# Talk:Blue Velvet (film)

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
King, Mike (2008). "American Psycho, Blue Velvet, and Basic Instinct". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 105–109. ISBN 0786439882.
Leitch, Thomas (2002). "Murder on the Orient Express, Blue Velvet, and the Unofficial-Detective Film". Crime Films. Genres in American Cinema. Cambridge University Press. pp. 170–191. ISBN 0521646715.

I changed references to oxygen huffing to nitrous oxide huffing.  The screenplays on the Internet say Frank's mask dispensed helium, and several sources seem to confirm this, and claim Dennis Hopper shot down this proposal before the movie was shot.  Then some Net articles say it's an oxygen mask, but an Entertainment Weekly article claims it's nitrous oxide, quoting Dennis Hopper:

"That would have been too self-conscious," he says. "I did enough drugs to know that nitrous oxide would be more effective."
When the camara zooms out of the ear at the end, it's Jeffery's if memory serves and not the original severed ear. The wording currently makes it sound otherwise. Also regarding the gas that Frank uses, sure in interviews, Hopper says what it is, but the movie never says exactly. Thus, the only thing we know for sure judging by the movie is that Frank gets high on some sort of gas. I don't think the article should try to incorporate information from interviews only. Jason Quinn 30 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)

I've read it was supposed to be Amyl_Nitrite. --B. Phillips 15:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
here is an interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYbu8g4gUy4
Mr. Hopper even comments on how maybe leaving it in could have been good too (~2:45).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.28 (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 

I removed the following sections, as they would seem to clearly be original research, and perhaps more appropriate to a college paper than an encyclopedia. Unless someone knows an acceptable sources for this info? --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 06:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


### Symbolism
The most consistent symbolism in Blue Velvet is an insect motif introduced at the end of the first scene, when the camera zooms in on a well-kept suburban lawn until it discovers, underground, a swarming nest of disgusting bugs.  This is generally recognized as a metaphor for the seedy underworld that Jeffrey will soon discover under the surface of his own suburban, Reagan-esque paradise.  The bug motif is recurrent throughout the film, most notably in the horrific bug-like oxygen mask that Frank wears, but also in the excuse that Jeffrey offers when he first gains access to Dorothy's apartment: he claims he is an insect exterminator.  One of Frank's sinister accomplices is also consistently identified through the yellow jacket he wears. Yellowjacket happens to be the name of a type of wasp, which double-layers the symbolism on yet another level, as the economically dominant groups of the USA are the WASP's - Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Finally, a robin eating a bug on a fence becomes a topic of discussion in the last scene of the film. Some believe that this is just 'one bug' and that there is still a criminal underworld left (indeed, earlier in the film when the police raid Frank's hideout, it certainly doesn't look like they're winning).
The severed ear that Jeffrey discovers is also a key symbolic element; the ear is what leads Jeffrey into danger.  Indeed, just as Jeffrey's troubles begin, the audience is treated to a nightmarish sequence in which the camera zooms into the ear canal of the severed, decomposing ear.  Notably, the camera does not reemerge from the ear canal until the end of the film.  When Jeffrey finally comes through his hellish ordeal unscathed, the ear canal shot is replayed, only in reverse, zooming out through Jeffrey's own ear as he relaxes in his yard on a summer day.
A number of scenes contain red drapes or curtains, a popular recurring image for Lynch, especially prominent in Twin Peaks.


### Possible influences
Many elements of Blue Velvet are reminiscent of Charles Laughton's 1955 one-shot-wonder, The Night of the Hunter.  The story of a child or naïve young man thrust into an unexpected adult world of crime, sex, and murder is common to both films, and the development of this subject as something of a journey towards the redemption of innocence also seems similar.  Both films feature a helpless woman held under the power of a sometimes disarming but ultimately terrifying madman.  Both madmen are tied symbolically to a primal, animal or insect world.  And in both films the child character loses his father in the first scene, and later seeks the help of a surrogate father figure but is disappointed in this appeal to adult, masculine authority.
If Lynch was indeed influenced by Laughton, the ending of Blue Velvet deserves special attention.  In both Blue Velvet and Night of the Hunter, the trial of the adult world is ultimately followed by a return to innocence and childhood.  However, whereas Laughton's treatment of this ending seems heartfelt and has in fact been criticized as too saccharine or simplistic, Lynch's ending seems tongue in cheek, or even sarcastic.  Just as Lynch's opening shots of perfect suburban America quickly prove too good to be true, his ending leaves doubt as to whether normality has really been recovered.  The appearance of a deliberately stiff and artificial-seeming robin singing merrily to Jeffrey cements the impression of cynicism.
Additionally, Kenneth Anger's 1949 dialogue-free short Puce Moment, which features a dark-haired woman slightly past her prime modelling an array of bright clothing for the camera, may be counted as an influence.

I've rated the article as a B. IMO, at least the following issues should be adressed to move towards A and beyond:

a Reception section on critical reaction and boxoffice
while it does have references, inline citations seem to be the thing now
pieces of trivia should be integrated in the main text where possible
Also, BV as a Lynch film could probably be expanded into a more comprehensive section on themes and symbols AdamSmithee 07:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a Reception as requested. Count Ringworm 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This was pasted into the actual entry and really belongs in the Talk section. Count Ringworm 14:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(I have a historical question that needs to be put here...
Version 2 Hours. DVD VHS
Version 2 Hours 1 min. DVD VHS
Version 2 Hours 16 min. VHS 
There must be another version of this flim. For I have seen a version that had Dennis Hopper abusing the woman in front of her husband and the yellow jacket cop. He kills both the men, leaving his dirty cop buddy standing like a zombie. This is not in any of the above versions. This also is why she is naked and is found on the porch. I remember this so clearly, the impact of Dennis Hopper shooting the police officer in the head.... Can anyone verify what I am stating here? I feel the DVD edition just cut this out as being to harsh, but it is critical to why she is wondering around naked and is not in any version I have, which is now 3 copies of this film.  HELP!!!!!  )


### Really?
I really hope I can find the version the person above is talking about. The Yellow Man just standing there with a hole in his head seemed so mysterious, and I'm glad to know that there was a scene explaining it. I hope this is true. I can't find any other info on this scene, though. I don't know if the above info is reliable, or something to just confuse us. If anyone knows where I can see this scene, please, PLEASE, reply here or write on my talk page. --Blackout0189 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Extensive scenes were cut by David Lynch so it is possible that the scene described above is in those. (Recent Blu-Ray releases included these missing scenes as a separate feature, so someone with one of those can check. I have changed the article because based on the most widely-available cuts available there is no explanation of what has happened to the Yellow Man (and indeed I always assumed that he shot the kidnapped man on Frank's orders, only for the bullet to ricochet and strike him).
212.188.171.250 (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if the infobox for Blue Velvet had a original theatrical poster, rather than a Special Edition DVD image. I don't know how to upload images on Wikipedia, so if it isn't too much trouble, would they do so. I know most film pages on Wikipedia are meant to have the poster in the box. RaptorRobot 11:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can upload images here. It's the easiest thing ever. Cop 633 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've uploaded the theatrical poster. Count Ringworm 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the color on this new image. It's inferior to the previous one. --Steerpike 13:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I’ve updated this article, and added some further information. And to better organize the direction, music, casting, and reception and added some more citations, since the article was kind off looking messy and seemed to be repeating it a bit. How far it is from getting a peer review request and what can be done to further improve the article? Anyone got some suggestions. Discuss them or add them below. RaptorRobot 08:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a few for the plot section would me good. RaptorRobot 11:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Blue Velvet in popular culture should absolutely be merged because everything in it is already in the main article and there is simply not enough information to warrant its' own article.  Please merge them. FilmFemme 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, merge (or just delete the pop culture article). There's no point in a separate entry. This is very obvious. I don't know why someone would have created the new article. Jason Quinn 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So how far now is it for a possible FA review. A lot has been done to this article, so its all a matter of a request.203.57.68.20 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say go for an GA review first. I don't think this article is quite up to FA status yet. --J.D. 13:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I'll do so. 203.57.68.20 06:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid for the time being I have to speedy fail this article's GA nomination. Primarily, this was due to a substantial number of fact tags throughout the article. The concentration of these in the "Themes" section was especially worrying, and the whole section would appear to be OR unless sources for the allegations made can be found. Sorry. --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue, but in the sentence "Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) returns home from college after his father (Jack Harvey) suffers a stroke." in the first line of the synopsis, should not be: " after his father (Jack Harvey) suffered a stroke."?
--192.33.238.6 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No.  Look at the tense of "to return" it is in the present tense, "returns", which is why the verb "to suffer" has the same tense. (unsigned comment)
Moreover, use of the present tense when describing the plot of a film (or novel or play etc.) is a convention.  AngelaVietto (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what should be done to the "references in pop culture section" at the end of the article - it has been tagged as trivia, and was wondering what should be done to it, in order to further improve the quility of the article. Angel2001 05:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say remove it and place it here until all of the points can be cited or it can be integrated into other sections of the article. --J.D. (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Better still, go through each one and ask "does this tell me anything new about Blue Velvet or is more useful to the article on the work that is referring to the film?" For example, the fact that a song quotes one of Frank's lines does not tell us anything new about Blue Velvet, but would be useful information for understanding that song, so move it to the relevant article if it exists.
If you feel the list of pop culture references as a whole is useful to showing the impact of BV on pop culture, try shortening it to one example per type of media and delete the rest: "BV has been sampled in many songs; for example Green Day's "My Generation" samples Frank shouting "Heineken? Fuck that shit!". It has also been alluded to in many films: for example the film Haute Tension features a shot-for-shot homage."
Cop 663 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also this discussion has produced good ideas: Wikipedia_talk:Notability (in_popular_culture) Cop 663 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a connection between this movie and the game by infocom, as Frank Booth is the default name of the character if you don't select a name at the beginning.  The dates match up, as the movie was released in '86, and the game was released in '87.  Of course, it probably doesn't matter very much.--Vercalos (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a "connection" with the game, or maybe the people who created that game were simply inspired by the character of Frank Booth. The movie was released in 1986 and Zork was released in 1987---so the dates match, do they? Nope. You mean to say the game was released *after* the film, and therefor the two may be connected somehow. Yeah, really perceptive stuff (not). But since by your own admission it probably doesn't matter, and by extension --- nobody cares --- please do something people find useful. Geekwad Wikipedians make me fuckin' puke!Arbo (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

High Tension is an exploitation film, not an "exploration" film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.107.86 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Congratulations! Blue Velvet has met all the criteria to become a good article. Thanks to all who contributed! Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

While I should be flattered that someone lifted text directly from Mulholland Dr.: "The filmmaking style of David Lynch has been written about extensively using descriptions like "ultraweird","[21] "dark",[22] and "oddball".[23] and "An author of a book on Lynch wrote, "One cannot watch a Lynch film the way one watches a standard Hollywood film noir nor in the way that one watches most radical films", I am not. I quite understand that many articles I've written have already been plagiarized by thousands of students, but the articles I write are an expression of honor for the subjects. I would be most ashamed of being so lacking in creativity or ability. This inclusion does not honor Blue Velvet, but rather says something about how little the editor cares about being thorough and original.
I cannot impose my own moral standards on articles I do not edit, unfortunately. But if you are entertaining the idea of bringing this to FAC, I will oppose strongly until that material is changed. Read your own resources and find your own quotes. The second one is from a book full of information about Lynch. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Having provided a minor edit to the introduction I now see the article has been voted a good article and see that I'm possibly messing it up.  I think the casting of this film indeed proved that casting outside the norm can have tremendous impact not only on a production but also the careers of those involved.  Of course, Lynch was attempting to cast within the norm but failed to attain goals in this area due to the subject matter (Rossellini appears to be the exception here, but she did manage to negotiate and maintain a career with Lancome in an exceptional career move).  That does not change the impact that the final, more creative casting had for all concerned.  Can anyone help support this notion and bring in line with Wiki guidelines?  If the item were removed I would fully understand given the current regard for the article, but I feel an important element of the film's impact might be overlooked as well. Finally this film contains more than a little "black comedy" and "kitsch" yet it is not even mentioned in passing.  Having sat with audiences of friends and strangers through multiple viewings, I can tell you the film usually initiates horror on first time viewers and fierce, uncontrollable laughter in repeat viewers (often on the exact same scenes!). Also, reactions tend to veer wildly in direct relation to the level of artistic education of a viewer.   Surely this bears some kind of introduction into the analysis of the films reception, though finding an academic source for the notion may prove difficult given the authenticity of the varied reactions in everyday human beings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.44.202 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 

If the main article is going to assert that this film kick-started Dennis Hopper's career,  it might as well assert the same about Dean Stockwell.  Dean Stockwell was a semi-successful b-movie actor in the 60's who dropped out of the public eye for 15-20 years until being cast in Blue Velvet.   Blue Velvet lead Dean to a starring role in the TV series Quantum Leap.. 67.172.16.255 (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state that Blue Velvet "kick-started Hopper's career". It states, "noted for re-launching Hopper's career", an entirely different effect from your inaccurate re-telling. This biographical fact is well-documented and that statement really should be referenced with an inline citation. I'm not going to do that work because I didn't put the statement in. The burden of proof rests with the contributor. So whoever you are, contributor, do your job properly please.
But your claim about the same effect happening to Dean Stockwell is bullshit. Stockwell did not drop out of the public eye for 15 to 20 years. Where did you get that from? Read the WP article on him and if you are honest, you must admit you are wrong. I'll save everybody some time by quoting from that WP article---
"Dean Stockwell (born Robert Dean Stockwell, March 5, 1936) is an American actor of film and television, with a career spanning over 65 years. As a child actor under contract to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer he first came to the public's attention in films such as Anchors Aweigh and The Green Years; as a young adult he played a lead role in the 1957 Broadway and 1959 screen adaptations of Meyer Levin's Compulsion, a novel based on the true-life story of Leopold and Loeb. . .In the early 1960s, Stockwell dropped out of show business, becoming active in the hippie subculture. . .Stockwell appeared in a 1969 episode of Bonanza as a down-and-out former Union soldier. He then appeared in. . ."
Do you geddit yet? He dropped out for less than nine (9) whole years. And you claim 15 to 20 years. Please do your own research and get it right. Otherwise stop wasting everybody's time with bullshit based on ignorance. Thank you.Arbo (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, a review our guidelines on reliable sources and in particular self-published sources suggests the inclusion of Watkins' work is inappropriate.  Message boards are inappropriate sources for articles, and such content requires publication in reliable, secondary sources.  For a director of Lynch's stature, random webpostings are inappropriate fringe sources that are below the threshold of scholarship that is suitable for such a developed page and noteworthy film.  If Watkins has published reviews of Lynch's work in scholarly journals or books, please feel free to cite them instead.  The webjournal appears to have been published exactly once, in the summer of 2009, and therefore lacks any sort of scholarly attention or citations that would indicate an adequate level of scholarly respect.  Watkins is also the primary author in nearly all the publications, and based on a brief google scholar search, appears to have few relevant publications.  I would even venture that Mr. Watkins may be trying to improve his profile in the on-line community through a judicious use of Wikipedia, a site of well-known visibility on the internet.  In addition, merely being a poet does not make one a film critic; again, lacking reliable sources documenting his expertise and recognition in this area means he lacks the relevant authority to be included on the page in such a transparently self-published manner.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blue Velvet at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Although a lot of effort has gone into the plot summary and I read it through agreeing with it, there is an innate weakness in these sections as quite a few I've seen tend to sound like school assignments. Summarise the plot in 500 words or something like that. Another problem is how can each event in the film be referenced. No ingratitude at all from my part I think we all appreciate the hour or so that a person spends of their own time editing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.130.92 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 

Merriam-Webster notes, "Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective.... however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English."[1]μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright guys, I know Lynch has a reputation as a surreal filmmaker and one could argue he's made surrealist films, but honestly this isn't one of them. Read the artcile on surrealism, or better yet, actually go out and research surrealism, then come back and watch Blue Velvet. Yes, people behave strangely in this film, but there's far more to surrealism than just strangeness. None of the sources here that list Blue Velvet as a surrealist film even attempt give any reason for why it is surreal, instead just using it as a shorthand for odd or because it's David Lynch.Ash Loomis (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, this is certainly not true since Dune was released on Bluray in the States in 2010.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.145.101 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 

The Michael Atkinson reference used several times in this article is incorrect.  It seem apparent that somebody copied and pasted this:

Atkinson, Michael, BFI Modern Classics: Blue Velvet, British Film Institute, London, 1997 Maxfield, James F., ” ‘Now It’s Dark’: The Child’s Dream in David Lynch’s Blue Velvet“, The Fatal Woman: Sources Of Male Anxiety In American Film Noir, 1941-1991, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison, 1996, pp. 144-155

and then butchered it.  The Atkinson book is BFI Modern Classics: Blue Velvet, British Film Institute, London, 1997, the rest is another title altogether.  This needs to be fixed, and if I could I would fix it myself. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I found the error and fixed it.  Two different titles were combined under <ref name="Atkinson" /> which created gibberish. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rules of Attraction
Pretty sure the film is referred to in the Bret Easton Ellis book 'The Rules of Attraction'. Surely worth a mention (pending that this is accurate - haven't read the book in a while).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.207.131 (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 

There's an image on Flickr of the building in Wilmington, DE that is used for Dorothy's apartment. Here it is. and yes, it does meet Wikipedia copyright guidelines --Noah¢s (Talk) 01:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it psychological horror or crime film or mystery film or mixed genre film?
31.223.141.37 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Miro199131.223.141.37 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask, it mixes together a bunch of genres. The opening is a mystery film, but it quickly switches to horror when Jeffrey enters the apartment and Frank is introduced. The "solving a mystery" aspect is done at that point. The rest of the film has touches of experimental cinema, romance, comedy, satire, drama, teen angst, thriller, crime, and psychological horror. Overall I'd say crime film comes the closest to describing it, since the gangster element is one that carries through the entire film. But even that's debatable, as it's simply my opinion. I think it's best to just say "this is a 1986 American film." and then discuss how it's been viewed as belonging to various genres by different critics over the years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.48.40 (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The article says it takes place in the 1960s, but it sure seems like the 1980s: clothing, hairstyles, beer, plastic squeeze ketchup bottle, personal sized Doritos bag, most of the cars in the back ground, etc. Is there a source that says it's the 1960s?
"In Dreams" is played on an 80's style cassette player at Ben's and then again in the car. It's definitely the 80's. I'm changing it.
Jeffrey drives a 1973 Oldsmobile; Frank's car is a late-60s Dodge. The clothes and hairstyles are definitely 80s. This movie evokes previous decades to an extent, but definitely isn't set in the 50s-60s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:4881:EFB0:59DD:9AFE:B356:ED (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Blue Velvet (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081017161603/http://bventertainment.go.com:80/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/chat/transcript-ebert-070802.html to http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/chat/transcript-ebert-070802.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080422130704/http://weblogs.variety.com:80/thompsononhollywood/2007/07/top-100-film-li.html?query=%22pulp+fiction%22+1994+tarantino to http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2007/07/top-100-film-li.html?query=%22pulp+fiction%22+1994+tarantino
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I only just saw this film  - in 2017. Better late than never.
I'm surprised that neither the article nor this page mention one of the most obvious (to me) film references: The Wizard of Oz. It cannot be coincidence to have Isabella Rossellini's character called Dorothy and wearing red shoes. Any doubt is dispelled by the closing scene with its strong parallels to the 'it was only a dream - or was it?' closing scene of OZ, with the characters that Dorothy has seen (or dreamt of) in the Land of Oz being re-seen as neighbours back in Kansas. Not to mention that Jeffrey lives with his Aunt Barbara, just as Dorothy Gale lived with her Aunt Em. (We can also note that the Wizard, hiding in his Booth, was played by Frank Morgan and the original book was by L. Frank Baum). There are other parallels and references.
This only serves to accentuate that the film is surreal and dream like, and may indeed be all a dream. Jeffrey has a nightmare about what he has seen - or is the whole story only in his imagination? For sure, no one could take a beating such as Frank gives Jeffery and not end up in hospital with injuries such as broken ribs, ruptured spleen, broken facial bones and so on.  The extreme violence that Frank inflicts on Dorothy, and the blow that Jeffery gives her, leave not a mark, strongly indicating that this is in the realm of the sub-conscious or dream world. The choice of Roy Orbison's 'In Dreams' to accompany some of the more violent and sexually ambiguous scenes, such as where Jeffery is hit by the effeminate Ben, and later by Frank who is smearing bright red lipstick on himself and Jefferey, cannot be just because David Lynch liked the melody.
However, the ambiguity of dreams does not mean that real crime and sinister events may not be hidden just below the surface of the ultra-normal looking suburban American setting, as well as just below the consciousness of the seemingly normal American male.
One of the other obvious film references is to Grease, with Blue Velvet's Sandy, looking extremely like her good girl namesake originally played by Olivia Newton-John.
I wonder why Dorothy Vallens' apartment block, where so much sinister sexual violence takes place, is named the Deep River apartments? Simply referring to the deep river of the subconscious? Or referencing Ike and Tina Turner's massive hit, River Deep – Mountain High? Given the well attested physical and sexual abuse to which Ike subjected his wife, this is not beyond possibility.
Finally, there is quite a lot of playful sexual innuendo which has not been commented on in the main article, such as the local radio station 'W-O-O-D, the mighty wood - there's a lot of wood out there' (quoted from memory), the recurrent sight of massive tree trunks, Jeffery's surname meaning 'good mount', the 'hardware' store and more. Or maybe I am revealing too much of my own sub-conscious!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selimap (talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blue Velvet (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317001135/http://www.premiere.com/features/1539/the-100-greatest-movie-characters-of-all-time-page2.html to http://www.premiere.com/features/1539/the-100-greatest-movie-characters-of-all-time-page2.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sloth.org/samples-bin/samples/source?summary
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It is redundant to replace "Jeffrey also starts a sadomasochistic sexual relationship in which Dorothy encourages him to hit her." with "Jeffrey also starts a sadomasochistic sexual relationship in which Dorothy also begins to have an affair and encourages him to hit her." (or very similar wording) [1] [2] [3], unless Dorothy is starting an affair with someone other than Jeffrey, in which case this new sentence is hopelessly poorly worded. Meters (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Per the article, the woman cried--not Lynch himself. Another source is needed or the language should be amended.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.38.237 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC) 

I thought there was a section on here with references to the film in popular culture, like Anthrax's "Now It's Dark" and several songs on Mr. Bungle's debut album sample the film. Did someone take it away? If it was never here, would anyone object to creating such a section? Kire1975 (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! It is worth checking out MOS:POPCULT for some guidance. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)