Indie Controversy

Indie films sometimes garner attention because of their controversial presentation and perspective on sexuality--and are able to explore such territory because they are independent of mainstream squeamishness over such territory.  Blue Velvet was no exception.  In the case of Blue Velvet, the various groups and individuals condemning the film for its perspective mistakenly assumed Lynch somehow endorsed Frank Booth's violence against women.  Lynch caught heat for his supposedly being amoral or even immoral simply because one of his characters is. It seems more likely Lynch's position is more closely aligned with Jeffery's than Frank's.  He's curious, but also appalled.
     We'll find similar controversy with the films of Quentin Tarantino, who clearly follows Lynch's lead in exploring contested cinematic territory and drawing from some of Lynch's more striking images (the torture scene and lopped ear in Reservoir Dogs for example).
    The public outcry and response shows, if nothing else, how successfully both director/writers strike chords in their audiences.  One of their main strategies in doing so is catching us between discordant emotions.  In the scene above audiences find themselves alternating between titillation (at the voyeuristic situation of Jeffery in the closet) and menace (when the tables are turned) and violence when Frank enacts his ritualistic violation.  Another notable element (usually ignored in the rush to condemnation) is the exploration of the origins of male violence against women.  In Frank's case, we see how it comes from his fears and insecurity about women, especially maternal figures.  Seeing and being seen (and controlling who and what is seen and being seen) is a large part of this control--hence Frank's insistent orders for every not to look at him, something we also hear from Dorothy when she discovers Jeffery spying on her from the closet.  Most importantly, Lynch doesn't excuse Frank, he simply observes ("sees" him).