Category Archives: Blue Velvet

Why Hollywood Hates Your Stupid Suburb

Leave a reply

Well, I guess everything nice can go a little bad, too.

While watching this past weekend’s excellent new “Mad Men” episode “Signal 30,” I realized something that I should have understood long ago: Hollywood loves to hate on suburbia. The offsprings of cities have come to represent boredom and loss of youth, amongst other things. They can be purgatory or hell, depending on how you look at it. Even when they do look nice, there is usually some joke behind it. In front of the camera,  a suburban town never looks like a purely good place to live.


Let’s start with this week’s “Mad Men” and go back and around. This episode found the spoiled heir Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) going slowly insane in his new home in Cos Cob, Connecticut where, according to his wife Trudy (Alison “#AnniesBoobs” Brie), there are no bakeries or Greenbergs. As a Connecticut resident, I assure you that there are in fact an abundance of Greenbergs.

So this is how people in Connecticut are supposed to dress?

The biggest objection one might have to a bunch of white people being miserable in the suburbs is that they probably have a nice enough car and a big enough house to keep them happy forever. It is entirely possible even for even the privileged to have emotions. By taking Pete, who has just moved out of New York City, and placing him in a bedroom community, “Mad Men” revealed that the reason people grow weary of small town life is because nothing happens. Some people need the adrenaline of big city life, and not a backyard with a pool.

Perhaps the most well-known recent example of suburban angst is “American Beauty.” Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is unhappy mainly because he has been rendered useless by both his family and his job. But he also seems to hate everything he owns, and these “things” are as useless to him as he is to everyone else. “American Beauty” does not suggest that every suburbanite is a miserable mess. The happiest and most together people in “American Beauty” is the gay couple. Perhaps that is because they have nothing hide, while everyone else seems to have so much to conceal. It is so easy to hide everything away behind a white picket fence. Filmmakers must think that city dwellers are less miserable because they are much more involved in the world they inhabit.

Even the portrayals of suburbia that seem positive are oozing with irony. The hilariously picture perfect Lumberton of “Blue Velvet” is just a front for violent perversion and creepy Roy Orbison impersonators. Same goes for the world of “Happiness,” where even the most stable family man can secretly be a child molester. In recent shows “Weeds” and “Cougar Town”* the orderly planned neighborhoods of Southern California and Florida are just made out of ticky tacky.

Symbolism

So maybe these examples aren’t saying that suburban life is totally terrible and you’re all spoiled rotten. The camera and the script are meant to capture hidden human truths, and a solid truth comes from the last line of “Some Like it Hot”: “Well, nobody’s perfect.” Everything that claims to be is just hiding some tragic flaws. Most suburbanites we see on the big and small screens are portrayed as prisoners: the men have been emasculated and the women have been tamed. Is this really what living in the country does to you, or is that just a part of getting old and having a family? That may be as difficult as asking whether the chicken, or the egg that needs you to pick them up at soccer practice, came first.

“Mad Men” did some good in making life outside of a metropolis seem half good: at least they acknowledged the fresh air and ample space. The most positive portrayals of the suburbs I have seen in film came from the eyes of teenagers living in very different eras: “American Graffiti” and “Dazed and Confused.” Maybe that is because teenagers are better at entertaining themselves. A life without commitment is definitely easiest. But then again, the 60s and 70s felt a lot more alive. There were still disc jockeys on the radio and small community theaters.

Big cities will always have that culture. Small towns are so prone to losing it. It is once that the uniqueness that makes us feel human has disappeared that suburban life becomes something negative. So Hollywood doesn’t necessarily hate your stupid suburb, it just hates how plain and monotonous small town America has seemed to become.

*Yes, I have seen “Cougar Town” and yes, it actually is not half bad.

I can’t get enough of this. There should be a spinoff sitcom called “Everybody Hates Pete.”

Dennis Hopper: Always Riding Easy

Leave a reply

It can be hard to sum up the entire life of an actor from the only two roles you’ve seen them in. But when they’re as powerful and unique as these certain two, it’s definitely worth a shot. After a long public battle with prostate cancer, Dennis Hopper died on Saturday. He was 74.

Hopper’s career as an actor (and many other jobs on the set) lasted over half of a century, spanning both film and television. Some might always have considered him a bit part, but he always left his mark on various legendary productions. At just 19, he had a small yet prominent part in “Rebel Without a Cause.”
But unfortunately I will admit, I am not the biggest expert on Hopper, and certainly am not worthy enough to tell his entire life story. But what I can do is show you Hopper through the two very different, but very amazing performances of his that I have seen.
Hopper’s breakthrough role came in 1969 with “Easy Rider.” Here was a film that not only established Hopper as a fine actor, but also broke down barriers and redefined American cinema. It could be even considered the first successful independent film made. And Hopper was such an integral part of that. Not only did he star in the film, but he also co-wrote (with Peter Fonda) and directed it. As a writer, he delved into long, maybe even improvised, speeches that could change your outlook on life. As a director, he established an America that was both hauntingly beautiful and free as well as nightmarishly conformist. One could argue that without him, there would be no Tarantino, no Soderbergh, no Kevin Smith, and no Miramax.
Hopper’s performance is also hard to forget. He plays Billy, the less serious, slightly more laid back character next to Fonda’s Wyatt. Hopper had this strange way of making his character’s memorable through just the tiniest details. One might remember Billy best from his giggly stoner laugh. Despite some of the less serious aspects of the character, we are no less haunted by his fate at the end.
Hopper might not have gotten the film’s pivotal line (“We blew it”) nor did he get the giant career breakthrough (that went to Jack Nicholson), but his contribution to this piece of history is something of an unseen story. Let’s just say he directed “Easy Rider” to victory.
The best performance Hopper might’ve ever given is in David Lynch’s freaky “Blue Velvet.” In it, he plays psychopath Frank Booth. Frank is a villain beyond our wildest dreams, which is why he just might be a dream. Yet, Hopper doesn’t let that bother him. Frank is into inhaling Nitrous Oxide and holding families hostage while he commits acts of shocking sexual perversion. It’s a total turn around from Hopper’s performance in “Easy Rider.”
Once again, he gave it his all. Frank might seem like nothing more than a one-dimensional psychopath, but Hopper took him out of that territory and made him hauntingly real. He became a projection of all of our greatest fears. You’ll never forget his beer preference nor the way he mouths “In Dreams.” In the end we question, is Frank just a projection of our nightmares, or the man who lives next door to us.
As the obituaries begin to pop up, most headlines have contained the word “Bad Boy.” While Hopper certainly carried that reputation, putting him simply into that category would be too little. Outside of film, he may have been a bad boy yet inside of film, he was a revolutionary of a filmmaker, and a truly exceptional actor. To that I say, keep on riding easy, Dennis Hopper.
Note: I just realized I totally forgot to include “Apocalypse Now” on the list. My apologies.

Boondock Saints: Why I’m Not Part of the Cult

Leave a reply

Nine years ago, a film called “The Boondock Saints” opened on just five screens. At the end of its theatrical run, it had grossed a mere $25,812. Nobody knew then, that a phenomenon was in the making.

Today, Troy Duffy’s tale of two Irish brothers wreaking havoc on Boston’s criminal underworld has become one of the defining cult films of the decade. To date, its grossed more than $40 million on DVD and can currently be seen in over 500 different t-shirts at your local Hot Topic. Now, it’s getting a sequel called “Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day.”
But is this too much? “Boondock Saints” is entertaining, for sure. It’ll make you laugh and mostly keep you interested for its entire running time. Plus, it features Willem Dafoe at his absolute creepy best. But does it really deserve this cult?
Well, most of the great cult films are the trashiest ones (think “Rocky Horror Picture Show” and anything John Waters does). However, this film’s level of escapist trashiness feels uninspired. It felt like Duffy was trying his absolute best to imitate Tarantino. At some points, it’s all too obvious (you probably won’t laugh as hard at the cat getting his head shot off once you see the Marvin scene from “Pulp Fiction”). Mainly, however Tarantino is the hardest director to emulate because his style comes from decades of watching thousands of movies no one has ever heard of.
But I digress. The real problem with “Boondock Saints” is the story itself. Couldn’t Duffy have made the religious references a little more subtle? “Donnie Darko,” one of the great cult classics of the decade, was a film that explored the possible existence of God. Yet, you wouldn’t have known that until after you thought about it for a while. Plus, I find it impossible to take sympathy for anyone who believes murder is justified just because they believe God told them to do it. Perhaps this film is just plain overrated.
Maybe I just haven’t seen the movie enough. Or maybe I’m just one of those people who simply don’t get it. That’s what a cult film is: some get it, and some don’t. When I look for a good cult classic, I look for a film that penetrates your mind so much and spawns so many questions. In that light, the likes of “Donnie Darko” and “Blue Velvet” work for me. Or, I look for a film that transcends reality and forces you to embrace your darkest, guiltiest pleasures. In that light, “Scarface” works for me.
While those three films are constantly commented on on IMDB message boards or turned into useless merchandise, there’s more too them. They sit in your head, they make you question the very reason you go to the movies in the first place. And I guess that means I still really can’t answer that question.
I wish Troy Duffy best luck with this sequel and other films in the future. If he hopes to make something better than “Boondock Saints” there’s one thing he should remember: a great film (or great cult classic, for that matter) should be something to chew on, and not just full of cool quotes to put on t-shirts.
Now “Boondock Saints” fans please tell me: what do you enjoy about this film so much? Am I missing something?