Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2014)

[whipsilk]

Is there another book of Pynchon's close to the style of Inherent Vice that I can read so I can gauge what this might be?

Uh, no. Its genre-defying humor is unique in Pynchon's output, although stylistically one can find traces of the psychedelia rampant in The Crying of Lot 49. Why not read Inherent Vice itself? Or even better, read Mason & Dixon - Inherent Vice is precisely the opposite of that book in just about every meaningful way.

[med]

Is there another book of Pynchon's close to the style of Inherent Vice that I can read so I can gauge what this might be?

I'm not sure I entirely understand the question—what are you trying to gauge?—but Vineland is the most like Inherent Vice.

[mfunk9786]

Y'all northeasterners might want to monitor http://www.twitter.com/thenyff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; over the course of the next few hours/couple of days - a 9:15 screening was added (standard $25 ticket without PTA/cast present) and quickly sold out, and a few stand-by tickets to the 9 PM centerpiece screening ($75 ticket with PTA/cast present) were made available (also sold out - but not before I snagged a pair! ) today, and there've been rumblings that a midnight show might be added. These are all on Saturday, October 4th, by the way. If another screening is added, they'd announce ticket sales on that Twitter account.

[flyonthewall2983]

Why not read Inherent Vice itself?

I'd much rather see the movie first, then read the book generally.

[mfunk9786]

A midnight screening has been added at $25 a ticket - they're on sale now here - get in the waiting queue while you can!

EDIT: This is now sold out.

[domino harvey]

And here's the trailer with "the worst possible soundtrack"

[mfunk9786]

That was far from the most well-thought out bit I've ever seen, but when "Gangnam Style" came on I had to choke back a laugh.

[colinr0380]

That incongruous remix sounded fine to me, and extremely amusing, but then I've got an imaginary trailer for a hypothetical film version of Gravity's Rainbow in my head that would have its imagery scored to the first four minutes of Raise Your Weapon so I'm perhaps not the best judge of these things!

[FrauBlucher]

It sounds like an interesting ride......Indiewire

[flyonthewall2983]

New Radiohead song "Spooks" will be featured in the film.

[mfunk9786]

What binds Paul Thomas Anderson's body of work together prior to Inherent Vice is his endless enthusiasm for the worlds he's so meticulously created. We're not just at a pool party at Jack Horner's house, we're being led breathlessly by the arm by our trusty director, to see the sights, meet the guests, and even take a dip in the pool. We're not just invited to see the way Barry Egan spends his day from afar, but instead we see his surroundings in 360 degrees, becoming almost dizzy as pressures close in around him because we're grounded in such a sense of place, with such a rich perception of his life, his desires, his failures, and his realities. The energy with which Anderson has approached each of these projects propels them into a realm that very few directors (maybe no directors) could've pulled off - each of his films has a very distinct stamp that's been dipped in the ink of a filmmaker who really wants to show us what he's done, like a smugly eager student who can't wait to show his straight-A report card off to his parents.

But here's Inherent Vice, a film that is comprised largely of close-ups or two-shots, mostly feeling like the camera's been rested on a table in the room while the actors go through the motions of not only navigating the wordy, sometimes quite clever dialogue, but often doing so with the added wrinkle of their characters being stoned and occasionally entirely checked out. We don't get much of a look at Doc's surroundings here, really - there's that shot of the outside of his abode, a lot of close and medium shots of him sitting on the couch on the phone or lighting a blunt - but no real indication from a sedentary Anderson that he's got something he's so pleased with that he just needs to show us.

The plot is designed to be, by nature, both very simple and incredibly complicated. So many names that are hard to put to faces are thrown around in this film, so many goddamn names, that within a matter of a few minutes, they've all run together. The idea, as even critics who've taken a positive stance on the film have pointed out, that the plot is something coherent that can or should be followed carefully is counter to what Inherent Vice is doing.

So without Anderson's usual eye, his usual enthusiasm, his usual plotting - what is Inherent Vice doing? The cast is hit-or-miss - Benicio Del Toro has very little screentime and when he does, he doesn't have much to say. Katherine Waterston is an absolute vision, but sucks the energy out of the few scenes in which she appears (there's a very long take later on that feels a bit out of place in this film that is well acted, but doesn't quite go anywhere). Reese Witherspoon might as well have not even shown up. The only performances that are truly special are from Joaquin Phoenix (when he's not in full-on mumble mode) and Josh Brolin, whose character is so bizarre that it's hard to know in the slightest where he's coming from or what he's after.

There are a few delightful one-liners, some lovely shots of... the beach, I guess? A really well-acted and sultry cameo by infamous porn star Belladonna. There are pieces of this film that seem like they'd be very welcome in the tapestry of a much warmer quilt. But unfortunately, in a career that's essentially been peerless, Inherent Vice is the first failure, and it brings me absolutely no joy to say it.

EDIT: Also, the general public is going to hate this movie. Hate it. Somewhere between Killing Them Softly and The Counselor hate it. I can only imagine it's going to get an F CinemaScore, and have some trouble with word-of-mouth as it expands. There are certainly critics and other folks who saw it at one of the many screenings today that enjoyed it, and I'm thrilled for them that they did - but that in no way deters me from believing that this is, even moreso than The Master, Anderson's least accessible/mainstream effort and it's going to get slaughtered by general perception among multiplex audiences. American Hustle this is not, despite what may seem like a few surface similarities. Whole other ball of wax.

[oh yeah]

Interesting, thanks for the review. I suspected from the trailer that this would be possibly his least commercial picture yet. I do think it looks pretty fantastic, though -- I love the Long Goodbye/Cutter's Way/Big Lebowski string of disillusioned and druggy post-Vietnam noir, and this seems to be very much in that vein. Also, I am always interested to see a fine artist evolve their style, so the uncharacteristic reliance on two-shots and close-ups over more immersive wide or tracking shots sounds intriguing to me in theory, not necessary a weakness. Depends on how it's all integrated. And while I may end up being just as disappointed with the film as you are, mfunk, I think the smug eagerness of PTA's past films which you speak of is one of his major weaknesses for me, and it's why I don't much care for his first three features (which have more of this show-off feeling than the following three). So I'm pretty excited for this. With Punch-Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood and The Master, each picture is almost completely different in form and content from the last, and each is more cinematically inventive than the last as well. I'm hoping Vice will follow suit.

[rrenault]

Funny that his least commercial friendly effort yet is nonetheless backed by Warner Bros.

[LQ]

I can't really argue with mfunk's criticisms because I deeply love the highly meticulous, beautiful, towering works of art and profound explorations of character I'm used to seeing from Anderson and this assuredly was not one of those works, but I still was gleefully entertained by Inherent Vice. I don't know if it's a good movie, but it's a very enjoyable if totally befuddling almost-three-hours, and that's enough to leave me with a smile and a contact high. Designing it to be downright impenetrable on a narrative level wasn't an especially compelling choice as there are a number of movies that better fit in its stoned post-60s wastrels trying to make sense of America and failing niche while also managing to be coherent, but it did allow me to largely leave the plot aside and just sort of lounge in the hazy heightened atmosphere of the film. I liked it. I just hope that Anderson gets back to masterpiece making next time around.

[Jeff]

Sounds like it's pretty true to the source, and if that's true , it's certainly going to rule out any commercial or mainstream accessibility prospects.

The critical word has been mostly quite positive. Scott Foundas loves it, and Glenn Kenny endorsed Foundas' review via Twitter, calling it a "capital-G Great Film." Robbie Collin, David Ehrlich, Ben Kenigsberg, and Drew McWeeny all seem to be crazy about it too. Eric Kohn, Xan Brooks, and Joshua Rothkopf are mostly fans with some minor reservations. At the other end of the spectrum, Todd McCarthy seems mixed-to-negative, and Dan Callahan expresses much of the same disappointment as mfunk.

It's bound to be incredibly divisive audience repellent, and I'm just as befuddled by the Warner pickup as when they went for Her last year. I'm anxiously awaiting it, and am bound to be disappointed, but my hopes are buoyed by comments like Bilge Ebiri's: "I thought INHERENT VICE was magnificent. A very faithful adaptation that also channels NIGHT MOVES & THE LONG GOODBYE." Those are two of my favorite films, period, and if Anderson manages to capture any of that languorous-noir charm, I'll be on board.

[swo17]

Funnily enough, mfunk's assessment of the film and its director's work to that point sounds a lot like my initial take on The Big Lebowski. (Though I've since warmed to it somewhat.)

[FrauBlucher]

The Warner connection is odd. They seem to have world-wide rights, as well. Maybe there's a multi-film deal in place.

[rrenault]

Her was more of a bona fide hipster favorite though. It wasn't particularly divisive, at least not in comparison to The Master. So what can we expect from Inherent Vice? Will it come and go, not even reaching the $10 million mark in the US or will it make $30 million+ with a consolatory Best Picture nomination? Or somewhere in between with an actor nod of some sort?

[mfunk9786]

Funnily enough, mfunk's assessment of the film and its director's work to that point sounds a lot like my initial take on The Big Lebowski. (Though I've since warmed to it somewhat.)

I thought a lot about that on my ride home (had a lot of time staring at a dark road on my way back from NYC to ponder what I'd just seen) and all I can say is that Inherent Vice lacks many of the running gags or memorable characters of that film. There's less there... there, unless you can imagine cinemagoers, in 10 years, quoting heady dialogue about real estate developers and drug smuggling dentists to one another... it's just much more of an unusual piece of work.

I guess if I can make a more apt comparison to another modern American director's body of work, this feels a lot like it'll ultimately be regarded as Anderson's Jackie Brown. It's a pretty major sidestep in style and screenwriting tone from his usual output largely because it's a faithful adaptation of a novel with a distinct language all its own, and that's going to foster a) a bit more critical disagreement than his other work and b) appreciations from some that don't often find what they're looking for from Anderson's more flashy stuff.

I will certainly be seeing this again and trying to unpack it more in a few months when it's released, and I'm truly glad that so many people disagree with me. Here's Edward Douglas' review from comingsoon.net, which I read after writing mine and I was struck by how many of the same reservations he had in his pan of the film - though it is rather accusatory, entitled, and immature in a way that I'm not prepared to be.

[Jeff]

Funnily enough, mfunk's assessment of the film and its director's work to that point sounds a lot like my initial take on The Big Lebowski. (Though I've since warmed to it somewhat.)

I hated Lebowski when I first saw it, and it was my first Coen disappointment too. I've more than warmed to it since then, and it's become one of those movies that I can watch over and over, even if I still don't connect with it with the same kind of love I feel for other Coen films.

I guess if I can make a more apt comparison to another modern American director's body of work, this feels a lot like it'll ultimately be regarded as Anderson's Jackie Brown. It's a pretty major sidestep in style and screenwriting tone from his usual output largely because it's a faithful adaptation of a novel with a distinct language all its own, and that's going to foster a) a bit more critical disagreement than his other work and b) appreciations from some that don't often find what they're looking for from Anderson's more flashy stuff.

I genuinely appreciate all of mfunk's thoughtful commentary here. That's tough to do for a film that doesn't click for you, but you've obviously really engaged with it. I suspect the Jackie Brown comparison is an apt one. Funnily enough, Jackie Brown is probably my favorite Tarantino, though I like all of his films quite a bit. I think there's something to be said for an artist taking his usual tropes and bending them 90 degrees, applying them to something new, adapting another artist's work. Often something new, and weird, and magical comes out, and the director's own sensibilities are heightened and focused (see also: No Country for Old Men, Fantastic Mr. Fox, lots of Kubrick [esp. Barry Lyndon]) .

Edward Douglas... is rather accusatory, entitled, and immature.

That's Douglas all over.

[swo17]

Funnily enough, mfunk's assessment of the film and its director's work to that point sounds a lot like my initial take on The Big Lebowski. (Though I've since warmed to it somewhat.)

I thought a lot about that on my ride home (had a lot of time staring at a dark road on my way back from NYC to ponder what I'd just seen) and all I can say is that Inherent Vice lacks many of the running gags or memorable characters of that film. There's less there... there, unless you can imagine cinemagoers, in 10 years, quoting heady dialogue about real estate developers and drug smuggling dentists to one another... it's just much more of an unusual piece of work.

That's my point though--when I first saw Lebowski, I didn't see a future cult hit with memorable characters and lots of quotable lines. I saw an incoherent mess and an unwelcome departure from their signature style up to that point.

[domino harvey]

I still see the Big Lebowski incoherent mess. I remember when it came out and no one was clamoring for repeat viewings and declaring cult status in advance. And the movie's not innately quotable, it became quotable by sheer force of will in the interim years. So, who knows what the future holds for Inherent Vice

[mfunk9786]

I suspect the Jackie Brown comparison is an apt one. Funnily enough, Jackie Brown is probably my favorite Tarantino

This is something I've heard a decent amount that I can't really wrap my head around when compared to my own taste in his body of work, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people took the same position on Inherent Vice who don't usually find quite what they're looking for when they walk away from an Anderson film.

And swo, all I can say is that if there are Inherent Vice conventions at which people are dressing up as Doc Sportello, drinking tequila zombies, and buying Golden Fang t-shirts, I will deep fry and consume my Montreal Alouettes cap on this very forum.

[flyonthewall2983]

Soundtrack

[Peter-H]

What binds Paul Thomas Anderson's body of work together prior to Inherent Vice is his endless enthusiasm for the worlds he's so meticulously created. We're not just at a pool party at Jack Horner's house, we're being led breathlessly by the arm by our trusty director, to see the sights, meet the guests, and even take a dip in the pool. We're not just invited to see the way Barry Egan spends his day from afar, but instead we see his surroundings in 360 degrees, becoming almost dizzy as pressures close in around him because we're grounded in such a sense of place, with such a rich perception of his life, his desires, his failures, and his realities. The energy with which Anderson has approached each of these projects propels them into a realm that very few directors (maybe no directors) could've pulled off - each of his films has a very distinct stamp that's been dipped in the ink of a filmmaker who really wants to show us what he's done, like a smugly eager student who can't wait to show his straight-A report card off to his parents.

But here's Inherent Vice, a film that is comprised largely of close-ups or two-shots, mostly feeling like the camera's been rested on a table in the room while the actors go through the motions of not only navigating the wordy, sometimes quite clever dialogue, but often doing so with the added wrinkle of their characters being stoned and occasionally entirely checked out. We don't get much of a look at Doc's surroundings here, really - there's that shot of the outside of his abode, a lot of close and medium shots of him sitting on the couch on the phone or lighting a blunt - but no real indication from a sedentary Anderson that he's got something he's so pleased with that he just needs to show us.

The plot is designed to be, by nature, both very simple and incredibly complicated. So many names that are hard to put to faces are thrown around in this film, so many goddamn names, that within a matter of a few minutes, they've all run together. The idea, as even critics who've taken a positive stance on the film have pointed out, that the plot is something coherent that can or should be followed carefully is counter to what Inherent Vice is doing.

So without Anderson's usual eye, his usual enthusiasm, his usual plotting - what is Inherent Vice doing? The cast is hit-or-miss - Benicio Del Toro has very little screentime and when he does, he doesn't have much to say. Katherine Waterston is an absolute vision, but sucks the energy out of the few scenes in which she appears (there's a very long take later on that feels a bit out of place in this film that is well acted, but doesn't quite go anywhere). Reese Witherspoon might as well have not even shown up. The only performances that are truly special are from Joaquin Phoenix (when he's not in full-on mumble mode) and Josh Brolin, whose character is so bizarre that it's hard to know in the slightest where he's coming from or what he's after.

There are a few delightful one-liners, some lovely shots of... the beach, I guess? A really well-acted and sultry cameo by infamous porn star Belladonna. There are pieces of this film that seem like they'd be very welcome in the tapestry of a much warmer quilt. But unfortunately, in a career that's essentially been peerless, Inherent Vice is the first failure, and it brings me absolutely no joy to say it.

EDIT: Also, the general public is going to hate this movie. Hate it. Somewhere between Killing Them Softly and The Counselor hate it. I can only imagine it's going to get an F CinemaScore, and have some trouble with word-of-mouth as it expands. There are certainly critics and other folks who saw it at one of the many screenings today that enjoyed it, and I'm thrilled for them that they did - but that in no way deters me from believing that this is, even moreso than The Master, Anderson's least accessible/mainstream effort and it's going to get slaughtered by general perception among multiplex audiences. American Hustle this is not, despite what may seem like a few surface similarities. Whole other ball of wax.

Soooo, is it good?