Wild At Heart (1990)

It's probably my least favourite Lynch film, it's still well made and has some incredible moments (Cage's first scene, the car crash and Dafoe's final moment spring to mind) but it just doesn't feel connected at all. It's more of a collection of set pieces than anything else, which is odd when you consider that his later films which are literally collections of set pieces have a better overarching narrative.

Read the SAILOR AND LULA books and then go back and watch the movie again...I'd be willing to bet it makes more sense and you'll have more fun. If that doesn't work, smoke some drugs and watch it again.

I've always loved the bizarre scene with Harry Dean Stanton, Grace Zabriske, David Patrick Kelly, and Grace Zabriske's character's black husband.

That's because he was inspired by The Wizard of Oz, which was also a series of set pieces.

I saw this movie a few years ago, but the only thing I remember about it is Cage's last(?) scene where it looks like he's wearing a fake nose. I kept expecting him to get hit in the nose or something, but it never happened.

It's been a few years since I've seen this, but I remember being just as enthralled with it as I am with all of Lynch's work. The main thing I remember is my shock that Diane Ladd's hilariously over-the-top performance got an Oscar nomination. I thought she worked great in the context of the film, since she was basically supposed to be as nutty as the Wicked Witch of the West...but an Oscar nom? Those Academy Awards really do love their showy performances.

I despised WILD AT HEART when it was first released on video, but recently warmed up to it after a viewing on television. In the past the vileness and self-importance were a big turn-off. Now I can accept the film for what it really is: laughably awful -- sometimes deliberately, often not.

Dafoe's performance is really something to see. His unique take on this oily villain corners the repulsive, frightening, and sexy with a broad comic approach that favors brave choices, to say the least. I don't know how much of it is in the direction, so I'm not sure I'm being fair, but for me Dafoe's presence here is more interesting and entertaining than Lynch's warped dream (il)logic.

I love it, I think it fits perfectly into the Lynch universe. The lipstick scene especially comes to mind, and Willem Dafoe mind raping Laura Dern. It's all intentionally over the top in the best way possible.

What are you talking about? He got the shit beat out of him by those toughs for this classic piece of dialogue: "What do you faggots want?" That's where the malformed nose comes in.

I still enjoy this one, although I saw it right on the heels of Blue Velvet, so it naturally pales in comparison. Gotta love Willem Dafoe's death, that's for sure.

Yeah, this was on TV last week, and I rewatched it for the first time in several years. It hasn't aged well.

It's interesting to remember the reception to this film (already alluded to in the form of Ladd's Oscar nom)...people fucking LOVED it. Standing O and awards at Cannes, glowing reviews, end of the year nominations...

Now it seems obvious that most of that was a by-product of people's love for Twin Peaks.

I only saw it once, and years ago, but I thought the nose was like that before the fight. Thanks for explaining.

Saw this movie over Labor Day weekend in 1990, twice. I loved it. Classic.

And thinking back, as to the collection of set pieces, isn't that what Lynch does? At least this had a more coherent progression of story than Mullholand and Lost Highway. (I think of his movies as a progression of scenes that follow a story line, because they are all over the place.)

Not just 'awards'. The Palm D'Or.

Which was given, I think, simply because the jury was almost jealous to see a peer having so much fucking fun. Because that's what WILD AT HEART is -- David Lynch having a good old time working some old obsessions and grudges out of his system. Look at it as his KING KONG, if you want.

Ironic in hindsight that this was praised at Cannes while FWWM, a film with more content, meaning and (as it turns out) import to Lynch's later work, was utterly vilified.

(Granted, few people who weren't there have ever seen the Cannes cut of FWWM, so maybe the hate was more justified.)

I'M MAKING MY LUNCH!!!!

The oddity of this film and the joy of the performances make this movie what it is. Lula's Momma is up there with Aunt Ida for creepy women of film.

Every little bit is golden. Who else but Crispin Glover could play Cousin Dell?

I had no idea that the cut that was released differed from the Cannes cut. Not that it made a ton of difference. That movie was utterly vilified here, too.

I'd say it's Lynch's worst film, in that it feels like Lynch intentionally doing Lynchian things. The film came at the height of Lynch fever, what with Twin Peaks having already made an impression (IIRC Wild at Heart arrived between seasons one and two of Twin Peaks). I watched it again when the DVD hit, and now I much prefer Lost Highway, and everything that came after.

but I'd argue thematically his films tend to be simple (not simple minded), to which I generalize that his masculine narratives are about acceptance and generally about growing up (Eraserhead is about becoming a father, Blue Velvet about entering a sexualized world/becoming a man) and his feminine narratives tend to be about destruction/suicide/disintergration. In its way, Dune is the thematic doppleganger to Blue Velvet.

On a side note, this was the major inspiration for Garth Ennis' Preacher.

(WaH did arrive between S1 and S2 of Peaks; it's a common misconception that Lynch lost interest in S2 in favor of WaH, but the film was done by then.)

I saw WaH first on VHS, since I was a student without a car in a town without a movie theater when this opened. Didn't like it a lot then, and was surprised by how much more I enjoyed it when I finally got to see a theatrical presentation over a decade later.

Because it is Lynch having fun (and therefore doing Lynchian things) that shouldn't have surprised me. The sound design holds this movie together more than the narrative -- those flaring matches need to be HUGE, both visually and sonically.

I'm still not crazy about the film -- I do enjoy it -- but I'd go see it on the screen any time without a second thought. It works so much better that way.

Irony number 2: while that's the case, I actually think FWWM works a lot better at home, where the creepiness and unsettling nature really seep in.

Thematically, Blue Velvet recalls Wizard of Oz, with the name of Dorothy being one of the more obvious touches. I've always held WaH's obviousness against itself by making such references explicit. It's Lynch's covers album. But there's a couple of great scenes in the film. Maybe it's LYNCH FOR BEGINNERS or whatever. But I don't think he's made anything without merit.

That's a really good angle on it. Though it's also his live record, giving people what they want at maximum volume, with minimal new content.

Although I mentioned it before I think it bears repeating. WILD AT HEART is an adaptation of a novel. The only thing Lynch changed was the ending.

Which is probably why it's one of my favorite Lynch films. I haven't seen it in probably a decade, but at the time, I was really fond of it.

I need to revisit a lot of his work, but I've always had some difficulty wrapping my head around some of it - stuff like Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr. I'd come away intrigued but too frustrated to bother watching it again (or convinced that Lynch had no fucking clue either). I'm almost too intimidated to give Inland Empire a spin.

Lynch for beginners. Good point.

But why? Is it because since then, most of his output has been so surreal. I mean, WaH is the most straightforward movie, story wise (not counting The Straight Story). Since then (not seen I.E.) his two main films have been mind-screws of the highest order.

I love David Lynch, for his visuals and his involving stories, but I guess the reason I love WaH so much, was that when it came out, it was crazy and (mostly) coherent. Something completely different than the #1 movie of that time, Ghost.

Lost Highway is about a man who killed his wife, but can't deal with it so he tries to rewrite who he is/was and tries to gain control of the woman he loves, but fails miserably at both so he must return to himself.

Russ, I see this as more Kicking Against the Pricks than Live Seeds, and yes it was adapted from a book from repeat Lynch Collaborator Barry Gifford, but so much of the film is Lynch's. Does the car wreck happen in the book?

"Did I ever tell ya that this here jacket represents a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom?"

I've always loved this film. I think, yes, it doesn't quite come together fully but the great moments shine bright enough to cover up almost all of the faults it has. I love the sudden, comedic outburts of violence, the night club scene and, especially, the end showdown in the street ("I'd like to apologize to you gentlemen for referring to you all as homosexuals. You taught me a valuable lesson in life."). I don't like the "Lynch for beginners" sentiment (I'd most certainly give that to Elephant Man), but it is definitely less surreal and easier to access than his best work (Mulholland, Eraserhead). Overall, a great, little seen film.

Blue Velvet and The Elephant Man are both more straightforward in their narrative than WaH.

By saying Lynch for Beginners, I'm not really including his more straightforward narratives (The Straight Story, Elephant Man, Dune), but in the sense of his greater themes and his use of symbolism, etc. this is the film where everything is much more on the surface than, say Lost Highway.

Exactly. Which was inspired by the OJ Simpson murder case, oddly enough.

I agree, with Wild at Heart Lynch is just doing what he does best, and it has a linear storyline and everything!

I guess it's just one of those movies that you either get into or you don't, for my part I loved the shit out of it.

I'd have to say no. Michael Bay makes a collection of set pieces -- there's little character in his films, just enough to get you from one big event to the next. When I read a description of a film as 'a collection of set pieces' that implies that events are more important than character, which for Lynch is hardly true.

Even WaH, move superficial than most of his stuff, has two significant characters at the center. Sailor and Lula both have layers of things they're hiding from themselves and each other, and they display a significant progression in the film.

I agree with Werewolf Girl. WILD AT HEART is a twisted, hilarious on the lam nightmare of a love story. So yeah, every performance is way over the top. And great. Such a fun movie to turn your brain off to. I freakin' love the hell out of Laura Dern as Lula. Cage, Dafoe, Ladd, Stanton, Glover, etc - they all gave this film what it called for and more. What a wonderful soundtrack too.

This has been the oddball in my top 10 favorite flicks ever since I saw it. That's just how I feel, man.

I found the film far more coherent and enjoyable the second time.

The first time, it seemed a bit too bitty, too delibrate- as if Lynch was descending into self-parody.

When all's said and done, though, the dream-logic of Eraserhead, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire is still present, it's just a little more spread out. It's as if there's two themes- the black humour road movie, and the nightmare fantasy backdrop, but they kind of work together once you get used to it.

Not my favourite Lynch film, by any means, but it's definitely grown on me.

After watching BLUE VELVET for the first time days ago, this film conveniently started airing on TV, so I naturally (and curiously) had to DVR it. I didn't like it. I really didn't like it. Laura Dern's sensual and fiery performance is what allowed me to not hit the delete button. If there was supposed to be any feeling or connection between Dern and Cage's characters, I missed it completely. Their scenes became lustful exhibits of physicality and eroticism without any burning magnetism or meaning. And visually, especially after watching BLUE VELVET, I was aching for meticulous and artful imagery. Most of WILD AT HEART resembled cheap Tv theatrics.

I'm sure I would've liked it a bit more if I were buzzed.

This was a roller coaster ride of love and hate for me. Bipolar to say the least, from Nic Cage's cheese-filled Elvis impersonator to Laura Dern's luminous performance.

Diane Ladd wasn't just ridiculously over-the-top, she was in outer space. And yet it was a hysterical contrast between her and Harry Dean Stanton, the only straightforward character in the whole story. Which makes his fucking whacked out capture scenes even more disturbing. The Great Dane from Miller's Crossing shows up. Miss that guy.

Willem Dafoe is magnificent here, where his cartoonish villainry actually fits in perfect. And, using his brain power, contributes with an easy candidate for Best Kill.

The Wizard of Oz stuff was too blatant, and I'm sure that was on purpose, but... what was the purpose? This was an aspect that had me struggling to grapple with, like Ripoll.

This had me rolling for a few good minutes and Crispin Glover's bit, along with Dafoe keeps this movie from being completely awful.

The Car Accident scene they come across is somewhat unsettling. Yet has that Wicked Game music instrumental playing putting a smile on my face.


Also, William Morgan Sheppard turning up as Mr Reindeer (love his voice.)

I don't think Starship Troopers really has the same *kind* of over-the-topness Wild At Heart does, though. I mean the thing about Lynch is that you're never really sure whether he's taking the piss; Starship Troopers is pretty upfront about its tongue-in-cheekness and satirical intent, so you get more of an "ah, I see what you did there" reaction; there's never a "is this shit for real???" moment, which for me Wild At Heart is full of. And in a way that makes it more jarring and disturbing than Lynch's more explicitly skewed narrative stuff; Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire are sort of predictable in their unpredictableness, because from the get-go you know that you're not gonna get a conventional movie*. With Wild At Heart the weirdness comes in these brief, violent flashes, and there's a certain visceral thrill from having these within a reasonably conventional, cheesy narrative that I really enjoy.

That being said, I think Twin Peaks acheives the same mix of conventional narrative and fucked up nightmare moments while also having more genuine beauty to it than Wild At Heart does, so it's still my favourite Lynch.

* Which is not to say that they aren't scary and - more frequently, to me - beautiful.

I watched this a couple weeks ago and it was my first Lynch movie.
I don't think this was the best choice because if it is truly representative of his work, I'm not sure how much of a fan I can be (but there's no way I'm going to write him off yet at all).

Everything in the film seems so superficial. I didn't really find the over the top style or the soap opera/road trip parody very fun and since it looks like that is the main purpose of the film, to have fun with all these weird, crazy characters and events, the film becomes a bit of a slog to get through.

I think I was still willing to continue giving the film all the way up until the introduction of Dafoe. The bizarre motel guys, the fat dancing naked ladies, all of it just seems like Lynch is trying way too hard. And once I saw the man behind the curtain, so to speak, the spell was broken.

It's a hard film to warp my head around.

There's a lot of disagreement on this thread about how good this move is compared to other Lynch stuff, but I don't think anyone could make the case that it's representative, really. It's way campier than Lynch usually goes for, way shriller, completley lacking in the shadowy elegance that he usually goes for. See Blue Velvet or Mulhholand Drive for what a David Lynch film is "usually" like, I'd say.

Andre's "Lynch for beginners" comment led me to think that, though I do understand that everyone seems to agree this is much more broad than his usual stuff. It's looking like this is probably not the best film to start out with though.

Definitely not, that'd probably be Blue Velvet. And even if you do find that Lynch isn't your style, make sure you see The Elephant Man.

If I understood Andre's point correctly he was mostly talking about thematic concerns, that Wild At Heart tackles certain themes that show up a lot in Lynch in a more overt way than most of his movies. But the movie is stylistically very different from the rest of his output. To grab an example, you could easily make the case that Last Temptation Of Christ boils down most of Scorsese's thematic concerns, but if we're going for "representative", one would still choose Taxi Driver or Goodfellas over it.

In that case, I'm still not sure what this film offers, thematically. Perhaps the level of weirdness or the intended superficiality distracted me but other than showing Sailor and Lula overcoming the odds to be together, I don't really see much.

To me the film always seemed about the lengths people are willing to go to for passion, whether is be a passion for love (Cage and Dern, even Harry dean and dern's mom), anger (dern's mom), or blood (Dafoe). The film also has ties to the Wizard of Oz and the characters in that film all have a passion for something (heart, brain, to go home, etc). The constant flame that keeps popping up in the film also sort of represents passion because fire=passion.

I enjoy the movie but it basically is David Lynch doing John Waters.

I'd say a pretty important distinction here is that Wild At Heart is a comedy (of sorts), while Burton's recent output takes itself very seriously indeed.