When you figure out what all was happening in Inherent Vice, you realize very little of it truly mattered. Doc really just wanted his ex-girlfriend back. In looking for her, he was able to do something good, which was to re-unite Coy (Owen Wilson) with his son and wife, Joy (Jena Malone). That was the heart of the story. Everything else were just sub-plots of sub-plots within sub-plots, yet they were all interesting and all connected.
+themissingpatient I totally agree. It was really just masquerading as a complex plot. The more you watch it, the more you realize that the essence of the story is very simple.
Loved every minute of it and I didn't get the plot at all, and this is after I've read the book and the script. But I loved the experience of sitting through the authentic recreation of the forever lost hippie era and its various eccentric characters populating the film and the rich atmosphere. The more you watch it the better it gets, like Anderson said, it's how the movie makes you feel that matters, less so the plot. I've seen it 3 times already and I wanna watch it again, it's actually very funny, wildly entertaining and a joy ride.
I read the book and read the script and watched the film and I must say PTA did an excellent job to convey the tone, he really is one of Americas best filmmakers certainty there best screenwriter, ever since The Master he really has taken dialogue and narrative film to a new level.
I haven’t read the book, but I totally agree. What PTA did with The Master was… masterful, hehe. Seriously though, I love his older work, but I really think he hit his stride starting with There Will Be Blood. TWBB, The Master, and Inherent Vice were just absolutely fantastic.
yeah definitely, there will be blood is the most important american story on capitalism, PTA's never made a bad movie, even his very early work was good. they just gradually got better and more ambitious as he got older. Magnolia is also a great film, it's his abstract take of a social commentary.
***** PTA always seems to find the perfect balance of influence and experimentation. So much can be learned by all of his films. If you haven’t seen it already, there is a great video that really shows the maturation of his craft. vimeo.com/56335284
He's definitely at the forefront of modern cinema, he's the closest thing to originality that hollywood has to offer. And thanks for the video, very informative for an aspiring filmmaker like myself. On a side note, if possible could you make some videos on David Lynch's movies? Not so much as to explain his surrealism but more geared towards outlining his craft and his interpretations of the abstract. Or another things we learned video. I appreciate the thorough research you put into your videos. it's always nice to hear from a fellow cinephile.
***** I should really revisit some of Lynch’s movies. The ones I’ve seen I haven’t seen in quite a while. The two scenes that really stuck with me from his films were Bill Pullman’s conversation with Robert Blake at the party in Lost Highway and the scene of the man talking about his dream at the diner in Mulholland Drive. Such great atmosphere and shifts in mood. If you like David Lynch, check out Buñuel’s Simon of the Desert. It’s only about 45 minutes long.
Rich atmosphere is exactly right. PTA is masterful at creating internal symbolism and infusing elements of his movie's worlds with meaning. He assembles a roster of symbols boasting a variety of meaning and emotion, but it's done in the way that always refers back to the element's place within the larger setting. When these meanings are invoked, it has the dual product of not only advancing character or narrative (more often the former) but also of teasing the setting to life, stressing in the viewer's mind the context of the events on top of whatever feelings or ideas they pull from them. Just as important is how fluid PTA symbolism tends to be. An object or idea will never stand in for one thing. PTA shifts these elements around, having them interact with each other, swapping and mixing meanings as the movie progresses, on top of their function as it relates to the story. Oil becomes blood, a symbol of faith and God (H.W's "baptism"), but also blood as a symbol of death and violence (and internal to that, of victim and perpetrator: H.W. is bloodied following the explosion; Daniel has blood on his hands as he watches the derrick burn), both becoming water by the film's final act at which point all coalesce into a powerful evocation of the consumption inherent in almost Darwinian industry ("I drink your water. I drink it up. Everyday. I drink the blood of lamb from Bandy's tract." All the while, Daniel, a far-gone drunk, drinks water, while Eli sips liquor). The thirst for God. The thirst for material and power. And finally, introduced at the moment of the metaphor's conception, a thirst common to all humans: physical sustenance. Multiple elements, occupying a variety of meanings, all called to the surface at once, never throughout this process losing their link to the original setting. Everything comes alive while nothing seemingly happens. Three hours later and you ask, "how did I get here? Where did all these feelings come from? And why am I terrified by the prospect of visiting California farmland?"
You're on the money dude. I saw the movie. Read the book twice. Having read the book, I noticed a conscious removal of material that would've made the "plot" more pronounced. However, the movie was primarily a practice in tone, nailing a stoner-selective-memory in terms of storytelling. Everything else (I could say) was brilliantly summed up by this video. This has been the most accurate summation of "Vice" I've seen (or read) thus far. Good job. Thanks for posting! Do more!
Thanks for the comment; I’m glad you liked the vid! It’s interesting to hear that the complexities and confusion could have been more of a motif than the result of a faithful adaptation. I may have to check out the book now. More is on the way and I’m working on a couple more series to go alongside this one. Stay tuned!
@Ramsie Shick (there isn't a 'reply' button under your comment) Thanks! It’s amazing how obscure some of the inspirations for the IV style were (especially the Grimes music video). RepoMan has such a unique look to it, but when I went back and watched it again, I noticed various similarities in the visual style of most PTA movies. Thanks for the comment and stay tuned for more!
+CinemaTyler I've more thoughts on IV - & so much on PTA. Too much for here though. I'm going to watch your how to remake Akira. Didn't see that. I think someone (with enough money) is taking that on? Exciting. Also - idk why there isn't a reply - unless i do not know how to set my "settings" which is prolly the case - i didn't get your @ even. all of this confuses me. these are the least of my worries though. i like this film and i am excited if akira is made. for certain. my friend had all the original akira graphic novels - and the original film on vhs. we looked at all that stuff every single day. unbelievable beautiful. i was in art school- early 90's. changed everything for me - and i am not necessarily a "manga artist". however this changed everything- concepts design. obviously. other people have already said it. i don't need to.
***** I think the 'reply' button has something to do with the google plus settings about who can comment on your posts. From what I've heard about the Akira remake, I'm not expecting much. It seems as though they are going to white-wash the whole thing and set it in New York rather than adapt the graphic novel volumes that came out after the original film was completed. Such is Hollywood these days. They are going to pound on Akira until it fits with the broadest demographic possible. I'm actually starting to get excited for the Blade Runner sequel. I think Denis Villeneuve and Roger Deakins are totally capable of making a proper and awesome sequel.
+CinemaTyler as far as Akira remake- that is unfortunate if that's what happens - because it isn't necessary aside from it also being destructive to the story itself. That is my opinion and i am by no means a political scientist. Very nice to hear abut the Blade Runner Sequel.
Sean Johnson Yeah, it seems like some people were really barking up the wrong tree with this one. Inherent Vice is one that requires participation on the part of the audience and repeat viewings to be really enjoyed. Hopefully they will revisit this one in the future. Thanks for the comment!
CinemaTyler Also, (and correct me if I'm wrong) This is also kinda like what Catcher in The Rye did. Catcher in The Rye focused more on the character than it did the plot, in fact it had NO plot, but the book was still interesting and intriguing. If you don't like the book, that's fine. It's just my opinion.
*Sean Johnson* The book Catch 22 is the same. Virtually no plot but the beauty is in the dialogue and characters : ) Give me that any time over the average dumbed down garbage which passes for art these days.
@Nathan Richan (for some reason there isn’t a ‘reply’ button under your comment) No worries. I have not read the book myself. It could very well be a rumor, but it is a fairly widely known bit of trivia. As it turns out, it was Hawks himself who allegedly sent a telegram to Chandler after an argument with Bogart. “When Howard Hawks filmed the novel he asked, “Who killed the chauffeur?” and Chandler replied that he had no idea. To him, plot was always subordinate to character, mood and atmosphere” (Guardian). The source from Turner Classic Movies is much more enlightening: “Raymond Chandler's original novel was so convoluted that, according to legend, neither Hawks nor any of the writers could figure out who killed the Sternwood's chauffeur. Finally, he wired the author for an explanation. Chandler suggested one killer, but Hawks wired back that he was nowhere around when the murder took place. Chandler wired back, "Then I don't know either." The story may have been invented by Hawks, however, as the film's initial cut features a scene, written in the first draft, in which Marlowe explains all of the murders, including the chauffeur's, to the district attorney” (TCM). And this last source seems to support the authenticity of the legend: “While many claim the story is apocryphal, Raymond Chandler refers to the telegram in a letter to Jamie Hamilton on March 21, 1949, that is published in The Raymond Chandler Papers by Tom Hiney and Frank MacShane. ‘I remember,’ Chandler wrote to Hamilton, ‘several years ago when Howard Hawks was making [“The Big Sleep”], he and Bogart got into an argument as to whether one of the characters was murdered or committed suicide. They sent me a wire (there’s a joke about this too) asking me, and dammit I didn’t know either. Of course I got hooted at.’ (Parentheses in original.)” (williamahearn). Thanks for the question! I don’t think I would have dug as deep had you not asked. ☺ www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/24/100-best-novels-the-big-sleep-raymond-chandler www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/45/The-Big-Sleep/articles.html www.williamahearn.com/bs1945.html
I've been searching for video reviews of this film since I left the cinema today. It's a shame to see so many people uncomfortable with the film's baffling nature. I loved the film. It felt like a collage of squirming details that don't really matter when studied in isolation. As long as they kept the film moving. And we end up with a bizarre portrait of a bizarre era of American culture. I think this film will grow on me in the same way The Master did. I still need to see it for a second time. Great video! Subscribing now.
Thanks for the comment! PTA certainly has a knack for creating such a rich atmosphere. I really love the way his films are set up to sort of change and ripen with each viewing. I can understand why some casual viewers would be resistant to films that require more time and attention given to them, but I just love this stuff. That said, I feel that it doesn’t quite work when some movies are too complex from the get-go or lack a clear and simple premise to draw the viewer in. Nevertheless, Inherent Vice executes the simple set up perfectly. Much like in Alice in Wonderland, once you go down the rabbit hole, you are just along for the ride.
What does Inherent Vice teach us about filmmaking? What inspirations did Paul Thomas Anderson draw from while making Inherent Vice? Does Thomas Pynchon make a cameo in the movie? Watch today's episode and find out! #inherentvice #paulthomasanderson #thomaspynchon #filmmaking #filmschool #cinematyler
Well done! One of my favorite aspects of the story is that the you, as the audience, are getting the story from a third party. It might have been told to her by Phoenix's character, but since he is on a controlled substance most of the time it makes sense that the story is very muddled. Great film and really good points on your video! Also I'm addicted to this soundtrack, but such is the case Johnny Greenwood/PTA soundtracks.
Thanks! It does seem to be an interesting take on the unreliable narrator concept. I like your idea that she is telling it second hand from Doc-I guess she would have to be to talk about things that only Doc was around for. I’m really looking forward to getting it on Blu-ray so I can really analyze the film. I thought the soundtrack was absolutely fantastic and I’m so happy we finally got to hear a proper version of Radiohead’s ‘Spooks.’ Thanks again for the comment!
I'm sure this came up before but this movie seems to be even more influenced by The Big Lebowski in many ways, which also pays tribute to The Big Sleep. I never read Thomas Pynchon though.
I find it odd that a decision to not make media appearances is considered being a 'recluse'. 99% of people don't appear in published media - this is normal behaviour, it is not reclusive. I'm sure Thomas Pynchon has a normal family life and doesn't avoid people in everyday life. It's those who constantly crave the media that are odd.
+THOMAS CARNACKI I must admit that I know very little about Thomas Pynchon, but it seems (from what I can tell) that he relishes the idea of being a reclusive public figure. Otherwise he wouldn't have appeared in The Simpsons or have a secret cameo in Inherent Vice. I totally agree that people who constantly crave media attention are odd, but I think it's an entirely different thing to discuss your work in a public forum-- especially when the work you do is a form of media itself. However, people certainly should be allowed to reject fame and still work within the art form they choose.
+CinemaTyler I believe Pynchon appearing in The Simpsons is him being playful with how public perception of him through the media has been purposely shaped as the cliched romantic legend of the lonely author who shuns the life of a normal man to bring back pearls of wisdom from the abyss - it's not surprising he makes fun of this myth since he writes heavily satirical novels about the slippery nature of culture, but Pynchon is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. He wants to let his work speak for itself but he knows by doing so the media will falsely portray him as a 'recluse' because he doesn't feel the need to talk about it in public. All he can do is make fun of it - like Simpson appearances. Similar things were said about Stanley Kubrick but according to his family he had a relatively healthy family life and went to the local supermarket like the average person because no one really knew what "Stanley Kubrick" was supposed to looked like. I believe both Pynchon and Kubrick preferred it that way, pretty much like the rest of us.
+THOMAS CARNACKI I agree. Whereas Pynchon isn't as well known as Kubrick was, Kubrick was fortunate enough to be able to avoid the limelight in a time when there weren't smart phones or the internet or a million television channels. It seems like it is much easier to be labeled as reclusive now when celebrity worship is higher than ever. Of course, Pynchon could abstain from any interaction with with any form of media outside of writing his books if he wishes, but he seems to be having a bit of fun with it.
This was a fantastically directed film with great acting, great music, gorgeous photography, all per usual with PTA, but it was also the most punishingly abstruse work he has yet done. To his credit, this is the 5th movie in a row where what he presents is something totally defiant of the expectations you may have based on his last movie. Magnolia was a clear departure from Boogie Nights. PDL was a clear departure from Magnolia. TWBB totally unlike anything he had done before. The Master was definitely not what I was expecting after TWBB, and now this, Inherent Vice. It's almost like he's afraid if he gives you what you're expecting from him, then he's been "caught." So his material keeps shapeshifting.
pluckyduck11y Totally agree. It is so refreshing to see him evolve and vary in his storytelling approach. It is very rare to see a filmmaker keep their style without being ‘locked in’ by it. Most of the great filmmakers today can’t even do this. Thanks for the comment!
CinemaTyler Yeah because I was thinking of a comparison with his contemporaries like Tarantino and Wes Anderson, and they essentially stay delivering what we've come to expect. Without having foreknowledge of who was directing Grand Budapest Hotel or Django Unchained, I think most audiences familiar with these guys would be able to figure it out within the first 5 minutes of these movies sans credits. It's a lot trickier with PTA. I sort of wish it was possible for him to make a movie without us knowing it's his, but this is practically impossible because his reputation precedes himself like other renown auteurs. Studios will invariably promote whatever high profile directors they produce for, putting their names at the forefront, and this is hardly anything they could be blamed for. If you were putting up the dough to back a film directed by any of these guys, you'd want to advertise that just like you would a high profile star. Sometimes it makes me wonder if the directors themselves would prefer to somehow get their movie out there without anyone knowing they made it, at least not ahead of release. I think Lars von Trier conducted an experiment along these lines with another director, challenging him to take credit during the actual filming. The Five Obstructions. It's a very interesting experimental film project. But we're familiar with authors managing to get their work published under pseudonyms, just to ditch the baggage, the hype, expectations, etc. But pretty much the only times I've heard of directors doing this was when they knew the movie was awful and they didn't want to taint their reputation. What I'd like to see is a famous director just use a pseudonym to make a movie they were proud of, but they wanted to surprise people. These days though that is virtually impossible, and probably the point is lost on most people, but I think you may understand what I mean.
pluckyduck11y Tarantino and Wes Anderson were the first two that came to mind for me as well. Both have built a very successful style and, if they want to stay within the confines of that style, that’s fine. That said, I would love it if Tarantino tried his hand at a straight up comedy or something without violence just to see what he would come up with. Similar to what you are talking about, but a little different, I was thinking that he could release the film under a different name just so that he doesn’t have to add it to his ‘Tarantino catalogue’ and yet, still make it clear that he is the person behind the pseudonym. That way, the studio or whomever could still bankroll the film based on his guaranteed audience without tarnishing his name if the film isn’t for them. It would probably pick up a new audience as well considering he has a proven track record as a writer/director. I like your idea too. It is hard to deviate from what is established and what is expected. It is even sadder to think that Christopher Nolan will probably never do a small film again even if he wanted to. I love The Five Obstructions! I wish there were more projects like that. It would be great if there was a show on HBO or something where each week a different famous director makes a short film with a list of constraints. I would also love another Twilight Zone Movie/Four Rooms type thing or even BMW films.
I'm a HUGE PTA fan, out of his generation of filmmakers (Tarantino, Rodriguez, Smith, Fincher...) he's probably my favorite director, but I can't say I'm satisfied with this one that much. Actors did a pretty good jog and it is a really good ensemble piece, but as far as everything else goes I don't think I'm aboard. Andersons film aesthetics has really changed and he has evolved into having an aesthetic of his own now, but this movie really feels like a filmed stage play. What I mean by that is that it's not that cinematic, sure there are few really good shots but those are either important moments for the characters, transitions from scene to scene or a character introduction... the rest 2/3 of the movie are just cross cutting between shots of people talking to one another, the same shot sizes, or it's just one take all together. That can really help your actors perform and not waste their energy while you're resetting and shooting for coverage, but you gotta keep in mind that films are visual medium and by shot sizes, movement of the camera, movement of the actors, position of camera in space and all other tolls you tell a story with, and by just trying to place your camera in such a way to not get in a way of actors perform kind of ruins that. A lot of shots ended up being not framed evenly as a result of that, and a lot of the times parts of shoulders, arms, clothes etc. from other actors would end up being in the shots because camera is placed way in the back, is on a telephoto and they're just rolling and it's not really a over the shoulder subjective shot, nor is it POV... He did similar things in both There will be Blood and The Master but there was some aesthetics value to those shots... In there Will Be Blood, when Paul first enters the room to tell Plainview about the oil, he does almost an entire scene in one take but it changes from long shot to medium close up to over the shoulder... telling the story with camera but not being too over the top with it like in his early work. Here it seams he lost that, it's great that he gives actors freedom (the way they approached it is the way you would do a theater play) but he should also think about the cinematic techniques also. The other thing about the movie is that a lot of it is repeating it self, from one scene of people just sitting and talking to another one, which can be tiresome because... again... we're watching a movie, try being clever with the staging and blocking, mix it up a bit. the Big Lebowski is a similar movie also inspired by The Big Sleep, but that movie sucks you in and you always feel drawn to it. As far as remembering the whole plot or the story, i know of didn't even give it my best to remember it and it didn't really hurt the experience... Sorry for the long post, this doesn't mean I didn't like it, I just love PTA so much that I don't like him making movies that are not as great. It's not even problem in that but in that this could have easily been Chinatown on weed and it missed the mark on that. But I'll be damned if I don't rewatch it soon.
I know what you mean. I’m in the camp that thinks he really started to come into his own starting with There Will Be Blood. My brother likes the Boogie Nights/Magnolia era better. That’s what made Inherent Vice so interesting-there was something there that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. I wasn’t sure what to make of it after I first watched it. I don’t think I would have given it as much thought had it been directed by someone else. I think I’ve sort of forced myself to defend it in the comments more than I would have liked because I made this video. That said, there was something that kind of stuck with me. You’re right; there wasn’t really much told visually (the only thing I can really remember is the part with the tie). It reminded me a bit of Glengarry Glen Ross, but it seemed that GGR had a better understanding of what it was are realized that good blocking would have to make up for the lack of visuals. Inherent Vice seemed like more of an experiment than anything else. It’s a movie about a complex plot that is meaningless. How do you tell a story that is more or less inconsequential? If I had to guess, I’d say that the story is told with the intriguing characters, the beautiful costumes/scenery, the warm nostalgic music, and shoot it in a way that mixes the mundane with the cinematic. The whole film felt like lying on an old comfy couch. It did feel a lot like Chinatown, which gave me a similar feeling of confused emptiness after my first viewing. On subsequent viewings of both, it was the character and atmosphere that gave the film its value. I think these days, PTA is really the best at making period films. They really allow you to bask in the richness of the atmosphere. What’s interesting about IV’s place in PTA’s body of work is that it is, in a way, a combination of the two eras-the convoluted/elaborate story with the single character study. It also mixes the mixtape-soundtrack of his earlier era with the Johnny Greenwood score of his later era. I really think it is unfair to form a real opinion on this one without watching it multiple times over several years. Unfortunately, those who are willing to do that probably already liked it enough to rewatch it multiple times. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
when I first watched Inherent Vice, the first thing that came into my mind was Big Sleep. I was like *those are my two favourite movies! I can watch them on repeat, because as soon as the end credits roll I have no idea what just happened and "who killed"*
i can't explain how much i agree with you and what you cut into this video from Paul. I gave up trying to follow the plot halfway through the film, and i was so glad to do that it was so libearting afterwards. And i had to watch it again to realise there is a coherent plot, but that doesn't really matter.
The Chuck Jackson version of any day now was the best pairing of a song and film. Both song and the movie had to be utterly flawless to avoid stifling itself with its own corniness. Books a lot trippier and atmospheric, but I read it more as a satire. The movie rely made me feel a lot deeper for the characters. Word to the wise, never approach any form of art with the expectation of "getting it." What it means to you is all you'll ever know and all that matters. Great video
+Thomas Gibbons Inherent Vice had such a perfect soundtrack. I totally agree-- I think we are too used to consuming just the surface of a story. It probably has a lot to do with how many movies we watch nowadays. You can never really tell how much you like a movie until you see it a second time. Thanks for watching!
@Brock The Craftsman (there isn't a 'reply' button under your comment) Totally agree. There is so much more going on than simply the plot. It’s definitely one of those movies that gives you a new experience each time you watch it. Thanks for the comment!
Really interesting video dude! Love your use of those NYFF press conferences and other interviews. Having seen the film twice now, I can confirm it gets better on the repeat viewing but I still might need to see it again!
Thanks for your comment! This one was really fun to research. There is always a lot of great resources for PTA movies. I put together a 3 1/2 hour playlist of Inherent Vice material if you're interested. ruclips.net/p/PLGciYgiR4atFwQ4V7L0KNU2-uhgxngUBC
I've been on a PTA kick recently and saw this for the first time the other day. I loved it. I had only seen a small clip or two when it came out and it didn't interest me, even though I love PTA's other work. I was watching while I was working on an art project and I found myself watching more than painting. then the next day I was trying to describe it to my girlfriend and said, "I need to rewatch it because some of it didn't make sense." good to know I was somewhat correct. I was surprised by how funny it was. Joaquin has the best comedic timing. Even when he's not acting, he's just a funny dude. and PTA utilized him perfectly. but the acting was just SO GOOD. among many other lines and situations, the "Howard Hughes was Italian?" line made me LOL. Can't wait to rewatch it. glad I came across your video.
I read an article about the movie Smiley Face, and the author talked about how it was edited in a confusing way on purpose. To make you feel stoned without actually being stoned. He said that PTA used the same type of editing and storytelling for Inherent Vice. I think that makes sense based on the main character
+Albin Nilsson Oh yeah, I remember hearing about Smiley Face. Looked interesting. I can totally see how the editing style in Inherent Vice could evoke a feeling of drugged out confusion. I remember someone mentioning that the scene of Big Foot busting the door down and eating the weed felt like a drug induced paranoia fantasy.
Just subbed! I read a nice take on PTAs movies recently, I think on Blu-ray.com. Basically it was about, especially on first viewing, just sitting back and enjoying the great dialogue and wonderful performances. Figuring out the plot can come later. The cinematography is always top notch also. Nice to see a channel where the comments section is just as interesting as the video too : )
Thanks! That is a great way to describe how I experienced the film. It seems very different than pretty much every other PTA movie. I kind of think of it as being similar to Boogie Nights, but with a really complex plot running through the background. It really brings out the characters and setting.
Point 2 was something I learned when I first watched WIthnail & I. Not because the plot's confusing, but because there is virtually no plot. First time I watched it, I had no clue what to make of it. Then some time later, a brilliant quote would just pop up in my head, and the more I thought about it, the more I realised how fantastic the characters and the dialogue were. It's now one of my all-time favourite films, and it really doesn't have much of a plot in the slightest. I suspect that, after another viewing, Inherent Vice will be the same for me. I wasn't sure what to think on my first viewing, but the more I think about it, the more I really want to watch it again.
James Aggas I still need to see Withnail & I, but I think you are totally right with how it applies to Inherent Vice. I remember when the credits came up in the theater I was just sitting there scratching my head. My gf and I didn’t really talk about it until a week later. It just kind of stuck in my mind and I couldn’t stop thinking about it. It is definitely one of those movies that demands multiple viewings. Thanks for the comment!
Really enjoyed your video. Just saw IV yesterday and had the feeling, that i didn't get the point of the film. But your video with all its references to other movies sort of gave me a different perspective on the film. Thank you.
supercool breakdown! just saw the film - the repo man reference - that's wild. i didn't see that coming & that explains so much. more than all the rabbit holes.. actually repo man has bothered me since it first came out. i would've been too young to know it was something as simple and ubiquitous as "theres just never any friggin light ever". yer kinda distracted by "all that other stuff". ha ha : ) cool review-breakdown. inherent vice is super great with great book to work with. anyone giving it explanation - good reviews- more power to you.
thanks for your insight into a film I might have otherwise discounted as not worthy of a second look. You perspective was truly helpful, and very much informed.
this is probably one of the greatest movies of all time, and an adaptation at that of a masterpiece of the greatest american writer; and can you believe we're also getting Vineland from PTA, hope the old man Pynchon knows how much he is still adored, and maybe he's got one more story for us at the end of the road!
I've seen Inherent Vice multiple times now, and every time I go in thinking that this is going to be the time it clicks for me, and every time I walk away disappointed. I'm not talking about the plot, just the experience. And I think I've figured out why. The acting in it is phenomenal, the music is excellent, and Paul Thomas Anderson is probably the most gifted constructor of a scene alive today. But the cardinal rule of film is "show, don't tell", and (with just a couple of really brilliant exceptions), the film is scene after scene of people talking about what happened, what's happening somewhere else, or what's going to happen. The book is like that, too, but I guess it's better on the page because that's what novels are: a verbal recounting of events.
Great video Tyler, I just finally got to see Inherent Vice, and I really liked it. I realized about halfway through that the plot was very secondary to the characters, so that probably helped me enjoy it a bit more. Your video is really well put together, with some great use of interviews as well as your own opinion. I got a really Chinatown vibe from it, what are you thoughts. Thanks as always, keep up with the awesomeness.
BeardedMovieGuy Thanks! I totally agree with the Chinatown vibe. Both use the Southern California setting to perfectly create the atmosphere of a nice artificial façade with a mysterious and sometimes seedy underbelly. I think they are most similar in the structure. Both sort of follow the Alice in Wonderland structure where the protagonist gets deeper and deeper into another world and the initial goal almost turns into a MacGuffin. Although, it seems to differ in that the goal is met (Alice finds the white rabbit), and yet meeting the goal uncovers a new and unforeseen circumstance.
Exactly, thanks for responding, I really value you input. I have another question if you are willing to answer it. Do you think that the girl that was Doc's friend who was quite often in the car with him and doing narration, was she actually there, or was she either a memory, or possibly a drug induced hulicination. I just got the vibe that since she was often in the car with Doc talking to him as he went places, and then when he got there Doc was the only one in the car that she might not actually be there. I would love to hear you thoughts, cause I might be way off.
BeardedMovieGuy No worries! I’ve heard compelling arguments for both. I remember in an interview with PTA, he mentioned that he chose her as the narrator because he simply liked the way her voice sounded. I like the idea that she is just a hallucination. I think it would be really interesting to have a narrator who is shown on screen that doesn’t exist within the world of the story. I don’t think I’ve seen that done outside of Rod Serling in the Twilight Zone series.
I didn't get a single thing at Inherent Vice first time I saw it, but I was indeed captivated by its rhythm and the characters. I watched it a couple of times since then, but I don't think just repeating the experience would have been enough for me to get it. I might be the last one to understand it, but what actually helped me, is when I realised the importance of Doc's pot overuse. The whole movie is about memory loss, and I think that's what the film does best: it makes you live and feel this investigation through an eye of an heavy pot smoker. And I though it was hilarious, once I got that, it made nearly every scene of the movie crystal clear. Everything Doc's living is real, but deformed, in a paranoid way. When he stares at Big Foot sucking on his ice cream, when Big Foot phones him and says "Shasta's gone", when he parks his car home and he gets scared at kids skating behind him etc...
+aumgn_noos That's a very interesting take! It makes a lot of sense in a strange way. Perhaps maybe this heightens the more stylized and slapstick parts? Now I need to see it again with this in mind! Thanks for commenting!
+aumgn_noos Finally someone said it! Thank you fella. Don't forget the scene at the docks when all PTA shows you are the characters and some night fog and all you can do is look at them and go "What boat? wtf are are guys smoking!" And then the narrator pops out again to do no less than justify your whole confusion with lines like "Owwwkaaaay..." (also I think that's a big role for Sortilège in the movie, to help the viewer catch on, or... even the opposite, make you feel helpless about following what's happening inside all this drug abused foggy mess). Seriously though, are we sure that the narrator character....actually exists? Notice how she is with doc sometimes ( like in his car going to the pussy eaters club) and then we just skip to the desert with our hippie hero passed out, I mean, what happened to her? I'm pretty sure only Sportelo and Shasta acknowledge her existence in the movie, she interacts with no one else. What if she is like them two hippies muse? Their relationships core. Some ESP shit you know. Weird that she'd contradict the doc about the meaning of an ancient greek word but...still, am I the only one? Sorry for long comment, anyway, I don't really like criticism and I don't take the time to decide which films are best and shit like that, but I know I love a filmaker, when I never stop waiting for his next movie. PTA mind-fucked us once more, in a "huge" film, you can watch a lot more than 2-3 times, discovering new things, and I'm not talking about the plot, but the picture as a whole.
Great review! I read the book and watched the movie 2 to 3 times each and i still havent figured out the plot. And you're right, since the characters and scenes are intresting, it does not matter. The movie contains more Police Squad humor than the book. but both draw a lot from all the absurdities in which it is fascinating to get lost in. Frozen Bananas, Ouja and paranoia.
Thanks! I haven't read the book myself, but I can see how the Police Squad humor would translate better to the screen. It really is a great movie to get lost in.
Psychedelic neo-noir stream of consciousness thriller from an unreliable mind under a mild drug stupor; how it felt anyway, and like all fuzzy memories or dreams even, there is barely much connecting them but reoccurrence. Anyhow, I thought it was decent enough, it had a strong mental state portray, which is always nice to see in film, like visiting an old memory, it also helped that the film was long and wasn't afraid of its own pace. I cant say it was meaningful, and at times it felt really shallow, but enjoyable nonetheless, I don't regret watching it and I certainly don't want my time back for I consider it acceptably spent.
+EphReinhard Very apropos description of the film. I have a similar feeling toward this one. It's a film that is really hard to nail down, but that seems to be the point. The experience seems to fluctuate every time I watch it.
888antics I certainly will! There Will Be Blood is one of my all time favorite movies. I've been wanting to do something on The Master as well. A lot of it was shot where I'm from, so I went around to several of the locations. Some really cool places. Stay tuned and thanks for the comment!
+Daniel Rosa I first saw The Big Sleep in a class on Noir films. It was really funny when the lights came up after the film was over and seeing everyone looking around with confused looks on their faces.
I liked it a lot. Unfortunately I haven't read the book. I've only read Crying of lot 49 by Pynchon. Only P.T.A. film I still need to see is Hard Eight/Sydney
+severi saaristo I've only seen Hard Eight/Sydney a couple of times. I should really revisit that one. Check out the commentary too when you get a chance, it's pretty great.
Very good points and observations. I do think the plot is there, though elusive and subtle, but I've found you almost have to concentrate so much on every bit of dialogue and focus to make all the nuanced connections that you'll easily lose the emotion and fun enjoyability of every other aspect going on out side of the dialogue. Yes, better and better after each viewing. One of my favorite pta films!
I could totally see that! I sort of remember PTA signing on to direct the Prairie Home Companion movie if anything happened to Altman during production.
I would suggest any fans of this movie to read Phillip K Dick novels and VALIS (and of course A Scanner Darkly) in particular, he provides a similar twisted view of hippies and narcs so up in eachothers worlds that there is no clear demarcation anymore and the "values" of the time and place are blurred into hyperreality by acid and other drugs.... really awesome stuff
Man I finally understand the plot after 9 years and some internet guides lol. So much information in each line of dialogue, and sometimes just don't make sense (like why did Doc's partner not tell Doc that he couldn't drive).
He references Primer which is a brilliant film but only if you understand it. I was warned that i would not get it on the first viewing, or ever without help and is hugged it off. Well being a time travel film it gets incredibly complex and I totally lost it towards the end. That, I think is due to bad film making where things could have been clarified with film making techniques alone and no changes to the script. Either way it is brilliant and there are flow charts, minute by minute explanation lists and forums one the net. When you reference one of those to get over the hump it makes this film a total joy for time travel fans. That said, there is no way I could stand it if it didn't gave a plot or I didn't understand it in the end so there is no way I would enjoy inherent vice. I don't know how you can have a without a clear plot be any good except to the occasional art house fan that it hits directly.
DarkBungleX Inherent Vice does get easier to follow after multiple viewings. It seems as thought the plot isn't necessarily the main focus of the film. It certainly isn't for everybody. It's not my favorite PTA film by far, but I found it enjoyable nonetheless.
Hey I really enjoyed your video. Its good to know theres some guy on the internet out there whos as passionateabout movies as I am. And Im more happy to see somebody actually at least "liked" the picture...I get the impression inherent vice is almost forgotten by everybody. I havent seen it yet...reason for that is causeIm german, and germany is a fucked up place, cause vice comes to theaters february...so I still have to count the fuckin days
Thanks for the comment! I appreciate it. Inherent Vice certainly hasn’t gotten the recognition it deserves. It really seems to be most appreciated by those who study film and recognize it for its rich atmosphere, brilliant acting, and immaculate craft.
I've just discovered this channel and I'm really enjoying your videos. I don't know if you're a fan of Charlie Kaufman, but if so I'd love to see a video on Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It's such a great mix of emotion, idea, and visual inventiveness. Some other movies I think would be interesting to do videos on: Alien; No Country for Old Men; Walkabout; and Under the Skin. These all have interesting technical and cinematographic things going on I'd like to hear you discuss.
Thanks! I am a fan! I actually saw him give a talk after a screening of Synecdoche, New York a little while ago. Definitely want to do something on him someday! Thanks for the suggestions!
I haven't too, but what I know is that all of his novels are unique, lengthy, complex and sometimes features large numbers of characters which might explain the complicated plot Inherent Vice had. Read Against the Day, Gravity's Rainbow and Vineland if you wanna know what I'm talking about.
I much prefer a story where everything is not explained for you and, like you said, developed naturally. Over explaining can lead to dumbing it down to the point where it feels more and more like "movie". You can't get lost in it.
Upon repeated viewings it feels more and more to me that Maya Rudolph had a heavy hand in PTAs conceptualization/realization of this film. That being said, prob my favorite film of the 2010s.
I don't buy that line about Howard Hawks writing to Raymond Chandler, who said he "didn't know" who the killer was. Do you have a source? I'm not trying to be a dick or anything (and I actually haven't seen the film yet), but if you read the book it's really quite clear who the killer is...
taking your advice a weird thought hit me: do it twice. I mean what if you did this same essay again about this same movie after a second viewing? It would be interesting checking out
+GerardG I think with Primer, it's more of a structural thing and the fact that things aren't really explained. I think IV sort of uses a muddled up plot in order to take a back seat to character (and Doc's relationship with Shasta) while presenting it as being up front.
Can you recommend any other films with similar atmosphere of California (or maybe US in general) from the 70s? Because I've watched this movie so many times now my gf suspects I'm going nuts.
I kind of think Boogie Nights has a similar atmosphere. Check out a documentary called Los Angeles Plays Itself-- there should be something good in there.
Yeah, I saw Boogie Nights... it was cool as well, although more dark (especially towards the end). I will have a look at the doc you mentioned- thanks! :)
The Long Goodbye for sure, similar story i.e. PI on a case in southern california, directed by Robert Altman, one of PTA's biggest influences and one of the best directors of all time
The Long Goodbye is super similar, influenced this. Jackie Brown did too. pretty hard to find movies that pastiche 70s without being corny... You could always watch films from the 70s. Behind the Candelabra is very good and has a boogie night feel, All Is by my Side (Hendrix biopic w Andre 3000) is an underrated gem of mine (thought pretty innacurate to Jimis temper). You could always go with the obvious Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Lords of Dogtown (I think thats 70s? Definitelt cali). idk inherent vice is pretty unique in encapsulating that end of the era nostalgia with gumshoe detective and conspiracy theories, I mostly like it for the romance though. The bit where coy harlington goes back to his girl is nice
My wife hated it, me and my ex-roommate found it fascinating, funny and beautiful. I think your comments about the incomprehensible plot is the key. My wife really likes to know what's going on, to figure things out and make sense of things whereas I usually just go along for the sensory ride.
This movie has more mixed reviews recent history outside of the Last Jedi. People love it or loathe it. Personally, I love this movie since it's so different from all the other movies regurgitated out every year. And because it doesn't repeat the same tropes and plots every other film does, PTA might not be able to take chances like this again.
just finished to watch it for the first time. The first 2 hours i was just trying to figure out the plot, then i gave up. I really liked it but I don't know why.
+Alex Cayer It definitely seems like a different kind of storytelling than most contemporary movies. It seems to hinge more on atmosphere and feeling than logic and plot. It's fun to just throw it on and watch the characters.
Thanks! The first song is “RSPN” by Blank & Kytt (blankkytt.bandcamp.com/) and the second song is “Backed Vibes Clean” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). If you are curious about any other songs I use in other videos, I credit them in order in my descriptions. :)
I guess I disagree. I like plots and consistent characters. Movies that don't have inconsistent plots and characters destroy the ability to suspend your disbelief - it violates the basic rules of a consistent reality. They also become hard to follow, making the movie - for many - a 'slog to go through' (some online movie critic I saw). I thought the Master's plot and characters were far more consistent. The plot was driven by decisions made by consistent characters. We eventually were able to see what an incredible creation these characters really were. On the other hand, this movie's set pieces, cinematography and diversity of characters made me forgive the byzantine plot and I found this a more enjoyable experience than the Master.
moreanimalspirits I’m not sure if I totally understand your comment. Are you saying that you usually prefer consistent plots and characters, but you enjoyed Inherent Vice more than The Master despite IV’s inconsistency? Either way, I enjoyed The Master more than Inherent Vice mainly because I thought that the characters were a little more fleshed out. That said, Inherent Vice seems like an experiment in storytelling. If you look at the way PTA did There Will Be Blood and The Master, they are both simple plots that capture a lost era with a couple of really dynamic characters. Inherent Vice has a super complex plot and a ton of characters, but it seems like PTA took this same approach by making the plot and most of the characters unimportant. That’s why I think that Inherent Vice is kind of brilliant. If you look at it as a slice of life from a lost era following a man coming to terms with losing his love, you get a completely different movie from the one many critics seem to be talking about.
+Nc Witch There is really something to be said for a film that is more lyrical than plot-driven. Not everyone's cup of tea, but that doesn't mean those films should be written off. What's interesting about Inherent Vice is that, at first, it seems to be masquerading as a plot-driven story, but it really is a very poetic film.
CinemaTyler A good plot would be Chinatown or Singin' in The Rain. Non-linear films that work well are Kane and Pulp Fiction, and even 2001 at times, showing us something about just watching instead of concerning ourselves with what came before or will happen next. Plots can be distractions, or perhaps the film is just another popcorn potboiler and the audience doesn't really care. Either way, we should be able to lose ourselves and focus only at what's being projected. My screenplay has an ending that reflects on the beginning (something I learned from Kubrick and Welles) and the incidents along the way parallel each other nicely, giving something to satisfy the narrative; I had one guy tell me there was no plot, so obviously he didn't do a good job connecting the dots.The construction is loose, not Mulholland Dr. style, but basically your average Seinfeld episode without being under a microscope. However, I think everyone prefers story to plot, at the end of the day. Look at Taxi Driver or anything from Hitchcock. No plots, just action or character, and still, somehow they translate to gripping narratives.
CinemaTyler I'm working on a plot that adheres to Tarkovsky's idea about Aristotle Unities with a narrative all in one day and set in one location, albeit with some surrealist bits and subplots to highlight life's absurdity, that of which we can only experience accurately on screen - "only in the movies" - the natural wonder of going to see something on celluloid as an imitation of life as a dream. It's very difficult to come up with something original these days, but Hollywood especially works against challenging audiences anymore, and even Tarantino and Anderson are running out of ideas, so it might be up to me. Kubrick was cinema's greatest artist and he could do a fine job in every genre that he touched, but not all of his films are down to earth; 2001 stands out as a film monumental in it's scope and production, but not definitive in it's thematic approach toward human nature and identity. It is one of the most philosophical films but it leaves out emotion and disposition, save the artificiality that HAL possesses. Strangelove and Eyes Wide Shut were closer to the actual expression. I suppose either we are all doomed on this marble or we can maybe elevate ourselves to god status among the stars like Bowman does, but our best bet is to stay human and focus on making the best out of a temporary experience. When movies get back to blending love and humor free from pandering plots then we might have something to watch. But for me, viewing cinema is confined to the reruns of the work of the old artists due to the fact that entries in this new age can't really be called cinema anymore. I would at least expect the innuendo and jokes to get better, given mild social turbulence as generations progress, but we have substituted sophistication and innovation for the easy technological approach and work-a-like thinking and notion that acquiring more knowledge means something. Many of us are thinking alike, but not so greatly, and there is too much focus on grouping rather than individuality. Herzog points out the distinction between fact and truth and cinema as a revelation, but modern movies have neither plot nor story nor even characters to drive us to see anything truly mesmerizing. As we move toward talking in the same verses and living under one economy we will see originality to be the currency most in reserve by those that dare to challenge the consensus.
+Nc Witch Sounds interesting. I’m the same way-I hardly go to the theater anymore. I just recently went to a bunch of screenings at the New York Film Festival, but most of the movies I went to were revivals/retrospectives. I finally saw a Lubitsch film for the first time there (Heaven Can Wait) and there was just something about it that struck a chord with me. Like, it was made for the purpose of exploring the medium of film rather than being made in a particular way out of fear of losing money. To kind of bring it all back to Inherent Vice, even though it isn’t one of my favorite films, I really appreciated the way it sort of played around with the medium in a way that provoked thoughts about film itself more than the story.
Exposition dumps can be taxing on the audience, but because the plot is complex enough for the audience to get lost, the exposition is sort of pushed to the background and more or less ignored. I think Sorkin does something similar with technical jargon. It becomes more about watching how the characters behave instead of where the story is going.
Thank you for answering. I wrote down what you sad in the end of the video as a memo because it spoke to me (I myself (try) to write stuff), but I couldn't make out what you said during that little part.
Bog Lebowski is based on Chandlers Big Sleep another hippie detective :), and after ten rewatching plot is not so thick, and inherent vice very little clue what is happening.
When you figure out what all was happening in Inherent Vice, you realize very little of it truly mattered. Doc really just wanted his ex-girlfriend back. In looking for her, he was able to do something good, which was to re-unite Coy (Owen Wilson) with his son and wife, Joy (Jena Malone). That was the heart of the story. Everything else were just sub-plots of sub-plots within sub-plots, yet they were all interesting and all connected.
+themissingpatient I totally agree. It was really just masquerading as a complex plot. The more you watch it, the more you realize that the essence of the story is very simple.
Loved every minute of it and I didn't get the plot at all, and this is after I've read the book and the script. But I loved the experience of sitting through the authentic recreation of the forever lost hippie era and its various eccentric characters populating the film and the rich atmosphere. The more you watch it the better it gets, like Anderson said, it's how the movie makes you feel that matters, less so the plot. I've seen it 3 times already and I wanna watch it again, it's actually very funny, wildly entertaining and a joy ride.
I'm glad to see PTA always changing his style. Not making the same movie over and over . That being said , i really enjoyed your video. Keep it up!
Totally agree. PTA has really evolved as a filmmaker. It's always refreshing to see a great director try new things. Thanks for the comment!
Adriano Mata What do you mean changing styles?
I read the book and read the script and watched the film and I must say PTA did an excellent job to convey the tone, he really is one of Americas best filmmakers certainty there best screenwriter, ever since The Master he really has taken dialogue and narrative film to a new level.
I haven’t read the book, but I totally agree. What PTA did with The Master was… masterful, hehe. Seriously though, I love his older work, but I really think he hit his stride starting with There Will Be Blood. TWBB, The Master, and Inherent Vice were just absolutely fantastic.
yeah definitely, there will be blood is the most important american story on capitalism, PTA's never made a bad movie, even his very early work was good. they just gradually got better and more ambitious as he got older. Magnolia is also a great film, it's his abstract take of a social commentary.
***** PTA always seems to find the perfect balance of influence and experimentation. So much can be learned by all of his films. If you haven’t seen it already, there is a great video that really shows the maturation of his craft. vimeo.com/56335284
He's definitely at the forefront of modern cinema, he's the closest thing to originality that hollywood has to offer. And thanks for the video, very informative for an aspiring filmmaker like myself.
On a side note, if possible could you make some videos on David Lynch's movies? Not so much as to explain his surrealism but more geared towards outlining his craft and his interpretations of the abstract. Or another things we learned video.
I appreciate the thorough research you put into your videos. it's always nice to hear from a fellow cinephile.
***** I should really revisit some of Lynch’s movies. The ones I’ve seen I haven’t seen in quite a while. The two scenes that really stuck with me from his films were Bill Pullman’s conversation with Robert Blake at the party in Lost Highway and the scene of the man talking about his dream at the diner in Mulholland Drive. Such great atmosphere and shifts in mood. If you like David Lynch, check out Buñuel’s Simon of the Desert. It’s only about 45 minutes long.
"Plot isn't necessary"
I first learned that by watching Wong Kar-Wai's films :)
+Jerry Incandenza I really need to see more of his films! I've been blown away by the couple I've seen.
Chung king express is pretty straight forward
Plot is important but never necessary. Look at the masterpieces by Terrence Malick and Paul Thomas Anderson (including Inherent Vice).
Rich atmosphere is exactly right.
PTA is masterful at creating internal symbolism and infusing elements of his movie's worlds with meaning. He assembles a roster of symbols boasting a variety of meaning and emotion, but it's done in the way that always refers back to the element's place within the larger setting. When these meanings are invoked, it has the dual product of not only advancing character or narrative (more often the former) but also of teasing the setting to life, stressing in the viewer's mind the context of the events on top of whatever feelings or ideas they pull from them.
Just as important is how fluid PTA symbolism tends to be. An object or idea will never stand in for one thing. PTA shifts these elements around, having them interact with each other, swapping and mixing meanings as the movie progresses, on top of their function as it relates to the story.
Oil becomes blood, a symbol of faith and God (H.W's "baptism"), but also blood as a symbol of death and violence (and internal to that, of victim and perpetrator: H.W. is bloodied following the explosion; Daniel has blood on his hands as he watches the derrick burn), both becoming water by the film's final act at which point all coalesce into a powerful evocation of the consumption inherent in almost Darwinian industry ("I drink your water. I drink it up. Everyday. I drink the blood of lamb from Bandy's tract." All the while, Daniel, a far-gone drunk, drinks water, while Eli sips liquor). The thirst for God. The thirst for material and power. And finally, introduced at the moment of the metaphor's conception, a thirst common to all humans: physical sustenance. Multiple elements, occupying a variety of meanings, all called to the surface at once, never throughout this process losing their link to the original setting.
Everything comes alive while nothing seemingly happens. Three hours later and you ask, "how did I get here? Where did all these feelings come from? And why am I terrified by the prospect of visiting California farmland?"
his movies are the reason why I wanna be a filmmaker
You're on the money dude. I saw the movie. Read the book twice. Having read the book, I noticed a conscious removal of material that would've made the "plot" more pronounced. However, the movie was primarily a practice in tone, nailing a stoner-selective-memory in terms of storytelling. Everything else (I could say) was brilliantly summed up by this video. This has been the most accurate summation of "Vice" I've seen (or read) thus far. Good job. Thanks for posting! Do more!
Thanks for the comment; I’m glad you liked the vid! It’s interesting to hear that the complexities and confusion could have been more of a motif than the result of a faithful adaptation. I may have to check out the book now. More is on the way and I’m working on a couple more series to go alongside this one. Stay tuned!
@Ramsie Shick (there isn't a 'reply' button under your comment)
Thanks! It’s amazing how obscure some of the inspirations for the IV style were (especially the Grimes music video). RepoMan has such a unique look to it, but when I went back and watched it again, I noticed various similarities in the visual style of most PTA movies. Thanks for the comment and stay tuned for more!
+CinemaTyler I've more thoughts on IV - & so much on PTA. Too much for here though. I'm going to watch your how to remake Akira. Didn't see that. I think someone (with enough money) is taking that on? Exciting. Also - idk why there isn't a reply - unless i do not know how to set my "settings" which is prolly the case - i didn't get your @ even. all of this confuses me. these are the least of my worries though. i like this film and i am excited if akira is made. for certain. my friend had all the original akira graphic novels - and the original film on vhs. we looked at all that stuff every single day. unbelievable beautiful. i was in art school- early 90's. changed everything for me - and i am not necessarily a "manga artist". however this changed everything- concepts design. obviously. other people have already said it. i don't need to.
***** I think the 'reply' button has something to do with the google plus settings about who can comment on your posts. From what I've heard about the Akira remake, I'm not expecting much. It seems as though they are going to white-wash the whole thing and set it in New York rather than adapt the graphic novel volumes that came out after the original film was completed. Such is Hollywood these days. They are going to pound on Akira until it fits with the broadest demographic possible. I'm actually starting to get excited for the Blade Runner sequel. I think Denis Villeneuve and Roger Deakins are totally capable of making a proper and awesome sequel.
+CinemaTyler as far as Akira remake- that is unfortunate if that's what happens - because it isn't necessary aside from it also being destructive to the story itself. That is my opinion and i am by no means a political scientist. Very nice to hear abut the Blade Runner Sequel.
I love this new channel, everything about film is fascinating.
Thanks! My next video should be finished within the next few days. Stay tuned!
It really saddens me how many people actually HATED this movie. I guest they just don't get what PT Anderson movie is all about.
Sean Johnson Yeah, it seems like some people were really barking up the wrong tree with this one. Inherent Vice is one that requires participation on the part of the audience and repeat viewings to be really enjoyed. Hopefully they will revisit this one in the future. Thanks for the comment!
CinemaTyler Also, (and correct me if I'm wrong) This is also kinda like what Catcher in The Rye did. Catcher in The Rye focused more on the character than it did the plot, in fact it had NO plot, but the book was still interesting and intriguing. If you don't like the book, that's fine. It's just my opinion.
*Sean Johnson* The book Catch 22 is the same. Virtually no plot but the beauty is in the dialogue and characters : ) Give me that any time over the average dumbed down garbage which passes for art these days.
Or maybe he just sucks....
Sean Johnson You guest?
@Nathan Richan (for some reason there isn’t a ‘reply’ button under your comment)
No worries. I have not read the book myself. It could very well be a rumor, but it is a fairly widely known bit of trivia. As it turns out, it was Hawks himself who allegedly sent a telegram to Chandler after an argument with Bogart.
“When Howard Hawks filmed the novel he asked, “Who killed the chauffeur?” and Chandler replied that he had no idea. To him, plot was always subordinate to character, mood and atmosphere” (Guardian).
The source from Turner Classic Movies is much more enlightening:
“Raymond Chandler's original novel was so convoluted that, according to legend, neither Hawks nor any of the writers could figure out who killed the Sternwood's chauffeur. Finally, he wired the author for an explanation. Chandler suggested one killer, but Hawks wired back that he was nowhere around when the murder took place. Chandler wired back, "Then I don't know either." The story may have been invented by Hawks, however, as the film's initial cut features a scene, written in the first draft, in which Marlowe explains all of the murders, including the chauffeur's, to the district attorney” (TCM).
And this last source seems to support the authenticity of the legend:
“While many claim the story is apocryphal, Raymond Chandler refers to the telegram in a letter to Jamie Hamilton on March 21, 1949, that is published in The Raymond Chandler Papers by Tom Hiney and Frank MacShane.
‘I remember,’ Chandler wrote to Hamilton, ‘several years ago when Howard Hawks was making [“The Big Sleep”], he and Bogart got into an argument as to whether one of the characters was murdered or committed suicide. They sent me a wire (there’s a joke about this too) asking me, and dammit I didn’t know either. Of course I got hooted at.’ (Parentheses in original.)” (williamahearn).
Thanks for the question! I don’t think I would have dug as deep had you not asked. ☺
www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/24/100-best-novels-the-big-sleep-raymond-chandler
www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/45/The-Big-Sleep/articles.html
www.williamahearn.com/bs1945.html
Ive watched this movie of a total of 20 times now, and it gets better every time!
+In Orbit Wow! It really has that 'hang out' atmosphere that makes it so great for repeat viewings.
I've been searching for video reviews of this film since I left the cinema today. It's a shame to see so many people uncomfortable with the film's baffling nature. I loved the film. It felt like a collage of squirming details that don't really matter when studied in isolation. As long as they kept the film moving. And we end up with a bizarre portrait of a bizarre era of American culture. I think this film will grow on me in the same way The Master did. I still need to see it for a second time. Great video! Subscribing now.
Thanks for the comment! PTA certainly has a knack for creating such a rich atmosphere. I really love the way his films are set up to sort of change and ripen with each viewing. I can understand why some casual viewers would be resistant to films that require more time and attention given to them, but I just love this stuff. That said, I feel that it doesn’t quite work when some movies are too complex from the get-go or lack a clear and simple premise to draw the viewer in. Nevertheless, Inherent Vice executes the simple set up perfectly. Much like in Alice in Wonderland, once you go down the rabbit hole, you are just along for the ride.
thank you. the first film in long time where i just could not articulate my love for it into sensible words.
What does Inherent Vice teach us about filmmaking? What inspirations did Paul Thomas Anderson draw from while making Inherent Vice? Does Thomas Pynchon make a cameo in the movie? Watch today's episode and find out! #inherentvice #paulthomasanderson #thomaspynchon #filmmaking #filmschool #cinematyler
Well done! One of my favorite aspects of the story is that the you, as the audience, are getting the story from a third party. It might have been told to her by Phoenix's character, but since he is on a controlled substance most of the time it makes sense that the story is very muddled. Great film and really good points on your video! Also I'm addicted to this soundtrack, but such is the case Johnny Greenwood/PTA soundtracks.
Thanks! It does seem to be an interesting take on the unreliable narrator concept. I like your idea that she is telling it second hand from Doc-I guess she would have to be to talk about things that only Doc was around for. I’m really looking forward to getting it on Blu-ray so I can really analyze the film. I thought the soundtrack was absolutely fantastic and I’m so happy we finally got to hear a proper version of Radiohead’s ‘Spooks.’ Thanks again for the comment!
This was an awesome video. Good editing, surpassed my expectation!
Thanks a lot! I really appreciate it!
I'm sure this came up before but this movie seems to be even more influenced by The Big Lebowski in many ways, which also pays tribute to The Big Sleep. I never read Thomas Pynchon though.
Interesting! I can definitely see the similarities to The Big Lebowski.
I find it odd that a decision to not make media appearances is considered being a 'recluse'. 99% of people don't appear in published media - this is normal behaviour, it is not reclusive. I'm sure Thomas Pynchon has a normal family life and doesn't avoid people in everyday life.
It's those who constantly crave the media that are odd.
+THOMAS CARNACKI I must admit that I know very little about Thomas Pynchon, but it seems (from what I can tell) that he relishes the idea of being a reclusive public figure. Otherwise he wouldn't have appeared in The Simpsons or have a secret cameo in Inherent Vice. I totally agree that people who constantly crave media attention are odd, but I think it's an entirely different thing to discuss your work in a public forum-- especially when the work you do is a form of media itself. However, people certainly should be allowed to reject fame and still work within the art form they choose.
+CinemaTyler
I believe Pynchon appearing in The Simpsons is him being playful with how public perception of him through the media has been purposely shaped as the cliched romantic legend of the lonely author who shuns the life of a normal man to bring back pearls of wisdom from the abyss - it's not surprising he makes fun of this myth since he writes heavily satirical novels about the slippery nature of culture, but Pynchon is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. He wants to let his work speak for itself but he knows by doing so the media will falsely portray him as a 'recluse' because he doesn't feel the need to talk about it in public. All he can do is make fun of it - like Simpson appearances.
Similar things were said about Stanley Kubrick but according to his family he had a relatively healthy family life and went to the local supermarket like the average person because no one really knew what "Stanley Kubrick" was supposed to looked like. I believe both Pynchon and Kubrick preferred it that way, pretty much like the rest of us.
+THOMAS CARNACKI I agree. Whereas Pynchon isn't as well known as Kubrick was, Kubrick was fortunate enough to be able to avoid the limelight in a time when there weren't smart phones or the internet or a million television channels. It seems like it is much easier to be labeled as reclusive now when celebrity worship is higher than ever. Of course, Pynchon could abstain from any interaction with with any form of media outside of writing his books if he wishes, but he seems to be having a bit of fun with it.
This was a fantastically directed film with great acting, great music, gorgeous photography, all per usual with PTA, but it was also the most punishingly abstruse work he has yet done. To his credit, this is the 5th movie in a row where what he presents is something totally defiant of the expectations you may have based on his last movie. Magnolia was a clear departure from Boogie Nights. PDL was a clear departure from Magnolia. TWBB totally unlike anything he had done before. The Master was definitely not what I was expecting after TWBB, and now this, Inherent Vice. It's almost like he's afraid if he gives you what you're expecting from him, then he's been "caught." So his material keeps shapeshifting.
pluckyduck11y Totally agree. It is so refreshing to see him evolve and vary in his storytelling approach. It is very rare to see a filmmaker keep their style without being ‘locked in’ by it. Most of the great filmmakers today can’t even do this. Thanks for the comment!
CinemaTyler Yeah because I was thinking of a comparison with his contemporaries like Tarantino and Wes Anderson, and they essentially stay delivering what we've come to expect. Without having foreknowledge of who was directing Grand Budapest Hotel or Django Unchained, I think most audiences familiar with these guys would be able to figure it out within the first 5 minutes of these movies sans credits. It's a lot trickier with PTA. I sort of wish it was possible for him to make a movie without us knowing it's his, but this is practically impossible because his reputation precedes himself like other renown auteurs. Studios will invariably promote whatever high profile directors they produce for, putting their names at the forefront, and this is hardly anything they could be blamed for. If you were putting up the dough to back a film directed by any of these guys, you'd want to advertise that just like you would a high profile star.
Sometimes it makes me wonder if the directors themselves would prefer to somehow get their movie out there without anyone knowing they made it, at least not ahead of release. I think Lars von Trier conducted an experiment along these lines with another director, challenging him to take credit during the actual filming. The Five Obstructions. It's a very interesting experimental film project.
But we're familiar with authors managing to get their work published under pseudonyms, just to ditch the baggage, the hype, expectations, etc. But pretty much the only times I've heard of directors doing this was when they knew the movie was awful and they didn't want to taint their reputation.
What I'd like to see is a famous director just use a pseudonym to make a movie they were proud of, but they wanted to surprise people.
These days though that is virtually impossible, and probably the point is lost on most people, but I think you may understand what I mean.
pluckyduck11y Tarantino and Wes Anderson were the first two that came to mind for me as well. Both have built a very successful style and, if they want to stay within the confines of that style, that’s fine. That said, I would love it if Tarantino tried his hand at a straight up comedy or something without violence just to see what he would come up with. Similar to what you are talking about, but a little different, I was thinking that he could release the film under a different name just so that he doesn’t have to add it to his ‘Tarantino catalogue’ and yet, still make it clear that he is the person behind the pseudonym. That way, the studio or whomever could still bankroll the film based on his guaranteed audience without tarnishing his name if the film isn’t for them. It would probably pick up a new audience as well considering he has a proven track record as a writer/director. I like your idea too. It is hard to deviate from what is established and what is expected. It is even sadder to think that Christopher Nolan will probably never do a small film again even if he wanted to.
I love The Five Obstructions! I wish there were more projects like that. It would be great if there was a show on HBO or something where each week a different famous director makes a short film with a list of constraints. I would also love another Twilight Zone Movie/Four Rooms type thing or even BMW films.
I'm a HUGE PTA fan, out of his generation of filmmakers (Tarantino, Rodriguez, Smith, Fincher...) he's probably my favorite director, but I can't say I'm satisfied with this one that much. Actors did a pretty good jog and it is a really good ensemble piece, but as far as everything else goes I don't think I'm aboard.
Andersons film aesthetics has really changed and he has evolved into having an aesthetic of his own now, but this movie really feels like a filmed stage play. What I mean by that is that it's not that cinematic, sure there are few really good shots but those are either important moments for the characters, transitions from scene to scene or a character introduction... the rest 2/3 of the movie are just cross cutting between shots of people talking to one another, the same shot sizes, or it's just one take all together. That can really help your actors perform and not waste their energy while you're resetting and shooting for coverage, but you gotta keep in mind that films are visual medium and by shot sizes, movement of the camera, movement of the actors, position of camera in space and all other tolls you tell a story with, and by just trying to place your camera in such a way to not get in a way of actors perform kind of ruins that. A lot of shots ended up being not framed evenly as a result of that, and a lot of the times parts of shoulders, arms, clothes etc. from other actors would end up being in the shots because camera is placed way in the back, is on a telephoto and they're just rolling and it's not really a over the shoulder subjective shot, nor is it POV... He did similar things in both There will be Blood and The Master but there was some aesthetics value to those shots... In there Will Be Blood, when Paul first enters the room to tell Plainview about the oil, he does almost an entire scene in one take but it changes from long shot to medium close up to over the shoulder... telling the story with camera but not being too over the top with it like in his early work. Here it seams he lost that, it's great that he gives actors freedom (the way they approached it is the way you would do a theater play) but he should also think about the cinematic techniques also.
The other thing about the movie is that a lot of it is repeating it self, from one scene of people just sitting and talking to another one, which can be tiresome because... again... we're watching a movie, try being clever with the staging and blocking, mix it up a bit. the Big Lebowski is a similar movie also inspired by The Big Sleep, but that movie sucks you in and you always feel drawn to it. As far as remembering the whole plot or the story, i know of didn't even give it my best to remember it and it didn't really hurt the experience...
Sorry for the long post, this doesn't mean I didn't like it, I just love PTA so much that I don't like him making movies that are not as great. It's not even problem in that but in that this could have easily been Chinatown on weed and it missed the mark on that. But I'll be damned if I don't rewatch it soon.
I know what you mean. I’m in the camp that thinks he really started to come into his own starting with There Will Be Blood. My brother likes the Boogie Nights/Magnolia era better. That’s what made Inherent Vice so interesting-there was something there that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. I wasn’t sure what to make of it after I first watched it. I don’t think I would have given it as much thought had it been directed by someone else. I think I’ve sort of forced myself to defend it in the comments more than I would have liked because I made this video. That said, there was something that kind of stuck with me. You’re right; there wasn’t really much told visually (the only thing I can really remember is the part with the tie). It reminded me a bit of Glengarry Glen Ross, but it seemed that GGR had a better understanding of what it was are realized that good blocking would have to make up for the lack of visuals. Inherent Vice seemed like more of an experiment than anything else. It’s a movie about a complex plot that is meaningless. How do you tell a story that is more or less inconsequential? If I had to guess, I’d say that the story is told with the intriguing characters, the beautiful costumes/scenery, the warm nostalgic music, and shoot it in a way that mixes the mundane with the cinematic. The whole film felt like lying on an old comfy couch.
It did feel a lot like Chinatown, which gave me a similar feeling of confused emptiness after my first viewing. On subsequent viewings of both, it was the character and atmosphere that gave the film its value. I think these days, PTA is really the best at making period films. They really allow you to bask in the richness of the atmosphere. What’s interesting about IV’s place in PTA’s body of work is that it is, in a way, a combination of the two eras-the convoluted/elaborate story with the single character study. It also mixes the mixtape-soundtrack of his earlier era with the Johnny Greenwood score of his later era. I really think it is unfair to form a real opinion on this one without watching it multiple times over several years. Unfortunately, those who are willing to do that probably already liked it enough to rewatch it multiple times. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
when I first watched Inherent Vice, the first thing that came into my mind was Big Sleep.
I was like
*those are my two favourite movies! I can watch them on repeat, because as soon as the end credits roll I have no idea what just happened and "who killed"*
Love it, dude! It's so great someone is making a series like this. Thank you!
Kent Juliff
Kent Juliff Thanks! I appreciate it!
i can't explain how much i agree with you and what you cut into this video from Paul. I gave up trying to follow the plot halfway through the film, and i was so glad to do that it was so libearting afterwards. And i had to watch it again to realise there is a coherent plot, but that doesn't really matter.
+ruukaoz Thanks! It really is an interesting concept to sort of have the entire plot be somewhat of a MacGuffin.
The Chuck Jackson version of any day now was the best pairing of a song and film. Both song and the movie had to be utterly flawless to avoid stifling itself with its own corniness. Books a lot trippier and atmospheric, but I read it more as a satire. The movie rely made me feel a lot deeper for the characters. Word to the wise, never approach any form of art with the expectation of "getting it." What it means to you is all you'll ever know and all that matters. Great video
+Thomas Gibbons Inherent Vice had such a perfect soundtrack. I totally agree-- I think we are too used to consuming just the surface of a story. It probably has a lot to do with how many movies we watch nowadays. You can never really tell how much you like a movie until you see it a second time. Thanks for watching!
I'm GLAD Joaquin got the role. He's fantastic
He completely disappears into his characters.
right about here was when he went from being a really good actor to being in his own league
@Brock The Craftsman (there isn't a 'reply' button under your comment)
Totally agree. There is so much more going on than simply the plot. It’s definitely one of those movies that gives you a new experience each time you watch it. Thanks for the comment!
Really interesting video dude! Love your use of those NYFF press conferences and other interviews. Having seen the film twice now, I can confirm it gets better on the repeat viewing but I still might need to see it again!
Thanks for your comment! This one was really fun to research. There is always a lot of great resources for PTA movies. I put together a 3 1/2 hour playlist of Inherent Vice material if you're interested. ruclips.net/p/PLGciYgiR4atFwQ4V7L0KNU2-uhgxngUBC
I've been on a PTA kick recently and saw this for the first time the other day. I loved it. I had only seen a small clip or two when it came out and it didn't interest me, even though I love PTA's other work. I was watching while I was working on an art project and I found myself watching more than painting. then the next day I was trying to describe it to my girlfriend and said, "I need to rewatch it because some of it didn't make sense." good to know I was somewhat correct. I was surprised by how funny it was. Joaquin has the best comedic timing. Even when he's not acting, he's just a funny dude. and PTA utilized him perfectly. but the acting was just SO GOOD. among many other lines and situations, the "Howard Hughes was Italian?" line made me LOL. Can't wait to rewatch it. glad I came across your video.
I read an article about the movie Smiley Face, and the author talked about how it was edited in a confusing way on purpose. To make you feel stoned without actually being stoned. He said that PTA used the same type of editing and storytelling for Inherent Vice. I think that makes sense based on the main character
+Albin Nilsson Oh yeah, I remember hearing about Smiley Face. Looked interesting. I can totally see how the editing style in Inherent Vice could evoke a feeling of drugged out confusion. I remember someone mentioning that the scene of Big Foot busting the door down and eating the weed felt like a drug induced paranoia fantasy.
+CinemaTyler I would recommend watching Smiley Face, and maybe doing a video If you like it. It's a lot of fun, stoned or not!
Just subbed! I read a nice take on PTAs movies recently, I think on Blu-ray.com. Basically it was about, especially on first viewing, just sitting back and enjoying the great dialogue and wonderful performances. Figuring out the plot can come later. The cinematography is always top notch also. Nice to see a channel where the comments section is just as interesting as the video too : )
Thanks! That is a great way to describe how I experienced the film. It seems very different than pretty much every other PTA movie. I kind of think of it as being similar to Boogie Nights, but with a really complex plot running through the background. It really brings out the characters and setting.
Point 2 was something I learned when I first watched WIthnail & I. Not because the plot's confusing, but because there is virtually no plot. First time I watched it, I had no clue what to make of it. Then some time later, a brilliant quote would just pop up in my head, and the more I thought about it, the more I realised how fantastic the characters and the dialogue were. It's now one of my all-time favourite films, and it really doesn't have much of a plot in the slightest. I suspect that, after another viewing, Inherent Vice will be the same for me. I wasn't sure what to think on my first viewing, but the more I think about it, the more I really want to watch it again.
James Aggas I still need to see Withnail & I, but I think you are totally right with how it applies to Inherent Vice. I remember when the credits came up in the theater I was just sitting there scratching my head. My gf and I didn’t really talk about it until a week later. It just kind of stuck in my mind and I couldn’t stop thinking about it. It is definitely one of those movies that demands multiple viewings. Thanks for the comment!
Really enjoyed your video. Just saw IV yesterday and had the feeling, that i didn't get the point of the film. But your video with all its references to other movies sort of gave me a different perspective on the film. Thank you.
Thanks for the comment! Glad you enjoyed it!
I love these videos. You make some of the best videos about film on youtube.
Zach Sutton Thanks for the kind words! It really means a lot.
supercool breakdown! just saw the film - the repo man reference - that's wild. i didn't see that coming & that explains so much. more than all the rabbit holes.. actually repo man has bothered me since it first came out. i would've been too young to know it was something as simple and ubiquitous as "theres just never any friggin light ever". yer kinda distracted by "all that other stuff". ha ha : ) cool review-breakdown. inherent vice is super great with great book to work with. anyone giving it explanation - good reviews- more power to you.
thanks for your insight into a film I might have otherwise discounted as not worthy of a second look. You perspective was truly helpful, and very much informed.
+qbagwell Happy to help! Thanks for watching!
I've seen this film four or five times and it DOES get better each time.
this is probably one of the greatest movies of all time, and an adaptation at that of a masterpiece of the greatest american writer; and can you believe we're also getting Vineland from PTA, hope the old man Pynchon knows how much he is still adored, and maybe he's got one more story for us at the end of the road!
I've seen Inherent Vice multiple times now, and every time I go in thinking that this is going to be the time it clicks for me, and every time I walk away disappointed. I'm not talking about the plot, just the experience. And I think I've figured out why. The acting in it is phenomenal, the music is excellent, and Paul Thomas Anderson is probably the most gifted constructor of a scene alive today. But the cardinal rule of film is "show, don't tell", and (with just a couple of really brilliant exceptions), the film is scene after scene of people talking about what happened, what's happening somewhere else, or what's going to happen. The book is like that, too, but I guess it's better on the page because that's what novels are: a verbal recounting of events.
Great video Tyler, I just finally got to see Inherent Vice, and I really liked it. I realized about halfway through that the plot was very secondary to the characters, so that probably helped me enjoy it a bit more. Your video is really well put together, with some great use of interviews as well as your own opinion. I got a really Chinatown vibe from it, what are you thoughts. Thanks as always, keep up with the awesomeness.
BeardedMovieGuy Thanks! I totally agree with the Chinatown vibe. Both use the Southern California setting to perfectly create the atmosphere of a nice artificial façade with a mysterious and sometimes seedy underbelly. I think they are most similar in the structure. Both sort of follow the Alice in Wonderland structure where the protagonist gets deeper and deeper into another world and the initial goal almost turns into a MacGuffin. Although, it seems to differ in that the goal is met (Alice finds the white rabbit), and yet meeting the goal uncovers a new and unforeseen circumstance.
Exactly, thanks for responding, I really value you input. I have another question if you are willing to answer it. Do you think that the girl that was Doc's friend who was quite often in the car with him and doing narration, was she actually there, or was she either a memory, or possibly a drug induced hulicination. I just got the vibe that since she was often in the car with Doc talking to him as he went places, and then when he got there Doc was the only one in the car that she might not actually be there. I would love to hear you thoughts, cause I might be way off.
BeardedMovieGuy No worries! I’ve heard compelling arguments for both. I remember in an interview with PTA, he mentioned that he chose her as the narrator because he simply liked the way her voice sounded. I like the idea that she is just a hallucination. I think it would be really interesting to have a narrator who is shown on screen that doesn’t exist within the world of the story. I don’t think I’ve seen that done outside of Rod Serling in the Twilight Zone series.
The is a terrific analysis. You've covered some relatively comprehensive aspects of film theory with clarity and concision.
Thanks! I really wanted it to have a lot of substance, but still be digestible. Glad to know it worked!
I didn't get a single thing at Inherent Vice first time I saw it, but I was indeed captivated by its rhythm and the characters. I watched it a couple of times since then, but I don't think just repeating the experience would have been enough for me to get it.
I might be the last one to understand it, but what actually helped me, is when I realised the importance of Doc's pot overuse. The whole movie is about memory loss, and I think that's what the film does best: it makes you live and feel this investigation through an eye of an heavy pot smoker.
And I though it was hilarious, once I got that, it made nearly every scene of the movie crystal clear. Everything Doc's living is real, but deformed, in a paranoid way. When he stares at Big Foot sucking on his ice cream, when Big Foot phones him and says "Shasta's gone", when he parks his car home and he gets scared at kids skating behind him etc...
+aumgn_noos That's a very interesting take! It makes a lot of sense in a strange way. Perhaps maybe this heightens the more stylized and slapstick parts? Now I need to see it again with this in mind! Thanks for commenting!
+aumgn_noos Finally someone said it! Thank you fella.
Don't forget the scene at the docks when all PTA shows you are the characters and some night fog and all you can do is look at them and go "What boat? wtf are are guys smoking!" And then the narrator pops out again to do no less than justify your whole confusion with lines like "Owwwkaaaay..." (also I think that's a big role for Sortilège in the movie, to help the viewer catch on, or... even the opposite, make you feel helpless about following what's happening inside all this drug abused foggy mess).
Seriously though, are we sure that the narrator character....actually exists? Notice how she is with doc sometimes ( like in his car going to the pussy eaters club) and then we just skip to the desert with our hippie hero passed out, I mean, what happened to her? I'm pretty sure only Sportelo and Shasta acknowledge her existence in the movie, she interacts with no one else. What if she is like them two hippies muse? Their relationships core. Some ESP shit you know. Weird that she'd contradict the doc about the meaning of an ancient greek word but...still, am I the only one?
Sorry for long comment, anyway, I don't really like criticism and I don't take the time to decide which films are best and shit like that, but I know I love a filmaker, when I never stop waiting for his next movie. PTA mind-fucked us once more, in a "huge" film, you can watch a lot more than 2-3 times, discovering new things, and I'm not talking about the plot, but the picture as a whole.
Great review! I read the book and watched the movie 2 to 3 times each and i still havent figured out the plot. And you're right, since the characters and scenes are intresting, it does not matter. The movie contains more Police Squad humor than the book. but both draw a lot from all the absurdities in which it is fascinating to get lost in. Frozen Bananas, Ouja and paranoia.
Thanks! I haven't read the book myself, but I can see how the Police Squad humor would translate better to the screen. It really is a great movie to get lost in.
Psychedelic neo-noir stream of consciousness thriller from an unreliable mind under a mild drug stupor; how it felt anyway, and like all fuzzy memories or dreams even, there is barely much connecting them but reoccurrence. Anyhow, I thought it was decent enough, it had a strong mental state portray, which is always nice to see in film, like visiting an old memory, it also helped that the film was long and wasn't afraid of its own pace. I cant say it was meaningful, and at times it felt really shallow, but enjoyable nonetheless, I don't regret watching it and I certainly don't want my time back for I consider it acceptably spent.
+EphReinhard Very apropos description of the film. I have a similar feeling toward this one. It's a film that is really hard to nail down, but that seems to be the point. The experience seems to fluctuate every time I watch it.
This was a great video and really well edited!
Thanks!
I've seen this film 8 times and it get's better with every watch. Can someone please explain the Grimes reference? I didn't catch the connection.
probably that dentist scene with all those junkies in dentist's chairs and fluorescent lights
I agree, I've probably watched it the same number of times, and it does get better. And it's fucking hilarious too.
great video - really well made !
this film will gain in appreciation
kinda bridges The Long Goodbye and Big Lebowski into it's own genre
Thanks! I think you're right; it feels like one of those movies you'll keep revisiting every so often.
This is so true! I so agree!
Gotholia Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching!
Please make more videos about Paul thomas Anderson! I really enjoyed this video.
888antics I certainly will! There Will Be Blood is one of my all time favorite movies. I've been wanting to do something on The Master as well. A lot of it was shot where I'm from, so I went around to several of the locations. Some really cool places. Stay tuned and thanks for the comment!
This is Brilliant! Thanks for the clarity.
Glad you like it! Thanks for watching!
*Phew!* Now I feel much better about having not understood one bollock of The Big Sleep when I saw it too.
+Daniel Rosa I first saw The Big Sleep in a class on Noir films. It was really funny when the lights came up after the film was over and seeing everyone looking around with confused looks on their faces.
The picture on the wall at 1:28 is of a very famous Los Angeles police chief named William H. Parker.
+Andrew Miller Interesting! Thanks for sharing! It seems that no one has found Pynchon yet.
I liked it a lot. Unfortunately I haven't read the book. I've only read Crying of lot 49 by Pynchon. Only P.T.A. film I still need to see is Hard Eight/Sydney
+severi saaristo I've only seen Hard Eight/Sydney a couple of times. I should really revisit that one. Check out the commentary too when you get a chance, it's pretty great.
Very good points and observations. I do think the plot is there, though elusive and subtle, but I've found you almost have to concentrate so much on every bit of dialogue and focus to make all the nuanced connections that you'll easily lose the emotion and fun enjoyability of every other aspect going on out side of the dialogue. Yes, better and better after each viewing. One of my favorite pta films!
incredible video man, awesome takes
Great channel man!!
Thanks! More episodes are on the way!
big sleep is in the same verse as Lebiwski and Long Goodbye which makes sense visually amd cause hes admittedly a HUGE altman fan
I could totally see that! I sort of remember PTA signing on to direct the Prairie Home Companion movie if anything happened to Altman during production.
Mr. Way And both films had Kudzu Plot.
You keep discovering this world he's in. And sex doesn't save it. I love this film.
I would suggest any fans of this movie to read Phillip K Dick novels and VALIS (and of course A Scanner Darkly) in particular, he provides a similar twisted view of hippies and narcs so up in eachothers worlds that there is no clear demarcation anymore and the "values" of the time and place are blurred into hyperreality by acid and other drugs.... really awesome stuff
jsogman Thanks for the suggestion! I really liked the Scanner Darkly movie. I'll have to check those out!
good, definately do you wont be dissipointed...
Great video! Thanks for making it. :)
Very well done!
Thanks!
Man I finally understand the plot after 9 years and some internet guides lol. So much information in each line of dialogue, and sometimes just don't make sense (like why did Doc's partner not tell Doc that he couldn't drive).
He references Primer which is a brilliant film but only if you understand it. I was warned that i would not get it on the first viewing, or ever without help and is hugged it off. Well being a time travel film it gets incredibly complex and I totally lost it towards the end. That, I think is due to bad film making where things could have been clarified with film making techniques alone and no changes to the script. Either way it is brilliant and there are flow charts, minute by minute explanation lists and forums one the net. When you reference one of those to get over the hump it makes this film a total joy for time travel fans. That said, there is no way I could stand it if it didn't gave a plot or I didn't understand it in the end so there is no way I would enjoy inherent vice. I don't know how you can have a without a clear plot be any good except to the occasional art house fan that it hits directly.
DarkBungleX Inherent Vice does get easier to follow after multiple viewings. It seems as thought the plot isn't necessarily the main focus of the film. It certainly isn't for everybody. It's not my favorite PTA film by far, but I found it enjoyable nonetheless.
the most underrated film of the 2010's
I need to rewatch this film...
+Rotschlangengift It feels like it was made for repeat viewings. Definitely gets better every time I watch it.
Yes! Watch it at least one more time this is a movie that defiantly warrants another viewing.
I adore this video, great analysis! Now do more pta please!
Thanks! I'd love to do a series on PTA at some point!
Hey I really enjoyed your video. Its good to know theres some guy on the internet out there whos as passionateabout movies as I am. And Im more happy to see somebody actually at least "liked" the picture...I get the impression inherent vice is almost forgotten by everybody. I havent seen it yet...reason for that is causeIm german, and germany is a fucked up place, cause vice comes to theaters february...so I still have to count the fuckin days
Thanks for the comment! I appreciate it. Inherent Vice certainly hasn’t gotten the recognition it deserves. It really seems to be most appreciated by those who study film and recognize it for its rich atmosphere, brilliant acting, and immaculate craft.
great job! loved the movie and this perfectly explained why.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
Inherent Twice. Great vid, loved the movie.
+Chopo Jensa Haha, that's what they should have called it! Thanks for watching!
+CinemaTyler Another moniker for it is Incoherent Vice. Bless the heart of whomever came up with that :)
Jerry Incandenza Haha, the first viewing for sure!
I've just discovered this channel and I'm really enjoying your videos. I don't know if you're a fan of Charlie Kaufman, but if so I'd love to see a video on Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It's such a great mix of emotion, idea, and visual inventiveness.
Some other movies I think would be interesting to do videos on: Alien; No Country for Old Men; Walkabout; and Under the Skin. These all have interesting technical and cinematographic things going on I'd like to hear you discuss.
Thanks! I am a fan! I actually saw him give a talk after a screening of Synecdoche, New York a little while ago. Definitely want to do something on him someday! Thanks for the suggestions!
Yo, I would like to see all of Pynchon's novel being made into movies by PTA.
I have yet to read any of Pynchon's novels, but if they're anything like this movie, I'd love to see them adapted to the screen!
I haven't too, but what I know is that all of his novels are unique, lengthy, complex and sometimes features large numbers of characters which might explain the complicated plot Inherent Vice had. Read Against the Day, Gravity's Rainbow and Vineland if you wanna know what I'm talking about.
I loved it and I think it fits well in his body of work.
Great video!
Thanks!
Cool Video Dude!!
Thanks!
I much prefer a story where everything is not explained for you and, like you said, developed naturally. Over explaining can lead to dumbing it down to the point where it feels more and more like "movie". You can't get lost in it.
Upon repeated viewings it feels more and more to me that Maya Rudolph had a heavy hand in PTAs conceptualization/realization of this film. That being said, prob my favorite film of the 2010s.
What’s your evidence of that? She’s just PTA’s lover/partner/wife… I highly doubt they talk about their individual work
Great video! Could you do some more videos on PTA movies? Or how they connect with each other? Would be awesome!
Boaz Groenendaal Thanks! I definitely want to do videos on the other PTA movies at some point. Thanks for watching!
I don't buy that line about Howard Hawks writing to Raymond Chandler, who said he "didn't know" who the killer was. Do you have a source?
I'm not trying to be a dick or anything (and I actually haven't seen the film yet), but if you read the book it's really quite clear who the killer is...
taking your advice a weird thought hit me: do it twice.
I mean what if you did this same essay again about this same movie after a second viewing?
It would be interesting checking out
except that Primer is not confusing because of how is written, but because of the impossibility to show how actual time travel affects "reality"
+GerardG I think with Primer, it's more of a structural thing and the fact that things aren't really explained. I think IV sort of uses a muddled up plot in order to take a back seat to character (and Doc's relationship with Shasta) while presenting it as being up front.
Nice video!!
N Tertaining Thanks!
Well done sir!
Flying Brian Thanks!
Can you recommend any other films with similar atmosphere of California (or maybe US in general) from the 70s? Because I've watched this movie so many times now my gf suspects I'm going nuts.
I kind of think Boogie Nights has a similar atmosphere. Check out a documentary called Los Angeles Plays Itself-- there should be something good in there.
Yeah, I saw Boogie Nights... it was cool as well, although more dark (especially towards the end). I will have a look at the doc you mentioned- thanks! :)
The Long Goodbye for sure, similar story i.e. PI on a case in southern california, directed by Robert Altman, one of PTA's biggest influences and one of the best directors of all time
The Long Goodbye is super similar, influenced this. Jackie Brown did too. pretty hard to find movies that pastiche 70s without being corny... You could always watch films from the 70s. Behind the Candelabra is very good and has a boogie night feel, All Is by my Side (Hendrix biopic w Andre 3000) is an underrated gem of mine (thought pretty innacurate to Jimis temper). You could always go with the obvious Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Lords of Dogtown (I think thats 70s? Definitelt cali).
idk inherent vice is pretty unique in encapsulating that end of the era nostalgia with gumshoe detective and conspiracy theories, I mostly like it for the romance though. The bit where coy harlington goes back to his girl is nice
Dunno why but Tarantino's Jackie Brown gives me similar vibes, that coulda been the weed talking tho
My wife hated it, me and my ex-roommate found it fascinating, funny and beautiful. I think your comments about the incomprehensible plot is the key. My wife really likes to know what's going on, to figure things out and make sense of things whereas I usually just go along for the sensory ride.
Loved Inherent Vice.
The film was truly amazing :,)
The Plot for Primer actually makes sense tough.
This movie has more mixed reviews recent history outside of the Last Jedi. People love it or loathe it. Personally, I love this movie since it's so different from all the other movies regurgitated out every year. And because it doesn't repeat the same tropes and plots every other film does, PTA might not be able to take chances like this again.
totally agree
just finished to watch it for the first time. The first 2 hours i was just trying to figure out the plot, then i gave up.
I really liked it but I don't know why.
+Alex Cayer It definitely seems like a different kind of storytelling than most contemporary movies. It seems to hinge more on atmosphere and feeling than logic and plot. It's fun to just throw it on and watch the characters.
My favorite movie of all time
"Moto panucaku" Love it
Great video
Hey man, great video but what's the name of that awesome song that plays in the background?
Thanks! The first song is “RSPN” by Blank & Kytt (blankkytt.bandcamp.com/) and the second song is “Backed Vibes Clean” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). If you are curious about any other songs I use in other videos, I credit them in order in my descriptions. :)
I guess I disagree. I like plots and consistent characters. Movies that don't have inconsistent plots and characters destroy the ability to suspend your disbelief - it violates the basic rules of a consistent reality.
They also become hard to follow, making the movie - for many - a 'slog to go through' (some online movie critic I saw).
I thought the Master's plot and characters were far more consistent. The plot was driven by decisions made by consistent characters. We eventually were able to see what an incredible creation these characters really were.
On the other hand, this movie's set pieces, cinematography and diversity of characters made me forgive the byzantine plot and I found this a more enjoyable experience than the Master.
moreanimalspirits I’m not sure if I totally understand your comment. Are you saying that you usually prefer consistent plots and characters, but you enjoyed Inherent Vice more than The Master despite IV’s inconsistency?
Either way, I enjoyed The Master more than Inherent Vice mainly because I thought that the characters were a little more fleshed out. That said, Inherent Vice seems like an experiment in storytelling. If you look at the way PTA did There Will Be Blood and The Master, they are both simple plots that capture a lost era with a couple of really dynamic characters. Inherent Vice has a super complex plot and a ton of characters, but it seems like PTA took this same approach by making the plot and most of the characters unimportant. That’s why I think that Inherent Vice is kind of brilliant. If you look at it as a slice of life from a lost era following a man coming to terms with losing his love, you get a completely different movie from the one many critics seem to be talking about.
CinemaTyler Yes. I just wish inherent vice was a bit more consistent. I think the Big Lebowski was more consistent. It can be done.
This is going to be helpful to tell anyone who criticizes me for having "no plot." As I say, if you can't give them a plot, give them a story.
+Nc Witch There is really something to be said for a film that is more lyrical than plot-driven. Not everyone's cup of tea, but that doesn't mean those films should be written off. What's interesting about Inherent Vice is that, at first, it seems to be masquerading as a plot-driven story, but it really is a very poetic film.
CinemaTyler A good plot would be Chinatown or Singin' in The Rain. Non-linear films that work well are Kane and Pulp Fiction, and even 2001 at times, showing us something about just watching instead of concerning ourselves with what came before or will happen next. Plots can be distractions, or perhaps the film is just another popcorn potboiler and the audience doesn't really care. Either way, we should be able to lose ourselves and focus only at what's being projected.
My screenplay has an ending that reflects on the beginning (something I learned from Kubrick and Welles) and the incidents along the way parallel each other nicely, giving something to satisfy the narrative; I had one guy tell me there was no plot, so obviously he didn't do a good job connecting the dots.The construction is loose, not Mulholland Dr. style, but basically your average Seinfeld episode without being under a microscope. However, I think everyone prefers story to plot, at the end of the day.
Look at Taxi Driver or anything from Hitchcock. No plots, just action or character, and still, somehow they translate to gripping narratives.
+Nc Witch I agree. Not every film has to be structured the same. I enjoy both plot-driven and character-driven movies. It all depends on your mood.
CinemaTyler I'm working on a plot that adheres to Tarkovsky's idea about Aristotle Unities with a narrative all in one day and set in one location, albeit with some surrealist bits and subplots to highlight life's absurdity, that of which we can only experience accurately on screen - "only in the movies" - the natural wonder of going to see something on celluloid as an imitation of life as a dream.
It's very difficult to come up with something original these days, but Hollywood especially works against challenging audiences anymore, and even Tarantino and Anderson are running out of ideas, so it might be up to me. Kubrick was cinema's greatest artist and he could do a fine job in every genre that he touched, but not all of his films are down to earth; 2001 stands out as a film monumental in it's scope and production, but not definitive in it's thematic approach toward human nature and identity. It is one of the most philosophical films but it leaves out emotion and disposition, save the artificiality that HAL possesses. Strangelove and Eyes Wide Shut were closer to the actual expression.
I suppose either we are all doomed on this marble or we can maybe elevate ourselves to god status among the stars like Bowman does, but our best bet is to stay human and focus on making the best out of a temporary experience. When movies get back to blending love and humor free from pandering plots then we might have something to watch.
But for me, viewing cinema is confined to the reruns of the work of the old artists due to the fact that entries in this new age can't really be called cinema anymore. I would at least expect the innuendo and jokes to get better, given mild social turbulence as generations progress, but we have substituted sophistication and innovation for the easy technological approach and work-a-like thinking and notion that acquiring more knowledge means something. Many of us are thinking alike, but not so greatly, and there is too much focus on grouping rather than individuality.
Herzog points out the distinction between fact and truth and cinema as a revelation, but modern movies have neither plot nor story nor even characters to drive us to see anything truly mesmerizing.
As we move toward talking in the same verses and living under one economy we will see originality to be the currency most in reserve by those that dare to challenge the consensus.
+Nc Witch Sounds interesting. I’m the same way-I hardly go to the theater anymore. I just recently went to a bunch of screenings at the New York Film Festival, but most of the movies I went to were revivals/retrospectives. I finally saw a Lubitsch film for the first time there (Heaven Can Wait) and there was just something about it that struck a chord with me. Like, it was made for the purpose of exploring the medium of film rather than being made in a particular way out of fear of losing money. To kind of bring it all back to Inherent Vice, even though it isn’t one of my favorite films, I really appreciated the way it sort of played around with the medium in a way that provoked thoughts about film itself more than the story.
very nice :)
+TERRAMOUNT Thanks!
what are you saying at the end: "a series of exposition dumps, the complexity seems to be drowning out."?
Exposition dumps can be taxing on the audience, but because the plot is complex enough for the audience to get lost, the exposition is sort of pushed to the background and more or less ignored. I think Sorkin does something similar with technical jargon. It becomes more about watching how the characters behave instead of where the story is going.
Thank you for answering. I wrote down what you sad in the end of the video as a memo because it spoke to me (I myself (try) to write stuff), but I couldn't make out what you said during that little part.
great book, great film. the film does indeed get better with repeated watching
+Taliesin Freund I've been meaning to check out the book. My brother loved it.
Bog Lebowski is based on Chandlers Big Sleep another hippie detective :), and after ten rewatching plot is not so thick, and inherent vice very little clue what is happening.
Great vid. Good analysis. Big PT Anderson film. My short film is PT inspired. See it on my channel. In saying that... just could get my head with it.
Thanks for the comment! Nice job. Really cool that you were able to get Tom Noonan and Ben Bailey!