What is the deal with Shasta? The film is about loss and depression - and she reappears so easily? The Neonazi with her necklace? The reaction of her lover when asked about Shasta by the main protagonist. And then they drive in the fog altogether. ... She never reappears really.
@@j.westbestoftherest9102 im not sure how to break down the plot or what literally happens or doesnt in either most of PTAS stuff or Pynchons novels as I dont think its really that interesting honestly but I think you are very much correct. Also she seems really forlorn and gone so It would make sense to me shes either dead or as good as dead and thats partly why doc and bigfoot have such kinship. PTAS been doing the subjective storytelling thing since at least punch drunk love on overdrive and it makes his stuff really intuitive and fun to analyze so him and Pynchon are a natural fit
I saw this twice in a theatre in Phoenix back in January 2015.... then proceeded to watch it at home around 10 more times that year. I was obsessed. I have watched it under different states of mind and there are still different ways to look at it 6 years later. A brilliant 'psychedelic' masterpiece..... I will find almost any reason to quote from it. hahahah
While the book is great, in my opinion, Anderson actually pushes disorientation even further in many places. For instance, in the book it's much more clear and straight-forward that Shasta in fact DOES return to L.A. while in the movie it's a little more nebulous me-thinks. But yes, it all started with Pynchon and I'm sure P.T. would agree with you!
ah, you see that is where you are wrong. It is clear...but like I said a lot of the story happens during the 'hidden day'. So, while imagining it, it seems clear but did it happen in the real world?! Pynchon was very cinematic after all. The key to Gravity's Rainbow is to 'see' it as s film (with camera movements etc described, in his way, by Pynchon)...so I read anyway. I have not attempted to read it yet.
Sure, but plot and language (the first two things you list) are entirely down to Pynchon. It’s a remarkable recreation of the mood of a Pynchon novel. The other three items on the list show PTA’s amazing knack for recreating that mood.
I thought it might well be my favorite PTA movie after seeing it first, though I have no idea why as it baffled and delighted me along with everyone else.
@@tsarnicholasii274 nowhere near? id say he's quite abit better. PTA's best film has to be There Will Be Blood, and Tarantino's is Pulp Fiction and so i would say that Pulp is better than Blood, its that simple really. Have you seen all of both of their movies?>> Have you seen Pulp Fiction?
I believe it's one of those films that they'll appreciate years down the line. When it comes to movies like this, time is the greatest critic i think. It's certaily not the easiest movie, but i believe that one day we will look at this film and say "box office isn't everything, i mean look at inherent vice.."
Picked this up halfway through on cable, chuckled at the Golden Fang. Finally picked up more of it and finally rented it. Can't say it was every confusing. If you want confusing, try reading Gravity's Rainbow
I feel like if you view the film imagining doc being high throughout and how things would appear in his head, then the whole thing makes a lot more sense. It explains the sense of confusion, distortion of time etc.
Something that goes unmentioned is that the character of Sortilege, Doc's go-to female friend and sort of the Horatio to his Hamlet, is imaginary. Or at least implied to be a product of Doc's imagination. She was created specifically for the movie, but funnily enough many of her lines (if not all of them) can be found in the book, in the third-person narration which is itself rather colloquial. It's a device Anderson uses to provide some insights that would otherwise be absent, since Sortilege is essentially the narrator of the book personified for the film, while also enhancing the film's overall dreamlike atmosphere.
She wasn't created for the film. She is in the book, but is a very minor character. It's possible she's an imaginary friend of Doc's in the novel as well.
I noticed a lovely little detail. When Doc is being questioned by the Feds first, he says a line, but while the dialogue continues to the end of the sentence, Doc's lips stop moving at the last word. Exactly the sort of trickery you are talking about.
First off, I love that you have the score from THAT magnificent act in Magnolia, when the kid is on the live game show. This music accompanies that downright cool as fuck long take , right? You caught the playing with time too. I know Pynchon did this in the novel and PTA brings our attention to it very smartly and simply...by showing watches and clocks frequently, as if to remind us to pay attention to time in the movie. Pynchon even had a day happen twice and one of the events that happens on this day is Doc reuniting with Shasta. If you notice in that scene in the movie, PTA often has a clock in the background, very deliberately displaying the same time throughout.
I love I.V. for the way it informs you of a bygone era and a particular setting but I find that there are simply too many characters introduced throughout the film. As soon as we meet a character I say "they seem interesting, let's focus on them for a while" but all that generally happens is that there'll be some expository dialogue between Doc and that character. It's frustrating because every actor and actress gives a great performance in the moments that we do see them but they're never able to go full throttle and give some added depth and meaning to their characters. All this said I do still enjoy Inherent Vice.
Ya, cocaine is just in the dentist's office. Cocaine is, more so back then, in dental anesthesia so it's not surprising he'd have a pharmaceutical grade stash. Besides, it they had been doing that much pure heroin none of them would be breathing. I can see how someone could confuse that scene, but they do act like they're on a stimulant and it is clear in all dialog relating to "the" golden fang in relation to drugs that they are importing heroin. Good correction, I noticed that too and am glad someone pointed it out in a comment.
The reason I found this film off putting was the way it was directed, with a very Kubrickian distance (PTA’s framing and staging borrows heavily from Kubrick down to the shot-reverse-shot framing). It seemed to drain all the.. whatisthebestwordtodescribeit... _energy_ from a scene. Like a necessary oomph factor to make it more engaging. I’m reminded of the big lebowski by the Coen brothers. That film had a similar meandering plot but at least the Coens knew to make their shots and edits more dramatic to emphasise certain moments and nuances rather than just having a wide shot of 2 characters talking for a long period. PTA’s Kubrick approach to this film seemed to drain all the humor and suspense from the film and made an already convoluted plot even less emotionally engaging.
@@NittyGrittyStudios”disorientate/disorientated” is used in UK English and “disorient/disoriented” is used in American English. My guess is you spent time in Britain or were heavily influenced by UK books/television because it’s a very uncommon word in American English, to the point that it truly feels “wrong” to most Americans (i.e. this commenter)
this movie definitely gets better after each viewing, it is well adapted from the book. I love the cinematography, the head shots
Apparently PT started the screenplay by literally typing out the dialogue from the book word for word for each scene.
"Bigfoot, man... You smashed down my door? C'mooon" is one of my favorite line deliveries of all time
nice video man, this film is tragically misunderstood and overlooked i feel.
Mr. Way I agree! Maybe his best film but it's just so dense and misleading.
What is the deal with Shasta? The film is about loss and depression - and she reappears so easily?
The Neonazi with her necklace?
The reaction of her lover when asked about Shasta by the main protagonist.
And then they drive in the fog altogether.
...
She never reappears really.
@@j.westbestoftherest9102 im not sure how to break down the plot or what literally happens or doesnt in either most of PTAS stuff or Pynchons novels as I dont think its really that interesting honestly but I think you are very much correct. Also she seems really forlorn and gone so It would make sense to me shes either dead or as good as dead and thats partly why doc and bigfoot have such kinship. PTAS been doing the subjective storytelling thing since at least punch drunk love on overdrive and it makes his stuff really intuitive and fun to analyze so him and Pynchon are a natural fit
I saw this twice in a theatre in Phoenix back in January 2015.... then proceeded to watch it at home around 10 more times that year. I was obsessed. I have watched it under different states of mind and there are still different ways to look at it 6 years later. A brilliant 'psychedelic' masterpiece..... I will find almost any reason to quote from it. hahahah
Yeah. This is the ultimate stoner movie. Better than fear and loathing
Great video, although a lot of these disorientations should be credited to Pynchon instead of Anderson
While the book is great, in my opinion, Anderson actually pushes disorientation even further in many places. For instance, in the book it's much more clear and straight-forward that Shasta in fact DOES return to L.A. while in the movie it's a little more nebulous me-thinks. But yes, it all started with Pynchon and I'm sure P.T. would agree with you!
ah, you see that is where you are wrong. It is clear...but like I said a lot of the story happens during the 'hidden day'. So, while imagining it, it seems clear but did it happen in the real world?! Pynchon was very cinematic after all. The key to Gravity's Rainbow is to 'see' it as s film (with camera movements etc described, in his way, by Pynchon)...so I read anyway. I have not attempted to read it yet.
Sure, but plot and language (the first two things you list) are entirely down to Pynchon. It’s a remarkable recreation of the mood of a Pynchon novel. The other three items on the list show PTA’s amazing knack for recreating that mood.
Will forever be my favorite film of all time.
Little Big Men Productions one of my fav too!
I thought it might well be my favorite PTA movie after seeing it first, though I have no idea why as it baffled and delighted me along with everyone else.
quentin tarantino much, u seen his movies?
@@joshtoomes870 What? Tarantino's nowhere near PTA.
@@tsarnicholasii274 nowhere near? id say he's quite abit better. PTA's best film has to be There Will Be Blood, and Tarantino's is Pulp Fiction and so i would say that Pulp is better than Blood, its that simple really. Have you seen all of both of their movies?>> Have you seen Pulp Fiction?
I believe it's one of those films that they'll appreciate years down the line. When it comes to movies like this, time is the greatest critic i think. It's certaily not the easiest movie, but i believe that one day we will look at this film and say "box office isn't everything, i mean look at inherent vice.."
W. T. Jennings couldn’t agree more!
It is having the same fate as Big Lebowski (which it got compared to on its release).
Picked this up halfway through on cable, chuckled at the Golden Fang. Finally picked up more of it and finally rented it.
Can't say it was every confusing. If you want confusing, try reading Gravity's Rainbow
I feel like if you view the film imagining doc being high throughout and how things would appear in his head, then the whole thing makes a lot more sense. It explains the sense of confusion, distortion of time etc.
Something that goes unmentioned is that the character of Sortilege, Doc's go-to female friend and sort of the Horatio to his Hamlet, is imaginary. Or at least implied to be a product of Doc's imagination. She was created specifically for the movie, but funnily enough many of her lines (if not all of them) can be found in the book, in the third-person narration which is itself rather colloquial.
It's a device Anderson uses to provide some insights that would otherwise be absent, since Sortilege is essentially the narrator of the book personified for the film, while also enhancing the film's overall dreamlike atmosphere.
She wasn't created for the film. She is in the book, but is a very minor character. It's possible she's an imaginary friend of Doc's in the novel as well.
@@alejoparedes2388 To be honest her part in the book flew right over my head, but then again reading the book felt like walking through a haze.
I noticed a lovely little detail. When Doc is being questioned by the Feds first, he says a line, but while the dialogue continues to the end of the sentence, Doc's lips stop moving at the last word. Exactly the sort of trickery you are talking about.
First off, I love that you have the score from THAT magnificent act in Magnolia, when the kid is on the live game show. This music accompanies that downright cool as fuck long take , right?
You caught the playing with time too. I know Pynchon did this in the novel and PTA brings our attention to it very smartly and simply...by showing watches and clocks frequently, as if to remind us to pay attention to time in the movie. Pynchon even had a day happen twice and one of the events that happens on this day is Doc reuniting with Shasta. If you notice in that scene in the movie, PTA often has a clock in the background, very deliberately displaying the same time throughout.
I hadn't noticed that about the clocks. I will keep my eyes peeled next time!
u gotta smoke weed every day for a chronic illness for a year to rly get doc's noided hallucinations
"The film was too confusing."
"I-it was supposed to be confusing!!!"
Great video. My favorite movie and I cant even explain the plot to anyone. Glad its not just me
Most of this stuff comes from the book.
That is true RonHoward but I feel like PT pushes it even further.
This movie got right what Licorice Pizza did not, imo. I also prefer it over Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
Ngl I could not keep up with this film. Enjoyed it enough but couldn’t follow it... think I’m just stupid loll
Fantastic video!
Thanks!
I'll say what William Hurt said to Tom Berenger in the Big Chill: sometimes you just have to let art flow over you.
Great video. Awesome editing too
Thanks dude!
Inherent Vice is one if not the hardest movie to read I've ever seen
Wait... Howard Hughes was Italian?
It's a pynchon novel and most people didn't get it? Shocker
I love I.V. for the way it informs you of a bygone era and a particular setting but I find that there are simply too many characters introduced throughout the film. As soon as we meet a character I say "they seem interesting, let's focus on them for a while" but all that generally happens is that there'll be some expository dialogue between Doc and that character. It's frustrating because every actor and actress gives a great performance in the moments that we do see them but they're never able to go full throttle and give some added depth and meaning to their characters.
All this said I do still enjoy Inherent Vice.
Good movie...would have liked it a lot more without Katherine Waterston.
PT Anderson is an amazing director but people need to stop acting like he wrote this story.
it's not cocaine... it's heroin...
Ya, cocaine is just in the dentist's office. Cocaine is, more so back then, in dental anesthesia so it's not surprising he'd have a pharmaceutical grade stash. Besides, it they had been doing that much pure heroin none of them would be breathing. I can see how someone could confuse that scene, but they do act like they're on a stimulant and it is clear in all dialog relating to "the" golden fang in relation to drugs that they are importing heroin. Good correction, I noticed that too and am glad someone pointed it out in a comment.
0:59 Ring tone
There's nothing happening man... That's the point...
The reason I found this film off putting was the way it was directed, with a very Kubrickian distance (PTA’s framing and staging borrows heavily from Kubrick down to the shot-reverse-shot framing). It seemed to drain all the.. whatisthebestwordtodescribeit... _energy_ from a scene. Like a necessary oomph factor to make it more engaging. I’m reminded of the big lebowski by the Coen brothers. That film had a similar meandering plot but at least the Coens knew to make their shots and edits more dramatic to emphasise certain moments and nuances rather than just having a wide shot of 2 characters talking for a long period. PTA’s Kubrick approach to this film seemed to drain all the humor and suspense from the film and made an already convoluted plot even less emotionally engaging.
agreed. i love the movie but one of my issues is this exact thing
Goes to sit once here and again here. You mean the continuation of sitting? Lol
Nope. There’s a deliberate overlap/repetition in the action of him sitting to disorientate the viewer. But thanks for playing!
@@NittyGrittyStudiosnonsense
It's like he did a bad movie on purpose because he wanted it.
Or just made movie you didnt like.
Disorientate is not a word.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disorientate
@@NittyGrittyStudios”disorientate/disorientated” is used in UK English and “disorient/disoriented” is used in American English. My guess is you spent time in Britain or were heavily influenced by UK books/television because it’s a very uncommon word in American English, to the point that it truly feels “wrong” to most Americans (i.e. this commenter)