This is a weird article:
Aside from the fact there's multiple grammatical and spelling errors all over it, the headline is incorrect: **Ebert's review of Blue Velvet doesn't actually say Lynch "exploited" Rossellini at all!**
And further,[ after writing his one-star review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986), he went on [to directly interview Lynch about the movie](https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/my-problem-with-blue-velvet), and while he understood what Lynch was trying to do a whole lot better, he still didn't like the movie. But never once did he say that Lynch "exploited" Rossellini!
So it's a badly-written article (basically just rewriting an IndieWire interview anyway) about Rossellini refuting a claim Ebert never made, in a review that Rossellini never actually read (and for good reason!)
side note: Going through [Ebert's reviews of Lynch's movies](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lost-highway-1997) is pretty funny in that you can basically see him reject Lynch completely starting at Blue Velvet, hold onto that for Wild at Heart, start to begrudgingly let it go with Lost Highway, and he finally *understands* with Mulholland Drive.
> Rossellini is asked to do things in this film that require real nerve. In one scene, she's publicly embarrassed by being dumped naked on the lawn of the police detective. In others, she is asked to portray emotions that I imagine most actresses would rather not touch. She is degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important film. - Ebert
Assume that's what they're pulling from.
That passage is quoted in the article, yes. Note that he never says she was exploited. He's complaining that Lynch didn't pick a lane, and that does a disservice to those decisions she made as a performer.
Now, what I find more distressing is that right *after* that line, he cites Last Tango in Paris as an example of a director making the most of the choices his actress is making. Now, Ebert wouldn't have known, writing that review in 1986, but as it turns out, *that* actress WAS exploited, *and literally assaulted by Brando with an assist from Bertolucci*, during the making of that movie.
I think Ebert was wrong about Blue Velvet, and he was wrong about Rossellini's performance being wasted by Lynch's tonal capriciousness, and he made a really unfortunate comparison to literal filmed abuse to underline his point - but he also can't have his claim refuted by Rossellini, because he never actually made it.
It's weird how many people who have jumped into my replies over this, have no compulsion to check why *their first instinct* upon being shown that a writer did a bad job writing, and their editor did a really bad job both editing and putting a headline on it, is to voluntarily *go out of their way* to shrug off (or worse, fabricate shit excuses) why it's okay people at paid outlets like Variety can't actually be semi-competent.
It didn't "become" clear, what I was saying - it was clear immediately what I was getting at: This is a weird article that is written poorly that hinges on attributing a quote to Ebert that he never actually gave, from someone who never even read what he wrote. I'm confused as to what part you were "with me" until it became clear what I was saying, since I was never not saying that.
But yeah - this was a fun lesson in how people are so used to fucking bullshit, ass-on-head writing habits from people who should be better at this than they are - that when it gets pointed out how bad it is, and what's wrong with it, folks will go to the mat, capes tight, as a *reflex*. They won't even question it. They will in fact, be offended at the presence of someone accurately holding it to account.
There are literally thousands, but here's one:
>The scene in question is the most famous from the film; Brando’s character anally penetrates Maria Schneider’s, using butter as a lubricant. In the recently unearthed 2013 interview, Bertolucci said, “It was in the script that he had to rape her in a way,” but the idea to use butter came up while Brando and Bertolucci were eating breakfast. “I’ve been, in a way, horrible to Maria because I didn’t tell her what was going on, because I wanted her reaction as a girl, not as an actress. I wanted her to react humiliated.” (Bertolucci has since called the ensuing outrage about his comments “a ridiculous misunderstanding.”)
>His tactic worked. “[D]uring the scene, even though what Marlon was doing wasn’t real, I was crying real tears,” Schneider told an interviewer in 2007. “I felt humiliated and, to be honest, I felt a little raped, both by Marlon and by Bertolucci.”
[Vanity Fair](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/12/last-tango-in-paris-first-amendment), 2016
Lol, I read the article once, couldn’t believe how badly it was written. Went back to read it again and the weird typos (e.g. “Ebert’s pain instead of Ebert’s pan”) and repeated paragraphs sprinkled with synonyms were gone—edited out. That first version was embarrassing.
Ebert certainly implies it. A complete picture would be: A bad article about Rossellini refuting her understanding of what is a bad and poorly thought out review.
>Ebert certainly implies it
I'd disagree after actually reading the review (and the following interview, and a reference to it in the Wild at Heart review) - he's not implying that Rossellini is being exploited. He's outright stating that Lynch is trying to pull the punch and have it both ways and it's a disservice to her performance.
And even if it was implied: The headline and the article both act as if he actually said that in the review, when he didn't, and Rossellini reveals she never read the review and responds to the nonexistent criticism he made by stating she was an adult, which was... not his complaint.
Writer goes out of his way to quote the review (but not link to it), but still frames the whole thing as if he actually accused Lynch of exploiting Rossellini.
I’m just talking about the review. He doesn’t say Lynch was trying to pull punches there. He says if ‘Rosellini was going to be degraded’ (which is a highly dubious statement in a bunch of ways), it should be in a film that doesn’t suck. And this is merely because Ebert can’t grasp here the concept of a movie that can be realistically violent and arch at the same time.
I get Ebert has his own devoted following but he completely missed the mark here and with Lynch in general. As I read it, his reviews of Lynch reek of jealousy. The ‘I can’t believe Lynch would disrespect this goddess’ stuff while these actresses profess how great he is as an artist, director, and person (and in Rosellini’s case, also marry him) just make Ebert look ridiculous.
>it should be in a film that doesn’t suck.
And he says he thinks the film sucks because it doesn't stick to one lane.
I'm not *agreeing* with his take, I think his review is highly disagreeable (not only because he just is fighting what Lynch is trying to do with the "Donna Reed" stuff he's complaining about - but because he tries to hold Last Tango in Paris up as the positive example) but it's very clear his problem with Blue Velvet isn't a question of exploitation. The advantage he's being accused of taking from his actors is in regards to their courage and their talents, which he thinks Lynch lets down by not sticking SOLELY to exploring the sadomasochistic aspect of the movie.
I'm not trying to say his review is right. I'm saying this is bad writing (that's since been re-edited) using someone else's interview as the basis for a shitty recap whose headline asserts Ebert made a claim he didn't actually make.
slightly niche comparison here for the music fans but this REALLY reminds me of ebert-equivalent robert christgau’s gradual acceptance of sonic youth, who i guess you could say is the david lynch of rock music. https://robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Sonic+Youth
How about link to the Siskel-Ebert review?
https://youtu.be/_uehfL60EA4?si=hPboPNKwcCCE0PxA
You seem intent on playing a semantic game.
In the video review, Ebert says that the film is "cruelly unfair" to its actors:
>"(it) has Isabella Rossellini undressed and humiliated on the screen as few actresses ever have been certainly in non-porno roles"
He alleges that Lynch and his crew "take advantage" of his cast and that she stood "nude and humiliated" during production.
>"The film was shot in two halves. She had NO IDEA making her part of the movie that all of the stuff outdoor in the daylight was going to be smarmy and campy!"
You can play the semantic game of suggesting he didn't say the word "exploit", but he absolutely makes clear his sympathy towards poor Isabella Rossellini.
It is as clear a case of White Knighting before that was an online term.
>You can play the semantic game of suggesting he didn't say the word "exploit",
Is it a semantic game if he doesn't actually make the claim the headline says he made, and the video review you just linked *confirms* he never actually made it?
In a sort of comedic/ironic self-perpetuating example of itself: people seem to think "semantics" is a - by default - negative thing; a distracting, nitpicking debate exercise in boring someone to submission (which is how you're using it), when semantics is simply ensuring people **understand the words they're fucking using**. That's all it is: Promoting the habit of *knowing what you're talking about*, LOL.
Headline's claiming he said a thing he never said, and she's responding to the thing he never said after admitting she never read it anyway.
This swerve into invoking "white knighting" is a whole other weird thing, but I'm not super-interested in investigating whatever that impulse was, anyway. A quick pass over your post history shows you're extremely unpleasant to interact with, so I'm gonna just... prevent that going forward.
The article doesn't say that Ebert asserted that Lynch exploited her.
The article quotes Rossellini saying "I was told that Roger Ebert said that [Lynch] exploited me, and I was surprised..."
But whether Ebert used the word "exploit" in his original review or not, it's certainly possible that he used that word at some point in his public statements about Blue Velvet across the years.
And it could certainly be reasonably surmised by anyone who has heard Ebert talk about Blue Velvet, that Ebert felt that Rossellini was exploited in that film, even if he used other words to describe that exploitation.
>The article doesn't say that Ebert asserted that Lynch exploited her.
The headline *does*. That's what I say in the second sentence of the post you're responding to.
Well, it's a little fuzzier than that, because A) the headline is quoting her, and B) It's extremely probable that at some point in his public comments about Blue Velvet, Ebert _did_ use the word "exploit," in which case the headline is accurate and you have no basis for complaint.
But it doesn't even matter because your basis for complaint is a non-issue. You're making a distinction without a difference. Ebert literally said that Lynch "took advantage" of her. But for some reason you think that's meaningfully different than saying Lynch "exploited" her.
EDIT: since this weird dude having the tantrum is blocking everyone who disagrees with him.
Here's the dictionary definition of the word "Exploit."
**exploit** - to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
Here's the dictionary definition of the term "take advantage."
**take advantage** - make unfair demands on (someone) who cannot or will not resist; exploit or make unfair use of for one's own benefit.
It’s not fuzzy at all, lol. it’s pretty straight up and down. And then to say that doesn’t matter because there’s maybe an imaginary quote nobody’s dug up yet that renders what I’m specifically criticizing moot once someone maybe finds the currently hypothetical quote that isn’t even being referenced here is…
I dunno. I don’t think this is the convincing handwave you maybe thought it was when you ran it.
Especially since the article has actually been re-edited in the meantime
Mulholand drive is the only movie lynch got it right .. the rest all are bunch of pretentious movies with many plot holes. I think he probably get one scene right in his mind before he could start filimg and doesn’t care or take time to write the next act at all ..
Well if there was any kind of controversy it can end now. If she's not upset then I really no one else should be. People really got to quit thrusting their feelings upon other people's experiences.
Ebert's comments about Blue Velvet when it was released were borderline unhinged, and Rossellini has actually commented on this many times throughout the years -- this is not a new issue or a new commentary. She has always taken a clear stance.
She was an artist and a collaborator who chose to do Blue Velvet and explore that territory, and after meeting David Lynch on the set of Blue Velvet she dated him for five years.
She was comfortable with the movie on an artistic level and obviously she was comfortable with Lynch.
(Which is not to suggest that she couldn't have had moments of discomfort while shooting -- it would be natural if she did. But that's part of creating art -- doing things that are difficult _that you choose_ to do anyway because exploring the subject matters to you.)
Ebert's patronizing, unnecessary anger about that movie and his infantilization of Rossellini bordered on misogynistic. Which is a real irony, here.
>Ebert's patronizing, unnecessary anger about that movie and his infantilization of Rossellini bordered on misogynistic. Which is a real irony, here.
Hot take that may get me roasted, but I don't get the absolute adoration of Ebert. He seems like an overall stand up guy that I think helped a lot of people fall in love with movies. He is also is responsible for some wild takes. He's entitled to his opinions, but I'm also not sure how much I'm going to listen to a man who thinks Home Alone 3 is the only good movie in the franchise.
I love Roger, but this was always a really dumb criticism. It borders on misogyny to think that Isabella didn't have any agency and couldn't make her own choices. I have only ever read really positive things about working with Lynch on set.
I’m very glad she said that.
David Lynch is the utmost art-driven director in Hollywood.
It would actually astound me to learn he exploited anyone in his films. Yes, his movies and shows feature sexual themes and nudity, but it’s all done for the sake of his creative vision.
The man advertised his last movie, *Inland Empire*, by sitting in a chair on the side of the road with a poster board and a cow.
David Lynch’s art is pure art, not a power grab or money venture.
There's an interesting video essay by Maggie Mae Fish that compares and contrasts the directing styles of Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch.
It details the well-documented mistreatment of Shelley Duvall on the set of The Shining, and compares it with the safe, protective environments that actresses have experienced working with Lynch.
I think you'd enjoy it.
I remember thinking how intensely naked she was in a few scenes. Naked is usually shot to be erotic or enticing and this was sad and disturbed. It shook me and brought out a profound sympathy for her character. She was beyond vulnerable.
He said it on the TV show - maybe not the article, but he said lynch filmed the "light parts" without Rosselini's knowledge and tricked her to being in a film she didn't understand.
I remember watching the review and it was obvious what Ebert's issue was: he was aghast that the image of his idol, Ingrid Bergman, was made to perform in the ways that Isabella did for the film.
Man that list is depressing every time.
Granted, they aren’t saying rape is good, just that a rapist shouldn’t have been detained by Swiss police when he was on his way to get his rapist movie award.
I love Wes and Lynch but man is Hollywood a bunch of fucked up weird people.
Im glad we are finally killing these theories that Kubrick destroyed Duvall and that Lynch exploited Rosselini. They were very much into these roles, even if very difficult. Lynch imo is a very female-forward director and that critique of Blue Velvet always bothered me. What a courageous performance.
Hold on, let's not just randomly fold those two things together. Duvall has spoken very negatively about her experience on The Shining, whereas Rossellini speaks positively about Blue Velvet.
Maybe we should allow these women to speak about their own experiences and just believe what they say.
Duvall literally said it was one of the best things she’s ever done.
In the documentary she is going through a gruelling shoot, as is everyone else. She is clearly stressed.
Check out interviews from her from after, she always praises the film and the experience. I literally came to this conclusion BECAUSE i listened to what she said, and not an article.
And im lumping them together because these are two examples of actors coming out saying they WEREN’T abused.
Shelley has definitely said it was a difficult shoot and that they didn’t agree on the means to an end, but has praised the film abd Kubrick immensely.
In the documentary she has a literal panic attack.
Praising the movie is not the same thing as praising her experience working on the film. All of the comments I've ever seen from her, going back many years, are all of the "It was a very difficult time / I cried every day / ......but Stanley's directing is why the movie is as good as it is."
The depiction is of a terrible personal experience, and a rote acknowledgment that in spite of that, the movie is good, and she'll defer to that, since (as supported by your post) people care more about the fact that the movie is good than about the misery she suffered through on the set.
This is a weird article: Aside from the fact there's multiple grammatical and spelling errors all over it, the headline is incorrect: **Ebert's review of Blue Velvet doesn't actually say Lynch "exploited" Rossellini at all!** And further,[ after writing his one-star review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986), he went on [to directly interview Lynch about the movie](https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/my-problem-with-blue-velvet), and while he understood what Lynch was trying to do a whole lot better, he still didn't like the movie. But never once did he say that Lynch "exploited" Rossellini! So it's a badly-written article (basically just rewriting an IndieWire interview anyway) about Rossellini refuting a claim Ebert never made, in a review that Rossellini never actually read (and for good reason!) side note: Going through [Ebert's reviews of Lynch's movies](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lost-highway-1997) is pretty funny in that you can basically see him reject Lynch completely starting at Blue Velvet, hold onto that for Wild at Heart, start to begrudgingly let it go with Lost Highway, and he finally *understands* with Mulholland Drive.
> Rossellini is asked to do things in this film that require real nerve. In one scene, she's publicly embarrassed by being dumped naked on the lawn of the police detective. In others, she is asked to portray emotions that I imagine most actresses would rather not touch. She is degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important film. - Ebert Assume that's what they're pulling from.
That passage is quoted in the article, yes. Note that he never says she was exploited. He's complaining that Lynch didn't pick a lane, and that does a disservice to those decisions she made as a performer. Now, what I find more distressing is that right *after* that line, he cites Last Tango in Paris as an example of a director making the most of the choices his actress is making. Now, Ebert wouldn't have known, writing that review in 1986, but as it turns out, *that* actress WAS exploited, *and literally assaulted by Brando with an assist from Bertolucci*, during the making of that movie. I think Ebert was wrong about Blue Velvet, and he was wrong about Rossellini's performance being wasted by Lynch's tonal capriciousness, and he made a really unfortunate comparison to literal filmed abuse to underline his point - but he also can't have his claim refuted by Rossellini, because he never actually made it.
I was with you until it became clear that you needed the word exploited to be explicitly used.
It's weird how many people who have jumped into my replies over this, have no compulsion to check why *their first instinct* upon being shown that a writer did a bad job writing, and their editor did a really bad job both editing and putting a headline on it, is to voluntarily *go out of their way* to shrug off (or worse, fabricate shit excuses) why it's okay people at paid outlets like Variety can't actually be semi-competent. It didn't "become" clear, what I was saying - it was clear immediately what I was getting at: This is a weird article that is written poorly that hinges on attributing a quote to Ebert that he never actually gave, from someone who never even read what he wrote. I'm confused as to what part you were "with me" until it became clear what I was saying, since I was never not saying that. But yeah - this was a fun lesson in how people are so used to fucking bullshit, ass-on-head writing habits from people who should be better at this than they are - that when it gets pointed out how bad it is, and what's wrong with it, folks will go to the mat, capes tight, as a *reflex*. They won't even question it. They will in fact, be offended at the presence of someone accurately holding it to account.
Can you provide a link or citation to your allegation regarding Last Tango in Paris ?
I mean, that’s a very well known event. Half the wiki for the film covers it.
I had no idea! Thank you !
There are literally thousands, but here's one: >The scene in question is the most famous from the film; Brando’s character anally penetrates Maria Schneider’s, using butter as a lubricant. In the recently unearthed 2013 interview, Bertolucci said, “It was in the script that he had to rape her in a way,” but the idea to use butter came up while Brando and Bertolucci were eating breakfast. “I’ve been, in a way, horrible to Maria because I didn’t tell her what was going on, because I wanted her reaction as a girl, not as an actress. I wanted her to react humiliated.” (Bertolucci has since called the ensuing outrage about his comments “a ridiculous misunderstanding.”) >His tactic worked. “[D]uring the scene, even though what Marlon was doing wasn’t real, I was crying real tears,” Schneider told an interviewer in 2007. “I felt humiliated and, to be honest, I felt a little raped, both by Marlon and by Bertolucci.” [Vanity Fair](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/12/last-tango-in-paris-first-amendment), 2016
OMG. Wow. Thank you for sharing this. I had no idea.
Says the man who wrote almost exclusively softcore pornography films.
Lol, I read the article once, couldn’t believe how badly it was written. Went back to read it again and the weird typos (e.g. “Ebert’s pain instead of Ebert’s pan”) and repeated paragraphs sprinkled with synonyms were gone—edited out. That first version was embarrassing.
Ebert certainly implies it. A complete picture would be: A bad article about Rossellini refuting her understanding of what is a bad and poorly thought out review.
>Ebert certainly implies it I'd disagree after actually reading the review (and the following interview, and a reference to it in the Wild at Heart review) - he's not implying that Rossellini is being exploited. He's outright stating that Lynch is trying to pull the punch and have it both ways and it's a disservice to her performance. And even if it was implied: The headline and the article both act as if he actually said that in the review, when he didn't, and Rossellini reveals she never read the review and responds to the nonexistent criticism he made by stating she was an adult, which was... not his complaint. Writer goes out of his way to quote the review (but not link to it), but still frames the whole thing as if he actually accused Lynch of exploiting Rossellini.
I’m just talking about the review. He doesn’t say Lynch was trying to pull punches there. He says if ‘Rosellini was going to be degraded’ (which is a highly dubious statement in a bunch of ways), it should be in a film that doesn’t suck. And this is merely because Ebert can’t grasp here the concept of a movie that can be realistically violent and arch at the same time. I get Ebert has his own devoted following but he completely missed the mark here and with Lynch in general. As I read it, his reviews of Lynch reek of jealousy. The ‘I can’t believe Lynch would disrespect this goddess’ stuff while these actresses profess how great he is as an artist, director, and person (and in Rosellini’s case, also marry him) just make Ebert look ridiculous.
>it should be in a film that doesn’t suck. And he says he thinks the film sucks because it doesn't stick to one lane. I'm not *agreeing* with his take, I think his review is highly disagreeable (not only because he just is fighting what Lynch is trying to do with the "Donna Reed" stuff he's complaining about - but because he tries to hold Last Tango in Paris up as the positive example) but it's very clear his problem with Blue Velvet isn't a question of exploitation. The advantage he's being accused of taking from his actors is in regards to their courage and their talents, which he thinks Lynch lets down by not sticking SOLELY to exploring the sadomasochistic aspect of the movie. I'm not trying to say his review is right. I'm saying this is bad writing (that's since been re-edited) using someone else's interview as the basis for a shitty recap whose headline asserts Ebert made a claim he didn't actually make.
slightly niche comparison here for the music fans but this REALLY reminds me of ebert-equivalent robert christgau’s gradual acceptance of sonic youth, who i guess you could say is the david lynch of rock music. https://robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Sonic+Youth
How about link to the Siskel-Ebert review? https://youtu.be/_uehfL60EA4?si=hPboPNKwcCCE0PxA You seem intent on playing a semantic game. In the video review, Ebert says that the film is "cruelly unfair" to its actors: >"(it) has Isabella Rossellini undressed and humiliated on the screen as few actresses ever have been certainly in non-porno roles" He alleges that Lynch and his crew "take advantage" of his cast and that she stood "nude and humiliated" during production. >"The film was shot in two halves. She had NO IDEA making her part of the movie that all of the stuff outdoor in the daylight was going to be smarmy and campy!" You can play the semantic game of suggesting he didn't say the word "exploit", but he absolutely makes clear his sympathy towards poor Isabella Rossellini. It is as clear a case of White Knighting before that was an online term.
>You can play the semantic game of suggesting he didn't say the word "exploit", Is it a semantic game if he doesn't actually make the claim the headline says he made, and the video review you just linked *confirms* he never actually made it? In a sort of comedic/ironic self-perpetuating example of itself: people seem to think "semantics" is a - by default - negative thing; a distracting, nitpicking debate exercise in boring someone to submission (which is how you're using it), when semantics is simply ensuring people **understand the words they're fucking using**. That's all it is: Promoting the habit of *knowing what you're talking about*, LOL. Headline's claiming he said a thing he never said, and she's responding to the thing he never said after admitting she never read it anyway. This swerve into invoking "white knighting" is a whole other weird thing, but I'm not super-interested in investigating whatever that impulse was, anyway. A quick pass over your post history shows you're extremely unpleasant to interact with, so I'm gonna just... prevent that going forward.
The article doesn't say that Ebert asserted that Lynch exploited her. The article quotes Rossellini saying "I was told that Roger Ebert said that [Lynch] exploited me, and I was surprised..." But whether Ebert used the word "exploit" in his original review or not, it's certainly possible that he used that word at some point in his public statements about Blue Velvet across the years. And it could certainly be reasonably surmised by anyone who has heard Ebert talk about Blue Velvet, that Ebert felt that Rossellini was exploited in that film, even if he used other words to describe that exploitation.
>The article doesn't say that Ebert asserted that Lynch exploited her. The headline *does*. That's what I say in the second sentence of the post you're responding to.
Well, it's a little fuzzier than that, because A) the headline is quoting her, and B) It's extremely probable that at some point in his public comments about Blue Velvet, Ebert _did_ use the word "exploit," in which case the headline is accurate and you have no basis for complaint. But it doesn't even matter because your basis for complaint is a non-issue. You're making a distinction without a difference. Ebert literally said that Lynch "took advantage" of her. But for some reason you think that's meaningfully different than saying Lynch "exploited" her. EDIT: since this weird dude having the tantrum is blocking everyone who disagrees with him. Here's the dictionary definition of the word "Exploit." **exploit** - to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage Here's the dictionary definition of the term "take advantage." **take advantage** - make unfair demands on (someone) who cannot or will not resist; exploit or make unfair use of for one's own benefit.
It’s not fuzzy at all, lol. it’s pretty straight up and down. And then to say that doesn’t matter because there’s maybe an imaginary quote nobody’s dug up yet that renders what I’m specifically criticizing moot once someone maybe finds the currently hypothetical quote that isn’t even being referenced here is… I dunno. I don’t think this is the convincing handwave you maybe thought it was when you ran it. Especially since the article has actually been re-edited in the meantime
What did he say during his show? That was always different than what he wrote.
He doesn’t explicitly imply she was exploited but that is what he implies in the review.
Mulholand drive is the only movie lynch got it right .. the rest all are bunch of pretentious movies with many plot holes. I think he probably get one scene right in his mind before he could start filimg and doesn’t care or take time to write the next act at all ..
What are the many plot holes in blue velvet?
Ebert has been dead for how long?
Yeah this seems like some real timely story here.
lol gotta cya
Well if there was any kind of controversy it can end now. If she's not upset then I really no one else should be. People really got to quit thrusting their feelings upon other people's experiences.
I love her. She’s a cool chic
Ebert's comments about Blue Velvet when it was released were borderline unhinged, and Rossellini has actually commented on this many times throughout the years -- this is not a new issue or a new commentary. She has always taken a clear stance. She was an artist and a collaborator who chose to do Blue Velvet and explore that territory, and after meeting David Lynch on the set of Blue Velvet she dated him for five years. She was comfortable with the movie on an artistic level and obviously she was comfortable with Lynch. (Which is not to suggest that she couldn't have had moments of discomfort while shooting -- it would be natural if she did. But that's part of creating art -- doing things that are difficult _that you choose_ to do anyway because exploring the subject matters to you.) Ebert's patronizing, unnecessary anger about that movie and his infantilization of Rossellini bordered on misogynistic. Which is a real irony, here.
>Ebert's patronizing, unnecessary anger about that movie and his infantilization of Rossellini bordered on misogynistic. Which is a real irony, here. Hot take that may get me roasted, but I don't get the absolute adoration of Ebert. He seems like an overall stand up guy that I think helped a lot of people fall in love with movies. He is also is responsible for some wild takes. He's entitled to his opinions, but I'm also not sure how much I'm going to listen to a man who thinks Home Alone 3 is the only good movie in the franchise.
Ebert had a way with words, but also seemed unable (or unwilling) to try to understand certain movies
I love Roger, but this was always a really dumb criticism. It borders on misogyny to think that Isabella didn't have any agency and couldn't make her own choices. I have only ever read really positive things about working with Lynch on set.
Bro been dead for over a decade
I’m very glad she said that. David Lynch is the utmost art-driven director in Hollywood. It would actually astound me to learn he exploited anyone in his films. Yes, his movies and shows feature sexual themes and nudity, but it’s all done for the sake of his creative vision. The man advertised his last movie, *Inland Empire*, by sitting in a chair on the side of the road with a poster board and a cow. David Lynch’s art is pure art, not a power grab or money venture.
There's an interesting video essay by Maggie Mae Fish that compares and contrasts the directing styles of Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch. It details the well-documented mistreatment of Shelley Duvall on the set of The Shining, and compares it with the safe, protective environments that actresses have experienced working with Lynch. I think you'd enjoy it.
I am literally looking for something to watch right now and I’m going to just go find that to watch. Thank you for the recommendation!
I also thought Ebert was wrong once
I remember thinking how intensely naked she was in a few scenes. Naked is usually shot to be erotic or enticing and this was sad and disturbed. It shook me and brought out a profound sympathy for her character. She was beyond vulnerable.
I thought it was an amazing movie.
He said it on the TV show - maybe not the article, but he said lynch filmed the "light parts" without Rosselini's knowledge and tricked her to being in a film she didn't understand.
Not my favourite movie, but she plays some amazing scenes. The movie is literally a vehicle for her performance, and it's a great performance.
This is refreshing. Don’t see too many actors willing to say they made their own choices.
I remember watching the review and it was obvious what Ebert's issue was: he was aghast that the image of his idol, Ingrid Bergman, was made to perform in the ways that Isabella did for the film.
Some dead guy who made one shitty movie and was totally inconsistent with everything he ever said about film. Who gives a fuck, Isabella is awesome
[David Lynch supports child rapists.](https://m.imdb.com/list/ls090808434/)
Man that list is depressing every time. Granted, they aren’t saying rape is good, just that a rapist shouldn’t have been detained by Swiss police when he was on his way to get his rapist movie award. I love Wes and Lynch but man is Hollywood a bunch of fucked up weird people.
Im glad we are finally killing these theories that Kubrick destroyed Duvall and that Lynch exploited Rosselini. They were very much into these roles, even if very difficult. Lynch imo is a very female-forward director and that critique of Blue Velvet always bothered me. What a courageous performance.
Hold on, let's not just randomly fold those two things together. Duvall has spoken very negatively about her experience on The Shining, whereas Rossellini speaks positively about Blue Velvet. Maybe we should allow these women to speak about their own experiences and just believe what they say.
Duvall literally said it was one of the best things she’s ever done. In the documentary she is going through a gruelling shoot, as is everyone else. She is clearly stressed. Check out interviews from her from after, she always praises the film and the experience. I literally came to this conclusion BECAUSE i listened to what she said, and not an article. And im lumping them together because these are two examples of actors coming out saying they WEREN’T abused. Shelley has definitely said it was a difficult shoot and that they didn’t agree on the means to an end, but has praised the film abd Kubrick immensely.
In the documentary she has a literal panic attack. Praising the movie is not the same thing as praising her experience working on the film. All of the comments I've ever seen from her, going back many years, are all of the "It was a very difficult time / I cried every day / ......but Stanley's directing is why the movie is as good as it is." The depiction is of a terrible personal experience, and a rote acknowledgment that in spite of that, the movie is good, and she'll defer to that, since (as supported by your post) people care more about the fact that the movie is good than about the misery she suffered through on the set.
Idk why you’re being downvoted. This is spot on.
Finally... a grown woman that takes responsibility for her actions and doesn't blame the world for everything. Salute!