![]() ![]() Where “Blue Velvet” centered on a single demon, Dennis Hopper’s Frank, “Wild at Heart” proffers an entire grab-bag. In plastic terms, “Blue Velvet” is representational and static, while “Wild at Heart” is action painting. Lynch started out as a painter and sculptor. ![]() But there are plenty of reasons to praise with open eyes what Lynch has accomplished in “Wild at Heart.”įar from being a sweeping of oddments from Lynch’s left-over pile, “Wild at Heart” reverses many of the strategies set up in “Blue Velvet.” Where that film was infernally dark and enclosed and trance-like, “Wild at Heart” is recklessly agitated, lit up, on the move. Blind praise can be as deleterious for an artist as blanket dismissal-if he bothers to listen to his critics. Even if the film is counted a failure-a verdict I reject-it should still be obvious that a failure from Lynch is far more interesting than the bland successes of most studio hands. Hollywood isn’t so chock-a-block with genius that we can afford to trounce Lynch for attempting to extend the boundaries of his artistry, particularly at a time when on-the-edge filmmakers are bucking a conservative juggernaut in popular culture. And it diverges from them in ways that make sense both for the film and for Lynch’s expansion as an artist.Ĭan it be that Lynch, having broken out of his “Blue Velvet” cult status to the mass-audience TV success of “Twin Peaks,” is being pasted for becoming a household name? Hell hath no fury like a critic whose cult icon has gone public. ![]() On the other hand, I find it difficult to sanction the film’s spirited, wholesale dismissal, particularly since the dismissals come from critics (and audiences) who exulted over “Blue Velvet” and “Twin Peaks.” After all, it’s not as if the sensibility at work in “Wild at Heart” has nothing in common with those films. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |