Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Blue Velvet

Blue Velvet

I would like to get this article in shape to reach GA status and would like any constructive criticism, comments, suggestions, etc. to improve it. Thanks. Count Ringworm 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it properly yet, but at first glance it looks a good article. The images have fair use rationales, but they seem rather brief? I'd like to see them expanded: perhaps choose a FA article (e.g. Jaws (film)) for an example of a more comprehensive FUR. Good work so far. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin and McCarthy

Without giving it a detailed read, I can say that you should probably try to shorten the plot section and merge relevant information in the trivia section into the rest of the article, as the page already reccomends. Also, the deleted scene picture without any accompanying text should either be explained or removed. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about acquiring a peer review, it’s a very informative article. First of all on improving the page, some production stills would be very good (such as the cast, or Lynch on the set), and citations for the references in popular culture section, the opening section of the article I wrote, and I think its fine, but needs a little expansion since Blue Velvet is an important film in cinema history, and the plot needs to be reduced to about a 800-900 words max. Angel2001 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started cleaning up things. I slimmed down the Plot Synposis considerably and did some little formatting here and there. -Count Ringworm 15:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian416

This article has a lot of really good details. I went through and made some fairly minor copyediting changes for readability as well as placed citation needed where a statement was unsourced. Here are some other things I noticed:

“The title is taken from a Bobby Vinton song by the same name, which continues the blue velvet motif that appears throughout the film in several significant moments.”

Since Blue Velvet is actually the title of the film and therefore usually the first thing someone knows about the film, it would make more sense to say that this title "begins" or "initiaties" this motif that continues throughout the rest of the film rather than "continues".

"Blue Velvet was financed and produced for Italian movie producer Dino de Laurentiis, however he deemed the film to be far "too dark", so Laurentiis had to start his own production company to distribute it, which became the De Laurentiis Entertainment Group."

I find this statement very confusing. If De Laurentiis found it too dark, why would he create a productions company just to get it distributed? Is it that his financial backers found it too dark?

In Origins it says "once the ideas came to Lynch"

The paragraphs before this statement suggest that Lynch had been formulating these ideas for many years and therefore did not just "come to" him. I couldn't think of a good way to reword this, but I think it should be changed.

In Writing: "The scene where Dorothy appears naked outside after being raped and beaten was inspired by a real-life experience Lynch had in his childhood when he and his brother saw a naked woman walking down a neighborhood street at night. The experience was so traumatic to the young Lynch at the time, it made him cry and he had never forgotten it."

I think this paragraph would make more sense in Origins.

Also in Writing: "Lynch's original script had Dorothy's child die before he could be saved, and Dorothy committing suicide at the end by throwing herself off the roof of the apartment building, her Blue Velvet robe dropping to cover the ground-level camera. Her suicide was to be crosscut with Jeffrey's idyllic home life. This referenced a previous scene in the film, shot but not included in the final cut, where Dorothy and Jeffrey make love on the roof of the apartment building during a thunderstorm, after which Dorothy threatens to jump from the roof."

This idea has no conclusion or explanation. Just because it was changed seems unimportant if we don't know why it was changed. Obviously after 4 drafts, a lot of things were changed that are not included in the article so this needs to be justified somehow.

In Casting it says Dennis Hopper was Lynch's third choice but before that, three actors are mentioned to whom the role was offered before Hopper. Was he 3rd or 4th? Also, imdb claims that Robert Loggia wanted to play the role of Frank. If this is true he probably would not have passed on the role.
Directing

This is by far the most problematic section. It reads like a college term paper and is largely unsourced. It also does not provide any insight into Lynch's directing style or the atmosphere of the set. Personally, I believe the whole section should be deleted.

References in Popular Culture

In agreement with above comments, any relevant information that can be merged into the body of the article would be great. Also, it seems the paragraphs are divided arbitrarily. I think sections like this read better in list form. Either way I think it could stand to be pared down significantly.

I hope these comments were helpful! There is a lot of really interesting info in this article on a really interesting film. Good luck! Gillian416 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]