.) So assaultive was it that an outraged Roger Ebert (in a clip routinely included in home video releases of the film) denounced the excruciating scenes director David Lynch put his star actress, Isabella Rossellini, through : "I want to know that if I'm feeling that pain it's for a reason the movie has other than simply to cause pain to her." A new Blu-ray edition of the 1986 film, which gives us a pretty spectacular sound and picture for home viewing, along with nearly an hour of long-thought-lost excised scenes, allows us finally to re-see and reconsider the thing in all its glory—and be reminded again how, though Lynch's film was routinely called mysterious and dark, its motives and underpinnings were all pretty clear.
More on those deleted scenes in a minute. Sure. And then shortly after that, our hero, young Jeffrey, finds an ear in a field and the director's camera takes us deep down into its buzzing, ant-covered moldly hole (!). But the clues Lynch left were all intact. Is there sexual violence in the film? Seconds later, the first man is having a stroke and the hose is squirting around; he writhes on the ground spraying in all directions, like Jupiter Pluvius agonistes. But the first actor you see, after all, is holding a hose, squirting water out at waist level; seconds later, on a TV, we see another hand at waist level, this time with a gun in it. Squirting hoses, drawn guns, scary holes. Rewatch it today, as I did the other night with a group of willing friends, and the thing is still affecting, still alluring, still shocking, still challenging, offering glimpses of humanity at its most methodically terrifying and death at its most grim. … I mean, what did we expect?
Источник: Slate Magazine