- Community TV & Movies
- Drama Department
- Blue Velvet
Discussion
Topic: Blue Velvet
(Spoilers) Just watch “Blue Velvet” over the weekend and I really liked it… except for the ending. Does anybody know if the ending was a studio decision to make the film more marketable or if it was the intended ending all along and there’s just something in the movie I don’t get? Because to me it doesn’t feel like it should have a happy ending, but I’m entirely willing to admit that it may fit in a tonal or thematic way I just don’t get.
2 comments
Connor Veenstra Also, why did Siskel and Ebert think this was a comedy? There’s nothing funny about it.
Like
Ryan I don’t think there was studio interference there. I always viewed the ending as thematic. The film starts showing the idyllic veneer of small town. It then (literally and then figuratively) gets into the weeds to show the darkness and rot underneath. The ending is pulling back to show the veneer again. A happy woman is playing with her child but you know her husband was murdered and they were both traumatized. The leads seem like they are now in a perfect, Norman Rockwell-like, relationship but you know the strange circumstances that brought them together and the distrust that is between them. A hummingbird snatches a bug and eats it (just bc you can’t see the bugs, doesn’t mean they aren’t there) and there are probably a hundred more ugly stories hiding under the idyllic veneer of this small town. That’s my reading at least.
Like