Under the Silver Lake is the third film by director David Robert Mitchell, after his critically acclaimed horror film It Follows. This time, he ventures into much different territory, focusing on a young slacker in Los Angeles named Sam, played by Andrew Garfield. Sam has no direction in life though he loves conspiracy theories and hidden messages in everyday life. He doesn’t have many friends outside of his one unnamed friend at a bar he frequents, played by Topher Grace, though he eventually befriends his new neighbor Sarah, played by Riley Keough. When Sarah goes missing, he obsesses with finding out where she went, which sends him to some of the seediest and most bizarre hidden areas of LA to track down her whereabouts.
The set-up bears some similarities to The Big Lebowski, though it ventures very quickly into David Lynch territory, with Sam stumbling across a series of oddballs, weirdos, lowlives, and all around just strange characters that feels like something straight out of Twin Peaks. And the film has the exact same aesthetic of both Lebowski and Twin Peaks, as well as really any 90’s neo-noir revival. It’s the sort of movie that can remind the audience of that one random movie that they always watched because it always replayed on their favorite movie channel back in the day.
This is a movie that thrives extensively on nostalgia, at least in terms of its overall look and feel. Sam’s room is filled with retro movie posters, he enjoys toys that were popular years ago, and is even seen constantly watching either an old movie or television series from either the 1950’s or 1960’s. And that love is even expressed by other characters, such as an author played by Patrick Fischler, whose home Sam visits. All around his house are comic books and action figures that were released from even before he was born.
The film’s constant tributes to older forms of entertainment does allow it to get in some really nice shots. One of this movie’s biggest strengths is just how well-shot it was. Its cinematography leads to plenty of colorful images that always manage to stand out, with many of the strangers Sam encounters always standing out, even when they feel so far away in certain takes. And even with this movie’s direction, while the technology makes it feel very much like a 2019 movie, but through Mitchell’s extensive use of extremely high and low angled shots, it captures the seedy feel of 1940’s noir. There’s even a nice callback to the old days of hand-drawn animation in a brief sequence, which was so well-done that it would have been welcome had it been featured in the movie more.
Though while, in addition to film noir, it looks to capture the feel of a David Lynch movie, it winds up doing so to its own detriment. The film is often cryptic, with plenty of vague conversations that feel ambiguous just for the sake of ambiguous, rather than actually leading to any substantial conversations in subsequent scenes. There are plenty of weird characters that Sam constantly interacts with, but there are just as many characters who randomly show up, and maybe just stand around or scream, and add nothing to the overall plot.
The movie tends to go on tangents, and there are quite a few times a sequence of events will take place that seem to just there simply because it’s strange and nothing more, and it’s questionable if they even really needed to be included. And even before Sarah disappears, this movie feels a bit off, with much of its dialogue. There are multiple times in the first act where characters engage in frank conversations discussing graphic sexual content that never feels like it leads towards anything or actually goes anywhere.
One of the only things that manages to keep the audience engaged throughout this whole venture is Andrew Garfield, who looks like he’s having a lot of fun with this role. Garfield is mainly known for his angsty, incredibly serious roles, and this seemed like this was a very freeing experience for him. He seems to get just how weird and out there this movie was, and because of that, feels totally relaxed throughout the majority the film. When he sees something that’s just outright bizarre, he goes with the flow so much that he gives it the over-the-top reaction that it deserves. He’s probably the only character of any real interest for his carefree, somewhat enthusiastic delivery, and the fact that he’s so accepting of just about anything that comes his way makes him enjoyable to watch.
However, the rest of this movie doesn’t seem to have as much fun with the material as Garfield does. Despite some whacky imagery that includes characters randomly barking and a random man who sporadically appears throughout the movie dressed as a pirate, it tends to builds itself up as being something much more serious. It makes for this tonal imbalance, as Garfield is fully embracing the camp aspect of the film with no problem, while the other characters, as well as its sometimes grim, serious soundtrack, and imagery, want the audience to perceive it as something much deeper.
And this leads to one of the movie’s biggest issues, that being its ending. While a David Lynch movie never fully reveals its hand, with many of them - even the ones that don’t completely work - tend to evoke heavier thematic elements that can make for some interesting conversations, even if the journey getting there is a bit disjointed. When this movie reaches its third act, and some of the pieces of the puzzle come together, it ultimately feels very anticlimactic. It surprisingly doesn’t resort to a narrative cliche.
However, when it’s revealed what most of this movie has been building towards, it really isn’t anything that’s impactful or eye-opening. It doesn’t touch upon any major themes or emotionally affect any of the other characters in a meaningful sort of way. There’s one exchange between two characters that’s nice, but it’s a very small moment in a much larger sequence of events that really doesn’t feel like anything meaningful. The only thing the ending really does is just solve the mystery and once it’s revealed what that mystery is, there’s nothing else that’s really interesting to take note of. While it’s not so much a waste of time, it’s nothing that gives it the merit of watching it on repeat viewings.
Under the Silver Lake is by no means a bad movie. It’s a movie made by someone who clearly has a love for the many films and TV series that influence them, and the tributes to older forms of entertainment and are very enjoyable, especially given their constant presence here. However, beyond that, the movie ultimately tends to be overly self-indulgent with playing up some of the things that influenced it, mainly taking the strange, ambiguous nature of a David Lynch movie, and mimicking it without really anything meaningful to say once it reveals its hand. It could have instead gone for a campier feel, but unfortunately Andrew Garfield - one of the only saving graces of the movie - is the only one that plays along. It’s enjoyable enough to watch once, but after that, it won’t feel like a particularly satisfying experience.
Recommendation: Proceed with Caution
댓글