The Meaning of Inherent Vice
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Thanks for watching!
A great companion-piece written by a fan of the movie! Check it out here!
drive.google.c...
/ jackmoviereview
www.jacksmovier...
Inherent Vice. Anderson. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2014. 
Кино
One thing I want to add to the meaning of the title is that Inherent Vice doesn't just refer to something damaging itself, it means the damage came from an inherent property of the object. It means the chocolate melted because chocolate is fundamentally meltable. So it's not just saying that the dream of the 60's died under the oppressive vice of capitalism, it's more saying that the dream of the 60's was unsustainable due to the nature of man. It was killed by humanities inborn greed and desire for power. Our inherent vice.
Excellent phrasing, basically what I was trying to say but much more elegantly.
Perhaps the teeth are merely (or additionally) symbolic of Humans' tendency to deteriorate not just physically (and heroin induced), but as a society, as represented by the end of the whole Summer of Love/hippy idealism to the paranoid 70s, Vietnam etc etc. The use/sale of illicit/harmful drugs & propaganda to control/manipulate populations, fund black ops or bring people down for others gain (to name just a few relevant to the film). Very similar to the opium wars in modern times.
Further we see Shasta refer to the title and her own deterioration of spirit/self.
Spot on Wylkus42!
Cheers :-)
that was explained in the movie pretty well I felt. Like that line in Synecdoche, New York, 'the end is in the beginning'.
Wylkus42
Dang
That's good shit
One of my favorite part of this movie is at the very end when Bigfoot kicks Doc's door in. And takes a drag from his spliff, then they start saying the same words at the same time. And then Bigfoot starts eating all the marijuana on the table. Notice that in that moment Doc starts to cry. He asks in worry "Are you okay brother?" to which Bigfoot replies "I'm not your brother". Then Doc: "No, but you could use a keeper." This is after Doc has helped solve the mistery of who killed Bigfoot's partner (that wasn't a mistery to Bigfoot), and get his revenge. Throughout the movie they were constantly picking on eachother, messing with one-another but they also had respect, and even some kind of admiration towards one-another, that they never showed. That was the moment when Bigfoot accepted Doc by trying pot, well not just trying, but literally eating a handful of cannabis. Since in Bigfoot's head, Marijuana represents Doc, that is his thing, at least to Bigfoot. That is why Doc was crying, he was so moved by this gesture. And even though this was all done in the most Bigfoot way, Doc could see through all of that. I love this movie for these character interactions, that is shown visually, but not necessarily spoken out. Another one is when Chasta seduces Doc, but I'll leave that to you. :)
Lol. I think what works so well in this movie is the contrast between Bigfoot and Doc. They are both outsiders of a time left behind, but are also completely different
ruukaoz hi your commentary is exactly why I was looking at analyzing this film. Thank you...also my favorite scene. Possible Bigfoot is alien being from another planet....also he was abused by his wife. Bigfoot's wife was a bully.
A lot of people in the novel admire Doc I think. There are two lines that made me think 'yeah, go on my man!' in the way you do when you root for your hero in a movie. First, there is that wonderful line Coy says to him right after Doc rescues him, 'you're a dangerous operator', or something very similar to that. How right he is. it is a dangerous world Doc is in, but he navagates his way through it. He is so worthy of admiration. Then there's the great line Doc says to Fenway when they meet towards the end, where he warns him 'if you jive with me...'. Way to go Doc!! But, as well, he is caring and empathetic, hence his word to Big Foot. He is a hell of a fella is Sportello!
I love this film and appreciate a lot a lot your analysis, but could you pls explain the scene of seduction the way you did with Bigfoot at the end? Tnx in advance! :)
I was so confused when I saw that
I thought he was pissed instead of moved lmao
She went all groovy on us
shatsa........shasta fay.........shasta fay hepworth
@@oktg91 man, bigfoot fuck you. Lol
She's gone Gone baby
I laughed to hard at that part 😂😂
@@highniijii he told him "she's gone, she's gone Spinello. Gone? Yea, she went all groovy on us" lol asshole Bigfoot is to him lol
Jesus I love this movie too death, my favorite PTA film.
Not my favorite but certainly one of his best
You missed the biggest Easter Egg...
what easter egg?
Yes it's his first real masterpiece. He is always stronger when he does outright comedy than, say, melodrama.
Can you make an explanation on why is your favorite PTA movie? Or even why do you exactly love about this film?
When I first saw this in theatres I thought I was dumb because I couldn't follow it haha. But after reading a plot synopsis it made more sense to me and overall I enjoyed it. Especially Joaquin Phoenix, that man is so under appreciated as an actor. You should dissect I'm Still Here, that'd be cool
+Jared Kunish That could be really interesting, thanks for the idea!
JP finally got that well-deserved Oscar, not that he cares about it that much..but I enjoyed the moment his name was called, and appreciated his speech which calls for all of us to fight injustice.
"I'm Still Here". Hilarious.
watching The Big Lebowski and this back to back is why we are alive
Thats just like, your opinion man
Donnie you're out of your element.
I'll be honest. This story was sure as hell a bit tough to make sense of during various parts of the movie, but one thing that is unquestionable is Joaquin Phoenix's acting. He is just so convincing. He seemed naturally like a confused, out of touch stoner with the most carefree attitude in the world about everything happening around him. So convincing. Brilliant actor.
I had to re-watch it with subtitles on. Too much mumbling for me to make out what was being said. I thought it was a fantastic movie and I'm not a big fan of this director. I've never made it through There Will Be Blood and don't plan on trying again.
I think the picture shown around 1:45 is not Pynchon but Gary Snyder. There are no known pictures of TP after 1957.
This is how I explain the story: This movie is a character study from Doc's point of view, we see the world the way he sees the world. He has almost no idea what's going on, he's just following leads, therefore the audience has no idea what's going on and is just following him follow leads. Which I love, because we are there with Doc through the whole film, it keeps us close to him and it keeps it hilarious
I totally agree, it's great seeing the world from this crazy character's eyes!
Agreed. this is emphasized when we see Doc writing stuff like "something in Chinese" in his notebook. He's totally clueless most of the time, and it's hilarious.
Because in reality... a lot of times... nothing is going on. A bunch of characters running around if you're 'sober' enough to see it. But obviously you get closer to one you see their deep intricacies and fine detail. Very interesting.
I like how you described this. Sounds like he might almost be a Holistic Detective. Going to take a watch now.
Yeah so the trick is to write characters that are incoherent so then when your story is incoherent it can’t be called bad writing. Genius
"I for one am definitely pro-capitalism"
That didn't age well
What do you mean?
For one thing, medical supplies are in short supply because hospitals have to bid against one another for them in the middle of the current global crisis. That certainly is not because of socialism
There's just something about the genocidal wars and systemic poverty necessary to sustain it that irks me
@Ben Porter There's nothinhg wrong if you are part of the small percentage that has capital
I like how PTA's recent movies focus on transitional moments in American history and center around pairs of characters who somehow sum up competing alternatives at the time: the Satanic oil man vs. the callow boy preacher in There Will be Blood, or the ebullient self-actualization guru and the damaged vet in The Master. In this film, you have two characters who embody competing sides of the '60s (the hippie stoner and the crew-cut authoritarian cop) yet gradually discover that, in the '70s, the conflict that defined their relationship is being obviated, as the world of drugs and New Age religion and the corporate world increasingly start to fuse.
He does a good job at taking opposites and showing why they are the same
i thought the new age place was just rehab but in his weird mind looked like a cult
Hey You! You're losing you're losing you're losing yourrrrrrrr vitamin C vitamin C....
-Can
I'm gonna be a little controversial, but this is my favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film, he is one of my favorite directors and I know that movies like Magnolia, Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood are better, but I always come back to Inherent Vice.
+Walter Olivero Christiansen It's one of my favorites, but so hard to compare it because it is so different
Absolutely. For me it replaced magnolia.
Walter Olivero Christiansen I agree with you, by far my favorite PTA film. My favorites would be Inherent Vice, The Master, and There Will be Blood
Walter Olivero Christiansen What about Punch - Drunk Love and The Master
Don't worry. Boogie Nights is not better than Inherent Vice imo. It's a bloated fictional biopic that tries to be Scorsese and Tarantino simultaneously (not that that can't be done right BUT) While I can see why Inherent Vice is controversial, most of PTA's later work is 1000% an improvement on Boogie Nights. His subsequent movies Magnolia and The Master being hard evidence.
First of, not my favourite PTA film (Magnolia gets the nod). Secondly, I'm a long time Pynchon fan, as is apparently PTA.
This movie is a surprisingly accurate adaptation, despite the fact the book is even more confusing than the film. That PTA even managed to make it is a testament to his immense talent.
In order to understand the film you need to read the book and preferably the entire Pynchon catalogue. That's asking a lot, I know, but at least reading VINELAND together with Inherent Vice will help. Inherent Vice, VINELAND and Crying of Lot 49 constitute what some would call the minor Pynchon novels or "Pynchon Light" (the major ones being V., GR, M&D and AtD btw).
A bit of Archaeology at this point: I prefer to call the three minors his California trilogy. You can ignore Lot 49 almost entirely for the purpose of IV, but VINELAND is essential to understanding. Lot 49 was written in the 60s and plays out in the 60s, VINELAND plays out in 1984 (remember Orwell) but was released in 1990. IV was released in 2009 but takes place in 1970. The order is thus: Lot 49 -> Inherent Vice -> VINELAND in proper chronology.
PTA has talked in interviews about wanting to film VINELAND, but failing, while also admitting it is one he often re-reads. This is understandable.
VINELAND takes place in the 70s - 80s wasteland after IV (mainly in 1984), but with major historical flashbacks to the early 20th century. It is also the warmest of all his novels and depicts this surviving 60s hippie ("Zoyd" as he is called in this here, but might as well be "Doc".) as he is grappling with his alienation from his daughter and his wife (gone missing similar to Shasta but for even more sinister reasons) while staying true to his "hippie" ideals in the Ronald Reagan era of "Say no to Drugs", oppressive DEA agents and the ever present MTV and soap TV bombarding at 60 frames per second.
In IV, Doc Sportello represents all the ideals of the 60s while Shasta represents America. She's not just his girlfriend he longs for (he lost her before the 70s happened as far as we can tell .. great clue btw) and while Doc represents the ideals of the 60s, Shasta represents the innocence of America as a whole. The name Shasta is not chosen by random btw. The county of Shasta in California was one of the liberal counties won by George McGovern (the guy Hunter S. Thompson supported in 1972 .. remember) but which then turned violently to the evil side and has remained staunchly Republican ever since. Either a selling out or a seduction. Make of it what you will.
In VINELAND Pynchon makes the case that the innocent want to be seduced, or are open to seduction, while in IV he makes the case that perhaps it was the unreasonable expectations of the 60s generation to remain children forever that was the undoing of their utopia. IV makes it clear that the change is already under-way, and we see this through Docs eyes. Shasta has put her chips on what she believes is a rigged table, with open eyes (advised by one of the architects Micky Wolfman ... great name by the way for such a person) while 'Doc' is consulting with Ouija boards, astrology and pure stoned intuition and refuses to see what is happening. We see the unfolding of the 60s through Docs eyes as we pass into the 70s. In VINELAND 'Doc' .. sorry, I mean 'Zoyd', has understood this with the power of hindsight, and kind of understands the errors of the 60s -- the rigged table, the fog of the drugs, the seductive power of authoritarianism, but he can only act as a child of the 60s in this hostile environment. VINELAND is an extraordinary minor work by Pynchon, he addresses much larger topics in his "major books" but made quite a singular and personal work out of VINELAND which is in it self needed to understand IV. Pynchon is angry, sentimental and perhaps even remorseful; he was after all part of it.
Inherent Vice is important as a compliment to VINELAND, to widen the perspective. The books enhance each other. VINELAND is a better book than IV but perhaps the latter made for better cinema.
With all this said, IV the movie, lets us in closely on the personal agony of Doc Sportello (or 'Zoyd') as the great utopian 60s project falls apart. And it is beautifully executed by PTA. Especially the entirely original ending where Bigfoot kicks the door in. PTA clearly understood or "got" the book. The film is actually made by a Pynchon fan for other Pynchon fans and not easily understood for those unfamiliar with him.
Let me also add that I'm neither British nor American, English is not my major language (I am Scandinavian) and that the time period was not my own. Still I feel this analysis to be true. Make of it what you will and enjoy the books. Cheers :-)
Just my minor thoughts.
[edits]: corrected some spelling errors and what not as I re-visited this thread.
This is one of the most helpful analysis I've read on the film. Have had Vineland waiting on my shelf for a couple months now. Thanks for being so thoughtful and spending that time.
Peter Grant Way better analysis then this video tbh. After watching this film I knew I needed to read some Pynchon and started with The Crying of Lot 49 (as everyone does) and absolutely loved it. I've picked up Slow Learner but am still undecided about which novel to pick up next. Leaning towards Inherent Vice since it's meant to be one of his simplest and best, but I'm open ears to any suggestion?
Firstly, I'm am not going to recommend any particular book but instead point you in the direction of some resources you will find useful. If you ever intend to read GR you should get the excellent "Gravity's Rainbow Companion" by Steven Weisenburger (I have it and can recommend it). There are book guides for Lot and V. as well but I have not read either guide, so I will not comment on their quality.
The ultimate Pynchon authority on the net is thomaspynchon.com/ which has a "Pynchon Wiki" with entries on all his books. Despite this it is not as user-friendly (IMO) as having a reference at hand in book form while reading the works.
There is a separate guide for VINELAND in pdf format only called "Babies of Wackiness", well worth printing out, and it can be downloaded here: www.mindspring.com/~shadow88/BoW.pdf (most of it was later incorporated in the Pynchon Wiki btw).
Secondly, I suggest you read reviews of the books you intend to commit to. Pynchon Wiki has links to reviews for each separate book and even a guide for Pynchon newbies. (Make sure to search the web for Salman Rushdies review of VINELAND, it is great!)
Thirdly and finally, Jack's Movie Reviews did a great job breaking down the film, I respect his views very much, but opinions differ. Don't bash him for doing this for free for your enjoyment.
Cheers :-)
There is a super lecture on Lot 49 if you look up Yale and Dr Amy Hungerford. She did a series of lectures on post modern English literature. She tackles Lot 49 as art of this series. She explains as you do ho Pynchon deliberately gave added meaning to his characters by the names he gives them, so I think you are bang on with the Shasta idea.
Peter Grant most excellent! Pynchon is a sublime commentator on our times, but he is equally hilarious.
I like the analysis but don't agree that Doc himself isn't changing. Remember, at the beginning of the story he mentions he's "got an office now, it's like a day job and everything." He also shows that he's just as susceptible to outside influences as anyone when he changes his hair to an afro.
Also, I'd like to say that yes I think you hit on a lot of the capitalism stuff, but I think it goes deeper in that these institutions somehow come to represent a lot of the aspects of human nature that are immutable. Capitalism is like the dark, selfish, animalistic code ingrained in our DNA. Shasta, after she comes back, seems to be attempting to draw Doc's more primordial side out when she "seduces" him. This makes us all wonder if she's there as an agent of Vigilant California or simply as an ex-girlfriend.
At the end though, yes we see that Doc refuses the money, attempts to put the pieces back together, and go on with his life. However, I think he realizes that it wasn't the external dark forces of the Golden Fang and Capitalism that are eroding the 60s counter culture -- it's instead the inherent vice of the hippy movement which collapsed under the weight of its own unsustainable shortcomings. That's the real tragedy.
Thnx I really hate that ppl just blame capitalism for the end of the 60s. It was more of their own bad eggs that killed the culture than some big bad corporation demolishing their dreams by monetizing it.
It was more so the fact their own culture couldn't be sustained due to the erosion of their own existence by meaningless search into redundant philosophical life styles.
Under a socialist system they wouldn't have been even allowed to expierence those lives since the state is ur God and ur will is theirs to command.
No govt would allow work shy pesants to roam their cities never mind the drugs and sex.
In the end it was the drugs, sex and lack of productivity that killed them off. With the fear of manson protruding for the anti hippies to point to.
Capitalism would be the only system where hippies could exist it turns out.
Shasta Fey wears orange in her opening scene, which is very much the blue/orange cinematic color wheel. In the end, when Doc takes Coy home, the light from inside the house is the same orange as Shasta's dress. ( IE Doc's reward for his journey is the completeness of this family. ) And Bigfoot is in an orange shirt and tie when he kicks in Doc's door and gives in to his urge to "join" the counter culture that has been so much a part of his career as a police officer. Color symbolism abounds throughout this wonderful movie.
You know I was so hyped on this movie, and when I finally got the chance to watch it I was still a smoker. Now after the first viewing, I was completely lost. Hadn’t watched it since and had recently got it on BluRay in an attempt to give it another chance. Now idk if it had just so long since my first viewing, but watching it again I went in with a completely separate mind set of how I interpreted. The story has come together so much easier than it had the first time and I’m not sure it is because of already seeing it once (albeit with memory of only vague details and the basic plot line, barely even remember how it had ended) or if it was because I wasn’t blitzed out of my mind like I was the first time. Basically just wanted to say that if you dislike or just aren’t vibing with a movie the first viewing, just completely zap it from your mind and see how you feel about a few years from then. You’d be surprised what time can do lol
Same, ish. It took me 5 years to watch this movie and actually understand the plot. I was immediately addicted to it just for its atmosphere (the way characters interact is so PRESENT), but never could interpret the plot. This time, I was minorly stoned, alone, and turned on subtitles. Also I had gotten over the cinematography and could focus finally on the dialogue
Reviews made it seem so incoherent when it came out and I kind of agreed initially. But since I wrote this, I’ve seen it a few more times and I appreciate it a lot more than before. Everything comes together perfectly. I think it’s one that people will come back to and appreciate a lot more later on down the line
Great analysis. I'm gonna watch this movie again.
+RUDE I'm glad you enjoyed!
This movie is over most people’s heads. It’s a love story.
And also The Master, I'd put in the same category
I enjoyed your video, sir. I remember leaving the theater feeling confused but satisfied after watching Inherent Vice. The soundtrack is fantastic. There are enough moments of genuine heart and emotion to offset the meandering story. I remember feeling a similar way after watching The Big Lebowski for the first time. It's upon repeated viewings that you begin to see through the haze of smoke and finally understand it.
PTA is prolly my favorite director, and this is certainly one of his best. IDK how critics didn't appreciate it. Joaquin may be the greatest actor of all time behind Daniel Day Lewis. His last string of performances have been phenominal.
JP completely disappears into his characters, every single time. I can't help having empathy even for the most "evil" ones.
“I, for one, am pro-capitalism” - read some Marx
Fishbeast Productions well, its like saying i am pro freedom. I do not support every kind of freedom just like many doesnt support full capitalism when they say they support it.
I love the shot of Katherine Waterson in the rain.
Glenn's sister is something that will not get out of my head for a loong time
This film was referred to as a "shaggy dog story" and although it may seem more than that, the aspect of shaggy dog stories being turgid and playing upon the viewers' enjoyment of humor makes its anti-climax all the more tolerable. There was no murder mystery but there were plenty of enjoyable and interesting characters from which this film derived its depth. The casting was first-rate, every role was flawlessly executed right down to the revelation that Bigfoot was hen-pecked to the max. Brolin and Phoenix were superb together.
Absolutely great movie. Incorruptible and lacking inherent vice himself, he subconsciously navigates the egoic world of hypocrisy and corruption to succeed with his relationships and integrity intact.
What about the scene where doc and bigfoot talk at the exact same time???
Rob Duncan they just feel bad about what happened last night and starting apologize each other
my public library has a copy and I've seen it a couple of times and I recommend it but one thing shasta isn't there she might even already be dead?
That is very possible, I've heard a lot of fan theories about that, a few that go into the idea of reincarnation. I'm not too big on speculation personally.
What does "Pro Capitalism" even mean? Such a simplistic misleading thing to say. Even a great philosopher like Karl Popper shows that Capitalism untempered by Socialism is as bad as Socialism untempered by Capitalism. Throw out both terms and say rather sometimes we need to tinker things so the money trickles down, and other times so it trickles up.
I remember being a stoner as a teenager for years me and my friends would get stoned and wonder around there's a kind of attitude to being a stoner this is doc perfectly just goes with the flow
the best comment out here
I don't WANT to try and know what this movie means, so I'lm going to stop the video at 1:09...for my own protection from Inherent Vice.
I love to hear analysis of this film. I like your theory about capitalism. I think there are more too. Definitely a mind control element and CIA/Cult/TV "Channel view" driving some peoples behaviour. I wrote about it on IMDB. I'd love to hear your thoughts and discuss in more detail.
www.imdb.com/title/tt1791528/board/nest/255997872?ref_=tt_bd_1
I love that interpretation, that never even crossed my mind. I guess that is part of what makes PTA so great, he's able to talk about so much in his movies but disguise it so well.
+Jacks Movie Reviews Just like Kubrick
I agree to that layer, if you read Vineland by Pynchon, this dimension is inherent :-) Vineland is earlier and setting more or less the same frame, but without the Dashiell Hammett Maltese Falcon story; In Vineland the "big conspiracy" is exactly about this "mind control" (to keep it short - very short)
Jan Andersen sounds cool. I'll have to check it out. Thanks.
First off, let me say excellent video. You're probably the only one who's managed to eloquently and coherently explain what Inherent Vice is and how it's woven, down to the finest detail.
But outside of that, I agree with this 100%. I'd like to add, also, that the "second" scene with Shasta is not only the best scene in my opinion, but an incredibly unique tragedy that sums up what Doc's journey is about: A confused and drunk, yet, heartfelt attempt to bridge a connection to the peculiar lost spirit of innocence and moral balance, trampled by the corruption and avariciousness of 70s capitalism, beautifully personified by Shasta, given that the looming "inherent vice" of time is the change within itself and all the challenges that come with it. It's insane how Paul managed to capture the heartbreak of said scene without averting the careful attention to detail and nuance. Even weirder how such a sad scene was actually comedic in the book o.O
Brilliant movie
I really appreciate that, Inherent Vice is a movie that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, you could spend HOURS talking about the different scenes, characters and what they represent, different shots, different interactions, but I think that the best way to discuss it is simply try and show the main message, apply that to a few scenes and let the viewers do the rest.
I'm glad you enjoyed!
Jack's Movie Reviews
For sure, I agree man. Gonna show this to a friend tomorrow. Hoping for the best
Lynch Stan
I appreciate it! Thank you!
When talking about the "second scene" with Shasta, I assume you are talking about the racy long shot? Interesting how you viewed it as sad. I didn't get that impression on my first two views, but maybe I'll see it differently next time. Certainly not a happy scene, and I see what you mean about a lack of emotional connection, but I don't think it as sad...
More like Incoherent Vice
The feeling of ambiguity of the plot is the same feeling i get even in present day to day life, politics or people’s relations and interest in one another, the movie reflects that perfectly in my opinion, there is an underlying truth just like the events we live in our present time, so they don’t hand over to you like in other movies, you are just as informed or left wondering by the events regardless of the era 60s 70s or todays, the end scene foreshadows the last scene nothing will change because of the human nature, only the frame is different just like our perspective
I agree with you.
I saw this on Reddit, hopefully it'll get some more traffic because it definitely deserves it.
To be honest, I didnt find the plot to be that hard to follow, or if I did I didnt notice since I was so invested in the characters and crazy scenes. I feel like in order to enjoy this movie to the fullest you just have to look at it as less of a mystery or detective story and more as a comedy with those elements.
I didnt really grasp the capitalism analogy while watching but once you've laid it out it does add another layer that I'm sure I'll appreciate when I watch this again.
Great video!
+rinsimyaldee1 Thanks for watching!
Hands down favorite PTA film, and I love all of his filmography. His collaborations with Johnny Greenwood is one of the best things that's happened to humanity.
I would have to place this in my top 3 PTA films, alongside The Master and Boogie Nights (#2 and #1 respectively).
I think, or at least hope, that Inherent Vice will become a cult classic in the next decade or so. As both a PTA and Pynchon fan I found it spellbinding, especially on a second viewing.
It's top 5 for me, I think cult classic status is entirely possible!
Also, two things about Doc Sportello that I find interesting. One is his arc, or lack of one. You mentioned it, but there's something realistic about a character who doesn't go through a dramatic personality change as a result of the plot. People tend to not change much, especially when given a short period of time, and Doc remains very much himself by the end of the mystery.
Another thing about him is less unique to Doc and more a recurring element in Pynchon's characters, for those who have read his books. Doc is a perfect example of the sympathetic degenerate, someone who does drugs and/or indulges in sexual taboos but comes off as likable despite (or maybe because of?) these perceived flaws. A lot of Pynchon's characters fall into that type, although by film standards Doc is rather atypical.
Brian Collins
I really like that, it feels like an excerpt in this crazy world. He is far from a high moral character, but a well written and phenomenally well acted one
our feelings towards him change though. At the start, we see him as just a hippie stoner, but by the end, when he is being told by Coy that he is 'a dangerous operator' and when he warns Fenway not to '...jive with me', my attitude towards him changes. I wouldn't f**k with him by the end of the story! He took on the Golden Fang and lived!!
What he did for Coy is fucking insane, he pulled some strings because of his connections and even Coy acknowledged it, and the reason he got that connection is literally by being kind, he returned the daughter of a powerful lawyer. With the exchange, he didn't even take any money, he just did what was right, Lege was his voice of reason and he listened to her.
Nice video, I just saw Easy Rider, which is sometimes thought as the whole Hippie movement and how it came to an end, with all the inconsistencies of such movement, and I just felt that now that I understand Inherent Vice, I think that they share a very similar meaning. Just my opinion anyways.
Not to toot my own horn here, but I honestly did not have any trouble following this story, this is an insanely brilliant film, I had never read anything by Thomas Pynchon, barely had even heard of him. Once again, Joaquin Phoenix puts out in his usual stellar fashion, I am totally spoiled by his command of craft.
the first time i watched this movie, i saw it with a friend. Neither of us could remember the last time a movie made us laugh like Inherent Vice did. Regardless of the plot being confusing, the characters made the movie enjoyable and hilarious. Upon watching it a second time, i understood the story better and loved the movie even more. I then showed it to another friend, who tried to follow the plot so closely, he completely missed the comedy in the movie. Im glad you mentioned this in the video. Looking foreward to more reviews!
+bryan guzman Thanks Bryan I'm glad you enjoyed! It is such a fun movie, and it works so well as a comedy, but also as a mystery on 2nd/3rd viewings!
I loved this movie. Great analysis. Inherent Vice also follows patterns of the Hard Boiled detective genre which also is prone to having an anti-establishment hero with a strong code of ethics and a convoluted mystery that is not easily followed. I almost feel like Pynchon was doing a satire of that genre or a reinterpretation like the Coens did with The Big Lebowski. Anyway . . . thank you for defending this misunderstood little gem.
+solidsnake58 Absolutely! I'm glad you enjoyed, and its great seeing another fan of the movie!
Great video. This made me appreciate this movie even more. I always took it like - by the end of the movie we've gotten to the end, we don't really know how we got there but we know we got there - And that's exactly how Doc, feels, he got there and he doesn't know how because he's so high, but he got there.
WATCH THIS MOVIE ON LSD. Trust me
Great video. I heard a theory, and kinda thought it as I watched, Shasta is dead and this is a story about grief and "ghosts" ( hallucinations ) Love this movie. Will have to watch it again.
Sortilège isn't real?
Great vid, btw. Love this film and novel. I wish we would get a Criterion release of it with some actual good bonus material.
Thanks for this, lots to think about. Just a couple of points:
- Mickey didn’t go join a cult; after Shasta introduced him to hallucinogens he realised the evil of his development projects (“shelter should be free”) and his integration with the Golden Triangle (money laundering through the massage parlour he owns etc) and the links to the nazi group (which is also linked to the Feds who use them for strong arm tactics). Yep we need that white board but he was kidnapped and taken to the mental facility owned by the Golden Triangle and monitored by the FBI. The Golden Triangle and the feds weren’t going to be able to use him if he was off doing good deeds.
- Doc didn’t return Shasta to her origins. Shasta represents the free vision of the 60s which has been demolished and brutalised, through our Inherent Vice. Personally I see their driving scene as just trying to move forward, but Docs keeps looking back…
- I love your description of Doc’s character - how does he remain moral in this new world of Reaganomics?
- There’s also a lot about Macarthyism woven throughout this film.
i love this movie! i've watched it over and over again since its release. when the title appeared to those amazing Can - "Vitamin C" drums at the start, i knew it was about to be one of my favorites.
1:46 how do you know that's actually Thomas Pynchon? has this photo been confirmed as authentic?
No, it was an error on my part.
I see, thanks for clarifying it tho. Really good review btw, I liked it a lot.
Maximum Blaster
Thank you!
Inherent Vice exquisitely captured the "60s." The internal and external pressures on the idealism of the 60s were too great, it wasn't inherently sustainable. Although it is easy to point blame on the external pressures, everyone knows that the idealistic 60s were doomed from the start because it was built on a house of cards. I wish it were not so, but everyone knows: "If you can remember the 60s, you weren't there.". Neither Shasta Fay nor Doc came through it intact. Blaming is the easy answer. There is no easy answer. I love this movie. it is both a comedy and a tragedy, depending on your perspective. 🎭
Moronic analysis tbh
It is a reboot of Big Lebowski which was a reboot of Big Sleep with Humphrey Bogart. In Lebowski Dudes Morales are unshakable even though the entropy (Inherent Vice) of morale in the 90s changed drastically, Dude is still a private detective not but his wish does not allow him to die hippie spirit of pacifism, community, and anit-capitalism mindset. In the words of Walter, hippies (Nazis) had ethos :))))))))))))))) What is a good reference? Walter's wrong altered ego of Dude represents chauvinist-driven 90s. Inherent Vice is the best Paul Thomas Anderson movie. Walter kills not intentionally Donny in the movie, by his thick skin attitude to life.
Yes the story is hard to follow and gets boring and dull , i liked some of the comedy around definitely not the best one but i agree it`s not a bad film , pta made it that way and i do not understand why !!
Is it just me, or is this film PTA's "Big Lebowski"? It differs in that here Doc goes up against society, government and corporations (you will notice the importance of how I've chosen to list these things, ironically in order of the "least," to the "most," important). And The Dude is up against what society, government, and corporations (these collectively known as 'capitalism' lol) might look like if boiled down to one, single, individual. I would say Dude is also up against 'himself,' but Doc has that same issue too; at least in some sense, anyway. Interesting to see and then decipher I suppose: parallels the two films (and by extension the three filmmakers) share, and tackle in their own way(s) and/or with their own (or, collective, in the Coen brothers' case) cinematic vision(s).
1:46 That's poet Gary Snyder dude
Thank you. I just posted a similar comment. And then looked if anyone else mentioned it. You did. Seems most of the comments here are more about the movie and not concerned with the connection to the novel and Pynchon.
You missed it.
To me, the meaning of "Inherent Vice" is Shasta Fay Hepworth. Doc wants Shasta back, and he thinks he can get her back by solving the case she brings up... when in reality, Shasta just comes and goes as she pleases... first at the beginning of the film, to start the plot, and then at the end, she comes back and taunts Doc a story, told relishingly, of how she was treated as a sexual object while aboard the Golden Fang. How do you love someone who is going to periodically disappear for months at a time to have group sex with the types of powerful men you despise? Well, you have to tell yourself she has inherent vice, a capacity for her own self-destruction. Their relationship is similar to the characters in Phantom Thread, who agree that they can only be together if she periodically feeds him poisonous mushrooms.
Yea thats what I assumed as well
First of all the 1:45 picture does not correspond to T.Pynchon, but to Gary Snyder.
Secondly, you claimed that Doc is the only character that doesn't undergo any change. Really? Haven't you noticided the different hairstyles and clothing in almost every scene? It stars off whit the "Change of hair, change of life" said by Sortilege in one of the first scenes.
A 360° change doesn't mean no changes at all.
U guys know if Joaquín phoenix smoked that amount of weed while filming?
lol, no. is was some form of herb he was smoking, but not anything with tch in it. he wasn't stoned in other words, he is just a fantastic actor.
This movie was boring as fuck. I don't care what it means, it was absolutely the most boring fucking movie of all time. I know everyone thinks it's brilliant and that PTA is brilliant, but I've been consistently less and less a fan of his work, starting with There Will Be Nothing But Daniel Day Lewis Talking Funny.
Thoroughly enjoyable movie. Lots of WTF moments and all the actors nail the vibe. Incredibly well crafted film. Not everyone's cup of tea, and honestly not really mine. But it was good.
it took me 3 times before i completely understood the plot. the first time i saw it, i had no idea what i just saw but i knew i liked it. the 2nd time i saw the movie, i was still confused & actually wasn't sure if i really enjoyed it that much to begin with. but once i watched it a third time i finally figured out what was going on throughout the story & knew i didn't like the film... i loved it. it certainly meanders a lot but is one of those flicks that just gets better upon repeated viewings due to how it's aesthetic beauty, wonderful acting, & captivating dialogue.
Are you suggesting that “Thomas Pynchon” could be Gary Snyder?
Great summary. The moment I started to enjoy the movie and finished it was when I decided... You know let's just enjoy the vibe maybe the story will make sense later.
I disagree only in that there is so much going on in this film. It's very hard to keep track of in one viewing. The performances, the dialogue. It's alot. It's a movie that begs rewatch!
This awful review: capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalism capitalist
By the way, Inherent Vice is amazing.
I could not properly connect to the movie, too. But a german critique adviced the audience to see Doc Sportello as James Bond burried under a ton of drugs. The moment the movie clicked for me.
A very Fun “Joaquin Phoenix” performance.
This film, like all TPA films, is a marvel to behold. I believe I've seen this one 4 times and like all truly worthy works of Art it has taken me higher each time. Live long and prosper Mr. Anderson. I thank you.
inherent vice is a movie about vertical integration of cold war industries below the surface in the 70s. like most movies that display the time
Why did you feel the need to insert your political views? Destroys the credibility of the review when you make it about yourself.
i think you summed it up at 6:02. modern audiences have no idea how to tamper their expectations, or how to handle films that dont completely pander to them intellectually
Don’t search for meaning. There is none. Life can be random and meaningless so it’s not a bad screenplay; it’s high art.
I never even consider that the narrator wasn’t real….but it totally make sense…because she never has any interaction with any of the characters…not even Doc
The whole film is Doc's stoned out of his mind dream. He's sitting in his room alone with his feet propped up and shoes off and next to his window showing the ocean, on the window sill there's a ship in a bottle. Throughout the film, you will see these things in every scene. The smoke on top of smoke goes to layer his mind even deeper. The characters are people that he knows or has seen or heard of in life and, thus, make their way into his dream trip. He's a detective in his dream, because he's trying to identify himself and his girlfriend if that's what she is in reality is what he hangs onto the most. He even tells police chief that he's his brother's keeper, referring to himself. In the end, looking into a ray of light, he is almost awakened from his dream, but isn't quite there yet and still struggles with his identity and longings/letting go-s. My opinion, outside the dream, I don't think he's a detective, just a major stoner, but that's just me. Also, note that throughout the film, he is often called a dirty little hippie, meaning that the whole thing is about him and the random characters and detective work is just that; randomness of his mind at work. Your thoughts?
VERY OBSERVANT! Great theory, I never heard, saw, or read that before. So do you think that any of it happened?
If you take this theory and replace "Doc" with "The idealistic mind-set of the late 60's", it is spot on.
nice oddly pro-capitalist stance man. you do you; golden fang=capitalism right
That is NOT a picture of Thomas Ruggles Pynchon, Jr. @ 1:46
ez watch
crystal clear
Perhaps a wee bit reductive, no offence?
Two different movie reviewers, two totally different analyses. Interesting.
the photo in the video thats supposedly Thomas Pynchon looks nothing like him when you google him ? odd
Only thing i liked about this movie was the acting, the movie itself is terrible man.
Great review of a truly great film based on a truly great book by the one truly great author of our time (great photo, btw)
I cannot approach this without shaking the paranoid delusion that Thomas R. Pynchon was my roommate in So Cal in the 70's and that Doc is me writ large. I have photos from '74 of me slipping across the border into TJ in that field jacket with that hat on wearing those muttonchops.
I take it as a study of the Jewish Identity.
Very underrated film. The book is great too
If I see It again, I'll stay that is a real masterpiece
Please know you are a sharp customer, and I have to agree with all the points you make in this video. I am not sure if "capitalism" per se is the rot that destroys all the good stuff from the hippie era, but it will do as a label. Please, sir, do not use an intensive to modify the word, "unique," ever again. Think about it. It's just plain wrong. Doc wouldn't want you to talk like that.
I appreciate the help. Thanks for watching!
lebarosky I think it could be interpreted that America is getting rotted by capitalism and the hippie culture. Capitalism gave rise to stricter policy which seeks to make a business out of everything. Drugs are litterally rotting teeth in the movie. But it's also worth noting that drugs are the catalyst which makes Docs perception so impossible to trust and hence the story is a rambling of events which somehow tie in but the viewer can't be sure how until a 2nd or 3rd watching. Neither are good for one another and neither seem to be good for a country. That being said I'll argue capitalism over communism any day. There's also the heavy theme of the corruption of authority I.e. big foot or the guy at the dentist office or the guy who Shasta wants Doc to find who seems to have turned himself in over guilt of being corrupt for the sake of capitalism(blanking on his name right now). Every major theme in the movie seems to be at odds. There's deep enmity. Authority vs the hippie, change vs the past, corruption vs morality, capitalism vs the greater good(?) etc... Any way hopefully that rant makes sense. I hope this is the last movie I see before I die
Check out our podcast where we discuss Inherent Vice!!
Dark comedy, but a comedy for sure. I guess I have an odd sense of humor, I have always loved the irreverent, Dark Comedy genre...Like the phone conversation, between Doc and Bigfoot, when Bigfoot tells his young son to go to bed, and without missing a beat, Doc asks why he would go to bed? I'm working right now, he says adamantly lol...Just the strange and quirky humor I enjoy.
I definitely found it hard to follow, especially the first time around. But the more times I watched, the more I appreciated the complexity of the characters, and the interesting and entertaining relationships they shared with one another, especially Doc.
I remember years ago, having similar feelings about The Big Lebowski, the first time I watched it...But today, both movies are two of my all time favorites.
it is pretty funny to see g. snyder when he sez pynchon lol
The film is wonderful, and if you want to follow it, simply look at Joaquin's eyes. The most expressive eyes I've ever seen in a movie. Josh Brolin is perfection, sympatico, twisted, hilarious, all at the same time. Brilliant character. If you didn't see him in Hail Caesar, you missed out. By the way, Anderson is making another film with Daniel Day-Lewis, in production this year, 2017. See you there.
Tried to watch it a couple years ago but couldn't finish it because I couldn't follow the story. Tried again yesterday and finished it. I really agree with your point that you shouldn't demand from yourself to understand the story. It's not necessary to understand the story fully to watch and appreciate this film. Very unique film, I enjoyed it. Not sure what to make of it and not sure I have to make something of it.
Better than Phantom Thread, liscened music over original music mind you, but the prose are just as good in one & the other.
the man in the picture isnt actually pynchon, anyway
If this movie isn't about story, then I guess there was no need to have such a complicated dialogue
Maybe the movie would've been better if it had sticked to visual storytelling instead
This film is so brilliant in so many different ways. It accurately portrays LA in the early 70s, with its dichotomy of the hippie underground counterculture, and the "straight" world of cops, lawyers, and businesses. If you watch it through this lens, you notice that almost all the important characters and places are liminal - not completely of one world, nor entirely of the other. Straight society is hijacking the hippie style via capitalist enterprises, like in the commercial for channel view estates, but those selfsame capitalists have become infected by the drug culture, like in the case of Rudy Blatnoyd D.D.S. and the dentists he represents at the Golden Fang building. You have two polar opposite cultures vying for supremacy and eventually merging to become one, like when we see the very straight laced characters of Penny the DA toke up with Doc and Bigfoot, who betrays his cop code by stealing heroin and by smoking pot with Doc at the end, we see him as a man who has succumbed to cynicism, entirely amoral. Bigfoot is the perfect foil for Doc. Doc, as always throughout the film, serves as the heart and conscience of the dualistic culture he finds himself in. He's a hippie through and through, but unlike some of his hippy friends, he is thoroughly competent, talking a scared cop and his loaded friends out of a potentially disastrous encounter, escaping handcuffs and a locked door; fighting and winning against a huge terrifying neo Nazi and a professional hit man, all while tripping balls on PCP. Doc isn't just any hippy. A couple times passing reference is made to the Vietnam war, by his jacket we see he is a veteran. He is something very rare, the kind of man who can survive horribly traumatic situations with his heart intact. He can do the right thing time and again without ever becoming cynical and amoral like Bigfoot. Doc Sportello might be one of my favorite film protagonists in recent years. All in all Inherent Vice is a woefully underappreciated film. It is ambiguous and convoluted, but so is life. In this it reflects some important truths about the American way of life.
Rain scene was filmed in downtown Pomona CA!
Amazing actors, great film.
This analysis is solid in some ways, for example, the transition from the free-love hippie 60's to the more consumerist and disillusioned 70's is the "Inherent Vice": all that free love and personal liberation contained the seeds of self-indulgence and dissolution. However, it's wrong in many ways as well. 1) Pynchon's novels are not incoherent except when narrators are themselves incoherent. They're difficult, but even Gravity's Rainbow (his craziest experiment) is not at all impossible to decipher, although the narrative reality of some events seem left up to the reader to decide. 2) Mickey Wolfman doesn't get himself kidnapped in the movie. He's being held with the help of the FBI so that he doesn't sell his assets and give everything away, thus making himself useless to several parties including the Feds who want a new non-Mob presence in Las Vegas. 3) The narrator of Inherent Vice isn't imaginary. Sortilege appears in Doc's imagination at times to give him advice, but she is a real person in the story that other people know and interact with.