All cinema and theater is latently voyeuristic.
True, not true? Somewhat true?
And particularly if true, what further social consequences can we infer from this?
I will add, that I keep thinking about Blue Velvet. Whenever I see a movie, my brain keeps processing it until I see the next movie. But even then things keep popping in.
Here, I was thinking about Kyle MacLachlan in the closet. That was voyeurism within voyeurism. We watched him watching her. What are the subtle effects of this sort of thing?
Hell. Further thoughts. MacLachlan finds the ear in an in-between zone. That is where his adventure begins. A liminal zone, as I would say in an academic paper. And he is throwing stones. This is an Islamic practice, essential to the Hajj, where they reject evil.
And the evil he finds meets the innocence from where he came when the evil–the victim of evil, but still tainted–shows up naked. And she says that he put his poison in her.
Life itself is a poison, too, isn’t it, in some ways? Granting life is cursing a soul, from a certain perspective.
And even though she has been repeatedly abused–raped is probably the best word–she says it flowed from him. One can say this is because he is a man. And obviously something physical is meant. But he hit her too, didn’t he?
And it occurred to me to wonder if those flowers at the beginning and end were roses, and if they had thorns. It would a nice touch to leave them thornless in the beginning, and thorned at the end. Or even vice versa, depending on the exact statement he wanted to make.
OK, that may do it.