Re: [mythsoc] Ellison etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Apgar Triano" <lizziewriter@...>
To: "Mythopoeic Society" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Ellison etc.
> I didn't see that one, but I did see all or most of something I thought
> nasty, called I believe "Blue Velvet."
Yeah, that's David Lynch, not quite at his worst (I've heard, but only by
reputation, that _Wild at Heart_ earns that title.) The frightening thing
about _Blue Velvet_ is that, unlike (say) Waters's films, carefully and even
subtly crafted. Some people may snort and say, "_Blue Velvet_? Subtle?",
but there are many little details in the movie, hard to spot, which build
the sense of malaise which Lynch wants. That's Monty Clift's picture in
Laura Dern's bedroom, for example, and Clift was a notoriously
self-destructive closeted gay actor. When Kyle McLachlan says to Dern that
she's a neat girl, she replies, "You too." Huh? Yet it's still an
exploitation movie, and a fairly repulsive one at that, especially in its
treatment of the Isabella Rosselini character.
> If something is pernicious to the soul, does that make it a Successful
> Work? Or a disease?
Can art be pernicious to the soul? Unfortunately the debate has become so
hopelessly polarized that there is almost no ground for the person (like me)
who, while setting his face against any notion of censorship or return of a
"Production Code", believes that some works of art and entertainment are
morally questionable, even repulsive. You've got the two camps now, the
(often religiously motivated) reactionaries who want to burn Mapplethorpe
and expurgate Scorsese, and the (often adolescent or college-aged) radicals
who scoff at any notion that a movie, book, or TV game can influence
behavior (then why watch, read, or play?) and that they should be able to
watch as much pornography and play as much "Grand Theft Auto" as they want.