INHERENT VICE (No Major Spoilers)

[polkablues]

Crap, I can't keep track of this clap track claptrap.

[SeanMalloy]

Only one way to find out!
See you at Alice Tully Hall tomorrow to confirm my suspicions.
Where did the NYFF get their trailer music?

[modage]

99% sure it's not Greenwood. NYFF basically does the same trailer every year with slightly different rhythmic music.

51st:


50th:


Etc.

[modage]

Tonight I will see "Inherent Vice" three times.

If the pattern of his last three movies follows, it will be something like this (on a highly accelerated timeline.)

The first I will spend reconciling with what it is not. Not like his other films, not like I expected, etc.
The second I will take on it's own terms. This is where I start to realize what it IS and appreciate that.
The third is a wild card. It's either the one where I've oushed it too far and needed a break or the one where everything snaps into place and it becomes a pure joy.

[max from fearless]

The gangs all there....

[mogwai]

Martin Short was recently on Kevin & Bean show, he could've squeezed the movie title in just to get some attention, yo.

[Marty McSuperfly]

The first review is in. The Telegraph in the UK gives Inherent Vice five stars: "What's clear from a bleary initial encounter, though, is that the film is stupendous: as antic as Boogie Nights and Punch-Drunk Love, but with The Master and There Will Be Blood's uncanny feel for the swell and ebb of history."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11131193/Inherent-Vice-review-blissed-out-bamboozlement.html

[MacGuffin]

SOME SPOILERS (a few quirky delights are spoiled)


Biopics and Noir Dominate a Festival
At New York Film Festival, History and Detectives
By STEPHEN HOLDEN; NY Times
SEPTEMBER 29, 2014

With three high-profile mysteries — "Inherent Vice," "Gone Girl" and "Maps to the Stars" — it might seem as though film noir was the dominant flavor of this year's New York Film Festival. But another theme runs through four selections: artist biographies. Call it a continental face-off between North America and Europe.

Starting this week, the festival brings biopics of the English Romantic painter J. M. W. Turner, the French couturier Yves Saint Laurent, the 18th-century German poet Friedrich Schiller, and the Italian filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini. In each instance, a rebellious artistic sensibility coincides with transgressive personal behavior to wreak emotional havoc.

That said, there is nothing in the festival remotely like "Inherent Vice," Paul Thomas Anderson's uproarious screen adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's 2009 novel. The festival's official centerpiece, this comic noir-to-end-all-noirs is set in 1970, and is suffused with the paranoia of the post-Charles Manson era when the hippie dream had entered its terminal phase and American culture seemed adrift in a purple haze.

Joaquin Phoenix portrays Doc Sportello, a lackadaisical private investigator combing the underbelly of Los Angeles and its environs for two missing persons, one of them his ex-girlfriend Shasta (Katherine Waterston). Josh Brolin, in a cartoonish flattop haircut, portrays Bigfoot Bjornsen, a corrupt, bullying police officer with a hilarious oral fixation. And Martin Short has a small, juicy turn as a beady-eyed druggy dentist. Reese Witherspoon, Benicio Del Toro, Owen Wilson and Jena Malone also pop into view. Behind it all lurks the menace of a mysterious, perhaps imaginary crime cartel known as the Golden Fang.

The movie creates a surreal vision of a bygone Southern California dense with smog and reeking of marijuana, when every street seemed to have its own massage parlor. The atmosphere is so steeped in vintage psychedelia that it is impossible to distinguish reality from fantasy; it could all be a dream. The best approach to "Inherent Vice" is not to look for profundity but to lie back, inhale imaginary clouds of secondhand pot smoke, and go with the flow of a yarn so amusingly convoluted it makes "The Big Sleep" feel like children's bedtime reading.

[MacGuffin]

SPOILERS

What We Learned About Paul Thomas Anderson's 'Inherent Vice' at the New York Film Festival
By Greg Cwik | Indiewire

Thomas Pynchon, the most heralded and iconic of the American post-modernists, has long been considered an unfilmmable novelist. His books are long, circuitous, densely-plotted and replete with allusions to physics, history, philosophy, culture, math, and classic literature, all penned in labyrinthine prose as playful as it is ponderous. But Paul Thomas Anderson ("There Will Be Blood," "The Master") attempts to grapple with the rarefied writer in his cinematic adaptation of Pynchon's "Inherent Vice," which screens as the Centerpiece of the New York Film Festival's main slate tonight.

A pot-steeped mystery with noirish leanings and (neon) shades of the Coen Brothers' "The Big Lebowski," the film depicts a paranoid stoner private eye named Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), who may or may not be entwined in a murder mystery.

Besides Phoenix (who was nominated for an Oscar for his searing work in Anderson's "The Master"), the vast cast includes Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson, Katherine Waterson, Jena Malone, Maya Rudolph and Martin Short.

After the Press and Industry screening in the Walter Reade theater this morning, the Film Society of Lincoln Center's Kent Jones moderated a panel discussion with the film's intimidatingly deep cast, and, of course, Anderson himself. Here's what we learned.


People love Martin Short

Martin Short, who plays a coked-out dentist-cum-syndicate-member clad in a deep, nearly ultra-violet suit, received the biggest applause of the 10-person cast. Sitting in the seat furthest from moderator Kent Jones, Short was the only cast member who wore a suit (Phoenix wore black jeans and a hoodie -- never change, Joaquin). One member of the press stood up and professed his love for Short, which spurred more applause from the audience, as well as a call of "about time!" When asked if anyone had actually read Pynchon's novel, some cast members peevishly held up hands; Short tersely stated, "I had my assistant read it to me. Same thing."

The shoot was loose and chaotic...maybe

Anderson faithfully adapted the spirit and tone of Pynchon's novel, but his brilliance, according to Joanna Newsom (who voices the film's narrator, whom Anderson described as Doc's always-right Gal Pal), comes from his "receptiveness to change." Newsom's first scene in the film, she said, was actually changed on the spot. Anderson decided to sit Newsom down in front of some jugglers at the end of a day's shoot. He asked the jugglers to stay put and they apparently complied.

Del Toro likened Anderson's directorial style to dancing, and Pieterse, who plays the drug-using daughter of a powerful syndicate representative, said that her scenes with Short could go on all day. She would banter with Short, trying out different ways of slamming car doors or saying lines while Anderson kept filming. (Impressive, given that "Inherent Vice" was shot on 35mm, not digital.)

Wilson described the shoot as "loose and chaotic," a sentiment echoed by several cast members, including Short and Pieterse. "Chaos comes down to something so simple, it's beautiful," Pieterse said.

However, Malone dissented with Short and Wilson, claiming that, with regards to her part, the focus on story and narrative and words was a "very structured process...chaos comes from a grounded logical base. You have to know where you're spinning from." Rudolph, Anderson's wife, has a minute role as Doc's assistant and she says that she was allowed to "improv a line about an afro, or something."


Actors love Paul Thomas Anderson

When asked about the film, almost every actor responded with fawning praise for Anderson. Michael Kenneth Williams mentioned that he's best known for his television work (ever heard of "The Wire?"), so he was concerned going into his audition and going on 48 hours without sleep. He "thought Paul hated [him.]" ("I did hate you," Anderson retorted.) Williams was shocked to learn that Anderson wanted to sit down with the performers and "talk," given how fast-paced things are on a TV set.

Anderson had faith in his actors, allowing Phoenix and Wilson to recite their sharp, rhythmic dialog in single takes; using two-shots and slow, subtle pushes, Anderson felt that the less editing he had to do, the better.

Since the cast was so large (a return to Anderson's earlier ensemble style), most performers were only around for a day or two, so "I had to spend all day with this guy," Anderson snarkily said, pointing to a stoic Phoenix.

Anderson doesn't care if the film is confusing

Howard Hawkes' classic adaptation of Raymond Chandler's "The Big Sleep" is notorious for its utter lack of resolution. Legend goes that Hawkes and William Faulkner (who contributed some whip-smart dialog) phoned Chandler one night to ask who the murderer in the story was. "I don't know," was Chandler's response.

"'The Big Sleep' is impossible to follow, but it doesn't matter," Anderson said. "You just want to keep watching it, seeing where it goes." That's what he wanted from "Inherent Vice."

Anderson loves "fart and poop jokes"

"Literary is a bad word," Anderson quipped while talking about Pynchon's ability to mingle profundity with immature humor. (The film is replete with dick and vagina jokes -- and features "graphic nudity," according to the prudish MPAA.)

Hong Chau read the book

Chau, who watched myriad films from the '50s to the Summer of Love in preparation for her role as Jade, read "Inherent Vice" before auditioning for her role (hers was one of the few classic auditions, as she didn't know Anderson previously). When asked about the book, she began to recite her favorite passages. Hopefully we'll see a lot more of Chau in Andersons future endeavors -- she has a sharp sense of comedic timing.


Joaquin Phoenix hates press conferences

By far the most notable occurrence, or rather nonoccurence of the 30-minute conference was Phoenix's silence. The actor is known for his reluctance to do interviews and press conferences -- last year, during the conference for "The Immigrant," Phoenix slumped into his seat, pushed a pair of sunglasses up the bridge of his nose and stared vacantly. Later, he was seen kicking a lamp post across the street (seriously, that happened -- I saw it).

This year, Phoenix gave the press the silent treatment. He literally said nothing the whole time. It's fine if you don't wanna talk about your art in depth -- last year John Goodman responded to every question during the "Inside Llewyn Davis" conference with a self-deprecating joke and it was glorious. But Phoenix's refusal to say anything was a little disappointing, especially since Anderson had to restrain himself from "geeking out" over tech questions.If Phoenix was restraining himself, he did it with exceeding persistence. Maybe some blame should fall on the press for asking pretty lame questions, or with the other actors for sharing anecdotes about how much they love Anderson. Maybe having eleven people on stage was a bit unwise, more of a publicity stunt since it clearly wasn't conducive to conversation, who knows. Phoenix, one of the most gifted and fervid actors of this or any generation, is a critical favorite, and everyone would love to pick his brain. Maybe next New York Film Festival he'll let us.

[Jeremy Blackman]

That article looks a bit spoiler-ridden too. Should we post those in the other thread?

[Reel]

Yes

[Lottery]

QUIRKY DELIGHT MINOR SPOILER.




watch?v=xHdnLJ6fnE4

Cool. But I wonder if Jonny G will be eligble for an Oscar nom this time round.
Woah, right, right sorry. I didn't even think that over properly. Was more concerned about Jonny.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/04/inherent_vice_features_new_radiohead_song_spooks_jonny_greenwood_s_contributions.html

[Gittes]

I know that there are varying degrees of sensitivity involved with regards to what constitutes a spoiler and what doesn't. Everyone is different. In my view, Lottery, what you just posted is a spoiler. I'm sure you weren't intending to spoil anything, but you shouldn't show up in a non-spoiler thread and refer to details from the movie that ought to be a delightful surprise. I believe the thread's title was just recently amended to reflect its non-spoiler status, though, so I'm sure this was an honest mistake. Also, I'm not trying to reprimand you or anything; this is just meant as a friendly reminder. It's not a massive spoiler, to be sure, but there are people out there who are trying to "get as close to the bone as possible," to borrow Anderson's words from a 2007 interview:

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: With all this talk about the radical distribution model for the new Radiohead album, Paul, I wondered if what they did might have inspired you to think that maybe you should just put your new movie up on the web and let people pay whatever they want for it... I'm joking. I think.

ANDERSON: God, I mean, it's every person's dream, I suppose, to have ownership. Unfortunately, to make a film this size, it would be impossible to finance myself. I'd have to come up with something that I could do on a smaller scale so that I could do that. Because you don't get pride of ownership when you make a film. You get pride of authorship. And you get paid for it — that's the switch-off. But movies aren't far behind [music] in falling apart — I mean, the business itself. One of the films that I have the fondest memory of seeing is Gallipoli, because I knew absolutely nothing about it. My brother said, ''Let's go see this movie.'' And I said, ''What's it about?'' He said, ''I'm not going to tell you.'' And I hadn't seen the poster, I hadn't seen a trailer or anything, and it was such an amazing experience. [Talking about the Radiohead release] just made me think of it. To be able to just kind of get something as close to the bone as possible, without too much intrusion...

I've read the book, and I'm still trying to remain as spoiler free as possible, because, obviously, the film will offer its own distinct pleasures. At any rate, I also need to do my part and try to resist the temptation to peruse even ostensibly non-spoilery pieces of information/discussion.

[martinthewarrior]

Gotta say, if the Lottery post is enough to constitute a spoiler for you, it's probably a decent idea to just stay out of Inherent vice threads until you see it? Pretty innocuous, bro.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Yeah, I kind of agree. I tend to feel strongly about spoilers... in fact, were I not moderating the board I would probably stay out of both threads right now... but I think I consider Lottery's post a minor spoiler.

Which is, in fairness, still a spoiler. So I'm going to change this topic's title once again to reflect that.

Part of me genuinely wants to put the boot down and say this thread needs to remain pristine, but that's probably not realistic or constructive. I'm not sure what else can be said about the film that does not include shades of minor spoilage. So if you want to avoid all spoilers, I would avoid both threads.

It could change (asking what other admins think), but I think this is what we're doing now... this thread which can include very minor spoilers, and an all-out spoiler thread.