|
morestuff posted:I read the book a few months back, and was kind of expecting something a little more screwball. Like someone else pointed out, I don't think that the static camera helped things — it works great in The Master, where you can focus on the performances, but it deflates some of the better jokes here. It's better on the second watch.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
I read the book (my first and only Pynchon book) years ago when it first hit. It was pretty good although I didn't remember much until I saw the movie again. I found it kind of hard to follow in parts with the editting and such. Plus there seemed to be a lot of mumbling. At least I had read it before I so I knew most of it, but still I could see how first time viewers may get lost. The casting was actually pretty spot on for some of them, Phoenix looked almost drat close to how I imagined Sportello and Brolin was pretty great. I remember him being more of a hard rear end dick in the book and was more likeble in this. Especially the changed end was rather nice. Not sure how I felt about the final car ride , I think the book was a little better there. The movie did capture the very melancholic sensation of the end-of-an-era as it became co-opted and failed, and it also didn't try to rose-tinted-glasses nostalgify it which I thought was pretty good. Otherwise, it wasn't really that good of a movie and could have used some better editting, transitions and camera work. Xaris fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
I thought this was really great. Not quite on the level of the book or on PTA's last two, but one of the best of 2014 nonetheless. I admit I probably would have been confused had I not read the book and gone into it expecting a regular mystery, but at the same time everything is all there, it's just not what the movie cares about the most. Phoenix once again disappears completely into a role and proves why he's my favourite living actor, and Brolin was of course impeccable, but Martin Short absolutely stole the show with his turn. Fantastic score, cinematography, and colours. Still suffers a little from (as the book did) introducing certain pivotal characters way too late, and I would have appreciated an adaptation that was a little more wacky/kinetic as some have mentioned, but I'm still really happy with what we got. Like a poster far earlier on said, it may not be the exact adaptation I expected or even wanted (and like another poster said that brothel sequence early on probably came closest to the tone I would have loved the most) but it's still another excellent PTA work. Someone asked this earlier but it got overshadowed by that dumbass who can't handle the idea of seeing a movie more than once: what are peoples' interpretations of the final scene? It's the one thing I still can't figure out thematically, and how it ties in to the rest. I had trouble with the weed eating scene as well, but I think I have a handle on that now. I see it as Bigfoot doubling down on being part of "the system". I certainly got the sense, from his acting attempts and his browbeating wife, that he wasn't truly as straight-laced and hippy-hating as he comes across, especially when he knows the LAPD's hired goon is responsible for the death of his partner. There's a part of him that is clearly attracted to that lifestyle, just as Doc clearly enjoys the crime-solving and has an authority fetish. I think Doc sees it in him, too, at least a little. However, just as the system grinds up the counterculture so does Bigfoot choose to quash those sides of him, knowing either consciously or not that they can never win. So the door-kicking and weed-eating are a statement, a 'this is my side, and I'm sticking to it'. I think that's why Doc sheds the tear during that scene, because he's sad someone who could have been a kindred spirit has been swallowed up again by the enemy. Maybe he knows the second he finds the heroin in his trunk. I do also like the idea he was just sad about his weed though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
I think it's also part of the "inherent vice" - there's a part of us that always wants to be on the other side, whatever or wherever that might be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
With regards to Doc/Bigfoot's ideological leanings, I also saw some similar symbolism going on with Puck's tattoo. When Doc visits the institute, he asks about the swastika, which is met with the reply that it's a Buddhist symbol of wellbeing. It hammered home the whole overarching idea of seemingly opposing ideologies becoming blurred, masked and/or indistinguishable. The counterculture/authority dichotomy collapsing with the onset of the 70's being alluded to through that duel reference to eastern ideology (which was liberally borrowed from by the hippie movement) and brutal authoritarian rule.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Also the line "technically Jewish but wants to be a Nazi"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
And the Black Panther-ish group working with the neo nazis. The whole movie is full of dualities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Second watching robbed it of something for me. PTA is def chasing the dragon now rather than coke. Can usage in the film is superb though. Also - I didn't notice many (or any) long tracking shots? The film seemed uber claustrophobic because of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
That and all the super tight closeups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Even the establishing shot of the whole setting is just a hint of the beach cramped in-between some bungalows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Yeah, and he even makes the desert seem oppressive (with all those cops moving in) There's a post over at brightlights (http://brightlightsfilm.com/peace-gently caress-paul-thomas-andersons-inherent-vice/) that makes some good points about how a) this is Altman homage when everyone thought PTA had grown out of that b) why didn't he choose one of the more sprawling Pynchon's like Vineland to adapt? It overall just seemed like a bit of a misstep, albeit one that's pretty fun. I don't agree with the writer's idea that Phoenix is miscast though, maybe he's not right for Pynchon's Sportello but I thought he did a good job here, he's suitably grimy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:That and all the super tight closeups. Well, he shot it flat rather than scope, and while the 1.85:1 aspect may fit with the paranoiac themes (walls closing in) he's going for it also may just be a result of where he ended up when shooting The Master, which had a much more intimate feel than all of his previous scope films with extended steadicam shots. Who knows, maybe PTA just finds it more challenging. The dude doesn't exactly rest on his laurels. Someone asked PTA a question about this at the NYFF (why flat over scope?) and while he mostly deflected the question he did mention its roots in his work on The Master, and that he felt the aspect was like a Volvo, 'boxy but good.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
harpomarxist posted:about how a) this is Altman homage when everyone thought PTA had grown out of that Isn't Altman's influence persisting in film a cool thing? That dude was good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:Isn't Altman's influence persisting in film a cool thing? That dude was good. I dunno, I thought we were all about artists actually breaking free from their homages? Or do we think so little of PTA?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
harpomarxist posted:I dunno, I thought we were all about artists actually breaking free from their homages? Or do we think so little of PTA? I've never understood people who think artists should break free of homage. There isn't a whole lot in this world that is original. Kurosawa took from Shakespeare, Leone took from Kurosawa. These are all fine for me. All artists wear their influences on their sleeve.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Also if you try to go too far in the other direction you get late-period Godard and nobody wants that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:I've never understood people who think artists should break free of homage. There isn't a whole lot in this world that is original. Kurosawa took from Shakespeare, Leone took from Kurosawa. These are all fine for me. All artists wear their influences on their sleeve. Kurosawa finished his career with Dersu Uzala, Leone with Once Upon a Time in America - both are original in the sense that they couldn't have been made by anyone else. I mean i'm not saying anything controversial here, it's about artistic progression - there's something a bit reserved about constantly going back to the same source without actually expanding your artistry. The Master was original hence why Inherent Vice seems a step back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Also if you try to go too far in the other direction you get late-period Godard and nobody wants that. I'm sure you're trolling here. You are, right? right?! I know there are some Ebert-level critics that love to skewer Godard in that anti-intellectual 'where's the car chases!' kind of way. That's fine and all and sometimes refreshing, but it's also quite normative. Godard requires us to do some work instead of wait for the next film reference that makes our brain smile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
harpomarxist posted:Kurosawa finished his career with Dersu Uzala, Leone with Once Upon a Time in America - both are original in the sense that they couldn't have been made by anyone else. But that's assuming that artistic progression is constantly a continual line forward towards a specific vision. Inherent Vice isn't a step back from the Master, it's just a different direction from the Master. Inherent Vice has a stronger sense of plot than the Master, even though the film really is a series of episodes that are loosely connected. Where the Master is more of a character study without a strong plot, Inherent Vice is a bit of a shaggy dog story. There's a lot of plot in the film, and there is an attempt to put it all together, but it never quite forms into a complete whole. In a way, there was a bit of a Wes Anderson-ish vibe throughout the film. I can't quite explain - just the large cast of characters, many of whom have some unique trait, dealing with the progression of time and change, and the presence Owen Wilson just all reminded me of Wes Anderson. There were also huge differences too. Inherent Vice also had more direct elements of comedy in it, which meant that it had to be different from the Master. It's been a while since I've seen the Master, but I just remember it being an unrelenting film. That kind of style wouldn't work for Inherent Vice. As I said, it's not a step back. It's just a different direction, and that in itself is a step forward. Also, Kurosawa didn't finish his career with Dersu Uzala. There was Kagemusha, Ran, Dreams, Rhapsody in August (with Richard Gere!), and Madadayo. I haven't seen Rhapsody in August and Madadayo, but the first three are all original films. Based on what I've heard, Madadayo is a bit more conventional, but I haven't seen it so I can't say one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
I don't think anybody's kidding or trolling when they say they hate the modern day Godard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
I loved Godard's early stuff when it was mostly car chases.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
It just seems like a weird axis to orient artistic success upon. With Anderson especially, it's disingenuous to say he's just doing homage or referencing a great artist when, like few others, he molds these things to work very well in his films. Very early on in The Master, he recreates the look and feel of John Huston's Let There Be Light, which perfectly fits the story he's trying to tell about the American postwar experience. The fact that it's a good creative choice has nothing to do with quoting a great filmmaker; it just happens to fit extremely well with the film he's trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:It just seems like a weird axis to orient artistic success upon. With Anderson especially, it's disingenuous to say he's just doing homage or referencing a great artist when, like few others, he molds these things to work very well in his films. Very early on in The Master, he recreates the look and feel of John Huston's Let There Be Light, which perfectly fits the story he's trying to tell about the American postwar experience. The fact that it's a good creative choice has nothing to do with quoting a great filmmaker; it just happens to fit extremely well with the film he's trying to make. I don't think the film stacks up favourably with A Long Goodbye, I don't think he does enough to capture the mood of Pynchon's novel, and I don't think it really gets to soar like the last two films he released. So what i'm saying is that I personally *don't* think he's managed to mold these sources into a great movie - it's fun and interesting but i'm not sure its going to be considered a classic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
It felt to me like Inherent Vice was a natural evolution from The Master. Hazy, free-floating, oppressive, terrifying, dreamlike. While there's a strong Altman influence I wouldn't say PTA is just aping him. I feel like that ended with Magnolia and everything from Punch-Drunk Love on has been Anderson really finding his own style. morestuff posted:Even the establishing shot of the whole setting is just a hint of the beach cramped in-between some bungalows. "Under the paving stones - The Beach!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
This is out to rent in HD now, oddly, before even a Blu Ray release has been announced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Apparently no streaming rentals yet though. Bummer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:This is out to rent in HD now, oddly, before even a Blu Ray release has been announced. This is going to be very very snobby but I don't want crystal clear Inherent Vice
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
harpomarxist posted:This is going to be very very snobby but I don't want crystal clear Inherent Vice It's not going to be more HD or smoothed out than the theatrical if that's what you're getting at, and the theatrical had a nice grain to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
This was disappointing. I am a giant fan of PTA. Other than Punch Drunk Love his other movies are among my favourites. I've never read Pynchon. I guess I kept expecting the plot to come together at some point. I really enjoyed the scene at the rehabilitation centre and it made me think that things were about to come together in some epic and comprehensible way. It's fine if it was supposed to be purposefully vague, but I didn't even find it funny. The scenes some people have described as funny in this thread mostly came off as bizarre to me, and that's not actually a bad thing, because I enjoyed them for that. I enjoyed Brolin's role, and Phoenix is one of my favourites, but in this movie he felt so aimless. He cares about Shasta and smoking dope, maybe that's all there is supposed to be for him. The one thing the movie did best was convey a sense of paranoid conspiracy. It certainly made me want to read Pynchon, and maybe I'll give watching it another try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
I loved the movie, but I'm finding it very hard to unpack a lot of the stuff I got from it. I probably have to watch it again, and I don't normally feel that way... when I think about it I mostly remember a lot of the funny details. I love how all the notes Sportello takes when interviewing clients are dumb bullshit, i.e. him just following the "vibes" of the case; I think the last note he writes is literally "something in Spanish." Sportello is clearly portrayed as clever (the scene where the DA arranges his first talk with the federal agents is hilarious: "I like to think we're on the same team here." "There's no need to be insulting!"), but it seemed like most of his detective work essentially just consisted of bluntly asking people stuff while being a fundamentally good person (or just into the same drugs as them). I guess when Coy (Owen Wilson) makes that point about people just wanting to hear what they already know from someone else, it kind of applies to the whole mystery. By the end it feels like the big conspiracy is kind of mundane; it was important to Sportello partly out of curiosity, but in the end it only really mattered in that he was able to help Coy. The feelings I got watching this reminded me a bit of Synecdoche, New York, in the somewhat-literally insane way the plot escalates and builds on itself. Much more uplifting though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Doc Sportello might be the first stoner-mystery protagonist that I'd actually like to meet in real life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Doc's definitely meant to be a pretty competent detective despite all the weed. You see him talk his way into the Golden Fang building in the film, and in the book there's a few other parts like that where he's subtly outsmarting people and using his image to get their defenses down. The Adrian Prussia shoot-out at the end, also, is drawn out longer and much more menacing in the book, and it's impressive when you're inside Doc's head seeing how he actually thinks under pressure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Nitevision posted:Doc's definitely meant to be a pretty competent detective despite all the weed. You see him talk his way into the Golden Fang building in the film, and in the book there's a few other parts like that where he's subtly outsmarting people and using his image to get their defenses down. The Adrian Prussia shoot-out at the end, also, is drawn out longer and much more menacing in the book, and it's impressive when you're inside Doc's head seeing how he actually thinks under pressure. He just blunders in, even though he really should know there's some serious danger, and then pretty much specifically tells this dangerous guy that no one knows he's there. Doc doesn't even have any questions for him, he just kind of feels like he should go there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
After hearing a lot about how convoluted and complex the plot was I was surprised at how straight forward everything was. Not to say that it wasn't complex and convoluted but not much more than your average noir mystery film. The presentation is just slightly trippier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Wow, this made a lot more sense on a 2nd (and sober) viewing. Loved it this time instead of "well, that sure was a movie that was kind of fun to watch".
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:After hearing a lot about how convoluted and complex the plot was I was surprised at how straight forward everything was. Not to say that it wasn't complex and convoluted but not much more than your average noir mystery film. The presentation is just slightly trippier. It's about as complicated as pretty much every noir film ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
I remember hearing a story about some classic noir film where the filmmakers suddenly realized they had no idea who killed a certain character or why. So they called the author of the book the film was based on and asked him and he said he had no idea. Personally I think being a bit confused and not getting all the answers is an integral part of the film noir experience. It was just that I was expecting it to be really out there because the word was that it was confusing as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I remember hearing a story about some classic noir film where the filmmakers suddenly realized they had no idea who killed a certain character or why. So they called the author of the book the film was based on and asked him and he said he had no idea. That was the Bogart version of The Big Sleep, wasn't it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Book readers: I read somewhere else that PTA cut some key scenes that help explain Bigfoot's motivation / arc, is that true?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Still got four pages to read in this thread, but I just wanted to pipe after recently watching Inherent Vice (never read the book), how much it reminds me of the other Pynchon books I've read. I've never found a book of his actually cohering together, so the endings I find are always lack luster, but there are always some great gold in the very, very long story, some great humor, and a general embrace of a vaguely threatening magical realist world. I'm basically saying Inherent Vice is way more Pinchon than it is Anderson. So while I'm not eager to see the movie again, but there was moving/interesting chunks of it that by themselves were quite entertaining. EDIT: Just a little more on this, when I think of good Pynchon, I think of individual scenes, threads, or even characters. Like, Against the Day is worthwhile for Webb Traverse and the utterly heart-breaking and profound battle against mine interests in the Rocky Mountains. Or in Bleeding Edge, how wonderfully engaging and rootable Maxine turned to be. Too bad the rest kind of washes out for me, based on length and lack of a discernable point. Its definitely NOT novels I can see myself recommending, unless you're interested in reading sections only a few pages long. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:26
|
|
