Wild At Heart (David Lynch, 1990)

[J M Powell]

I definitely find Lost Highway to be a much darker film, with a much darker ending, than FWWM. LH's finale is utterly without hope; FWWM contains many layers of hope. Mulholand Dr. is also pretty hopeless, but in perhaps a less inescapable way, because we understand, as in high tragedy, more intimately the "character flaw" that leads to its devestating conclusion.

None of Lynch's happy endings -- even to The Straight Story -- is without ambivalence. See Tim Kreider's article from Film Quarterly on the buried darkness of Straight. (His Eyes Wide Shut article from the same journal is also worth reading.)

To my way of seeing, Wild at Heart ranks as one of Lynch's more hopeful films, though, again, saturated with ambivalence. And passages in Wild would be key in mounting any substantial accusation against Lynch (which I would not support, but which was once, in the mid-90s, a commonplace) of xenophobia.

[BWilson]

That Straight Story article is great, but be advised it contains a BIG spoiler about Twin Peaks.

[Si Parallel Universe]

Perhaps its because Lynch celebrates the grotesque and the perverse...in Wild at Heart, how the mother wants Sailor dead because he didn't want to fuck her ...

It's because Diane Ladd's character doesn't want the association between Lula and Sailor, not because she wants him for herself, but because if he did it would represent betrayal on Sailor's part. She gets upset [understatement] when her scheme doesn't come off the way she wanted it to. To add weight to my interpretation, when Dean Stanton's mission to end the relationship fails she reacts by having him disposed of as he has failed her, also. Rather like she wanted to have Sailor disposed of in the beginning, which backfires when Sailor brutally murders his attacker in the opening scenes [which we later learn he was being attacked on Moms orders].

I think Lynch deals with people's motivations to preserve "order" and the illusion of the "American Way" and demonstrates this through the grotesque rather than celebrating it. IMHO.

[moviscop]

I completely agree, Lynch does deal with motivation in his films and it was especially noticeable in Wild at Heart. If you thought that she sent attackers after Sailor because he wouldn't have sex with her you probably need to watch the film again.

[Si Parallel Universe]

I completely agree, Lynch does deal with motivation in his films and it was especially noticeable in Wild at Heart. If you thought that she sent attackers after Sailor because he wouldn't have sex with her you probably need to watch the film again.

Where did I say that ? I suggested she sent attackers after Sailor because her scheme to get rid of Sailor and/or end his and Lula's relationship had failed. Lets face it, sleeping with the Mother in Law is a pretty sure fire way of ensuring betrayal has occurred and destroying any trust between Sailor/Lula , which is pretty much the intention IE to estrange Lula from Sailor. I thought I was clear on that.

[Dr. Snaut]

I apologize if this has already been discussed, but is the Region 1 DVD out of print? Out of stock at Amazon and Best Buy.

[knives]

Yes and no. The only way to get it new R1 is through the Lime green box.

[Dr. Snaut]

Sweet, considering how excessive that box set is...

[Dadapass]

You should try Amazon Marketplace

[puxzkkx]

I count this among Lynch's lesser works, and I think its the closest he's ever come to fluff. I was just really disappointed at what seemed like a lack of complete control over the material (which got really obtuse and sentimental, esp. near the end). The whole thing just feels pretty pedestrian to me, although I admit I was quite moved by the scene with the car crash in the desert, even though the framing and music used seem unnecessarily manipulative. Diane Ladd is awful as she usually is.

[Mr Sausage]

The whole thing just feels pretty pedestrian to me

Wild at Heart strikes you as a commonplace and ordinary movie? Seriously? I mean...seriously?

[puxzkkx]

Well - pedestrian for Lynch. I think that if any other more mainstream filmmaker made it exactly the same, I'd actually be impressed - but for me it seems like he's lowered his standards a bit. But imo, apart from Twin Peaks, the 90s wasn't a great decade for him. The problem for me is just that this film seems too insubstantial. I enjoyed it, but I thought it was really light.

[knives]

Well - pedestrian for Lynch. I think that if any other more mainstream filmmaker made it exactly the same, I'd actually be impressed - but for me it seems like he's lowered his standards a bit. But imo, apart from Twin Peaks, the 90s wasn't a great decade for him. The problem for me is just that this film seems too insubstantial. I enjoyed it, but I thought it was really light.

Where do I even begin with that? The movie is linear and has a clear reality so that's a negative. Am I understanding that right? It's not lowered standards in the least, but looking at different themes that he felt needed to be told in a different way then Eraserhead. Anyways most would consider Dune, The Elephant Man, and blue Velvet to all be more pedestrian and typical then Wild at Heart, which was more a return to weirdness actually.
Also how was the 90s weak for Lynch? Not only did he make Wild At Heart and Twin Peaks, but also put out several excellent shorts, what's arguably his best movie in Lost Highway, and the amazingly sweet and honest The Straight Story. I can't think of one thing he made that decade that doesn't cater to some sort of large audience. While some of that may not be your tea, you must at least admit that is some excellent output that you don't like more for taste then quality. Afterall your argument for Wild At Heart so far has been that it wasn't unique enough for you, which is fine put not anything in the way of genuine criticism.

[Mr Sausage]

Well - pedestrian for Lynch.

I'm kind of stunned, here. The only movie Lynch's made that even comes close to the bizarreness of Wild at Heart is Eraserhead. Whatever you may think of the movie, positive or negative, one thing is indisputable: Wild at Heart is not pedestrian, by any standards, Lynch's or otherwise. There is simply no argument possible.

[puxzkkx]

I guess knives is right in that its a taste issue, so I shouldn't really be generalizing. But it wasn't just that it wasn't 'unique enough' for me - I was genuinely moved by the more simple themes in The Straight Story (which, on the surface, is as mainstream as Lynch has gotten), but, as I said, I just view it as fluff. Fluff that's well-done, to some extent, but fluff nonetheless - with the emotional content too shallow and, I guess, telegraphed - the ending with Sailor in the street, and the car crash scene (the latter of which was moving, but it seemed like Lynch was trying too hard to achieve this). Also, I found the ensemble in the film (outside of, maybe, Dern's performance) to be the least captivating in Lynch's canon.

[solaris72]

If you think this is pedestrian, you should see the remake!

[Person]

"Pedestrian" is the wrong word for any Lynch movie, but I personally feel that Wild at Heart is the most "meatheaded" of Lynch's films. It's a pretty dumb movie, perhaps intentionally so. Lynch seems to be striving to hard to be OTT on this one for some reason, the writing is silly, shallow compared to his earlier and later films. His usually inspired surreal touches were swamped under heavy violence and steamy sex. I like the film, but I have to be in a very particular mood to watch it.

[knives]

I actually look at it in the same way I do the Preacher comic. The OTT nature covers things up, but is used as a way of looking at normal things in their most heightened ways. The sex, violence, dialouge, ect. are all brought to their logical max to examine the little bits that are invisible normally.