That is an example of an inept use of an effect best reserved for still photography that has only rarely really worked well in films.
It isn't a matter of being stylistically dated, just that it looks bad, both then (ogod SO bad in the theater you wanted to check your contact lenses) & now. TMP's use of soft or bounce lights didn't help, either.
A lot (but by no means all) of the shots in HINDENBURG that rely on it work because there are hard edges and sharply defined lighting that create a good 'seam' for the split. But you've still got the eye-blink/weirdness/huh? effect of two objects in focus and area between them not being in focus, which makes it look like a matte shot or like somebody sneezed on the lens. It's fine for psycho/alien POVs or dream sequences, but really undercuts visual credibility, thus distracting from the storytelling.
Look at older ILM shows where they have a view out the window of an airplane past the pilot, and you'll probably see stuff that also doesn't have the right carry and fall-off focus wise, because the pilot will be sharp, but the instrument panel and window frame will be soft ... yet the matted-in background will be razor sharp. This was even a problem on more recent pics, I think THE SIXTH DAY was another where you saw this kind of thing, because the DP didn't listen to the VFX supe on set and didn't light the copter cockpit in a way that would carry focus up to the window frame.
If you want 'stylistically dated' then maybe you should look at Coppola's DRACULA, which used hand-cranked cameras at times (and to pretty good effect.)