Change Your Image
keywitness
Reviews
Wild at Heart (1990)
Down the Postmodern Yellow Brick Road
"Wild at Heart" is not one of the most famous films by David Lynch, but I think it is as worthy as his best ones. Perhaps its unique genre has been preventing a wider appreciation of the movie.
The plot is deliberately simple. There are two sweethearts, Lula Fortune and Sailor Ripley. Sailor goes to prison for killing a gangster who tried to kill him. Lula's mother hates Sailor and wants her daughter to break up with him, but Lula waits for him. As soon as Sailor gets out of prison, he breaks parole and takes his love on a road-trip adventure. Wild at Heart has multiple allusions to the Wizard of Oz, with the wicked witch (Lula's mother) and the adventure and troubles of a little girl (Lula). Some of these references are even direct, like in the scene where Lula is clicking her ruby slippers. Of course, in modern times you don't walk down the yellow brick road – you drive. The lovers encounter numerous dangers on their way.
PULP FICTION: Wild at Heart looks to me like a precursor to Pulp Fiction which was made by Quentin Tarantino four years later. Both movies are loaded with pop-culture references, which are a favorite fodder of postmodern directors (Wizard of Oz, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, gangster novels). Both have a simple comic book-like plot. Even the names Sailor Ripley and Lula Fortune sound like they came from a comic book or a paperback novel. However, this simplicity is intentional - in the postmodern art the plot is usually no more than a loose guidance, a necessity used by the director to express his art. It's the same idea as when a jazz band takes a simple tune and transforms it into a completely new and fascinating art piece. There are many other similarities between the two movies. For example, the mobster's name Marcelo Santos resonates with Pulp Fiction's gangster Marcellus Wallace. Uma Thurman identifies Travolta as an Elvis man as opposed to a Beatles man – well, Lynch clearly casts Sailor as an Elvis man in his movie. But the main similarity between Wild at Heart and Pulp Fiction is the fact that in both cases we are watching an absolutely low-brow material – which normally we would skip - but are enjoying it as true art. We genuinely yearn to be around the characters, in the midst of an action, forgetting the fact that this marvelous artwork is actually built out of pulp. Tarantino will develop the same method even further with Kill Bill, but for David Lynch this is the only movie of such kind.
One difference of the way Pulp Fiction is made is that the episodes in it are not sequential, even though you can mentally restore the time-line. Lynch will use the same approach later in Mulholland Drive, which is even harder to reconstruct than Pulp Fiction (although possible). The point is to take the viewer's attention away from the linear plot, from the comfort of knowing what's next, and instead focus on each episode or character alone.
LYNCH'S AESTHETICS: There is a plethora of weird episodic characters in the movie, which is typical for Lynch. He always handpicks collections of bizarre and freaky creatures in his films, which are often unnecessary for the plot but create an intense mood. The pigeon- squawking man, the maniacal woman with orthopedic leg, the three fat "porn models", Mr. Reindeer (another typical comic book-like character) – the list can go on and on. This alluring ensemble of freaks and weirdos circles around our lovers on the yellow brick road. Some of them are just confusing, while others are menacing. Very few are amicable, like the old black gas station attendant who is tapping joyfully to Lula's dancing, his legs sticking out of short work overalls trousers as thin as the legs of the chair he is sitting on.
ROAD HAZARDS: It feels like Lula and Sailor are the only sane people, devoid of evil tendencies, surrounded by hostile and mad reality - or perhaps they have accidentally landed in a scary fairy tale. Their journey to happiness hits snag after snag along the yellow brick road. The radio in the car keeps talking about horrible crimes and accidents on every frequency, and the atmosphere of distress is trying to put them down. They stop the car, jump out and start kissing. This may be their only way to escape, even if futile. Our heroes are alone in their adventure, and all they can hold onto is their love and the foolish snakeskin jacket, proclaimed to be a "symbol of individuality and personal freedom". But the clouds are darkening over them.
ACTING: Willem Dafoe puts up an excellent performance as a remarkably despicable mobster Bobby Peru. He is repellent and attractive at the same time, and even Lula almost surrenders to him (remember her bent outward fingers – her "tell"?).
Lula's mother displays a harmonious combination of murderous and humane sides, lying and trusting at the same time. Painting the face red before betraying and dooming her former lover is a fascinating scene reminiscent of the ancient theater. She is evil and vengeful, yet so feminine and vulnerable.
GENRE: So is Wild at Heart a road-trip movie? A love story? A fairy tale? A gangster movie? Neither, even though it freely plays with the elements of all these genres. In order to understand it, one should drop the perception constraints of any specific genre and start enjoying the movie as a unique creation. Then the movie will open up, scene by scene, like a good wine which reveals the depth of taste as you sip it.
Overall, Wild at Heart is a remarkable postmodern feature, unique in its kind for Lynch yet in the same league as Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead.
Professione: reporter (1975)
"I used to be somebody else, but I traded him in"
"The Passenger" is a fascinating movie, a cinematic and philosophical masterpiece. I love Antonioni, and this is one of his best. I have watched it several times through the years, each time opening for myself a new moment or a new meaning. The acting is superb, and so is the camera work. The final scene that lasts for seven minutes without anything really happening is sublime. There is also a deep philosophical theme in the movie, uniquely different from other films of the time that also show dissatisfied, lost, or marginalized characters.
Much has been written about the existential symbolism of the film, and it certainly pervades it on a grand scale. However, there is an interesting aspect of this movie which sets it apart from other existentialist works. In a Sartre-like view, a man is alienated from reality and does not feel welcome in the world nor connected with mankind. But in "The Passenger", it is David Locke's own life that is actually hostile to him. Let me try to explain what I mean. Like many people, he is trying to run away from mundane reality, the job that has been making him jaded, the marriage that's lost its flame. However, instead of making piecemeal changes, he tries to replace his life as a whole – reject it and become someone else. And now it is life itself that's after him, ready to punish him for violating the rules of engagement. It's as if he is just a vessel owned by life, which destroys him as soon as he tries to take matters in his own hands.
At some point in the movie David says that he used to be somebody else, but traded him in (by the way, what a fabulous line). He boasts – he thinks he is in control of his life choices, but will soon find out otherwise. What crushes him in the end is not fate or circumstances or his past that catches up with him – it is life itself, ejecting an unruly passenger. Such juxtaposition of life with a man as a separate, all-powerful entity is unique in the artistic portrayal of existential struggle.
The original title of the movie (in Italian) was "Profession: Reporter". This title would have made perfect sense if the character was an estranged observer of life. However, Jack Nicholson's character is truly a passenger – he is not in the driver's seat, and his privileges are pretty limited. His connection to life is neither cordial nor caring, the same way as there is no human connection between a train passenger and the train operator. David Locke has violated the rules, and his ticket is canceled. The train will continue forward without him.
Captivating and mysterious Maria Schneider plays The Girl. As David jumps from one city to another, he keeps running into her. She is quite an ephemeral character, floating from place to place, seemingly not attached to any mundane or conventional activity like work or family. Having no name in the movie suits her character perfectly – one less connection to real life. Perhaps this is the only kind of people who David can interact with now and who can deal with him. When the police ask David's wife to identify his dead body, she says she doesn't know him. It is true – he has become a complete stranger to her. But when they ask the girl if she knows David, she says yes. Even though they have met only recently, they seem to be people of the same kind. Perhaps like him, the girl is also a passenger? Perhaps we all are.