel personified for me. For starters, I think it's safe to say he's any regular woman's worst nightmare. Just look at what he does to Dorothy. He pretty much abuses her in every single way! Physically, verbally, sexually, and even somewhat mentally! It's actually astounding that a human being can be so depraved and uncaring about the terrible things that he does while fully aware of how wrong it is. The scariest part is that there are people in real life who have been just as downright psychotic as he is. Then of course, there's his unstable temper. Just watching any scene with him was unnerving due to the fact that he can literally explode at anytime, making him frightening in the same way that Joe Pesci was know for in movies like Goodfellas and Casino. One wrong move or comment and it could mean the end of you. There may be the odd person who finds Frank to be too hammy or over-the-top to be taken completely seriously, but for me and and a lot of others, it only makes him worse. Dennis Hopper's acting was so good that it actually feels real, and whenever he suddenly snaps, my heart will suddenly jump and I'll think "oh my gosh, what's he going to do now", even if I know the outcome. So congratulations Mr. Hopper. You may have had your personal problems, but you did what you loved, and now you will always be one of cinema's most memorable lunatics for years to come. Rest in peace.

P.S. The funny thing is I don't even like many R-rated films to begin with. I'm into more movies that are appealing to all ages such as Pixar films, Dreamworks films, and Marvel Comics films, but there are cases like this where credit must be given where it's due.

edited 31st Jan '12 6:59:06 PM by bgcallegari

You know what really distinguishes Frank Booth from Joe Pesci in Goodfellas or Casino for me? For Pesci's characters, he may be sadistic but in the grand scheme of things he's out to shut you down for good. That's more of a mob thing in general you might say, looking at real life and the different genres of the two films. Frank, on the other hand, likes to make people suffer. He could kill Dorothy, and even Jeffrey during their little "outing" if he wanted to, but there's a definite pleasure aspect to what he does to people. It's like what someone wrote about Psycho on a HONF page - it wasn't so much the action (the shower stabbing) that disturbed them, but rather the very clearly sexual way it was set up.

It's at that point where the horror becomes somewhat outwardly-focused, because you're being invited to watch too, only you keep getting denied certain shots and scenes (I like the one where Jeffrey, from inside the closet, flinches slightly while watching Frank do his bit, even if it was recommended by the censors). I think another big thing in the film is that it aims to chart your pleasures as well as your fears... like any good movie with a psychoanalytic bent really. Looking back on it, the ending is... well, it's appropriately dreamlike with a possible slant of ridiculous, perhaps until you see Dorothy all happy with her baby. That feels lovely anyway.

Frank is every bit as nasty as you say, and just addressing the "women's worst nightmare" idea you talked about, he even denies Dorothy the motherhood she obviously craves! Now as a man, I can only talk from reading textbooks and having known mothers, but that's... quite bad at any rate. It only adds fire to the sexual aspects of the film too.

Another thing I feel strongly about with regards to this movie is that there actually seems to be the odd person out there who sympathizes or feels sorry for Frank. I still respect their opinions, but I just don't see it. They never reveal his background in the movie, and when they do that, there's not meant to be any excuse for his actions, and even if it's easy to assume he had a bad childhood, that's never an excuse for this type of inhumanity. Ever! It can justify smaller things like your outlook on life or your manners, but NEVER becoming a monster who is fully aware of their sins and doesn't care. Why? Because in my opinion, we all have the ability to be good or bad, because one thing we all have in common is the ability to make the right or wrong choices. No one can force us to be who we are no matter what their influence is, or how close they are to us. Yes, Frank probably grew up with bad role models, but so what? They didn't force him to be as terrible as he turned out, he chose that path by himself. Could anyone tell me what makes Frank a tragic figure in some people's eyes please? For me, the only thing sad about his story is that he willingly made all the wrong choices when he could have made better ones and been a better man. If you want a good example of what I'm talking about, look at Lotso from Toy Story 3. All he needed was the smallest reason to be bad to become the monster that he was. "Ain't no kid ever loved a toy really"? Seriously? Daisy never abandoned him, she replaced him because she couldn't find him, and because she loved him so much, she needed a new one to replace that empty hole that his absence left. Was she just supposed to assume the other Lotso would come walking back to her house by himself and be found? Lotso was really fond of playing the victim card, but really, he was just trying to cover up his jealousy and selfishness for being the one in that unfortunate position, and not having her himself. If definitely would have justified understandable depression, but what does he do? He makes every other toy's life a living nightmare because if he can't be happy, they can't be either! He was bad all along, he just needed something to not go his way such as an unfortunate accident to be who he was. So do you see what I mean? We all have bad things happen to us, and in some cases, horrific things, but we each choose how to deal with that in our own way, and a complete disregard, or worse, getting sadistic pleasure out of hurting those who had nothing to do with your problems is never a justified act. So why do people feel bad for Frank after all the terrible things he did?

By the way, I also agree with your theory on how Joe Pesci's characters are different than Frank. They may be sadistic, but they're mainly out doing what they do to benefit the mob they work for, while Frank just enjoys making people suffer. Just listen to the way he laughs when Ben punches Jeffrey in the stomach. He sounds like he's watching stand up comedy or something.

edited 4th Feb '12 8:26:02 PM by bgcallegari