Licorice Pizza - SPOILERS!

[achordion]

The movie spends ten minutes with Alana working for Wachs, she’s not sacrificing Gary for her career (there’s no career there anyway). The ending is clearly about repressing a desire that is deemed « unorthodox » by society. Alana doesn’t want to repress her romantic love/desire for Gary anymore. Like I said, after the police arrest the movie spends twenty minutes showing them talking about sex without doing it because Alana feels bad about it. Then Gary « respects » her choice by not groping her in her sleep. It’s the only narrative thread of the last half of the movie. PTA desperately wants them to be together for reasons that you won’t find in the movie, so the problem is dealt with at the end by comparing her situation with homosexuals in the seventies.

Working for Wachs is Alana taking on an adult world role, and yes, moving her career life forward. This is why there is the element of pride at being noticed for her work by Wachs. Her character motivations for running away from the Wachs situation are many. The thematic link of taboo is there, but to say its equating the two types of taboo is a stretch, plain and simple (and no amount of cataloguing minutes spent on particular topics will make it less of a stretch). Honestly, I think you're too fixated on your one interpretation to see what other undercurrents there are running through the film. Given the plot synopsis of this film, it sounds like you should've know that you would be put off by it going in. Seeing this type of narrative done with this degree of artistic awareness doesn't bother me, but the last shot was a let down, because it leaves things on too much of a romcom note, when the preceding two hours had been anything but typical romcom and we were given every reason to see why a real romance would not work between them.

She’s working with Gary when she’s collaborating with Wachs, by the way. I forgot to mention that. They were not separated. I’m not blind to the narrative around adulthood, but I’ve already mentioned that it builds toward the message that the respectability of adulthood is a myth, that age is a mental construct, in order to make an adult’s desire for a teenager as legitimate as any other form of desire. It’s done that with almost every adult character in the movie. I also think it is quite stupid. Not the idea that adulthood isn’t a myth, but the idea that it can be used as a justification to date teenagers. What’s new with the ending is the parallel with repressed desires, which is the main reason why PTA placed it before the romance is fully acknowledged. And the subject matter isn’t my issue; its treatment is.

You're not going to see an uptick in pedophilia because of this film , or whatever it is you're afraid of. The relationship, as its portrayed in the film, is not of a nature in which Gary would find himself feeling abused or taken advantage of in retrospect. The film does ask you to leave the rigid puritanism at the door, though.

The respectability of adulthood is, in fact, largely a myth. Almost everyone is faking it and/or performing an act. That's one thing the film really gets right. You'll notice however that the film isn't packed with adults getting with teenagers. This is because it isn't prescribing that form of relationship to be ideal or desirable, despite your best mental efforts to try to make it so.

[Jeremy Blackman]

The relationship, as its portrayed in the film, is not of a nature in which Gary would find himself feeling abused or taken advantage of in retrospect.

That was also my general impression, or hope, but how can we know? The movie cheats in this regard. It ends exactly when things get serious. From a filmmaking POV I understand why—it would be strange to include those kinds of consequences in a fantasy-inflected narrative. The movie is just not interested in that. In fact the whole thing is sort of contingent on not examining their relationship too closely. Having it truly begin as the film ends is a skillful sidestep, and one that clearly works for a lot of people.

I'd wager there are enough real-life examples of a boy/woman romance being developmentally or psychologically harmful for the boy that's it's presumptuous to assume someone like Gary will be fine. The whole reason adults typically don't have sex with 15-year-olds is that they may not be psychologically or emotionally prepared for a serious adult relationship with an actual adult. Alana has 10-13 years more experience, brain development, emotional maturity etc. that she's about to bring to bear on this relationship, and we just don't know how Gary is going to deal with that.

The film does ask you to leave the rigid puritanism at the door, though.

I don't think puritanism is at play here. Both Drenk and I liked Red Rocket, which is far more explicit than this film.

Spoilers for Red Rocket:

Spoiler: ShowHide

The girl in Red Rocket is clearly being exploited, but she's also very much into the relationship. She's sexually aggressive. She loves being with him. Does that make it right? Clearly not. And she is 2 years older than Gary.

If you're arguing that it's puritanical to want a more serious depiction of an adult/child relationship, that's an interesting definition of puritanism but not one I share.

I'm not saying Licorice Pizza should have been gritty and realistic! It can be a fantasy. But we should acknowledge that's largely what it is, is what I'm saying. I think we should also be honest and acknowledge that the adult/teen taboo is part of what's meant to make the love story exciting. PTA easily could have aged Gary up a bit or aged Alana down, but the age gap is the point.

[jviness02]

I suppose I'm basically in the middle of this. I agree the film is a fantasy, but I do not think the film is shying away from it being a fantasy. I think the age gap is there precisely to be a manifestation of the awkwardness between childhood and adulthood and the myth of adulthood. Similarly to how Scientology was used simply as devise and setting to explore something completely different in The Master, I think the age gap is here simply to set a stage to discuss the push and pull of transitioning to adulthood. However, if it's too much for others, or if others wanted it to be handled more seriously, I get it. I certainly don't think people who are cold to this are puritans.

I don't agree that the film is darker and more sinister than what meets the eye. There is nothing sad about the ending. I think all of that talk is mental gymnastics to try and add more to the film itself and the age gap stuff than there really is to it .

I agree with most of Drenk's points, but  I liked the film. The Wachs situation is absolutely there to show Alana forbidden love and to make her realize she needs to embrace her feelings for Gary. The difference is that just doesn't bother me because I think PTA knows he's telling a fantasy. Even comparing it 30's screwball comedies...most of those have outlandish scenarios that aren't remotely realistic. Therefore, I don't interpret it literally...like as a pro-pedo thing.

I also think the nature of this story leads us into fantasy territory. It's literally a collection of life stories told to PTA by his friend. The fish gets bigger every time you tell the story.  Perhaps the first time the story was told he hooked up with a senior. Then it was a college girl. By now she's twenty five.

But as mentioned, if someone wants to see similar subject matter handled in a more serious, realistic way, yes see Red Rocket.

[pynchonikon]

I suppose I'm basically in the middle of this. I agree the film is a fantasy, but I do not think the film is shying away from it being a fantasy. I think the age gap is there precisely to be a manifestation of the awkwardness between childhood and adulthood and the myth of adulthood. Similarly to how Scientology was used simply as devise and setting to explore something completely different in The Master, I think the age gap is here simply to set a stage to discuss the push and pull of transitioning to adulthood. However, if it's too much for others, or if others wanted it to be handled more seriously, I get it. I certainly don't think people who are cold to this are puritans.

I don't agree that the film is darker and more sinister than what meets the eye. There is nothing sad about the ending. I think all of that talk is mental gymnastics to try and add more to the film itself and the age gap stuff than there really is to it .

I agree with most of Drenk's points, but  I liked the film. The Wachs situation is absolutely there to show Alana forbidden love and to make her realize she needs to embrace her feelings for Gary. The difference is that just doesn't bother me because I think PTA knows he's telling a fantasy. Even comparing it 30's screwball comedies...most of those have outlandish scenarios that aren't remotely realistic. Therefore, I don't interpret it literally...like as a pro-pedo thing.

I also think the nature of this story leads us into fantasy territory. It's literally a collection of life stories told to PTA by his friend. The fish gets bigger every time you tell the story.  Perhaps the first time the story was told he hooked up with a senior. Then it was a college girl. By now she's twenty five.

But as mentioned, if someone wants to see similar subject matter handled in a more serious, realistic way, yes see Red Rocket.

jviness02, since you are perhaps the first one on this thread that is starting to come in terms with the fact that the film might indeed be a fantasy about childhood/adulthood, but still something about the ending doesn't feel right to you, try to answer these questions

1)Why Anderson chose to put Wachs as the final station to Alana's journey into adulthood
(Why he even chose to use a real-life politician that was closeted in real life-and didnt have a boyfriend then as he himself said on a recent interview)

2)Why he clearly (performance, dialogue) wrote Matthew as the "female" part of his romantic relationships

3)Why Wachs says to Matthew "that's not how the world works, you need to grow up"

4)Why Matthew says to Alana "They are all the same (shit), aren't they?"

You need to bring a missing ingredient on the table and you will understand why the ending is great, an ingredient that is apparent in the whole film (the structure of the plot, putting the film on a crucial time period for the States, the oil crisis on the background, the political scenery in the final arc) yet nobody wants to admit it's there and that it might also influenced PTA's writing amongst all the other aspects, because they keep watching this movie literally and because "Anderson was never interest to politics" and because "he always treated his characters as real human beings". The hints are all there, tho. Start from the ending, and then try this with the rest of the film.

[achordion]

The relationship, as its portrayed in the film, is not of a nature in which Gary would find himself feeling abused or taken advantage of in retrospect.

That was also my general impression, or hope, but how can we know? The movie cheats in this regard. It ends exactly when things get serious. From a filmmaking POV I understand why—it would be strange to include those kinds of consequences in a fantasy-inflected narrative. The movie is just not interested in that. In fact the whole thing is sort of contingent on not examining their relationship too closely. Having it truly begin as the film ends is a skillful sidestep, and one that clearly works for a lot of people.

I'd wager there are enough real-life examples of a boy/woman romance being developmentally or psychologically harmful for the boy that's it's presumptuous to assume someone like Gary will be fine. The whole reason adults typically don't have sex with 15-year-olds is that they may not be psychologically or emotionally prepared for a serious adult relationship with an actual adult. Alana has 10-13 years more experience, brain development, emotional maturity etc. that she's about to bring to bear on this relationship, and we just don't know how Gary is going to deal with that.

The film does ask you to leave the rigid puritanism at the door, though.

I don't think puritanism is at play here. Both Drenk and I liked Red Rocket, which is far more explicit than this film.

Spoilers for Red Rocket:

Spoiler: ShowHide

The girl in Red Rocket is clearly being exploited, but she's also very much into the relationship. She's sexually aggressive. She loves being with him. Does that make it right? Clearly not. And she is 2 years older than Gary.

If you're arguing that it's puritanical to want a more serious depiction of an adult/child relationship, that's an interesting definition of puritanism but not one I share.

I'm not saying Licorice Pizza should have been gritty and realistic! It can be a fantasy. But we should acknowledge that's largely what it is, is what I'm saying. I think we should also be honest and acknowledge that the adult/teen taboo is part of what's meant to make the love story exciting. PTA easily could have aged Gary up a bit or aged Alana down, but the age gap is the point.

I think it's puritanical to suggest this film is advocating adult/teen romance, in the sense that it's not supported by a clearheaded reading of the film.

Agree that the film is fantasy (like all rom-coms and certainly all screwball comedies) and the excitement of having an off-kilter foil is part of the draw. I wanted the characters to be a bit more clearly defined, and for the denouement to carry more weight, especially since that's a strong suit of all of PTA's other films, but ultimately it's meant to be an airy entertainment picture (his first).

[Jeremy Blackman]

I think it's puritanical to suggest this film is advocating adult/teen romance, in the sense that it's not supported by a clearheaded reading of the film.

Advocating or prescribing, no, probably not. But celebrating? Absolutely. I read the ending as pretty straightforwardly joyous. I think most people do. It's a victory over the "obstacle" that PTA describes in interviews.

Rather than rephrasing too much, I'll quote my initial spoiler take:

I would have to stretch pretty hard to view the end of this movie as a critical examination of Gary and Alana's relationship. Their fateful reunion is depicted as positively euphoric—about as close to endorsement as you can get. One could argue that this sequence, with its heavenly lighting and electric energy, is just a depiction of the character POVs. But it's very very hard to believe the movie isn't rooting for them. If the film means to cast a critical eye on their future, I'm not seeing it.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Trust me, I'm all for ambiguity and diverging interpretations. I'm all for having your own head canon or taking your own meaning from something.

But LP doesn't check those boxes for me. Maybe I'll change my mind on subsequent viewings, but I genuinely think the ending is pretty straightforward. And I'm personally not persuaded by any of the alternative takes:

- The last section is all a dream/symbol/fairy tale
- Actually three years passed
- The ending is so straightforward that it must not be
- The ending is so euphoric that it must actually be dark

I believe in the audience having an active role in a film's meaning. But some of these takes are so unsupported by the text that they don't seem interesting or useful to me.

[jviness02]

I suppose I'm basically in the middle of this. I agree the film is a fantasy, but I do not think the film is shying away from it being a fantasy. I think the age gap is there precisely to be a manifestation of the awkwardness between childhood and adulthood and the myth of adulthood. Similarly to how Scientology was used simply as devise and setting to explore something completely different in The Master, I think the age gap is here simply to set a stage to discuss the push and pull of transitioning to adulthood. However, if it's too much for others, or if others wanted it to be handled more seriously, I get it. I certainly don't think people who are cold to this are puritans.

I don't agree that the film is darker and more sinister than what meets the eye. There is nothing sad about the ending. I think all of that talk is mental gymnastics to try and add more to the film itself and the age gap stuff than there really is to it .

I agree with most of Drenk's points, but  I liked the film. The Wachs situation is absolutely there to show Alana forbidden love and to make her realize she needs to embrace her feelings for Gary. The difference is that just doesn't bother me because I think PTA knows he's telling a fantasy. Even comparing it 30's screwball comedies...most of those have outlandish scenarios that aren't remotely realistic. Therefore, I don't interpret it literally...like as a pro-pedo thing.

I also think the nature of this story leads us into fantasy territory. It's literally a collection of life stories told to PTA by his friend. The fish gets bigger every time you tell the story.  Perhaps the first time the story was told he hooked up with a senior. Then it was a college girl. By now she's twenty five.

But as mentioned, if someone wants to see similar subject matter handled in a more serious, realistic way, yes see Red Rocket.

jviness02, since you are perhaps the first one on this thread that is starting to come in terms with the fact that the film might indeed be a fantasy about childhood/adulthood, but still something about the ending doesn't feel right to you, try to answer these questions

1)Why Anderson chose to put Wachs as the final station to Alana's journey into adulthood
(Why he even chose to use a real-life politician that was closeted in real life-and didnt have a boyfriend then as he himself said on a recent interview)

2)Why he clearly (performance, dialogue) wrote Matthew as the "female" part of his romantic relationships

3)Why Wachs says to Matthew "that's not how the world works, you need to grow up"

4)Why Matthew says to Alana "They are all the same (shit), aren't they?"

You need to bring a missing ingredient on the table and you will understand why the ending is great, an ingredient that is apparent in the whole film (the structure of the plot, putting the film on a crucial time period for the States, the oil crisis on the background, the political scenery in the final arc) yet nobody wants to admit it's there and that it might also influenced PTA's writing amongst all the other aspects, because they keep watching this movie literally and because "Anderson was never interest to politics" and because "he always treated his characters as real human beings". The hints are all there, tho. Start from the ending, and then try this with the rest of the film.

What's your answer to these questions, in your opinion? (This is not sassy, I'm being genuine. The questions have peaked my interest and provoked thought)

[pynchonikon]

What's your answer to these questions, in your opinion? (This is not sassy, I'm being genuine. The questions have peaked my interest and provoked thought)

I will politely refuse to open my cards for the time being, until more male viewers stop perceiving Alana's character as a horny little bitch who wants -or even tries- to fuck like an animal (they keep ignoring the Lance segment, among all the other hints, but to each their own), which just feels to me like... a very weird -or even scary- hill to die on.

But yes, I was a bit naive when I initially interpreted the film the way I did, this is not just a twisted fairy tale or a revision of Anderson's filmography, this is essentially a remake of Inherent Vice through and through.

[jviness02]

What's your answer to these questions, in your opinion? (This is not sassy, I'm being genuine. The questions have peaked my interest and provoked thought)

I will politely refuse to open my cards for the time being, until more male viewers stop perceiving Alana's character as a horny little bitch who wants -or even tries- to fuck like an animal (they keep ignoring the Lance segment, among all the other hints, but to each their own), which just feels to me like... a very weird -or even scary- hill to die on.

But yes, I was a bit naive when I initially interpreted the film the way I did, this is not just a twisted fairy tale or a revision of Anderson's filmography, this is essentially a remake of Inherent Vice through and through.

Is that what a lot of people are saying? I don't think she comes off that way at all. She clearly didn't sleep with Lance or else she wouldn't have asked him about his penis. Between her handsy boss and Jack Holden and Jon Peters, it's pretty clear she could get sex if that's what she wants. That's clearly not what's driving her.

[Jeremy Blackman]

No, that's not at all what people are saying. I would say that she's a 25-28yo woman with a normal human libido, and that she's sexually attracted to Gary. These are pretty uncontroversial points that seem thoroughly supported by the film.

(I'm truly not sure where "horny little bitch" is coming from.)

[pynchonikon]

No, that's not at all what people are saying. I would say that she's a 25-28yo woman with a normal human libido, and that she's sexually attracted to Gary. These are pretty uncontroversial points that seem thoroughly supported by the film.

(I'm truly not sure where "horny little bitch" is coming from.)

You would say that based on what? Name certain scenes in the film that are told from her perspective and indicate such thing.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I don't even know where to start. Hand-holding, leg-touching, literally kissing him? Do you believe she fell in love with Gary without having any sexual desire for him? Speaking of puritanical, this is approaching a demented level of chaste retconning.

[pynchonikon]

I don't even know where to start. Hand-holding, leg-touching, literally kissing him? Do you believe she fell in love with Gary without having any sexual desire for him? Speaking of puritanical, this is approaching a demented level of chaste retconning.

I can't believe how anyone who doesn't watch just Marvel movies, and knows and has watched Paul Thomas Anderson films, would ever watch the leg-touching scene and wouldn't be able to understand that it's told entirely from Gary's perspective, the way he's staring at her, the way he's making the first move, the way his inner sexual desire wishes she would respond. I can't believe that I'm doing this.

I myself already admitted that the basic premise/superficial level of this film will understandably be a deal-breaker for many people, and I won't blame anyone who can't surpass it, but watching people treating this movie as a naturalistic depiction of a based-on-real-life human relationship is beyond me.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I respect your alternate reading. But you've got to admit that it's a bit of a galaxy-brain unconventional take. And from the outside, it does look like you're cherry-picking which parts you want to be real and which you don't.