gvg@hpislx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) (09/19/90)
WILD AT HEART
A film review by Greg Goebel
Copyright 1990 Greg Goebel
I walked into David Lynch's BLUE VELVET without much in the way of
forewarning or familiarity with Lynch's earlier films, and had my head
totally twisted around for the better part of a week as a result. So
when I went to see his latest, WILD AT HEART, I was better prepared.
This time I was only mildly confused and distressed.
WILD AT HEART concerns the adventures of two dedicated lovers, Lula
and Sailor, who are on the run from Lula's mom, a woman who is roughly
similar to the Wicked Witch of the West and is portrayed very
specifically as such. Mom is a truly evil character, made no less so by
the mind-shattering guilt she feels over her crimes, but nothing can
stand in the way of Lula's and Sailor's love.
If this sounds vaguely like THE PRINCESS BRIDE -- you know, "true
love will always find a way" -- well, it is, if you can imagine THE
PRINCESS BRIDE with very graphic (and moderately imaginative) sex,
EXTREMELY graphic violence, a vision of human beings that does not
exclude their bodily functions, villains so evil that they literally
invoke a sense of fear and revulsion, a large supporting cast of
psychoes, freaks, and weirdos -- some dangerous, some not -- and a
general air of sleaze, corruption, and kitsch.
If this sounds strange, it is, but Lynch fans understand; if you
don't understand, watch out. Like BLUE VELVET, being asked the
question: Is this a good movie? -- causes confusion. Some people will
like it, some people will hate it, but everyone will admit that it is
DIFFERENT.
Next question: Did I like it? Well, there were certainly things
to like: Lynch has a way with visual imagery, and his use of flame as a
recurring image in this film is riveting. Laura Dern as Lula is a
stunning heartbreaker, and Nicholas Cage as Sailor is a sympathetic
character ... and the VILLAINS! MY GOD! Darth Vader is a silly
fantasy -- these people are sick, cruel as snakes, and vividly REAL --
not merely remorseless but actually amused by inflicting pain and
wreaking destruction. (In this context, William Dafoe gets to play a
character about as far removed from JC as possible -- Dafoe has been
somewhat typecast as a saintly type, I wonder if Lynch found it amusing
to play him against that -- and Isobella Rosellini gets a small part in
which she shows that even the sleaziest style cannot hide what a
knockout she is.)
Lynch also has a way of generating passions, too, a sort of way of
getting underneath the characters' and the audience's skin that I'm not
sure if I care for or not -- it's vivid but seems a little like
voyeurism at times. I remember a colleague saying how unreal it was
when at the end of a TV show all the characters would be sitting around
chatting after being through enormous turmoil as if nothing had happened
-- when in reality they'd be carrying the weight of the events for years
or the rest of their lives. In Lynch's universe that's what happens,
and we see into the character's deepest nightmares -- as in Lula's
heartbreaking memory of a childhood assault.
There were things to outright dislike, though. The film tended to
drag a little, and it could've stood to have had a few scenes cut that
detracted from its dramatic build -- particularly the little
side-stories about one psycho or another. And sometimes it goes too
campy, also undermining its build -- and Lynch's preoccupation with
weirdness sometimes goes beyond his unusual sense of aesthetics into
something like affectation, too self-consciously and "traditionally"
avante-garde, as if he is throwing these things out just to confound the
sort of film analysts who like to reduce stories to pointless
meanderings about meanings and symbology. Granted they're more than
fair game, but it also seems somewhat dishonest, like playing games with
the viewer.
So, as far as recommendations go, you pays your money and you takes
your chances. There's only one recommendation I would make: Don't take
the kids or someone who is squeamish.
[<>]