The nostalgic appropriations of 1950s pop culture and the on-the-nose references to The Wizard of Oz sit uneasily beside the grotesque characters, hideous violence, and explicit sex.
Lynch’s most excessive film all but dares us to take it seriously as it skates on the thinnest of ice, appearing to value the cheap and cute over the heady depths we expect from its director. The consensus seems to be there is no point in looking for profundity in something so obviously shallow.Īt first glance this is no wonder.
While critical hindsight has come to embrace such erstwhile objects of scorn and dismissal as Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me and Lost Highway, Wild at Heart remains seldom revisited. Mainstream audiences, too, were unsure what to make of the film, its glitzy postmodern cuteness seemingly at odds with the noir trappings of Twin Peaks or the pathos of The Elephant Man, let alone the thumping industrial darkness of Eraserheadand the rich textures of Blue Velvet. Arriving on the heels of the immensely popular first season of Twin Peaks, the film puzzled critic and audience alike during the Cannes film festival before unexpectedly winning the Palme d’or. Three decades after its release, Wild at Heart remains David Lynch’s most disagreed upon film and, arguably, one of his least understood. Altobell, go to his website, and be sure to check out his Patreon page! Surfaces and Depths: An Appreciation and Analysis of David Lynch’s Wild at Heart Introduction Altobell takes a deep dive into director David Lynch’s sometimes-misunderstood film Wild at Heart.įor more from Mr. In this exploratory essay, first-time FreakSugar contributor Matthew S.
0 kommentar(er)
