XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Paul Thomas Anderson => Topic started by: MacGuffin on October 01, 2014, 02:10:50 PM

Title: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: MacGuffin on October 01, 2014, 02:10:50 PM
This is a thread in which people who have seen Inherent Vice in its entirety are free to talk about it with impunity.  Where spoilers can run rampant and anyone who ventures in prematurely only has himself to blame. 

So discuss, lucky ones, and know that until the rest of us huddled masses have the opportunity to watch the film, we'll be just outside, cursing your names under our collective breath.


THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD.

----polkablues


I wanted to edit this post too
- JB


this edit marks my return. and now to stay the hell away from this thread for the next few months.
- p


Edit party!
- polkablues
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on October 05, 2014, 01:07:03 AM
First thing I want to say is that I think this movie is virtually un-spoilerable.

If someone put a gun to my head and asked me to give a play-by-play of IV’s plot I’d be a dead man. I’ll need to watch it at least seven more times with subtitles before I’ll have the vaguest idea what was going on (mod was right to see this 3 times in one day). Even beyond the plot the movie is difficult to describe. The word “beguiling” has been used and is actually pretty apt. It’s hard to put your finger on, but that’s maybe the point, because Doc has a hard time putting his finger on anything beyond his lost love for the duration of Inherent Vice’s running time. The beauty is that it doesn’t even matter if you’re able to follow the story — what was most compelling to me was the always unexpected, dissonant ways the characters Doc comes across behaved within their vignettes. A scene is moving “this way” and a character is moving “that way” instead. Their life, their full, fleshed out life, memory, experience, all that, is what you’re watching, a specific slice of it shown just because it happens to coincide with the plot’s need to show a character at that moment, but their helping to unravel the mystery doesn’t really seem to matter. We get to see them, instead. This has to have the best acting in any PT movie, often Cassavetes level, an unprecedented immediacy in comparison to his previous films, and the detective story seems more an excuse for observation, a way to get Doc mobile running around Los Angeles and into the presence of all these insane characters to fix his eyes on what’s-going-on-with-them as humans regardless of their part within the crime thread.

The Master was beautiful but visually this is another horse entirely, a step beyond. It LOOKS like a movie straight up made in the 70s even moreso than Boogie Nights, and if I was unfamiliar with all names involved and happened to see it I’d probably think it actually was. The lighting, the textures, the furniture…how did he do that? It boggles my mind. I wasn’t alive 40 years ago, but even if it isn’t period accurate it definitely doesn’t look “like now”, and it doesn’t look like a pastiche. I need to rewatch the trailer but I feel like it was color timed to appear more like a normal movie, the picture I saw up on that screen felt such a departure from it. Maybe the trailer difference was my imagination. Whatever.

Inherent Vice starts off like something in the tonal vein of Love Streams and morphs, with the momentum of a hawaiian slide guitar, into a mad, mindblowing labyrinth of cryptic doublespeak and double entendres. It’s perverted as hell, thank god (Thank GOD), and DENSE, so many things going on and to pick up on repeat viewings. It’s a slipstream of madcap antics and unbeatable melancholy. Who is who and why is why and how is what I couldn’t tell you. I don’t think I care that I couldn’t tell you. The acting is SO GOOD though, that even when you’re bewildered, when characters like Martin Short’s Doctor Blatnoyd are speaking almost incoherently but Doc seems right there with them and to have some clue what’s going on, you believe them so fully as people, their renderings feel so real, that it doesn’t feel like the scene doesn’t make sense, but that you’re privy to an actual event that took place and just haven’t cracked the code. I loved that. Even if I never make sense of it I could watch it again and again — an endless supply of deranged company to hang out with.

In some ways Inherent Vice feels like a fraternal twin of The Master, conveying similar skepticism about America’s ideals, about its skeptics alternatives, and of any answers in general, and like The Master, at its core the movie is about a love that got away - love the only thing that will save you, and love as a drug that’s worth taking because sobriety in this life without a point doesn’t seem to be worth it. Love as a drug…a loved life worth living…sobriety as a life without love…drugs as a substitute for that lacking love…something or other…

Ironic that this is the film of PT’s that has big studio backing behind it — WB is out of their minds. Yeah it has humor, but it’s his least commercial movie by a mile, and I wonder what the fuck is going to happen come day one of its wide release when word of mouth spreads. The trailer is SO OFF — I don’t even know what to relate the movie to as I’ve never seen anything else like it. Long Goodbye this Big Lebowski that — not even close. I’ll say this - the movie makes you feel like PT is the only real filmmaker out there right now making anything new or pushing any boundaries to show you something you haven’t seen before. You realize how rote everything else is in comparison, how many patterns most movies follow even in terms of “art film” style.

I bet Pubrick is going to write a book about it.

Going to have to edit this a bunch of times because my mind is still swirling and I have no idea how long it’s going to take me to wrap my head around something concrete. I know my comments are vague but atm I don’t know how to describe my feelings or really what I saw. The movie is so so original, and will rekindle your love of film and belief in its future possibilities even more than The Master, I think. IV goes into fever dream territory and never comes out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9LMD_Fx87E
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on October 05, 2014, 02:14:43 AM
This review is basically perfect.

I'll add that I understand it slightly more on repeated viewings and enjoyed it tons more.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on October 05, 2014, 06:20:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXStKdubasA
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: velociraptor on October 05, 2014, 09:14:30 AM
Let me ask the question we're all dying to know: what font does he use for the opening title? Does the movie open with the title like TWBB and The Master? Or does it have a title sequence?

Also, Wilder's review is better than any major journalistic publication's review thus far.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on October 05, 2014, 09:28:38 AM
Title is green neon lights over Joaquin like in the trailer.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Punch on October 05, 2014, 09:35:53 AM
how was michael k williams & Hong Chau in the film? also are the las vegas scenes & acid trips in the movie?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: martinthewarrior on October 05, 2014, 09:36:13 AM
First thing I want to say is that I think this movie is virtually un-spoilerable.

If someone put a gun to my head and asked me to give a play-by-play of IV’s plot I’d be a dead man. I’ll need to watch it at least seven more times with subtitles before I’ll have the vaguest idea what was going on (mod was right to see this 3 times in one day). Even beyond the plot the movie is difficult to describe. The word “beguiling” has been used and is actually pretty apt. It’s hard to put your finger on, but that’s maybe the point, because Doc has a hard time putting his finger on anything beyond his lost love for the duration of Inherent Vice’s running time. The beauty is that it doesn’t even matter if you’re able to follow the story — what was most compelling to me was the always unexpected, dissonant ways the characters Doc comes across behaved within their vignettes. A scene is moving “this way” and a character is moving “that way” instead. Their life, their full, fleshed out life, memory, experience, all that, is what you’re watching, a specific slice of it shown just because it happens to coincide with the plot’s need to show a character at that moment, but their helping to unravel the mystery doesn’t really seem to matter. We get to see them, instead. This has to have the best acting in any PT movie, often Cassavetes level, an unprecedented immediacy in comparison to his previous films, and the detective story seems more an excuse for observation, a way to get Doc mobile running around Los Angeles and into the presence of all these insane characters to fix his eyes on what’s-going-on-with-them as humans regardless of their part within the crime thread.

The Master was beautiful but visually this is another horse entirely, a step beyond. It LOOKS like a movie straight up made in the 70s even moreso than Boogie Nights, and if I was unfamiliar with all names involved and happened to see it I’d probably think it actually was. The lighting, the textures, the furniture…how did he do that? It boggles my mind. I wasn’t alive 40 years ago, but even if it isn’t period accurate it definitely doesn’t look “like now”, and it doesn’t look like a pastiche. I need to rewatch the trailer but I feel like it was color timed to appear more like a normal movie, the picture I saw up on that screen felt such a departure from it. Maybe the trailer difference was my imagination. Whatever.

Inherent Vice starts off like something in the tonal vein of Love Streams and morphs, with the momentum of a hawaiian slide guitar, into a mad, mindblowing labyrinth of cryptic doublespeak and double entendres. It’s perverted as hell, thank god (Thank GOD), and DENSE, so many things going on and to pick up on repeat viewings. It’s a slipstream of madcap antics and unbeatable melancholy. Who is who and why is why and how is what I couldn’t tell you. I don’t think I care that I couldn’t tell you. The acting is SO GOOD though, that even when you’re bewildered, when characters like Martin Short’s Doctor Blatnoyd are speaking almost incoherently but Doc seems right there with them and to have some clue what’s going on, you believe them so fully as people, their renderings feel so real, that it doesn’t feel like the scene doesn’t make sense, but that you’re privy to an actual event that took place and just haven’t cracked the code. I loved that. Even if I never make sense of it I could watch it again and again — an endless supply of deranged company to hang out with.

In some ways Inherent Vice feels like a fraternal twin of The Master, conveying similar skepticism about America’s ideals, about its skeptics alternatives, and of any answers in general, and like The Master, at its core the movie is about a love that got away - love the only thing that will save you, and love as a drug that’s worth taking because sobriety in this life without a point doesn’t seem to be worth it. Love as a drug…a loved life worth living…sobriety as a life without love…drugs as a substitute for that lacking love…something or other…

Ironic that this is the film of PT’s that has big studio backing behind it — WB is out of their minds. Yeah it has humor, but it’s his least commercial movie by a mile, and I wonder what the fuck is going to happen come day one of its wide release when word of mouth spreads. The trailer is SO OFF — I don’t even know what to relate the movie to as I’ve never seen anything else like it. Long Goodbye this Big Lebowski that — not even close. I’ll say this - the movie makes you feel like PT is the only real filmmaker out there right now making anything new or pushing any boundaries to show you something you haven’t seen before. You realize how rote everything else is in comparison, how many patterns most movies follow even in terms of “art film” style.

I bet Pubrick is going to write a book about it.

Going to have to edit this a bunch of times because my mind is still swirling and I have no idea how long it’s going to take me to wrap my head around something concrete. I know my comments are vague but atm I don’t know how to describe my feelings or really what I saw. The movie is so so original, and will rekindle your love of film and belief in its future possibilities even more than The Master, I think. IV goes into fever dream territory and never comes out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9LMD_Fx87E

What a wonderful write up. Thanks for this.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on October 05, 2014, 10:08:23 AM
how was michael k williams & Hong Chau in the film? also are the las vegas scenes & acid trips in the movie?
There is no weak link in the cast. Everyone is great. Brolin may be a standout. Williams is only in one scene. No acid flashbacks or Vegas trip.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on October 05, 2014, 02:00:31 PM
SPOILERS

I don't want to know the ending, but I read it was "outrageously different" from the book. Outrageously seems quite...radical...

Here is the book ending:

« Doc figured if he missed the Gordita Beach exit he’d take the first one whose sign he could read and work his way back on surface streets. He knew that at Rosecrans the freeway began to dogleg east, and at some point, Hawthorne Boulevard or Artesia, he’d lose the fog, unless it was spreading tonight, and settled in regionwide. Maybe then it would stay this way for days, maybe he’d have to just keep driving, down past Long Beach, down through Orange County, and San Diego, and across a border where nobody could tell anymore in the fog who was Mexican, who was Anglo, who was anybody. Then again, he might run out of gas before that happened, and have to leave the caravan, and pull over on the shoulder, and wait. For whatever would happen. For a forgotten joint to materialize in his pocket. For the CHP to come by and choose not to hassle him. For a restless blonde in a Stingray to stop and offer him a ride. For the fog to burn away, and for something else this time, somehow, to be there instead. »

Do you confirm the "outrageous"?

Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on October 05, 2014, 04:47:50 PM
The major difference from what I've been told is that in the book Doc ends up alone. And in the film, he's with Shasta. Naturally, since PTA is a romantic.

Full songlisting from the movie.

http://thefilmstage.com/news/listen-to-the-soundtrack-for-paul-thomas-andersons-inherent-vice/
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Larry on October 06, 2014, 08:48:40 PM
does sean penn make an appearance? or was that just rumoured
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on October 06, 2014, 09:30:02 PM
Rumors I never heard. Penn isn't in there.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on October 06, 2014, 11:55:06 PM
i really hope this film is everything in my Wilder dreams

adorable

the dreamy review that was needed for all pta fans, from right here at xixax. just to let myself be like the fifth person to thank wilder for that
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on October 07, 2014, 07:27:49 AM
Yeah no Penn and no Kevin J. O'Connor!

Also no Anders Holm or the actor they cast as Glenn Charlock.

There's a couple shots in the trailer not in the film too.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Frederico Fellini on October 07, 2014, 10:18:16 AM

There's a couple shots in the trailer not in the film too.

Please elaborate.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on October 07, 2014, 10:56:13 AM
These shots are all alternate takes I believe.

Doc & Bigfoot near the car doesn't happen this way.
Don't remember this shot of Doc hurriedly driving at night so this was prob cut.
Also don't remember Doc & Tariq shaking hands at this angle.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: porgy on October 07, 2014, 04:45:34 PM
is no one going to mention how weird a certain sex scene was
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on November 09, 2014, 10:46:21 AM
I've just read that this isn't in the movie too.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2A3FA9IIAALyKA.jpg)

Sad, cause it's one of my favorite shots of the trailer.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on November 09, 2014, 09:58:44 PM
Yeah, good call. I was questioning that but couldn't remember for sure.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on November 12, 2014, 01:46:22 PM
well

first there’s a titlecard about where and when it is so no one wonders where and when it is

then, and this is when my memory of the movie starts to be imperfect, somewhere in this “second shot of the damn movie” section, but i think there’s a shot of joanna newsom that’s a bit sun tinted and her mouth is moving

but there’s definitely joanna newsom reading either a big portion or the entire opening paragraph of the book, as v.o., while we see joaquin on the couch in blue light and katherine entering. he’s shown me the place and told me when and where it is and he’s shown me people and told me who and how they are. so this is great, because i’m getting to right away see harmonies between the book and movie

i’m thinking pta’s working too hard a little bit. the goal here is to erase the words and paint the screen. i don’t think it’s a graceful entry. i’m curious. then katherine leaves, she drives her car away, and joaquin stands watching and vitamin c starts to play and the opening title comes in neon while joaquin walks away up an alley while the shot and music continue and i see ok, ok here it is, right here after an opening that was anyway gonna be tricky for sure, here’s where the book and movie created a little patch of cinematic magic

then the rest of me watching the movie was like that basically, that’s my microcosmic story i think. the materials are what the book supplies, the movie of it being created, and there exists space between the two, in about every sequence there’s — are you familiar with meditation? i’m referring to the gap area in cinematic form. there's plenty of gap area possibility because there's a ton of characters and scenes. i think the movie has meaning one scene at a time

i reread wilder's reaction right now and "It’s a slipstream of madcap antics and unbeatable melancholy." is spot on. in a pta way, let's all be serious here for a moment, the guy doesn't have a problem making a movie. did you quote that or make it up? so good. i like this google definition of slipstream: "an assisting force regarded as drawing something along behind something else." a slipstream of madcap antics and unbeatable melancholy -- and all of us who've seen it are dying to see it again

typical pta
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: max from fearless on November 20, 2014, 03:14:13 PM
I was lucky enough to bag some tickets to the 7pm London screening of Inherent Vice at the Prince Charles off Leicester Sq (thanks for the heads up Drenk!) PTA was in attendance and did a super-short intro about this being the right place to show this type of film and how we were about to see it in 35mm…

random thoughts:

This is Katherine Waterston's movie and Josh Brolin's movie. Their performances are really STRONG and for me they make the film. For me the movie was centred around Shasta's infection/corruption via Golden Fang via Mickey Wolfmann (GF being down and dirty capitalism, stamping out of various cultures and communities, gentrification, a loss of hope, murder, paranoia, a multiple personality disorder culture - nothing is what it seems, everyone has three or four faces but somehow remain faceless, greed, the american way as we now know it) and Bigfoot's struggle to place his flag in the ground and take a stand (how can you fight these forces in the fog?) despite knowing/feeling/carrying the weight of the Golden Fang's influence, gradual domination. Every time Waterson appeared the movie came alive for me.

Joaquin Phoenix as Doc Sportello, didn't quite come off for me. He laid it on too heavy. The flashbacks were cool but I didn't quite believe/feel his melancholy so much as I was constantly being told about it by Joanna Newsom or another side character. Overall, I don't think the voiceover works, especially in the first scene. For me, it hurts Joaquin's performance because we never get a chance to see/feel what he's feeling. She's always interrupting his flow. Also his comic chops/timing were okay but somethings in the way. Something doesn't work.

This is the first ever PTA movie I've ever being slightly bored/restless in. (I left it feeling languid. Is this film too long? Maybe) Is it the dialogue overload? I was hoping, looking for that Love Streams, Cassavetes vibe that Wilder mentioned, but in those movies people are talking about their feelings, their trying to connect or not, here it's just dense dense dense information information information but I felt it was more funny, irreverent, ape shit and digestible when I was reading it in the book, than when I was watching it. Maybe this is down to performances, which maybe aren't up to PTA standards? (Malone delivers, Owen Wilson is Owen Wilson, I liked Newsom, everyone else was ok) or maybe it's because in my mind's eye the book was about a community. It was expansive, freewheeling and alive. You got a taste of characters and their personalities outside of the main narrative, here, characters just appear, talk to Doc, give him some information (or don't) and piss off. Or Newsom tells us a bit about them before the above happens.

It also doesn't help that the movie is mostly interiors, very tight shots, either pushing into a two-shot or handheld singles. It felt SUPER flat and somewhat monotonous after a while. At times I thought I was watching a stage play and was waiting for a cinematic passage, a PTA combination of music, sound (movement) and character. It never really came. If i was pressed, I'd say maybe Doc walking in the street at the start or maybe the scene where Doc wakes up with the dead body, are moments, but not PTA standard moments. But maybe PTA is moving away from that and stripping it right down to the bone...Wanna hear another PTA standards rant?

I thought the use of music was pretty uninspired by his standards too. I don't really recall any really interesting uses of music/score/effects as in everything he's ever done. The use of Minnie Ripperton's song felt so arbitrary, I got a little pissed, I fucking love Minnie, I especially love that song and it felt like it was just thrown into the mix.

I dunno. I wanna see this again in a couple of months time, but I hate to say it, this movie although fun, never really resonated for me. Sure, it doesn't feel like anything out at the moment, it's obviously it's own thing, but it also never really moved me, or touched me, or shocked me, or fully engaged me, or made me feel ambivalent the way a PTA film does. Whereas reading the novel, I was genuinely touched and moved and it stayed with me for days afterwards. I had no burning desire to see it immediately again, and that's the way I've felt with every PTA film until now. I'm a bit sad, bummed out, disappointed and confused....for me, this isn't typical PTA. It's something else...

random shots:

The scene with Josh Brolin getting pancakes is lovely (this is when the movie started moving for me) and the sex scene towards the end is great. I loved the exchange between Doc and the Golden Fang 'family/workers' collecting the dope.

This is the first PTA movie, where a character says the title.

I can't believe WB are putting this out. I just can't believe it.

I loved the first shot of Newsom talking, with the sun bitting her cheeks.

The poster with a huge Waterstone is totally appropriate. She owns IV with Brolin.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on November 20, 2014, 04:20:35 PM
My advice: see it a second time before fully deciding. The thing with PTA films (in the past decade especially) is that they're basically always ahead of his audience. You keep waiting for those PTA 'things' you expect from him and he keeps finding other ways to surprise you instead of giving you the things you were expecting. Upon first view, it's always a little disappointing, in the long run it's infinitely more satisfying and what keeps him the filmmaker of his generation. 

The one thought I had during my viewing(s) was that if PTA had cast Robert Downey Jr., even with the exact same script, it would be a much more accessible film. RDJ has comic timing that would've made this more audience friendly while still not watering down the weirdness, Joaquin kinda takes it to a different place. He's good and a few of the big moments (the picture reaction, obvs) he shines, but in the moment to moment, he's definitely more mumbly than hilarious. Which works for this version of the film, but it's one that's gonna be a tough sell for most people (as usual). Though after TWBB I was convinced it was his least accessible film to mainstream audiences but that still managed to strike a nerve so who knows.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on November 20, 2014, 04:36:37 PM
My advice: see it a second time before fully deciding. The thing with PTA films (in the past decade especially)

and

max from fearless [20|Nov 03:21 PM]:   i think 1 viewing is bullshit to truly get to grips with a movie, but those are my first impressions

is what i mean by typical pta. it's a bit "special consideration" and i think way more people deserve it than just the tried/true types, but i also think pta deserves it
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: putneyswipe on November 20, 2014, 05:57:33 PM
technically pbh says the title in hard eight. and the master, well...
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: JG on November 20, 2014, 07:18:09 PM
i think max's review summarizes how i feel about the film, but i'm basically waiting to see it a second time to form an opinion.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: max from fearless on November 20, 2014, 07:53:08 PM
I just wanted to clarify that these are my first first impressions and one viewing is nothing when trying to get to grips with any movie, let alone a PTA flick. I will be seeing this again and writing again. But you must understand, I walked around London in the cold arse of the night, for god knows how long, broken up, thinking something was wrong with me for feeling the way I felt. But I'm cool with both saying that this is how I feel NOW but that I NEED TO SEE IT AGAIN and hang around with movie in my dressing gown and slippers and get it alone, by itself and try to make out with it. Then i'll know where I stand.......but this is fine for now...

Modage - I also felt Robert Downey Jr. would've made a more accessible, more comical, cool and overwhelmed, in the moment Doc. It's not that I thought Joaquin wasn't good, something just felt off and I couldn't connect with him. And yes there are moments where he does shine. When he sees the photo. Snorting Martin Short's coke. Hanging with Shasta. That sex scene. I just felt Brolin and Waterston took it to that NEXT level. Brolin eating pancakes. His run in with Adrian Prussia. His phone calls. The scene where his son pours his drink, fucking great! His final showdown with Doc, smoking the joint and his meltdown/agression/one-up-manship - brought back memories of Plainview and Eli. And Waterston she was gangbusters in every scene she was in....Also liked Hong Chau, just her saying "pussy eating/eater" gave me the whirlies...More movies with pussy eating please.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: max from fearless on November 20, 2014, 08:07:04 PM
You keep waiting for those PTA 'things' you expect from him and he keeps finding other ways to surprise you instead of giving you the things you were expecting. Upon first view, it's always a little disappointing, in the long run it's infinitely more satisfying and what keeps him the filmmaker of his generation.

PS. Agreed. Real talk.

The tone of the sequence where Joaquin walks alongside the boat in The Master before he jumps in, totally headfucked me in the cinema first time around. The sound mix as the music goes from score to source. The shot of the boat sailing away towards the bridge with the score (is the shot a reference to Lady From Shanghai?) the whole sequence is an absolute hypnotic gem, but it deeply unsettled me on first viewing, it still kinda does, in ways none of his other films did. I mean it's a guy getting onto a boat...but it isn't...fuck...all i know is it's PTA...
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on November 28, 2014, 10:15:01 PM
Yeah no Penn and no Kevin J. O'Connor!

Also no Anders Holm or the actor they cast as Glenn Charlock.

There's a couple shots in the trailer not in the film too.
Anders Holm is credited as like Police Officer #2 but I don't think you can ever see him onscreen.

Glenn is actually laying dead next to Doc so technically he is onscreen.

They updated the end credits which previously credited Radiohead on "Spooks" to be Jonny & two other dudes.

And other observations from viewing #4 tonight.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Ulivija on November 30, 2014, 10:56:37 AM
http://www.filmcomment.com/article/everybody-must-get-stoned
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: max from fearless on December 01, 2014, 08:26:11 PM
One page of joy...
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on December 02, 2014, 07:47:46 AM
The rest of the script is...somewhere?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 02, 2014, 09:56:20 AM
Yeah more please. Interesting cause PTA was saying that exterior shots are expensive and unnecessary but having seen the set pics we know that they had the outside of Dr. Tubesides office all made up but never end up showing it.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: max from fearless on December 02, 2014, 11:34:35 AM
Just that page I'm afraid....it'll be available soon though, but yeah, PTA's recent disdain for exterior shots or establishing shots in The Master and now IV kind of baffles me. I think he just wants to get to the meat/heart of the scenes as quickly as possible and shoot them as simply as possible in a way that supports and bolsters the performances.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: bigperm on December 04, 2014, 09:07:21 AM
I too echo Max's review, I felt like I was in a haze/foggy dream most of the movie and became restless as well. But absolutely woke up today knowing I had to see again (like mod has said) before I try to reach for any real conclusion or opinion. I was quite taken with a lot of the long shots and honestly the production quality, (art/set depts) deserve some serious applause, some great tiny details that left me knowing 100% what decade I was in, and I found myself really inspecting so much of the background in all the scenes, I got a big kick out of that. Man I love Phoenix, but since the trailer I just felt he was mis-cast, I still had that feeling after last night. BUT, I love the man and really can't wait to revisit again soon. I was kinda amazed at how different this movie felt and truly applaud PTA for being able to reserve his style but make it all feel totally different than anything else.

One more thought - sometimes with music and movies, I'm not ready for them in that moment of my life. Sometimes they land at the perfect times and life long love relationship forms, but there are times, I know I have to go back. I felt I had some serious expectations, but ended up watching something surreal and so different that I need to adjust and take a second look.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 08, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
I wrote a long-ish piece on the differences in the book vs. the film which should be running on The Playlist this weekend so I hope you guys will read/share, etc.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: max from fearless on December 09, 2014, 06:34:50 PM
As requested....Shots from the new IV trailer, "paranoia" which are not in the movie

- doc's sidekick eating jade's pussy in the back of the car
- doc watching his side kick eating jade's pussy in rear view
- shasta coming in the daytime, "i need your help doc" doc's beer response
- police dropping the dead guys body there taking away
- shasta leaving the apartment during the day (i'm sure they leave together at night)
- the reverse of doc being hit over the head and falling
- bigfoot grabbing docs hair in the car
- there's a shot of doc laughing at 1.22 i also don't remember

That's it, I think....
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on December 09, 2014, 06:44:05 PM
Thanks! The beer's response was great! I want to watch all the footage from this movie, I guess.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Korova on December 09, 2014, 07:16:31 PM
Wait, but how much pussy-eating actually is in the movie?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: max from fearless on December 09, 2014, 07:30:48 PM
not enough...
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 10, 2014, 08:28:24 AM
I've been compiling them here too. Are these all correct?

http://modage.tumblr.com/tagged/deleted-scenes
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: 03 on December 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PM
well this is depressing.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: max from fearless on December 10, 2014, 03:57:10 PM
Mod - Think you nailed it.

It's this one, that I love. You know he's laughing with Paul or someone off camera....reinforces that: making films with your friends and family vibe.

Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: 03 on December 10, 2014, 04:55:31 PM
forgive me for being ignorant but wtf isn't all this awesome as fuck stuff in the movie? according to you guys it seems like yall have seen a completely different movie than what we unfortunates are being teased with. i'm assuming that when the dvd comes out 2 weeks prior to the apocalypse we will see all these seemingly AMAZING scenes intercut with the actual movie?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 10, 2014, 04:58:28 PM
Most of the scenes in the trailer are in the movie, it's just different shots or takes. Them doing the scene in a different part of the same room, with different lighting, etc.

The only scene that seems to be totally cut is Joaquin driving at night with Jade in the backseat.

It was the same with The Master. PTA shoots A TON of shit, sorts it out in the edit.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: putneyswipe on December 10, 2014, 05:17:33 PM
I'm interested to know from those who've seen it how the alternate takes/deleted stuff compares to the final cut in terms of whether it seems for better or worse?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: 03 on December 10, 2014, 05:22:01 PM
im pretty sure modage answered that question which i just asked.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 12, 2014, 09:34:54 PM
QUESTION for those who have read the book and seen the film:
The last time Doc sees Bigfoot in the book is when Bigfoot drops him off in his car, right? There is no final scene between them at Doc's house. So what the hell is PTA talking about here?

...

There's a scene at the end of "Inherent Vice" between Doc and Bigfoot that recalls a similar moment at the end of "The Master": two men in opposition coming to an understanding that they must remain opposed. It's emotional but in a way that isn't obvious. What are you trying to say in those sequences?
It was just an effort to make sure that made it in the translation from the book to the movie. That's where it starts. They're trying to apologize to each other for how they treated each other the night before, and Doc and Bigfoot begin to talk at the same time. It struck me so sweetly in the book. It was like Tom and Jerry stopping to apologize to each other about their behavior. What I really like about that scene, and what ended up happening when we got there, is that for as emotional as Doc is throughout the movie, you never see him break down and cry. But in truth, the most emotional he gets is bawling his eyes out while watching Bigfoot have this meltdown in front of him. Doc says that beautiful line, which is from the book: "Are you okay brother?" Bigfoot rejects it: "I'm not your brother." Doc says: "But you sure could use a keeper. Doc has become unglued along with Bigfoot. It's just stuff in the book that I shuffled around and made into one scene.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: porgy on December 12, 2014, 09:40:29 PM
BIG SPOILER BELOW



modage: they're referring to the scene where Bigfoot kicks down Doc's door, looks him in the eye, says a few things, and eats the weed.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 12, 2014, 09:51:06 PM
Where is this scene? Nowhere near the end of the book right? I must have missed it somehow or forgotten about it.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: porgy on December 12, 2014, 09:57:25 PM
You've seen the movie right modage?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 12, 2014, 09:58:52 PM
Yeah, just not sure where in the book this scene takes place.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: porgy on December 12, 2014, 10:00:48 PM
oh okay.

it's not in the book, he just remixed some lines from the book and added a scene to get the point he mentioned across.  I think it's one of the few scenes that was absolutely invented.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 12, 2014, 10:01:57 PM
Okay that's what I thought but I'm just making sure.

So there is no scene when he kicks down his door right? Or eats his weed?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: porgy on December 12, 2014, 10:03:09 PM
I think he kicks down his door at some point?? shit I can't remember.  I remember when I saw it in the trailer I thought it was going to be part of a Bigfoot origin story flashback.  he DEFINITELY never eats his weed.  I thought that was the weirdest part of that scene.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 12, 2014, 10:03:46 PM
pg 350

Quote
But where was this tail he was on going to take Bigfoot finally? How far in this weird twisted cop karma would he have to follow the twenty kilos before it led him to what he thought he needed to know? Which would be what again, exactly? Who hired Adrian to kill his partner? What Adrian’s connection might be to Crocker Fenway’s principals? Whether the Golden Fang, which Bigfoot didn’t believe in to begin with, even existed? How smart was any of it, right now for example, without backup, and how safe was Bigfoot likely to be, and for how long?

“Here,” Denis said after a while, passing a smoldering joint.

“Bigfoot’s not my brother,” Doc considered when he exhaled, “but he sure needs a keeper.”

"It ain’t you, Doc.”

"I know. Too bad, in a way.”
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Axolotl on December 13, 2014, 12:48:21 PM
Bummer after I read somewhere that this exchange doesn't make it into the movie.

Quote
But here, out of, well, not exactly nowhere, but some badlands at least that unmerciful, came this presence, tall and cloaked, with oversize and wickedly pointed gold canines, and luminous eyes scanning Doc in a repellently familiar way. ‘As you may have already gathered,’ it whispered, ‘I am the Golden Fang.’

Quote
‘Thanks for clearing that one up, Mr. Fang.’

‘Oh, call me ‘The Golden.’

ETA:does any of the more fantastical stuff make it into the movie? The Lemuria connection? The Osmium planet? Christian surfing? Is ARPAnet mentioned? I'm trying to manage expectations.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 13, 2014, 02:59:15 PM
that's a serious nerdy question. pta's nerd elements are plentiful, fucking goddamn plentiful, which i like how he made abundantly clear on his commentary. dude named the building's architect. all those parts littered across a movie are the bones of a person, and pta thinks about this in a skeletal way. also, i don't know the answer to your question, and all my memories of both the book and movie are related to emotions. you're welcome
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on December 13, 2014, 03:05:22 PM
He said in an interview that there is no ARPAnet. Sad, but I knew it could be the first thing to leave the film.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pozer on December 13, 2014, 05:30:55 PM
There's a scene at the end of "Inherent Vice" between Doc and Bigfoot that recalls a similar moment at the end of "The Master": two men in opposition coming to an understanding that they must remain opposed. It's emotional but in a way that isn't obvious. What are you trying to say in those sequences?
It was just an effort to make sure that made it in the translation from the book to the movie. That's where it starts. They're trying to apologize to each other for how they treated each other the night before, and Doc and Bigfoot begin to talk at the same time. It struck me so sweetly in the book. It was like Tom and Jerry stopping to apologize to each other about their behavior. What I really like about that scene, and what ended up happening when we got there, is that for as emotional as Doc is throughout the movie, you never see him break down and cry. But in truth, the most emotional he gets is bawling his eyes out while watching Bigfoot have this meltdown in front of him. Doc says that beautiful line, which is from the book: "Are you okay brother?" Bigfoot rejects it: "I'm not your brother." Doc says: "But you sure could use a keeper. Doc has become unglued along with Bigfoot. It's just stuff in the book that I shuffled around and made into one scene.

this is great. and the scene in the movie will definitely go down as one of the all-time classic
PTA standard moments.

His last decade movies, as modge has pointed out, are not capable of calling for an immediate scrutinize. the result will be a pounding out of what disappointed, a la max from fearless (dont get mee wrong my head is swimming around in some of the same gravy after watch number one, dialogue overload in certain scenes included). I gotta see it more. and more. like immediately, not like the same day immediately, more like tomorrow or the day next or in the weeks to come immediately. cant believe you saw this thing three times in a row, moadge

Joaquin was something else, happier to see him inhale life into Doc over Rdj who's shtick we'd have seen coming. The rapport, the spark between him and josh b was dynamite, more and more of their exchanges were needed. I'll shut up for now. wait, Dr.Rudy, a bit short on Short wasnt it, could've used one final 'long way down (one more thing)' type scene with him. shutting up now. wait though, (one more thing), completely disagree on this being Kathrine Waterson's movie, she's so great, she's the light, the comedown, the no reason to get out of bed in the morning, but this is Joaquin's escapade and cant wait to follow him through the haze another time. like immediately today.

second favorite thing said of the film, which happens to also be presented by wilder

This should be on the poster:

he’s on the fucking case; he doesn't know what the case is, but he’s fucking on it
   
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Cloudy on December 14, 2014, 03:09:07 PM
among other things walking out of the theater...all that was on my mind: Joaquin is a walking angel on earth as Doc

Wilder, thank you-thankyouthankyou for sharing that, Max, your honesty was great to read (just imagining you sorting things out through the cold streets was relatable to my first Master viewing)

ps......I recommend seeing this with your ex-old lady...what a fucking joy
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: porgy on December 14, 2014, 04:16:55 PM
yeah, I think there's one sequence in particular that will make anyone of either gender want to get back together with their ex.  or maybe I'm just mushy hearted and vulnerable.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on December 15, 2014, 12:10:55 PM
Modage's work about the differences between the book and the movie.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/inherent-vice-from-page-to-screen-the-6-biggest-changes-from-the-book-20141215
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 15, 2014, 12:47:25 PM
This took a long time. Let me know what you guys think and please share!
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Ghostboy on December 15, 2014, 08:09:06 PM
It makes me want to read the book again! (after seeing the movie last night).
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: max from fearless on December 16, 2014, 07:56:29 AM
Modage - great piece, thanks for that. It really makes me want to see the film again and read the book again.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 24, 2014, 08:36:10 PM
it's a bit so simple it can be overwhelming. right. life, right?

right. a story spun into a detective tale seen through the prism of the 60s, a time during which humans were indeed a disparate collection of people on a mission to solve the case, and this is 1970 and post-manson so it's all quite questionable

the case is life, doc is asked to solve it, except what exactly the case means seems like an amorphous threat that consistently swells and becomes reevaluated owing to outside sources, and the figurehead of the crime is a company that might not even exist

i do think it's simple overall, but when looked upon by microscopes and fandom it looks too massive. has not pta grandslammed, by making a movie about larry doc in which every audience member across the board sounds like doc themselves, when they describe the movie? when a discussion begins about how pta has begun to externalize the characters into their narratives, and the discussion is joined by memories of what a detective case tends to be, and it tends to be a case that subterraneously explores the darkness of humans, doesn’t the answer come to itself: this is a movie in which the essential philosophy of a detective story has been externalized

pta's a sonofabitch because i just think it's a bit of a personal problem for a person to say he makes movies wrong. this is a hard movie, innit, isn't that what people say? so fuck pta for the same reason as always, for making the hard look easy. its lyrics sang to me today, here on christmas eve, when i saw it in the dome with about twenty other people. clear today from my memory of the book, my memory of having seen the movie, and in a theater so quiet and unpeopled that i felt like there was nothing between me and the movie at all

i haven't consumed marketing materials nearly as much as others here but, i tell ya, i really think they're trying their best to explain the movie through marketing. i do remember the first screencap there was, and i thought of it tonight while watching the movie:

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvBHcPECYAAeEOz.jpg)

the proof is in the pudding. doc looking at bigfoot like that, there you go, that's the cosmic energy of the movie. that explains: this is a movie about the forces of personalities colliding against each other, with separate and/or similar motives and all that. i also think pta plucked a great line from the first chapter for the first scene of the movie "Back when, she could go weeks without anything more complicated than a pout. Now she was laying some heavy combination of face ingredients on him that he couldn't read at all."

the emotional tempo was transparent to me today. i regret not saying immediately that joaquin phoenix delivers an impressive performance. i think he's a got a bit of a constant struggle in him, and a bit of a constant fight, and that is of course what doc needed. not more of either and plenty of both. i wouldn't say there's a bad performance anywhere in the movie. plus, the music, since today i was following the emotions, the music is an impressive guide to the emotions of the movie, absolutely

I've got a question for the majorspoiler squad. Is there a scene in this akin to the frogs in Maggie, the ending to twbb, the processing scene in The Master? I don't mean in terms of content but similar in a "holy fuck" woah nowthatssomething" kinda way.

said it before and i'll say it again: the sex scene with shasta. i believe that's the same kinda gift of a scene, because i think it pulls back from the story, and pushes in on the two central characters, and it's a bit like they meet in an empty field and the wind blows on them, kinda thing. the music, the pace of the scene, its intro, its outro. you could pluck out that one scene and have a short with all the necessary and digestible components of a human relationship
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Korova on December 25, 2014, 04:11:45 AM
Thank you for this wonderful review. Now I want to watch it even more. And I can't.
i also think pta plucked a great line from the first chapter for the first scene of the movie "Back when, she could go weeks without anything more complicated than a pout. Now she was laying some heavy combination of face ingredients on him that he couldn't read at all."
About that first scene: They put a clip up of the beginning of that and already that had a very interesting thing in it. When Shasta is telling Doc about making it look like a secret rendezvous, she has this wonderful face expression where you see it's loaded with emotion for her. In the book, Doc has several thoughts about that, but not her. I guess that's Katherine Waterston's work.
After reading that first conversation again, I have to say that first of all Pynchon really has a knack for beginnings, then there's this phrase's: "Come to think of it, there's never been this much sorrow in her voice either."
(also, now I finally got that bit about the "new package")
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 26, 2014, 02:26:42 PM
had such a strong emotional memory about the movie iv, while walking across los angeles sidewalks and listening to neil young. listening to journey through the past and remembering how much i cherished that sequence, of doc and shasta running in the rain across the sidewalks, and they collapse together by the store entrance, a flashback in the movie that's told as a funny story best remembered by both of them, how out of all the things possible, they most remember the story ignited by the oujia board that worked itself upon doc's hands

did i exaggerate my memory of that? feeling emotional tbh. in my real life and all that, the feelings i treasure and wanna see on the screen, also tend to involve running in the rain with a girl i care about. the real kind of romantic run in the rain. feels like a movie. i'm imagining neil young in the background and...

there you go. can't even pretend for a moment that i don't like this pta guy, tell ya what
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Cloudy on December 27, 2014, 02:05:01 AM
the fading in and out of that light on his eye in the foggy freeway caravan, under-water just them two...whispers, these whispers within fog back and forth like jazz riffing into the unknown and then to a question and then to the known and then back again...the sounds of rough, rubbing couches, and wetness while shasta's ass is hazed in view, the camera barely moving, just un-knowingly racking focus- so simple and lightweight, yet so god damn bolted into the ground... her face completely orange and so burning, crying, her foot creeping up docs leg at the complete bottom left of the fucking tall and un-judging frame, feeling your own cock fucking tingle, while the word "invisible" repeats over and over...screaming planes at the moment of a happy ending and humid artificial waterfalls revealing swastikas/rehab clinics with double-triple meanings...moods moving without a true steering wheel but haunting and heading forward and backward toward their natural destination...the blues...the "blues"...what's gonna nag you in the middle of the night?...lonely, lonely nights doomed while the sun sets leading to a call for your FBI lover with a dirty-footed hard-on...the blue-drenched empty lot rain leading to the most burning neon red glowing shelter, while knowing "she's walking out the door"...the way no scene is truly "a set-piece" (other than that one), but one continually moving...thing?...how did this happen? how is this that good? how does Mickey Wolfman make me cry? And joaquin in that low position leave me absolutely mystified? how am I supposed to feel? scenes i laughed my fucking tearing eyes out first viewing I was absolutely still this time... sometimes you don't even know if you're feeling something that was intentional or real or not, or whether your even watching a movie or not, and then you realize doc is also feeling that exact same feeling and then Jade just continues on about spotted dicks while the blues and the camera continue heading in one direction never stopping....ugh, man.

there is so much to talk about, especially about how the book and the movie and The Master jam session together. how can we begin to do this? the ending shot is somewhere to start....
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: convalescent_k on December 27, 2014, 05:25:28 AM
I finally saw it earlier, and I loved it.  After months of absorbing various promotional material, reading other people's reviews, etc., it was great to finally see the film in full form.   Reading the book beforehand probably helped greatly, but overall it was not as "incoherent" or confusing as I expected based on the large amount of negative reviews I have read attacking the incomprehensible nature of the plot, although it was still quite murky in quite a few areas.  Which is what I loved about the film more than anything.  The atmosphere was incredible, the hazy vibe of the 70s, and the paranoia Doc feels at every moment was really well done.  PTA definitely succeeded in making the viewer feel like they were experiencing a far-out trip.

This is one of those films you just have the urge to watch again immediately after exiting the movie theater.  The whole film is just a swirl in my mind right now, so many strings of characters and just a motion of vignettes spiralled together, I want to watch it again and fully connect all the dots.  I loved the shots of Doc's notebook, they were fucking hilarious - "something spanish," "paranoia."  And also the shot of him drawing all the lines between every character on a whiteboard, really symbolizing how intricate the plot is.  Everything is connected, which kinda reminds me of the John Muir quote, "Tug on anything at all and you'll find it connected to everything else in the universe."  Inherent Vice is essentially that quote put into a detective noir form. 

The performances were fantastic, of course.  Doc's mumbling and paranoid performance was great, and I thought the film really encapsulated the endearing quality he possesses, how he truly cares for those he tries to solve cases for.  Bigfoot was fantastic too.  I liked how much of his character was revealed just based off of his haircut.  His flat top, straight as hell, oozing his right-wing mentality, "twinkle in his eye that says civil-rights violations..."  Their interactions were very well done, the scene towards the end when Bigfoot eats his weed and Doc sheds a tear, perfectly represents their relationship.  Got a kick out of it too.

My favorite moments... when Doc looks out of window through his binoculars, and right after Shasta looks out the opposite way.  Looking into the distance for lost love, one of many moments filled to the brim with melancholy.  And when Doc, accompanied by Jade, meets Coy in the mysterious room covered with hazy fog, talking in low whispers, paranoid - "...beware the Golden Fang..."  And the flashback of Doc running in the rain with Shasta, of course, set to Journey in the Past.  Just a magical, cinematic scene.  Nostalgic and sentimental, escaping the realities of the new reality, the new decade of the 70s, old vs new, hippie vs. square.  Every scene with Rudy Blatnoyd in it...still not enough though.  And lastly, when Doc takes Coy back to his family, with Amethyst playing in the background.  Such a beautiful scene that was just emotionally heightened by the music.  What were your favorite scenes? 

Overall, it completely fulfilled my expectations, and I can't wait to watch it again!
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on December 28, 2014, 03:16:15 PM
Beautifully written review from a Pynchon fan:

http://lettersfromyonder.com/2014/12/28/inherent-vice-an-experience/

He's saying something I haven't read before, he says the movie rhythm is too fast. And I didn't copy-paste because I want you to click.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 28, 2014, 05:21:06 PM
i took the clickbait and here's the referenced passage:

Quote
As I sat in the theater, taking in the visuals and the groove, I was struck with the simple fact that, it’s too fast. The medium of film isn’t one built for memory. The paranoiac intricacies of Pynchon’s plot demand a reader’s time, a word-by-word intake that engraves on the brain. When we approach an aside mention in the novel that may connect to another small event of personage that came before, we perk up and say wait a minute… But in the film it is too fast. We fling willy-nilly from scene to scene without much pause. Not to say that the effect isn’t in the film. It’s done well with the Golden Fang connections, but this is usually due to Doc’s own recognition of the connections. One of the joys of a Pynchon novel is the connections the characters don’t see. These, I think, are hard to pick up on in the film. Instead we feel over-saturated, soaked in plot and names and colors.

Yet, this may not necessarily be a weakness. Pynchon is known for saturation, and perhaps Anderson wanted to reflect that. However, I think it falls flat. Even with a running time of 2 and a half hours, there still isn’t room for the viewer to chill out and tune in, as Doc would have it. Instead we feel, to quote Gravity’s Rainbow once more, like we are “riding across the country in a bus driven by a maniac bent on suicide.”

There is an achievement here though. When my friends and I left the theater feeling as if we’d been knocked over the head, I had one feeling: I need to see it again. And this is exactly like a Pynchon novel.When you turn the last page, you feel you must go back to the front and begin again. There’s something you missed, something which graced the pages that held you, but at the same time you overlooked, some treasured “beach” under the paving stones you failed to recognize. Anderson’s movie leaves you with the same gut-feeling. You want to tell the projectionist to put it up again so you can have another go at it. You think that if you watch it once more there will be something different. Waiting, as the novel’s closing states:

“For the fog to burn away, and for something else this time, somehow, to be there instead.”

If this is not the measure of a good film or a good novel, I don’t know what is. After all, if you finish watching or reading and all you want to do is watch and read again, what more can the creator ask for?
If nothing, it sure sells tickets.

yeah at first he's just saying he has memory problems associated with the movie, then he realizes he's being a baby and he should see it again. it's totally true i think, and i'd like to begin to stand by the statement that the movie is enjoyable on a first pass and people worry about themselves too much. you don't gotta get it, you can feel it. i assure you it's true. i saw the movie in absolute idgaf mode and the payoff was flawless
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: putneyswipe on December 28, 2014, 07:28:00 PM
semi-spoilers

 not sure if this has been posted yet: great article on the locations in IV

http://www.laweekly.com/publicspectacle/2014/12/10/inherent-vices-la-locations-the-ultimate-guide

EDIT:

also no idea how I found this, some random behind-the-scenes b-roll from the ouija shasta flashback scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7MM4zvpNfY
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pozer on December 28, 2014, 09:39:00 PM
^lol I just discovered that little vid too after learning from that article they filmed in downtown Pomona which is not far from me. I know exactly where that is! hadnt a clue that was the location of that scene. If only i knew while they were....then I couldve..... :s

think it was grantlands article on pt's LA that led me to the house used for Burt's in boogie which is in Covina the next town overohohohohoooooh no one cares
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: putneyswipe on December 30, 2014, 08:04:41 PM
This was my first time watching a PTA film in theaters and in 70mm no less, it was sort of a tense experience with all the expectations and me having and internal kinship with his other films- it was tough not to sit and think about how others were reacting, whether they liked it, if it was a dud, did it get laughs etc. almost like I was screening one of my own films. Also having read the book multiple times just wondering what where and when and weren’t things were there and comparing and all that...

So anyway the STYLE- Inherent Vice made me feel intensely claustrophobic in a way that few other films have- at two and half hours of close-ups and tightly framed two shots of one on one monologues with our hero, I wonder if this was what he was going for? I felt maybe he may have stripped back it too far the point where it feels almost like a mumblecore film with a-list actors or a lower budget TV series, with tight closeups on white walls and intentionally ugly framing that several times cuts off peoples heads- it’s not a visually ugly film but it almost feels like the work of a perfectionist deliberately trying to make an imperfect film
Somehow I felt this vibe didn’t really jive sometimes with Pynchon's ornate and fluffy, ridiculously self referential dialogue which is EXACTLY transposed here, case in point the Benecio scenes which were mostly unnecessary and only kept in probably because Benecio is Benecio and you can’t cut him out right?

Moving on, The voice over, which annoyed the shit out of me in the trailers, actually mostly works here, yes it does have a bit of an expository copy/paste quality and I sometimes wished PT used it in a more cinematic way like the time where sortilege appeared and reappeared in the car, but her casting is inspired and the character adds another interesting dimension that wasn’t in the book, which is always a plus too an adaptation…

I’ve been listing to Greenwood's Soundtrack a lot this week and it’s growing on me too- doesn’t strike you in the same way as the last two but it adds to the mood and is an another inspired choice.. I appreciate PTA for not just loading the soundtrack with golden oldies like I feel a lesser director would have done. The pop tunes sometimes seem haphazardly used, they sort of are just kind of sit there, not really adding too or punctuating scenes but they are well-chosen and tasteful

Also there’s no sense of geography in this movie, and that combined with the editing, like the Master, may throw some people off- the scenes flow into each other abruptly which is what I thinkis causing the “drug haze/trip” vibe everyone is talking about despite the fact that in no way whatsoever is the film overtly “psychedelic" or surreal, it’s as straightforward as possible considering the source material, this is not Fear and Loathing 2.0, Bunuel is an interesting comparison but its still more straightforward than that, it reminded me a bit of Roger's LSD trip scene in that Mad Men episode, offbeat in a really restrained, relaxed way

But throwaway all the Vegas (felt tacked on in the book to me, too), acid trips and looney tunes (s much as I would have liked to see that stuff), the heart of the book was Doc, Bigfoot, Shasta and it’s hard not to say that PTA knocks that out of the park. I’m officially on the Brolin Bandwagon- Bigfoot was the funniest character in the book but Brolin’s characterization is so much deeper and funnier and more complicated and just better than Bigfoot in the book, that last scene with Bigfoot eating the weed was like a parody of the last one on one in the Master and I mean that in the best possibleway. Waterston is great as well

and yes Joaquin is a great Doc, You can practically smell him through the screen. And No, RDJ couldn’t have pulled it off, Joaquin is already pushing credibility being 39 as is.

In general I would differ a bit from samsong and say The Master is a masterpiece and IV is an interesting diversion

If this is all sounding kind of negative, I really liked the film and I'm looking forward to getting back in that world again even though to seems pt tries so hard to make it unnoticeable. Also trying to distance it from the novel and take it on it’s own as a PT anderson picture and all that

ALSO : DOC - great character, one of pynchon’s most realized (haven’t read much of his stuff but character is not really his strong suit I take it) and probably one of PTA’s best too- what does this guy dream about? what kind of music does he listen to.. these are good questions and a good sign that your doing something right

 :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Gittes on January 08, 2015, 08:11:00 AM
Marvellous! I'm so excited to see it again. This movie is just spilling over with the most delightful and lovely details. I've been recalling various moments, and laughing, ever since I saw it.

My thoughts are nowhere near organized, but for starters, I love Joaquin Phoenix here: effortlessly suave, competent, formidable, and yet also totally spacey and seemingly obtuse. The way he saunters into certain scenes (meeting Sloane Wolfmann, for instance) is just super hilarious and really endearing. It's great to have someone like Phoenix at the centre of this movie, and I think his comedic sensibilities really shine here.

Every encounter feels like an exciting, absorbing, standalone attraction that leaves you wanting more from a particular character or moment. I love Jena Malone's scene, for instance. There's something totally enrapturing about her presence in this movie; the dialogue, the expressions she makes, etc. There's just something compelling and compulsively watchable about her. The way she flashes those bright, enormous teeth? That's like a small but potent dollop of off kilter energy being dropped into a cinematic soup already brimming with so much delirium and fascination.

Sublime, ecstatic, makes-you-want-to-weep-because-they're-so-good moments? So many. When things start taking off in Dr. Blatnoyd's office and Denis walks in with that steering wheel...oh, man.

Anyway, I'll arbitrarily cut my rambling short.

What an enormous pleasure to start the New Year off with a new PTA film.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Gittes on January 08, 2015, 08:48:10 AM
Oh, and I finally checked out some of the trailers and commercials that I deliberately avoided. They're nice, but I have to say, I'm glad that I decided to not watch any of them prior to viewing the film itself. My reaction was basically: "They showed that moment? Really? And that one?!" For example, I had a visceral reaction to Doc getting knocked out early on, and I'm not sure that would have happened had I been keen on checking out all of the promotional media.

The final shot of the film even shows up in one of the commercials. I know that context is everything, but still, I don't want the last shot rattling around my head in some abstracted, predigested form. The same applies to so much of what we see in the actual film. Especially in a movie like this, it's a real joy to be swept along from moment to moment, and I gleaned so much enjoyment from the sheer variety of details big and small.

In other words, I'm more certain than ever that I need to change my anticipatory habits. Ha...this probably sounds excessive to some of you, but yeah. I'm very ambivalent when it comes to movie trailers. I appreciate the form (there's no way I'm throwing that very rich and great history under the bus), but the tendency to overexpose is a problem. This is never going to happen, but sometimes I think about how great it would be if we only got a poster and that's all. The goods are unveiled once you're in the theatre. Of course, this is a problematic business strategy to say the least. Plus, I can do my best to engineer that kind of experience through sheer will (that's not necessarily easy, though).

Our first glimpse of The Master, which mostly consisted of footage that does not appear in the film, was a great example of how to approach a trailer. The first TWBB teaser that PTA uploaded onto YouTube was wonderful, as well (one of the best). Also, I think the Jurassic Park teaser is probably the high water mark for trailers that conceal a lot (i.e., no shots from the movie) and yet remain totally riveting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QMue9j_RKg
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Axolotl on January 09, 2015, 02:52:42 PM
alright. I can't say anything serious or insightful about the movie itself right now. So I'm gonna ramble.

Do you know what's the hardest thing to do in fiction? Creating a good person. Not a person who does good things but someone who'll trudge through the sewage of human intentions, wants, needs, duplicity, selfishness and be relied upon to do the right thing. You know how hard it is to do that honestly in fiction? To achieve actual grace? Cloudy said Doc is an angel walking the earth and he's right. This movie feels so much to me like There Will Be Blood because it's the exact opposite of There Will Be Blood and something that's so much harder to do.

The Bad Guys have won out as they always do. Even though things appear to be better than ever, there's still that nagging feeling that something's been taken away from us, that there's been a progressive narrowing down of choices. Things fall apart because that's the nature of things, that's how we define fucking Time itself, Time is the direction in which entropy increases. Second law of thermodynamics, it's built into the fabric of Universe itself, it's the universe's inherent vice. So it's the easy to luxuriate in it to look at our worst tendencies and point out."See? That's how we are." What's harder is to try to  search for a way to find a "parenthesis of light", to not allow unstoppable forces of history to dictate at least our time on earth, to "find a dimensionless coefficient for yourself" within history's own unstoppable spiral, as Pynchon sez in GR. That's hard, hard to do, hard to make people appreciate.

What I'm getting is that this film is the Paradiso to TWBB's Inferno in PTA's own little comedy of a troubled century in the furthest place on earth people could escape to (which makes The Master Purgatorio I guess, I haven't thought it through but that seems appropriate). Everyone will always be drawn to the inferno, but to those of us who'd like to think they're in the know will know Paradiso's where it's at. And that's alright, it can be our little esoteric secret.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: 03 on January 09, 2015, 04:54:26 PM
^^^ GREAT REVIEW;
mine coming soon;;
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Gittes on January 09, 2015, 09:18:16 PM
I saw this for the second time today. A pretty packed theatre for this Friday afternoon screening. The crowd was really receptive to the humour. Doc/Joaquin drew so many laughs. Bigfoot and Doc's last scene probably elicited the most laughter...there was someone in the audience who was in hysterics over that moment (understandably so; it's superb, and Brolin and Phoenix are so funny there). My first viewing earlier this week was around noon, and it was a more sparsely occupied theatre; that crowd was also fairly receptive to the humour, but the positive reactions were definitely more pronounced today. It was great to be there amidst a crowd that seemed to be on the same wavelength as the film and totally enjoying the ride, etc. Very fun.

This movie is really such a remarkable, dense package. It's teeming with all manner of frivolity and strangeness, but it also sustains this tremendous sense of nostalgia and melancholy via matters both personal and cultural. I hope I can make it out to the theatre for a third viewing soon, as I'm pretty smitten.

I feel like I could pick any given moment and really start gushing about it. As mentioned in that Vice interview that was posted yesterday, it feels like you're being given privileged access to an array of clandestine conversations of varying flavours and intensities. It's so great. For instance, that conversation between Doc and Coy in the house in Topanga Canyon is probably one of the most spellbinding and incredible passages that PTA has ever registered to film. Every element is perfectly calibrated. That scene really stood out to me today...I was in awe.

Another stray observation: Brolin is a master of physical comedy in the scene where Bigfoot's wife chews out Doc over the phone.

Also: Jade's "PS -- Beware the Golden Fang!" line is spectacular, as is the transition it prompts from the letter to that pier that's absolutely shrouded in fog. Great line delivery by Hong Chau, who is such a lovely presence in this film. I love her "Spotted Dick" ramble, too, and when she asks Doc if she can get a ride home with him, etc.

One more: that bit where Clancy Charlock has her great line about regret, and then Doc ambles back into his office, Minnie Riperton's "Les Fleur" starts playing, Doc starts cleaning up, etc.? Magic.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Korova on January 11, 2015, 03:30:28 PM
So Inherent Vice now controls my life, I watch scenes from it all the time... Anyway, I just wanna talk a bit about the music in the movie. I absolutely adore it and I really think that Anderson and Greenwood outdid themselves with this. (sorry for rambling a bit)
In a way to me it feels very much like Vertigo (which I consider to be very high praise) in that virtually every bit of Greenwood's score is filled with a yearning for something I can't really put into words. I'm talking in particular about Shasta's themes and the "Golden Fang".
For example, watching the party scene just about kills me emotionally. The whole conversation between Coy and Doc is fantastic until Coy says the words "Shasta Fay... Shasta Fay", the music ("Golden Fang") swells and Doc does his facial contortions and then it breaks my heart. It doesn't stop there, so we get the Last Pizza Supper and Jade talking about the Golden Fang, which makes everything together maybe the most Pynchon-like scene in the film. It combines the heartrending intensity and beauty of Pynchon's prose (here translated into film and music) with his all-surrounding paranoia. And those are always my favourite parts of Pynchon's books also.
Another wonderful bit is the music cue in the beginning when Shasta is almost crying and 'Lège is talking about her complex face expression and there comes the first "Shasta" theme (so much longing again).
The film is just filled with gems like those. A funnier scene is the Chick Planet transition to Bigfoot's big entrance with the "Simba" song. The editing is wonderful here, it just goes with the music. I don't know where Anderson got the idea for putting that song with that scene. It really shouldn't work, but it does so well and it makes Bigfoot's entrance spectacular.
Gittes already mentioned the Minnie Riperton song, but that really is magic and I get why Anderson was in tears over that idea.
I can't contain the beauty of this movie. And it really gets better with every viewing.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: porgy on January 11, 2015, 03:47:38 PM
saw it again yesterday, liked it  lot more the second time.  all i could think about though was: that sex scene, still awkward, and: the sound at Lincoln Center for NYFF was absolutely terrible.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Knocho Pytsh on January 11, 2015, 06:11:31 PM
After a third viewing, I’m convinced this is his best film yet. Not a single scene runs too long or feels weak. I feel like the two that will garner the most discussion are the sex scene with Shasta and Bigfoot’s final meeting with Doc. The former is electrifying and the latter is so poignant that I almost want to shed a tear for Bigfoot myself. As big of an asshole as he is, I can’t help but feel bad for him. As the sixties come to a close and Doc must come to terms with what has changed and what lies ahead, we see that Bigfoot has witnessed the evaporation of the country's conservative ideals for a long time now. Even though there’s a striking polarity in their views of the world, they’re both insignificant compared to the ever changing direction of American history and its implications. It makes me reflect on my own life and the space of history I occupy and if I’m as aware or unaware of the changing political landscape as these characters are. With that said, this isn’t really a political film, as none of his films really are. You know you’ve seen something special when it opens the door for such self-reflection without even really trying to.

Most importantly, it’s hilarious, but not in the same way its inspirations are. The humor is mostly in the dialogue. Each of the three times I’ve watched it, I’m always the only person who laughs at Doc when he covertly tries to shush Sauncho in the restaurant when their waitress brings the tequila zombies. Or just about every exchange he has with Dr. Blatnoyd and Dr. Threeply. Everything that isn’t laugh-out-loud funny is just fascinating to watch. I smile ear-to-ear when I hear Hope’s joyous shout when Coy arrives home. These people haven’t even been on screen for more than 10 minutes. How does he do this?

We were blessed to know that this project was next in mind after The Master, but what now? Every film he makes is better than the last. He’s established himself so solidly at such a young age. What could possibly be next?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on January 11, 2015, 06:39:04 PM
i agree with everyone whose opinions are nourished from this narrative's relation to its point in time, i myself find nourishing information there, and also i think that's one of the easier things to do with a historical piece. you can put a story together much easier if you can see its future. like, pta predicted in boogie nights that all of you movie people would become corrupted by home media. the master and there will be blood seem obvious. i like it all i'm not complaining, or rather i'm complaining while liking it, but anyway i think this and everything else would be a lot more interesting if it confronted the challenges of right now. i can't help but think -- this is my personal opinion -- that avoiding an examination of the space and time in which you live is really an artist choosing the easy over the hard

i'd like the above to be considered an aside. good to hear back from people seeing the movie and its time period is an essential piece in understanding the movie, agreed
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Gittes on January 11, 2015, 10:13:32 PM
For example, watching the party scene just about kills me emotionally. The whole conversation between Coy and Doc is fantastic until Coy says the words "Shasta Fay... Shasta Fay", the music ("Golden Fang") swells and Doc does his facial contortions and then it breaks my heart.

I already mentioned my admiration of this scene in a previous post, but yeah, we're definitely in agreement. Otherworldly levels of greatness.

Most importantly, it’s hilarious, but not in the same way its inspirations are. The humor is mostly in the dialogue. Each of the three times I’ve watched it, I’m always the only person who laughs at Doc when he covertly tries to shush Sauncho in the restaurant when their waitress brings the tequila zombies.

There were laughs at that part during both of the screenings I attended. I really love that bit, too. Anthony Lane's review (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/15/swinging-seventies-3) reminded me of another stellar bit of comedy, which occurs in the same scene, and which makes me laugh just thinking about it:

Quote from:
Indeed, anyone who prizes the book for its treasure chest of jokes will be gratified by how many of them survive onscreen, including the advice dished out by the waitress at a seafood restaurant, as she takes orders for drinks (“You’re going to want to get good and fucked up before this meal”).

Hilarious. Sauncho's nonchalant, affirmative response ("that's for sure!"), which is tossed off so casually by Benicio del Toro, makes this moment even funnier.

Also, I haven't checked out a lot of the reviews yet, but surely someone has already noted one of the more bizarre, incidental (?) connections between The Master and Inherent Vice. Both films see Joaquin Phoenix incorporating toilets into enormous acts of aggression. In The Master, Freddie absolutely eviscerates the toilet in the prison. In Inherent Vice, Doc finds defensive recourse in the porcelain lid of a nearby toilet, which he then slams into Puck Beaverton's head during the film's most brutal scene. I can't recall if that's in Pynchon's book or not. Anyway, for whatever reason, this little connection came to mind while I was in the shower.

Speaking of that scene...Keith Jardine is quite terrifying as Puck Beaverton! When he walks into the room and says, "Do I know you?", there's a significant atmospheric change; it's like this threatening pall is suddenly cast over the whole scene, and you start feeling worried for Doc, etc. Oh, and those brief moments after Doc escapes and he's waiting for Puck to return? Super tense. The resulting eruption of violence feels as shocking as Shasta and Doc's sex scene (although, of course, for totally different reasons). I admire the way the film has these totally unexpected ruptures of intense violence and sexuality; the impact of both of these scenes derives in part from the fact that they feel at odds with the tone and concerns of the film up to that point. Amazing scenes, the both of them, but Shasta and Doc's scene is obviously the more substantial and intriguing example (plus, what a showcase for Katherine Waterston, whose monologue is unforgettably delivered).
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on January 13, 2015, 10:08:23 PM
First viewing Reactions:

PROS - Casting! Cinematography! Jokes! Music! The Golden Fang building sequence! Children who have no problem interacting with drugs!

CONS - Cramped shots...the whole movie I wanted to get up and STRETCH because of how tight everything was. Some people are calling it "intimate", and I know there's a method to the madness, but again, this is my "first viewing" reaction.
            Needed some closed captioning, although Altman would've been proud!

THINGS THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT I WAS EXPECTING -  Let's just say I wish I hadn't read the book or seen some of the promos. After digging Hong Chau, i wouldn't have minded a scene of Jordan Christian Hearn going down on her in the back of Doc's car! They teased it, and cut it. PTA has his reasons, but DAMN!   I'm glad to have this interpretation of the book, although I would've loved a full-fledged, mini-series-esque version with all the details and side-stories in place. But then...uh, well, that's why there's a book in the first place.

I'll see it again. Every odd-numbered PTA movie leaves me cold at first, thinking about how little sense it made to movie, or leaving me emotionally confused. Like I think too much about them. Then the even-numbered ones I just connect with effortlessly. That's right, sandwomen are my cup o' tea!
 In any case, I say keep up the swell work, Mr. Anderson.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Kellen on January 13, 2015, 11:47:02 PM
Brolin fucking killed it.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Sleepless on January 20, 2015, 09:51:17 AM
Would anyone happen to have a copy of the screenplay they could send me? Much appreciated :)
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on January 20, 2015, 10:27:16 AM
Yeah, seconded. Weirdly, all the other Oscar contenders screenplays have been readily available online for a while but no IV.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Sleepless on January 22, 2015, 02:58:49 PM
Have apparently found it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/237682604/Inherent-Vice#scribd

I don't have a scridb account and don't want to pay - especially if this turns out to not actually be it. Anyone else have an account already and want to download this and share with the whole class?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 23, 2015, 10:33:26 AM
There's a lot to love about this movie. It was kind of losing me until Doc arrives at the Golden Fang, but the second half is dramatically better. It's like Martin Short kicks that transmission into the right gear. The movie suddenly begins to effectively channel that alternate-world pseudo-apocalyptic energy that we felt in TWBB when milkshakes were being drunk. That's also when Jonny Greenwood's music starts working especially well. It really reminded me of his Bodysong score. (Listen to "Iron Swallow" and tell me that wasn't in the movie somewhere.)

The framing with heads being cut off actually worked quite well for me. It was a funny and effective way to introduce characters, at least twice that I remember. But I agree with putneyswipe that in general the framing seemed uninspired or intentionally plain, to the extent that I really noticed a beautifully framed scene when it arrived.

I was also deeply feeling the claustrophobia. The movie seems to take place mostly in series of rooms. When we do follow Doc outside, the few wide shots usually involve him being dwarfed by a large ominous building. Even the establishing shot outside his beach house is claustrophobic. (And I love that idea.) The camera is low to the ground uncomfortably between two buildings, and car bumpers even crowd out the shot later in the movie.

The final scene with Bigfoot was funny and wonderfully bizarre, and Doc's reaction is my favorite acting that JP does in the movie. But in retrospect I'm not sure the scene was entirely earned... the insanity or the emotional resolution. This scene was clearly meant to be more resonant than it actually is. And the way it dissolves into the next scene after the punchline kind of makes it feel a little cheap.

Likewise... I'm fascinated by some interpretations of the film, but I'm not convinced the movie itself engages those issues with much cogency. It's more like, yeah, I guess that's in there.

I feel like the way to appreciate this movie going forward is through its formal curiosities and its multitude of quirky delights. What I'm not feeling is a beating heart at the center, or a story that is screaming to be heard, or any character with a particularly rich inner life.

This just doesn't have the soul that I assume a PTA movie will have. Even The Master, probably PTA's coldest movie at that point, had full, intense characters with explosive depth, almost effortlessly. Inherent Vice just doesn't have any of that. Doc is certainly a sweet and somewhat angelic character, but let's be honest here, he has two or three distinguishing characteristics. Whatever depth might be there just isn't coming through the haze. I'm wondering if people are bringing information to this character from the book, because, while it's always fascinating to watch Joaquin Phoenix, I'm not quite feeling it.

I do think it's a good movie. Some scenes are amazing. I can sincerely accept this as a light diversion and move on with no complaints. Maybe it's like what he first intended with PDL, actually happening 12 years later.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: velociraptor on January 23, 2015, 12:25:50 PM
Pynchon cameo? http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/pynchon-inherent-vice-cameo
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Axolotl on January 23, 2015, 12:30:31 PM
We've already talked about this at length in the shoutbox and have officially agreed that the cameo(if there even is one) is the guy in the background looking in on Coy and Doc's conversation at the Boards house. Anyway it doesn't even matter because no one will ever know which is why it's cool so let's move on.

Edit:had it saved

(http://i.imgur.com/paSdmU5.jpg)
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: velociraptor on January 23, 2015, 01:01:21 PM
neat. didn't know you guys already totally figured this out and it wasn't worth discussing. thanks, sorry for sharing an article.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Axolotl on January 23, 2015, 01:11:34 PM
I'll end all my posts with 'jk' from now on to be absolutely clear.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: velociraptor on January 23, 2015, 01:13:17 PM
I'll end all my posts with 'jk' from now on to be absolutely clear.
Sorry, didn't mean to be hypersensitive there.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on January 23, 2015, 01:15:10 PM
that pic reminds me of one of my favorite moments in Vice, which is Coy's parting barely audible words to Doc at the end of that lengthy convo, something like "find shasta fey. shasta fey", leaving our hero inexplicably floored and quivering. gives me chills every time.

and no need to apologize raptor, your response was pretty funny.

and JB, I think IV has the most soul in the PTA oeuvre.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: porgy on January 23, 2015, 01:41:21 PM
We've already talked about this at length in the shoutbox and have officially agreed that the cameo(if there even is one) is the guy in the background looking in on Coy and Doc's conversation at the Boards house. Anyway it doesn't even matter because no one will ever know which is why it's cool so let's move on.

Edit:had it saved

(http://i.imgur.com/paSdmU5.jpg)

I dont believe that's Pynchon.  I'm pretty sure it's Paul Dano.  Seriously.  I went to the premiere at NYFF and found myself standing behind him in  line for the bathroom - When I saw it the first time I thought it was him too.  Make of that what you will. 
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on January 23, 2015, 03:18:11 PM
It's not Pynchon or Dano. See this for a clearer look at that dude (from one of the TV spots).

(http://i61.tinypic.com/abknf4.jpg)

JB, check back after viewing 2.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: velociraptor on January 23, 2015, 03:28:54 PM
Agreed on the point on the emotional weight of the ending to that scene. It's also one of the more impressive long takes in the movie.

 I found the cinematography in Inherent Vice to be gorgeous, maybe the best collaboration between Anderson and Elswit. I would love to see a collection of the slow-dolly-in long takes, as there were so many. One of my favorites was the early scene in Doc's office between him and Tariq, moving in slowly on him past Phoenix, both of them up against a simple white wall. There was an interview with David Crank about how they originally went all-out on the 70s-ness of Doc's office, but after shooting a scene, decided to just simplify to what it is now. The elegant simplicity of the art direction in both this and The Master is really underrated.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on January 23, 2015, 04:08:18 PM
That scene was originally filmed with Mars Crain and recast with Michael K. Williams so that must've been when they decided on the ugly white wall.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jim Steele on January 23, 2015, 08:12:24 PM
We've already talked about this at length in the shoutbox and have officially agreed that the cameo(if there even is one) is the guy in the background looking in on Coy and Doc's conversation at the Boards house. Anyway it doesn't even matter because no one will ever know which is why it's cool so let's move on.

Edit:had it saved

(http://i.imgur.com/paSdmU5.jpg)

I dont believe that's Pynchon.  I'm pretty sure it's Paul Dano.  Seriously.  I went to the premiere at NYFF and found myself standing behind him in  line for the bathroom - When I saw it the first time I thought it was him too.  Make of that what you will.

On my third viewing I thought Pynchon was the one of the patients at the "Straight is Hep" rehabilitation place. When Doc first walks in someone's serving soup to some old guy who gets an low (but audible) line in the background of Docs conversation.

 the voice reminded me of Pynchon's voice from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2daNrsfwDgY

its probably not, i never really looked into it. still fun to speculate.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: porgy on January 23, 2015, 10:43:12 PM
I saw this today for the third time and had a dumb fan theory moment.  I dunno if this was mentioned here, so maybe I'm parroting something I forgot I read - and maybe it was clear in the book and I'm a fool- but is Shasta dead once she returns?  I hate alternate reality Fight Club theories but there's a lot of implications that suggest it... 
Stuff like - 'Doc had seen this before, people who couldn't admit someone was dead.'
There's a scene like halfway through the movie where she's narrating her postcard - ominous piano tinkling - "Nothing was supposed to happen this way, Doc.  I'm so sorry."
Wolfmann has a very maudlin reaction to hearing her name.
It's never stated what went on on the boat but it can be implied.
After the sex scene Shasta mentions how she couldn't be insured per the title - kind of a dark shadowy way of saying that she knows too much, is too much of an innocent/civilian and has to be killed.
In the car at the very end she references to how it's like "being underwater", the last place her being seen was the boat.

Viewed in this light her actions have a weird tinge to them. (Remember, "Not Hallucinating?") Her showing up and being doting, and simultaneously being a sex object while playing into Doc's jealousy in reference to his deep dark thoughts about her sexuality and Wolfmann.  Then on the beach it's like Doc can't believe this dream come true, she's come back, seemingly wants to be all his, and is his by virtue of the weird change in identity.  She's back and she's a hippie again.

Even if this isn't the case, which I don't really know cause I hate this way of watching/reading movies, it's still a great look at that specific kind of relationship- when you break up with someone or are broken up with, go back to/with them and the lingering feeling of "this is too good to be true" is just too present.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Axolotl on January 23, 2015, 11:41:37 PM
It's not a dumb theory. She might be a Thanatoid. Which is like death, only different. Like gone but not gone. Because they have some karmic balance to help correct before they move on. Shasta was one of the reasons Coy got involved with the Golden Fang.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on January 24, 2015, 08:49:10 AM
I thought the same thing, Porgy. This is a ghost story. When Shasta comes back for the couch scene, she could be a dark specter. A shadow. Also, she is a fantasy, what Doc thinks she was to Mickey. And we can also think he's hallucinating because, well, it strangely looks like a variation of the first scene. Of course, I'm with you, I hate the "THAT CHARACTER DOESN'T EXIST" theories, and in the book the fogginess of Shasta's presence is different. But Doc is haunted by Shasta. Shasta and the hippie's dream are fading; I love the last shot of the movie. In the book, Shasta isn't with Doc. But I'm not sure she's with him at the end of the movie either.

That's why Coy is important. Coy is, for Doc, a way to have a victory against death/corruption/what's going away. Coy is resurrected.

About what it says about America, it is in the movie. Strolling talks about "vertical integration", does she? Or maybe it isn't the exact term. Vertical something, anyway. America itself wins money with drugs with the help of the federals then wins money again fixing their teeth before transforming them into anti-communists with the help of nazis. Or something like that with different connections. Doc says: « Much, much more, what you would call, vast. », it isn't clear to give you an idea of the vastness.

With the boat, you have the idea of a sudden transformation by evil, hidden forces. What happened? How did it go away? (Sashta in the first scene/couch scene, the communist actor/anti-communist actor, Wolfmann totally broken after his "dream")

The nostalgia of America is harsh; at the end, Sortilège says there is no way to go back, basically, that we have to live in this world. And this nostalgia works, to me, because of the ex-old lady. Something I connect to. This isn't only about 60/70 the same way TWBB isn't only about capitalism. It's the feeling of something that goes away. An era or a lost love.

Look at Bigfoot. He hates hippies but he's a victim of America. Adrian Prussia is loved by the feds, and he killed his partner. Doc lost Shasta. And Don and Bigfoot become, in a way, a couple of broken couples -- if what I say makes some sense. Not a real couple (most of the time they're on the phone), but something strange. I didn't laugh when Bigfoot ate the weed, I felt like Doc. Where does Bigfoot belong? No-fucking where.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on January 24, 2015, 09:07:21 AM
I like this theory. It's wild, and maybe not intentional or some key to understanding the film or anything but certainly seems like a valid reading.

There's also the phone call where Bigfoot is fucking with Doc and saying, "She's gone, man" and Doc believes that she's dead.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 24, 2015, 10:32:38 AM
That's what I got from it too. Nothing with Shasta at the end seemed right, especially her reason for being gone (visiting family?). The way she's slinking around, the beach shots, and the car moment all feel like Doc fantasies.

It might be too far to say she wasn't there at the beginning.

Do people believe Joanna Newsom was real?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Axolotl on January 24, 2015, 11:04:36 AM
especially her reason for being gone (visiting family?)
That's what she says initially. She later admits she was on the golden fang(she and puck have the same shell necklace or whatever) doc also checks her neck for bite marks(which puck later gives him).

Do people believe Joanna Newsom was real?
She's in his head but she's real. She's never actually in the car with him
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: putneyswipe on January 24, 2015, 06:19:31 PM
Just noticed this. Lanky, gray-haired elder gentleman on the bottom right. Given pynchon's history with orthodontics, this would be a clever coincidence, no?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: JG on January 24, 2015, 06:27:41 PM
i think that's a good guess!
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Axolotl on January 25, 2015, 12:51:19 AM
She's not a ghost. I don't think anyone believes that she's a literal booooo ku klux klan hood type ghost. It's not a puzzle movie. Calling her a ghost is just one of the ways to express a specific type of cinematic irreality that's all over this movie which I think is a natural progression from the Master(it's like calling that theater dream phone call telepathy). It's one of those things that are ok to do in literature but when you do in movies people take issue with because they're so used to movies being externally explainable and logical.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: N on January 25, 2015, 08:11:07 AM
She's not a ghost. I don't think anyone believes that she's a literal booooo ku klux klan hood type ghost. It's not a puzzle movie. Calling her a ghost is just one of the ways to express a specific type of cinematic irreality that's all over this movie which I think is a natural progression from the Master(it's like calling that theater dream phone call telepathy). It's one of those things that are ok to do in literature but when you do in movies people take issue with because they're so used to movies being externally explainable and logical.

Agreed! I couldn't have said it better myself, or at all actually. I know because I tried yesterday and it was so awful I had to delete it. So I'll add a few of my feelings here instead.
So Shasta's gone but not gone and not in a literal sense. It's something that's a part of Inherent Vice. Like the movie Inherent Vice but it's also part of Doc's inherent vice. Like his disposition. As I believe we've established, there's no Inception, that was no dream, change the entire meaning of the narrative malarkey going on here. I think Paul did a similar sort of thing with The Master, in regards to using ambiguity as a means for expressing both sides of the coin. Throughout the movie we're thrown snippets of this brotherhood and love between Freddie and Master that appears to transcend the realm of ordinary human connection. Like something strong and real that's more than the sum of it's parts and at the same time, to me, feels so fragile because all we have to go on is that the characters believe it and care for it. There's always the looming possibility or "reality" that tells us we're probably just watching two humans and their dreams. So when it comes to it's climax, near the end, the connection between the two feels so meaningful that it's not necessary or even wanted to differentiate between reality and irreality or surreality or any kind of permutation on reality. It's cinema and I wouldn't have it any other way. This goes for Inherent Vice, this post is still partially about Inherent Vice. Actually it's not. I made a post about The Master in the Inherent Vice thread. Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: N on February 02, 2015, 11:49:21 PM
its not tearing up the box office just yet   :yabbse-sad: polarized reactions from my friends that have seen the film,,,,give it time...

I don't expect IV is going to blow up in a big way any time soon. I'd say it's already blown up in the circles that would be interested in it, like this place, most of us are into it. I wouldn't be surprised if people start to revisit the film after some time has passed, it took until after Kubrick's death for people to really start taking an obsessive interest, would be cool if the same thing happened with PTA, hopefully not post-mortem though.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on February 03, 2015, 08:32:54 AM
Yeah, it's done. Wide-release topped out at 653 screens. It's now down to 244 screens and only 7.5m. Would imagine it won't get very close to The Master's $16m, prob end up with $10-12m?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=inherentvice.htm
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Sleepless on February 06, 2015, 08:51:58 AM
The script was on ebay. Care to guess how much it sold for (http://www.ebay.com/itm/201277412438?ssPageName=STRK:MEDWX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1435.l2649)?

Would really like to get a hold of some version of this. No-one seen it available anywhere?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on February 06, 2015, 09:05:27 AM
You download the App Weekend Read, it has an Award Section with the IV script.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Sleepless on February 06, 2015, 10:21:07 AM
You are a fucking star.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on February 08, 2015, 10:54:17 PM
That's great. I read the script and was surprised at how closely it tracks with the film. Even little moments that I thought for sure were part of the improvised madness were scripted exactly.

The biggest difference is basically just more dialogue and more narration which was trimmed down (including the closing passage in the book which would've stepped all over Doc & Shasta's nice final scene).

The only real deleted scenes of interest are two big ones: Doc walks into his office to find Tariq and Clancy fucking and then goes out to a Thomas Jefferson diner where he hallucinates having a conversation with the ex-prez while the other two are in the bathroom.

And the other one is Doc's PCP hallucination near the end, he imagines another version of himself that he speaks to as well as a personification of the Golden Fang who does some rather on-the-nose explaining of what it signifies.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Ulivija on February 13, 2015, 01:39:21 PM
Is "Well Mornin' Sam" (in Sortilege's introduction of Bigfoot) a reference to some TV show? I think that line can be heard at one point on Doc's TV in the background. Thanks!

Sortilège: [narrating] Well Mornin' Sam, like a bad luck planet in today's horoscope, here's the old hippie-hating mad dog himself in the flesh: Lieutenant Detective Christian F. "Bigfoot" Bjornsen. SAG member, John Wayne walk, flat top of Flintstone proportions and that evil, little shit-twinkle in his eye that says Civil Rights Violations.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on February 18, 2015, 06:31:52 PM
The screenplay is finally online (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/awards2014/pdf/iv.pdf)
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: putneyswipe on February 18, 2015, 08:32:15 PM
Is "Well Mornin' Sam" (in Sortilege's introduction of Bigfoot) a reference to some TV show? I think that line can be heard at one point on Doc's TV in the background. Thanks!

Sortilège: [narrating] Well Mornin' Sam, like a bad luck planet in today's horoscope, here's the old hippie-hating mad dog himself in the flesh: Lieutenant Detective Christian F. "Bigfoot" Bjornsen. SAG member, John Wayne walk, flat top of Flintstone proportions and that evil, little shit-twinkle in his eye that says Civil Rights Violations.

maybe it's this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_u3YRZb74w
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Ulivija on February 19, 2015, 09:21:27 AM
Thank you, sir! You are the Master.

"Mornin' Sam" audio cue comes right after Aunt Reet says she has major eyeliner issues, and before Bigfoot's ad for Channel View Estates.

I guess Doc watching Ralph and Sam is the equivalent of Freddie watching Casper the friendly ghost.

Somebody with Wikipedia connections should add this to the pop culture references for the Ralph and Sam entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on February 21, 2015, 11:39:05 PM
You should read Poetics, of course. The writers etablishing it as The Rule always make me laugh, though.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Korova on February 22, 2015, 12:27:44 PM
Eel Trovatore... hahahha... Gotta hand it to Pynchon, he is the master of puns.
Btw, I just saw that opera in Munich. It's definitely not Verdi's masterpiece, but there is some gorgeousness to find in there. For example this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFggRqk16Zo
 :bravo:
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on March 02, 2015, 07:29:02 AM
It's directly on iTunes, you scroll down on the IV page and, if you've bought the movie, you can click on iTunes extras. And watch them.

Moving to Spoiler thread...

That's great. Looks like there's 3 previously unreleased presumably PTA-cut trailers & a "Back Beyond"-style nearly 6 min compilation of deleted scenes.

Both the trailers and the deleted scenes have more dialogue, alt. versions, cut scenes. Pretty cool. Most interesting of which is Club Asiatique scene as well as the Tariq/Clancy stuff.

And who's the dude with white hair? Either Doc's dad or maybe Fritz?

(http://40.media.tumblr.com/d0df9be9e14c7f4b6b279e7cf707a8b0/tumblr_nkl6hyd8KK1qzp428o4_1280.jpg)

Keeping track of all this shit here:
http://modage.tumblr.com/post/112509993206/the-deleted-scenes-alternate-takes-of-inherent
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on March 02, 2015, 08:34:07 AM
probably thomas jefferson hallucination.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Larry on March 02, 2015, 09:08:09 AM
asiatique scene is soo cool. Jade was great and her delivery is like lubitsch style.. in fact, i cant believe pta didnt include that little scene of them inside the club!

the shot of joaquin and doc in the car kills me lol

the thomas jefferson shot is my favorite...Doc is on LSD at this moment in the novel while talking to him. forget the entire content of the situation but if it interests anyone i could look it up

that and the shot of Tariq and Clancy is also one of my favorites. It was a really graphic scene in the novel where Tariq is fucking Clancy in Doc's office and he walks in on them ]

(http://41.media.tumblr.com/dd3ed453807b2f106561f8ef958cd5d8/tumblr_nkl6hyd8KK1qzp428o5_1280.jpg)


this frame was also beautiful. reminds me of Tropical Malady

(http://41.media.tumblr.com/9b19a18d3014929b972cdcd9ecf081a0/tumblr_nkl6hyd8KK1qzp428o9_1280.jpg)


(http://www.kickthemachine.com/resources/tmbanner1.jpg) (Tropical Malady)
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on March 02, 2015, 11:37:49 AM
probably thomas jefferson hallucination.
Oh shit, of course. That's what that is. Yep, good call.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Alexandro on March 03, 2015, 11:48:26 AM
This is an endlessly hypnotic and entertaining movie. Not in the usual, audience friendly way, but in how it demands from you to be alert the whole time. Really, you can't do as much as blink during this film without missing some important development. I don't agree that this is a film where is best to not pay attention to the plot because it's so dense. I mean, that's all they talk about, and it's not like the film leaves that unresolved. The thing is that PTA is basically continuing what I've always felt was the most distinctive feature in The Master, which is the "nuts and bolts" approach to the narrative and editing.

I saw IV and tried my best, but by the end it was clear there were things I just didn't understand, characters I didn't fully grasp where they came from and why they were there, and a few details that when I re watched the next day turned out to be important. And yes, of course on second viewing the whole who dunnit plot was crystal clear, and the melancholic atmosphere more resonant. I commented about The Master that the film goes from scene to scene with such a fast tempo and dealing only with the most essential information (visual, narrative, performance wise) that audiences cannot keep up with it, give up and then accuse the film of being slow. With IV the same is happening (slow is now accompanied by incoherent), even though there are no loose ends in this film, beyond the unimportant details of how the Golden Fang works or it's actual reach in this world. The thing is that just like in The Master, this film is not waiting for anyone.

Take the first scene, where the plot is set. It just starts. And characters waste no time explaining anything to us more than once. If you don't follow the intricacies of this setup only in this one scene alone, you're already lost before the 10 minute mark. The film keeps this pace all through it. Essential information (again plot-wise, character, visual, narrative-wise) is given like a clock, and it's a testament to PTA's brilliance that within this merciless discipline he manages to create a languid, relaxed and at the same time funny, paranoid and melancholic mood. The Master's story is like an Aesop's fable compared to the complexity of IV's plot, with many places, names, references, thrown in scene by scene. Sure, the film aims to portrait confusion and the feeling of being lost in a haze, but it's not actually abandoning it's plot and it's main character's essentials (it has been already been brilliantly pointed out here that Doc's arc has to do with recovering SOMETHING in light of his loss of Shasta, who's definitely gone after her first scene, and that something materializes in helping Coy to return home).

I'm very excited by what PTA is doing with narrative cinema. He might just be the only filmmaker within this trend to be actually exploring new ground and finding new ways to do strictly narrative films. I know he's an Apichatpong fan, but unlike him and many other auteurs who are basically on the other end of the cinema spectrum, he feels no need to extend takes endlessly or fill minutes with silence as a way to contemplation. He does the opposite, and I think he's on to something really special.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on March 03, 2015, 07:14:14 PM
I don't agree that this is a film where is best to not pay attention to the plot because it's so dense.

not that it's best, that it's possible. liked your post and i just wanna further bolster the idea that iv is appreciable through direct engagement. if you're referring to what i've said. if you're referring to something someone else has said, oh i'm including myself in the conversation for no apparent reason, that's all
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: 03 on March 03, 2015, 10:48:55 PM
i think we all need to accept that this is his worst film and move on. please.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Alexandro on March 03, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
no, jenkins, I was not referring to something you said, just that after seeing it and checking out some metacritic reviews, some of the overviews mentioned an approach like that, which seems to me to suggest that since the film's plot is incomprehensible we should just enjoy the vibe. of course is possible but it's not that kind of film, like the big lebowski, where the understanding of the plot is independent of the enjoyment of the humor and spirit of the film to the point that you could almost do fine without it. this isn't the case because the basic plot of inherent vice is a representation of the film's thesis that 60's counterculture was absorbed by 70's disillusionment and paranoia, and it's not incomprehensible. it just isn't. that's an objective observation.

03, if this is his worst film then it's a worst film better than most films. I'm no longer rating this dude's films because they're all too good and unique to rate them in relation to each other. I don't understand....you are saying this because you think what I wrote is a stretch? A way to justify the film in light of certain (very lazy) criticisms? i'm just sharing what I feel, man.

Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: 03 on March 04, 2015, 01:06:10 AM
nothing that i said had anything to do with you whatsoever.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on March 04, 2015, 03:07:59 AM
no, jenkins, I was not referring to something you said, just that after seeing it and checking out some metacritic reviews, some of the overviews mentioned an approach like that, which seems to me to suggest that since the film's plot is incomprehensible we should just enjoy the vibe. of course is possible but it's not that kind of film, like the big lebowski, where the understanding of the plot is independent of the enjoyment of the humor and spirit of the film to the point that you could almost do fine without it. this isn't the case because the basic plot of inherent vice is a representation of the film's thesis that 60's counterculture was absorbed by 70's disillusionment and paranoia, and it's not incomprehensible. it just isn't. that's an objective observation.

the movie's thesis is part of its substance, and it works comprehensibly on a first pass through subjective observations between the movie and the audience, you ask me

it's a pta/pynchon movie and of course the more you look into it the more there is. i just think it'd be healthy for pta fans to realize what topics they're more interested in than most everyone else who watches movies. like, you can go to the beach for a stroll or you can go to the beach with a metal detector, but the point is you went to the beach
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: 03 on March 04, 2015, 03:58:19 PM
i'll explain, what i said wasn't directed at anyones review or feelings of this film.

i LOVE inherent vice, don't get me wrong.
but i think that die hard pta fans are liking this film because its a pta film.
i am totally guilty of this.

my problem with this film comes from what pta said of the writing process. and i think they ruined the film.
1. he LITERALLY wrote out the entire book in script form.
2. he was worried about not doing a pynchon movie well.

everytime he's adapted any literature or source material, it has been through his words and filtered through his imagination and all of the shit we love about pta. this movie is basically a visual audiobook of inherent vice read by paul thomas anderson. and that is why it doesnt work.

 tell me i'm wrong.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on March 04, 2015, 04:08:56 PM
Well PTA has said that being too faithful ruins a lot of adaptations so he tried hard to (after the transcribing phase) not be too precious with it and make it its own thing while still retaining the spirit of Pynchon which I'm sure having P on the line helped with.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on March 04, 2015, 04:15:29 PM
I feel like the fact that Doc sort of saunters through everything, observes languidly, his pace doesn’t really change — you get something from that, just visually. The body language element is a big deal. It’s an attitude... You could turn off the sound and the camera’s perspective of the events (with Doc) tells you quite a lot in cinematic terms, despite people’s describing it as “boringly shot”, both in the staging and the flow.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: polkablues on March 04, 2015, 04:42:51 PM
This is the hardest I've ever agreed with 03 on any point, and very neatly sums up my feelings on the film. The thing I love most about PTA films is that they're a direct line to HIS artistic worldview, HIS subconsciousness. IV is not that; it's Pynchon's artistic worldview, visualized by PTA. Which is fine, that's what he set out to do, but Pynchon's worldview isn't particularly interesting to me in the way that PTA's is.

It's the furthest thing from a bad movie, and I get really frustrated reading some of the lazy criticism of it I've seen elsewhere on the internet, but it accomplished the one thing that PTA movies, as wide and varied as they've been, have never accomplished before: I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I don't find myself wanting to revisit it or analyze it or emulate it or even really try and figure out why I didn't connect with it. I saw it and it was good and that's it.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 04, 2015, 05:09:21 PM
Yea, I agree with 03. Very entertaining film but lacks a lot of distinct qualities. It's doing its best to play coverage for the book and get everything into a seamless and working order. I kept thinking of PTA as a good editor and when I was thinking about praising scenes or writing, I kept wondering if I should have been complimenting Pynchon more. PTA may be too big of a fan of Pynchon and reluctant to make any major changes. It has its fallbacks. He could have reduced his vision of the book to trying to hyper realize the tone of parts of the book, but again, that would have resulted in heavy editing. I really do think PTA fell in love with the book and loved all the hijinks and characters. He wanted to nudge too many things together instead of expand upon possibly awesome scenes. Some scenes just passed by too quickly. It was all on clock-like progression to get all the major book moments into order. However, I do think since There Will be Blood, Anderson has found the realism that will likely dominate the rest of his filmmaking career. He feels very comfortable and even if I wasn't the biggest fan of Inherent Vice (still enjoyed it a lot), I think it's a great fit for him.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on March 04, 2015, 05:34:55 PM
you guys are just pta dieheards agreeing with each other about not liking the movie as much as you guessed you would, since you're so diehard and everything

which i love, and how is that not a distinctive feature itself?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Alexandro on March 04, 2015, 05:48:01 PM
Not in my case. I sincerely love this film on it's own. Can't take it out of my mind. If this exact same movie had been directed by someone else, I would be seriously blown away by this new genius.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 04, 2015, 05:56:14 PM
I agree with polka and 03, which was probably already apparent from my review. It's not bad, but I do think it could be his weakest film. I can sincerely accept it as an interesting diversion, but for the sake of his future filmography, I hope it is just that.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on March 04, 2015, 06:55:53 PM
Not in my case. I sincerely love this film on it's own. Can't take it out of my mind. If this exact same movie had been directed by someone else, I would be seriously blown away by this new genius.

i agree, and i think this is something to discuss on the topic of terrence malick as well. it's a tricky subject with challenging perspectives, so i like it, i personally like what they're up to, and i do think these new movies come from private realms that're as important as the private realms they've previously explored

a sort of red flag for me is an interpretation grounded on conditions placed by earlier works. since we all know that ultimately we're discussing our private reactions to the movie, i must say i don't think one's expectations are appropriate grounds for a reaction. that's what leads to depression irl, and that's what leads to sloppy movie criticism i think. jb threw down on both the past and future, meohmy

within iv itself, we're not talking about the size of iv because it didn't impress the audience but, it's a fucking huge movie. it's challenging to talk about the size of the movie because really we prefer to talk about the size of the emotions we had while watching the movie but, here, in a very city-like way, and i'd say pta's affiliation with the philosophy of pynchon comes from a shared idea about what it feels like to live in a city, with all those people and buildings and whatnot, here there's a massively impressive range of characters (perspectives), places, and events. and the problem is the audience can't find the meaning?? i mean, that sounds like life to me

all the things together, what's the main existential crisis? if that was dropped in, boom, one could understand the weight of larry. i think -- and i think wilder agrees with me on this -- larry's armchair theorizing, as his case unfolds, is a resonating feature of many people through their lives. why exactly should one go on through this madness? i vibe with the movie from this perspective

and as i've said, you don't gotta inherent twice to get that vibe. i don't think you have to notice the things happening in order to notice larry. he's right there. everything around him, i think it's disorientating. to him, and to us. and i think that's the existential crisis thinger
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 04, 2015, 08:53:13 PM
a sort of red flag for me is an interpretation grounded on conditions placed by earlier works. since we all know that ultimately we're discussing our private reactions to the movie, i must say i don't think one's expectations are appropriate grounds for a reaction. that's what leads to depression irl, and that's what leads to sloppy movie criticism i think. jb threw down on both the past and future, meohmy

Well yeah, I said that today because my post was specifically about that. But I think I brought a fair perspective to my actual review a few pages ago. I truly did approach the movie on its own terms, I was ready for something different, and in the end I do sort of appreciate it as such.

I'd like to think I'm able to hold those two separate thoughts at the same time — that it's a pretty good movie which I probably shouldn't complain about (semi-objective reaction), and that I really hope he doesn't stay on this track (legitimate fan reaction).
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on March 04, 2015, 08:57:35 PM
jb's review so he don't look like a liar, and 'cause i appreciate his review, and 'cause we all know a fight about who has the right opinion is the worst kind of internet conversation possible

There's a lot to love about this movie. It was kind of losing me until Doc arrives at the Golden Fang, but the second half is dramatically better. It's like Martin Short kicks that transmission into the right gear. The movie suddenly begins to effectively channel that alternate-world pseudo-apocalyptic energy that we felt in TWBB when milkshakes were being drunk. That's also when Jonny Greenwood's music starts working especially well. It really reminded me of his Bodysong score. (Listen to "Iron Swallow" and tell me that wasn't in the movie somewhere.)

The framing with heads being cut off actually worked quite well for me. It was a funny and effective way to introduce characters, at least twice that I remember. But I agree with putneyswipe that in general the framing seemed uninspired or intentionally plain, to the extent that I really noticed a beautifully framed scene when it arrived.

I was also deeply feeling the claustrophobia. The movie seems to take place mostly in series of rooms. When we do follow Doc outside, the few wide shots usually involve him being dwarfed by a large ominous building. Even the establishing shot outside his beach house is claustrophobic. (And I love that idea.) The camera is low to the ground uncomfortably between two buildings, and car bumpers even crowd out the shot later in the movie.

The final scene with Bigfoot was funny and wonderfully bizarre, and Doc's reaction is my favorite acting that JP does in the movie. But in retrospect I'm not sure the scene was entirely earned... the insanity or the emotional resolution. This scene was clearly meant to be more resonant than it actually is. And the way it dissolves into the next scene after the punchline kind of makes it feel a little cheap.

Likewise... I'm fascinated by some interpretations of the film, but I'm not convinced the movie itself engages those issues with much cogency. It's more like, yeah, I guess that's in there.

I feel like the way to appreciate this movie going forward is through its formal curiosities and its multitude of quirky delights. What I'm not feeling is a beating heart at the center, or a story that is screaming to be heard, or any character with a particularly rich inner life.

This just doesn't have the soul that I assume a PTA movie will have. Even The Master, probably PTA's coldest movie at that point, had full, intense characters with explosive depth, almost effortlessly. Inherent Vice just doesn't have any of that. Doc is certainly a sweet and somewhat angelic character, but let's be honest here, he has two or three distinguishing characteristics. Whatever depth might be there just isn't coming through the haze. I'm wondering if people are bringing information to this character from the book, because, while it's always fascinating to watch Joaquin Phoenix, I'm not quite feeling it.

I do think it's a good movie. Some scenes are amazing. I can sincerely accept this as a light diversion and move on with no complaints. Maybe it's like what he first intended with PDL, actually happening 12 years later.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Knocho Pytsh on March 04, 2015, 09:29:02 PM
I think it's fair to judge this as his worst film if you think Pynchon's perspective trumps PTA's, but I've never found this to be the case.

If you love novels, I'm sure most stories you fall in love with feel like they're written for you and you alone. Pynchon's books feel like that to me, and years ago I never would've guessed any filmmaker would attempt an adaptation. If PTA feels the same way about Pynchon, then I think he's taken the events in the plot and filmed them how he sees them through his own artistic perspective, not dissimilar to what Kubrick did with the The Shining, even if that took more departures. How else can someone do it? Nobody knows exactly what Pynchon saw in his head as he was writing the book, so it sort of has to be created through somebody's worldview through the adaptation process, and considering film is such a different medium than literature, that adapted "view" is inherently the filmmaker's.

IV feels like a culmination of everything he's learned up to this point. His love for the weird and fantastic is on full display, mostly evident in Shasta's and Doc's sex scene. There's a gritty, funny truthfulness he approaches sexuality with that I fell in love with in Boogie Nights, coupled with the structure and simplicity of The Master and There Will Be Blood, with some haziness thrown in so crucial to the era. It's as if he's making a giant cocktail and with each new movie he adds an intoxicating and delicious new ingredient. For the same reason Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick film, IV is my favorite PTA film. It hits the ground running, never waiting for the viewer as others have noted, yet feels highly calculated and measured.

If this is a diversion or even his weakest film, I find that exciting.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on March 05, 2015, 09:30:27 AM
Riffing here, but rereading JB's review...diversion: I understand why people don't like this one. This movie is different than his others...

I didn't read the book...or much. I began it. Never finished. But one thing I feel is more immediate here in Inherent Vice than in PT's other movies, maybe mostly due to the inclusion of voice over, is the feeling of the struggle to be in the present, to get out of your own head. Everyone is in their own heads. This is something I felt in his earlier work in general, but not as expanded upon. In Magnolia Rose tells Jimmy to "say it", to express his personal truth [instead of his lies], and Claudia urges Jim Kurring "to say the things that they...that are real or something...", but these are urgings away from inhibition ...about shying away from an internally known and already grasped truth, not necessarily about a loss of language that might constrain conversation and connection.

After my third viewing of IV the plot started to coalesce - not completely, but the film is definitely more coherent than I had originally thought. To me, this is PT's most internal movie, even more than The Master. It's the perspective of an introvert struggling to be external, knowing that in every situation there's something going on outside of him but having trouble engaging, of everyone having trouble engaging, because the ocean in Doc's mind is constantly calling his attention away from whatever larger plot or interaction might be occurring. Maybe this is my personal reading, but the unknowability of the characters, what JB refers to as a lacking depth, to me is (maybe unintentionally, but if that's the case I think it inadvertently works) a reflection of the impossibility of getting to know anyone's depths of personality to the degree that they exist, because that inner monologue is silent and only visible to us when deliberately acted upon and shared.

Sortelige's narration exposes just some of those fleeting thoughts that add up to emotions and vibes and general perception that can be difficult to articulate and is usually beyond the realm of language for most people -- simple words to describe feelings don't always exist, especially in the thick of strange moods and converging philosophies, and Pynchon and other writers with a certain level of literary mastery hold more keys to their transmission than most possess, and so are able to hint at what is going on inside of -everyone- trapped in stoned silence without that advantage. The movie conveys this idea better than almost any other film I can think of, and in terms with which I feel in sync, so for me it succeeds in doing something new and rewarding.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Alexandro on March 05, 2015, 11:05:16 AM
I also have never read the book or Pynchon, so that's not a frame of reference for me. I don't know if the film felt that different to me than other PTA movies. It felt kind of like coming back to a warmer human experience than the last two, but not in any way to the youthful sugar-like tenderness of his films up to Punch-Drunk Love, with those bittersweet endings and hopeful outlook. This is an older's dude movie, with basic goodness coming from the individual and not from some cosmic design or universal truth like in Magnolia.

All of PTA's films have been about the search for communion with others and family. This has been widely discussed. That theme is in IV too, but is treated as a lost dream, a family that was and evaporated. Larry's relationship with Shasta is at the center, but all the other characters express versions of the same longing: Tariq's gang and turf gone, Wolfmann's "hippy dream" consisting of free houses for people, and of course Coy's family lost first to heroin addiction and then to "the man" so to speak. In the end he gets its back, and this is Doc's good deed to in a sense, recover that which he lost.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Alexandro on March 06, 2015, 12:29:52 AM
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/02/inherent-vice-review-counterculture/

great analysis.

Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on March 08, 2015, 02:59:28 PM
Even though I read the book, I wasn't ready for the style of this movie. Watching it a second time it was great, funny, sick performances across the board, even for pornstars and UFC fighters. Still sad the Jade/Denis backseat scene was cut though hahah
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: diggler on March 27, 2015, 01:27:16 AM
It's a grower. I probably won't watch it again though.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on April 21, 2015, 09:05:14 AM
The deleted scenes and all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHl6qQ3V1Mc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxDfsvMS-Qk
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: N on April 21, 2015, 11:34:57 AM
Oh wow. Some great shots and performances. I believe Sortilege speaks the ending of the book during the first clip? The Golden Fang thing isn't a bad trailer either, although it always makes me cringe a little when they mess with the order of events, screaming at a deposit slip, etc.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on April 21, 2015, 03:25:29 PM
That stuff from 3:09 onwards is gorgeous, I wish he left it in
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on May 01, 2015, 08:26:40 AM
anybody buy the Blu?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on May 01, 2015, 08:46:41 AM
anybody buy the Blu?
Yep.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Reelist on May 01, 2015, 10:22:41 AM
Oh shit, it's payday! Thanks for reminding me...
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on May 01, 2015, 10:29:04 AM
Is water wet?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Frederico Fellini on May 01, 2015, 04:16:14 PM
anybody buy the Blu?


Twice nigga. One for me, one for my grandma. I will probably buy another one for reelists's grandma. I am a giver.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: mogwai on May 01, 2015, 04:22:01 PM
It's weird, I bought it at itunes while the blu-ray isn't released until the 29th of june in sweden.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on May 01, 2015, 10:01:01 PM
fyi:
Redbox May 5, 2015

i'm looking forward to watching it again, because now that the pynchon chat has faded and the excitement of a new release has faded and all that, my particular interest is pta having created a movie narrative without a direct center, which i think scrambles people's ideas about what a movie should be in such a way that indeed the audience was largely scrambled by this movie

i think that's very exciting and every bit a part of the most interesting cinema that's currently happening, i also think it's a progressive part of a narrative technique that pta began to install in p-dl, intensified in the master, and reached its furthest point here. in terms of disrobing the illusions of narrative that have persisted through stories for so long, and certainly through big-budget movies which try to spread as wide as they can, i admire and respect the disrobing that took place within this movie

watching iv is more than ever like panning for gold in pta land, and since i've already before made the comparison between people describing this movie sounding exactly like larry within the movie, i'd instead like to provide an allegorical video of the way pta might feel having made this movie (he's the dancing person):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w4B7QxL_n4
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on May 01, 2015, 10:30:25 PM
my particular interest is pta having created a movie narrative without a direct center, which i think scrambles people's ideas about what a movie should be in such a way that indeed the audience was largely scrambled by this movie

i think that's very exciting and every bit a part of the most interesting cinema that's currently happening, i also think it's a progressive part of a narrative technique that pta began to install in p-dl, intensified in the master, and reached its furthest point here. in terms of disrobing the illusions of narrative that have persisted through stories for so long, and certainly through big-budget movies which try to spread as wide as they can, i admire and respect the disrobing that took place within this movie

So well put.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on May 02, 2015, 11:29:28 AM
I kind of wish there was an extended or "mini-series" type cut of the film with some of this footage in it, if only because those were sick moments in the book that I'd wish seen come to life in the full narrative. But screw it.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: OpO1832 on May 13, 2015, 02:55:22 PM
What happened to that behind the scenes film that was to be shot on 16mm by the girl director who P.T Anderson praised earlier??

I have to say i was extremely disappointed by Inherent Vice. I can try to understand why he excised the Vegas sequence but that was such a fun/pivotal part of the book, I wanted to see that lame pimp get his white suit stained, and the Mustache cup, Bigfoots wire collection, Sportello's parents, the songs that Pynchon wrote, the local surf legend, Doc visiting the paranoid black guy. This was a real failure, thinking about it. Also what happened to the 16mm footage that was recorded at the chick planet, and FRITZ!?

Kat Waterson was great as was Short. I love JP but he was too old for his movie, Doc is like in his late 20s and Del Toro whom I love was way too old..

Funny thing I was reading Vineland and that strikes me as more of  a P.T Anderson movie, in the book ( I haven't finished it ) the main character drives his car through local businesses and I thought about Macy driving his car through the deli in Magnolia.Also in that book there is a character who is apart of a radical film collective called 24 F.P.S but overall its very similar to IV, there are a few Narc characters, and stoners, and other eccentrics. One last thing that would have been cool: to have Zoyd in the Inherent Vice movie, since he lived @ Manhattan Beach and was a stoner it would be cool to have him run into Doc.

In terms of cinematography 1:85 aspect ratio does not seem to suit IV, his best work is shot Anamorphic. A lot of people think the master was shot on 65 but it was actually shot mostly on 35mm and some scenes 65mm like Nolan does. I hope he goes back to his Panavision Anamorphic lenses.

Ultimately, I love P.T Anderson but i have to be honest with myself. I wonder what y'all think? I hope he stays away from adapting because I really enjoy his original screenplays.

The atmosphere in Hollywood is a bit disconcerting, everything is PG-13, and a tent pole movie, every movie has to have a built in audience already to ensure a box office so that is why comic book movies, book adaptions, and re makes are so prevalent. No more than ever we need P.T Anderson original scripts!
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: OpO1832 on May 13, 2015, 02:59:41 PM
Also why didnt Paul include the whole genesis of Larry Sportello's nickname Doc, which was so cool, and I am on board with the folks who wanted to too see the acid trip with Bugs Bunny! THE MOVIE WAS SHOT @ Warner Bros, missed opportunity.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 13, 2015, 03:04:59 PM
Welcome!

And yes, overall, this is the most mixed we've ever been about a PTA movie. My own mixed/disappointed review is here (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=13100.msg338295#msg338295).

I have to be honest too and say I don't really have a desire to revisit the movie even for the parts I did like. Inherent Vice and Nymphomaniac coming in the same year was a little disillusioning.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: OpO1832 on May 13, 2015, 03:25:21 PM
Yeah Tier hasn't made anything really well in a while.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: martinthewarrior on May 13, 2015, 09:22:08 PM
I may be swallowing the kool-aid to some extent, but I've watched the film upwards of ten times (yikes) between theater and blu, and it might be my second favorite of his at this point. I'm not sure I buy it working as a detective flick, similarly to how The Master didn't work as a scientology expose, but boy oh boy do I buy the tone of the thing. I want to crawl inside it. I think the reason I've gone back to it over and over again is because of the mystery the tone implies is waiting to be solved just under the fog of it all. Does it earn it? No idea/maybe not, but I can't remember a movie that will keep me looking for whatever 'it' is as long as this one will. It put me in a trance. The long takes, the music, the constant cloud of menace and coming storm.

One of my favorite things about mushrooms was the moments where an old girlfriend, or friend/loved one, popped into the brain and stayed there while I just felt stuff about them. Not memories of stories or anything, just really potent emotional currency that was thick with love and maybe longing. Long, cheeseball way of saying that's really similar to the feeling I experience with this movie. It's the tonal representation of all those feelings of acute absence in my life of someone I've loved at some point. It's not that the story of Doc and Shasta moves me all that much on the surface, but rather, Anderson achieved that end solely through the perfection of the tonal language he began with Punch Drunk Love. Like I said, maybe I've drank the kool-aid. I understand how this one might not work for a lot of people, but I've never seen a movie that made me feel the way Vice did and I'm finding it to be something worth returning to over and over.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: OpO1832 on May 13, 2015, 09:34:09 PM
Here are some movies to watch that I think would make a good program with IV:

Dusty Sweets and McGee--great film - kinda of hard to watch/// Floyd Mutrux is perhaps one of the most interesting unspoken and unsung filmmakers working in the 70s and 80s.. I love his cinematography, I believe the great Owen Reismen shot a lot of his movies..His films have that California Soul, not that I would know about that since I am a New Yorker but i feel it when i watch his movies, check out Aloha Bobby Rose, both of these movies have great pop soundtracks that did not feel forced! There is a sequence in Dusty Sweets and McGee that is just the AMAZING, it involves this young junkie couple shooting up post eggs and bacon or pre, don't remember to the sounds of Blues Image - Ride Captain Ride.
The Glory Stompers/ Hells Angels on Wheels( real Hells Angles in the movie + Adam Rourke and Jack Nicolson/ Born Losers/ The Devil's Angels ( I like this, its got a fun mood plus you can't go wrong with John Cassavettes playing a biker. ( This lot of movies recently played on TCM, I DVR'd all of them except Born Losers. I plan to get stoned and really watch these.
Dealing: an interesting movie with Barbra hershey and John Lithgow about this Bostonians slinging weed, cool movie.
Cisco Pike: Kris K, Karen Black, Gene Hackman is like a Bigfoot esque character, there is also Harry Dean Stanton!
There is an amazing scene in the movie Night Moves that is so eeriely like one in the book Inherent Vice, its the scene were this puss hound is dancing with some chick in a bar and fight ensues just like that scene in IV were the puss hound dances with random chicks and fucks one in the bathroom, the girl Doc brings with him


I think the best scene for me in IV was the scene with Michelle Sinclair and J.P getting high with the n02, loved that and in that scene Paul showed the world that he can muster a great and tantazling performance from an actress who does not get much opportunities to show her dramatic/ comedic chops. I hope Michelle Sinclair gets more work outside of porn because she is fantastic in ways that Shasha Grey is not( she was a bit like Nas in Belly, wooden and ultimately borning, I blame it on the piff)

Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: OpO1832 on May 13, 2015, 09:38:17 PM
The best movie to watch stoned from Paul's filmography thus far is Punch Drunk Love, Inherent Vice is not fun to watch stoned, neither is Enter The Void, which I don't get why people say it has to been seen high. You know whats a great movie to watch stoned? Antonio Das Mortes! Look for this movie and trust me you will be in for a fucking treat if you watch high or sober!
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on May 13, 2015, 09:45:31 PM
Here are some movies to watch that I think would make a good program with IV:

Dusty Sweets and McGee

I've seen this, via the Warner Archive (http://www.wbshop.com/product/dusty+and+sweets+mcgee+1000179492.do?from=fn&sortby=ourPicks) DVD, and I'm with you. Good call, and welcome to the forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atAGpJSSsrg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEYATZDlaSo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxwyRUjiMoc
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on November 27, 2015, 06:26:00 AM
Thought this was an interesting podcast discussion (http://www.reelfanatics.com/2015/01/17/315-inherent-vice/), made me think about some scenes in new ways
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Larry on December 07, 2015, 09:28:10 AM
so......................has anyone seen Yi Yi?
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 07, 2015, 10:38:08 AM
so......................has anyone seen Yi Yi?

yeah of course but how's that related
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Larry on December 07, 2015, 02:08:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSpTnzQQ_ZQ&t=53m27s
 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSpTnzQQ_ZQ&t=53m27s)
sukiyaki!

its a popular song.
I donnoo...just really interested in the films he might have been pulling from or musical references
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on December 07, 2015, 05:06:02 PM
Sukiyaki also recently made an appearance in The Man in the High Castle. Second or third episode.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Just Withnail on December 08, 2015, 06:58:02 AM
And in Mad Men, season 2, the Flight 1 episode.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lottery on December 28, 2015, 08:24:26 PM
It's funny to think that this is the only PTA film I didn't make a fuss over buying right when it came out. I still don't own the blu ray simply because I didn't see the point in revisiting it after my two theater viewings, I didn't feel the need to dig any deeper into it. Then, it just kind of came to me a second ago that maybe PTA was attempting to make the most dense stoner film of all time? Like, the go to quality those movies seem to shoot for is their rewatchability, that you can just throw it on at anytime, any scene, and have a laugh with your bros. It's probably the most universally reviled films by all his fans, though. I think what that speaks to is how adamantly he intended to make a Thomas Pynchon film over his own. That novel spoke to him so deeply, that he needed to propel it out there for us. I find that compelling. This movie is a beast to deal with, but I look forward to the day when I can sit on my couch, barefoot in the living room smoking a joint as fat as one doc would roll and really trying to get to the bottom of what this thing is about.

I'm grabbing Reelist's post from the other thread. Good stuff there. I agree that he definitely wanted to put Pynchon forward- and you know, this film brilliantly demonstrates his screenwriting/editing mastery. His ability to pare down a fairly dense novel into the most crucial plot points and thematic ideas. Honestly, he did better than I thought he could.

Even then, this is still pretty quintesentially a PTA film. There's this (very PTA) restless/yearning quality to it has been apparent in his works since PDL (arguably Magnolia). But if we're talking about something more concrete and less wanky, he promoted the relationships to forefront. The other book IV reminds me of is The Crying Lot of 49 (another Pynchon work). There's a lot of meandering to both stories and that's crucial because it really does demonstrate the confusion prevalent in both works, a feeling of this circular hopeless investigation. Anyway, PTA managed to capture that quality in the film yet he gave into his natural instinct and elevated the relationships. This is a side effect of trimming down the plot but boy does make the emotional aspects of the film more affecting. Some of the changes he made were pretty interesting MINOR NOVEL SPOILERS, having Shasta in the car at the end gave the ending a different vibe to the book. Then there's Sortilege's altered presence in the film which is really quite cool ands some moments of much needed warmth and affirmation (I adored that 'what's going to nag away at you in the middle of the night' part)- which also ties into Coy Harlingen's return to his family which is so goddamned nice in the film. However the best change in the whole film is the final Bigfoot scene- it takes a smaller conversation between Doc Denis in the book and turns into a puzzling dude vs dude confrontation. All of Doc's care and confusion, all of Bigfoot's internal struggle- 'no, but you could use a keeper'. That scene is definitely now part of the PTA essential canon.

Anyway, I think that PTA's reverence of Pynchon is evident in the film but to me, it is very much a PTA film. It does seem more apparent on repeat viewings.

On a relatedish note, it's pretty amusing how all over the internet everyone expected some sort of return to Boogie Nights and instead they got his most difficult work yet. Boogie Nights is challenging and brilliant on its own terms but this is still closest to The Master. This is a totally logical progression in style from The Master, from the way he frames his shots to how he structures the film (the anxious, uncomfortable comedy of PDL is also present in this film). Someone mentioned how The Master is a masterpiece (true) and IV is an interesting diversion. I think that's interesting because it certainly isn't a stylistic leap- the way Magnolia was to PDL was to TWBB to TM (yes, I think TWBB and TM are somewhat disparate). But it does seem like PTA has found a style which is comfortable to work in. Then again, he could easily throw this out the window with whatever he makes next.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on July 08, 2017, 03:36:53 PM
Favorite film of all time. Marking this thread for future geek-vomit-rant.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on July 08, 2017, 07:15:01 PM
2 1/2 years later, still never loved a film as much as IV.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on July 19, 2017, 07:48:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4bg8-rqZF4

short video essay compiling pynchon clips into an unofficial bildungsroman.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Just Withnail on October 05, 2017, 04:17:35 AM
Bringing the Inherent Vice conversation here, from the other thread.

A lot of you talk about IV's plottiness as a negative, but the overabundant plot was the heart of IV for me, and it’s convolutedness made me feel for our little man Doc. The mood of the film was of constantly having to realign yourself to new information, eventually just succumbing to it as a texture (though it has logic if one wants to solve the puzzle). It’s a film that shows the constant process of change, of constant newness, and nostalgia as an alluring drug to dampen the frustations brought on by it. I can understand the wish to maybe get even “closer” to Doc, but I felt the plottiness put me right in his shoes. A barrage of newness all the time, and he just wants his ex-old lady.

Invoking entropy can be a tired critical trope, but the film certainly invites it. Eggs break, chocolate melts. Girlfriends become ex-old- ladies. Experience lost to the past, continuously. These continuous push-ins on people’s faces as they tell their intricate stories just highlight the loss of the moments immediately before. Can you keep the plot in your head? You just heard it. It slips away. Does it ever end? Of course it does. It did. Unavoidably.

Entropy is there in the rhymes of visual motifs (the parking-lot becomes the dentist office years later), in the grain, and the constant invasion of new new new. And in this film the “new” has a very sinister quality, felt through an overwhelmed Doc, as a perhaps inevitable contrast to the idealism of the very recent old. Things looked so great for a second, how could they look anything but bleak right now?

In the beginning Doc has seemingly succumed completely to entropy, just flowing away with the heat-death of the universe, no real sense of purpose and drive, dreaming of the past. The one thing that cuts through the entropic haze, the thing that makes him try to muster up some energy and counteract the slipping away of everthing, is, ironically, something old. “Shasta. Find Shasta Fey”. Maybe the most heartbreaking moment for me in the film is when Coy slips sideways and whispers this to Doc, and the way you see the name cut into him like a razor. As he goes on his mission and the intricacies pile up and the haze returns, he’s posed a question that cuts through everything again: “what’s gonna keep you up at night?” And the haze of solving a mystery and finding patterns in the chaos is supplanted by a relatively simple action: get Coy home.

There’s another counterforce to the haze: the compressed energy of Bigfoot, this low-entropy, quite literal, square. No straight lines in nature but Bigfoot’s hair sure is close. Like all of PTA’s other “low-entropic” characters like Mackey, Plainview and Dodd, it’s a tightly organized structure that hides chaos (or, maybe rather: it’s so tightly organized because the oppositional forces are so powerful).

In the end Doc’s “back” with Shasta, seemingly where he wanted to be, living in “the past”. Except of course it isn’t. The newness, strangeness, of the situation just seems to bring home the fact that this isn’t the past at all. This doesn’t mean we’re back together. It’s still something new, and always will be. Something’s off, and you can see it in Doc’s eyes. What’s wrong here? And in the end, of course:

Any day now I will hear you say "Goodbye, my love"
And you'll be on your way
Then my wild beautiful bird, you will have flown, oh
Any day now I'll be all alone, whoa


Unavoidable loss, the inherent vice itself.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on October 05, 2017, 08:47:41 PM

Invoking entropy can be a tired critical trope, but the film certainly invites it.

Thank you for a fantastic write-up. IV is my favorite film, but I've yet to sit down and bottle lightning. What you posted just now, well, it came close.

Maybe the most heartbreaking moment for me in the film is when Coy slips sideways and whispers this to Doc, and the way you see the name cut into him like a razor.

Doc's expressions throughout the film seem, to me, instantly recognizable for anyone in the haze of heartbreak. This moment confirms the thread Doc holds onto SO TIGHT he might be ignoring all the rest. He knows this, and yet, it unspools into a yarn of epic Los-Angeles scope. This is much a film of lovers, the spirals and trails they leave behind. Doc thought he had the thread, but she's flitting across his life, within and without.

(http://annyas.com/screenshots/images/2014/iv-pta-90.jpg)
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Fuzzy Dunlop on November 27, 2017, 02:24:57 PM
Jena Malone talks briefly about working on IV, apparently thinks Owen Wilson is Clive Owen:

https://www.avclub.com/jena-malone-on-the-hunger-games-and-why-being-cut-out-o-1820683102

Inherent Vice (2014)—“Hope Harlingen”

JM: That one is sort of—when a baseball player’s been playing the game for a long time and they finally get to play with one of their heroes. It was like the whole thing was butter. It was heaven, getting to collaborate with Paul Thomas Anderson as an actor. And I say “collaborate” because he really does respect the process of acting and upholds it to the highest and really allows the actor to work and live and recreate and rewrite and understand and interpret a role. It was incredibly freeing and easy. He puts you at ease. It’s the type of thing where, afterwards, you’re like, “Oh my God. I will never get on the steam train again. I’m going to be taking bullet trains from now on. There is no need to spend 18 weeks going across the country when I have bruises all over my body when I can do it efficiently, smoothly, and incredibly well with a well-built machine,” and that’s what a Paul Thomas Anderson film feels like for me.

AVC: It was such a sprawling cast. Were there people you found yourself unexpectedly spending time with while you were shooting?

JM: Joanna Newsome was someone that I didn’t realize I had met—well, I mean I did realize we had met previously. An ex-boyfriend of mine that was from where she grew up, we had met and then forgot and we reconnected and got to spend some time together. Not necessarily on set, but through the press campaign, because on set it was just Joaquin [Phoenix] and I. I didn’t really work with anyone else. Clive Owen, very briefly.


Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on November 27, 2017, 02:52:30 PM
But she knows with which Anderson she worked!
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Just Withnail on December 06, 2017, 12:17:55 PM
So, I couldn't stop writing after posting that thing above, and ended up expanding it quite a bit and posting it on my blog, with tons of little giffies.

Read it here if you wanna! (http://www.trulskranemeby.no/blog/2017/11/21/inherent-vice)

It's been loading a bit weirdly for me here, probably because of all the silly gifs, please shout if it doesn't load well for you guys.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on December 06, 2017, 01:51:54 PM
It doesn't load for me. Or it takes a lot of time? I'm keeping the page open.

EDIT: Okay. It loaded. It just takes time.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Just Withnail on December 06, 2017, 02:12:33 PM
Ah, I should probably take off a few images and see if it goes faster...
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 06, 2017, 02:17:13 PM
Takes slightly longer than most pages but it does load. Keep the images!
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on December 07, 2017, 03:33:35 AM
Just Withnail... I think you are a fantastic writer, and possibly our imaginations share many of the same proclivities. Thank you for writing this piece. I will be re-reading it tomorrow morning with some coffee. I'm especially glad you highlighted this film's use of architecture. After seeing it for the first time, my mind was turned-on to texture and spaces (and production design) in a way it hadn't been before.

For now I'd like to highlight how much of your thematic observation is essentially bottled lightning in the film itself.

Quote
All we see of Shasta and Doc’s former relationship is filtered through his rosy fantasies, so we never quite know what it was like, but it's clear that those fantasies have little to do with their relationship as it is now

It is as you wrote, this film is about flux and flow. In the scene where Shasta has shown up to Doc for a drink and a tryst we are treated to one of the film's most elusive duels (and this is a film composed of one-on-one sparring scenes). Joaquin and Katherine take us through the entire arc: Flirting, contention, aggression, climax, denouement. They do so while serving each other hearty doses of lust, so coated it's tough to see the love yet impossible to miss the chemistry. Then their climax is almost painfully resentful to any notion of "romance" even including a tear, and its angle excludes most of Doc's emotion, instead focusing on Shasta. Anyway you spin it, they're just as heartbroken as the other.

Quote
We simply can't contain the world in our heads, so it will always suprise us.

Although I know many friends who found the film's structure impenetrable, I've found that the best advice for IV first-timers is this: Do not try to "understand" the mystery, and do not try to remember each character. May seem strange, and even contrary to the point, I know, but it seems to work. When I tell people going into this film for the first time to prepare themselves to be confused, and that most characters won't appear more than once, they take it as the comedy, rather than an LA Neo-Noir or arthouse-thriller. It removes the expectation of "neatness" and ties into the chaos that makes this film so infinitely rewatchable/engrossing.

I may steal one of your screengrabs for my first 2018 Avatar.
Title: Re: Inherent Vice - SPOILERS!
Post by: Just Withnail on December 08, 2017, 06:51:00 AM
Thank you! I'm very happy to hear that.

I really like your thoughts on Shasta's seduction scene, I left that out completely as I didn't really know where to start with it - and it's certainly one of the central scenes in the film. It sticks out in every way.