Is Blue Velvet safe edgy or actually edgy?
>>215116894I'm starting to hate that term desu
>>215116894It was edgy for its time.
>>215116894*laughs* it's a good movie op
>>215116894What do you need? Like a Focus On The Family style rating or endorsement? KYS, zoomer
It's a good film that has stood the test of time.
>>215116894do they say slurs
>>215116894It's lit and lowkey deadass. Based for sure. Not fake edgy but it is sus type shit.
>>215116998No. As stated above, it is only edgy by 80s standards. Blue Velvet’s brand of edginess (i.e., kinky sex and subverting the image of the 50s) has been so thoroughly assimilated into the mainstream by now that the film is a good example of “safe edgy” within the contemporary context.
What is a good example of non-safe edgy? Would this be one?
>>215117139No, Kids is another one that is just a more vivid depiction of what has becomeMainstream. Gone With The Wind is a truly edgy movie in 2025.
