One thing I want to add to the meaning of the title is that Inherent Vice doesn't just refer to something damaging itself, it means the damage came from an inherent property of the object. It means the chocolate melted because chocolate is fundamentally meltable. So it's not just saying that the dream of the 60's died under the oppressive vice of capitalism, it's more saying that the dream of the 60's was unsustainable due to the nature of man. It was killed by humanities inborn greed and desire for power. Our inherent vice.
Perhaps the teeth are merely (or additionally) symbolic of Humans' tendency to deteriorate not just physically (and heroin induced), but as a society, as represented by the end of the whole Summer of Love/hippy idealism to the paranoid 70s, Vietnam etc etc. The use/sale of illicit/harmful drugs & propaganda to control/manipulate populations, fund black ops or bring people down for others gain (to name just a few relevant to the film). Very similar to the opium wars in modern times. Further we see Shasta refer to the title and her own deterioration of spirit/self.
One of my favorite part of this movie is at the very end when Bigfoot kicks Doc's door in. And takes a drag from his spliff, then they start saying the same words at the same time. And then Bigfoot starts eating all the marijuana on the table. Notice that in that moment Doc starts to cry. He asks in worry "Are you okay brother?" to which Bigfoot replies "I'm not your brother". Then Doc: "No, but you could use a keeper." This is after Doc has helped solve the mistery of who killed Bigfoot's partner (that wasn't a mistery to Bigfoot), and get his revenge. Throughout the movie they were constantly picking on eachother, messing with one-another but they also had respect, and even some kind of admiration towards one-another, that they never showed. That was the moment when Bigfoot accepted Doc by trying pot, well not just trying, but literally eating a handful of cannabis. Since in Bigfoot's head, Marijuana represents Doc, that is his thing, at least to Bigfoot. That is why Doc was crying, he was so moved by this gesture. And even though this was all done in the most Bigfoot way, Doc could see through all of that. I love this movie for these character interactions, that is shown visually, but not necessarily spoken out. Another one is when Chasta seduces Doc, but I'll leave that to you. :)
Lol. I think what works so well in this movie is the contrast between Bigfoot and Doc. They are both outsiders of a time left behind, but are also completely different
ruukaoz hi your commentary is exactly why I was looking at analyzing this film. Thank you...also my favorite scene. Possible Bigfoot is alien being from another planet....also he was abused by his wife. Bigfoot's wife was a bully.
A lot of people in the novel admire Doc I think. There are two lines that made me think 'yeah, go on my man!' in the way you do when you root for your hero in a movie. First, there is that wonderful line Coy says to him right after Doc rescues him, 'you're a dangerous operator', or something very similar to that. How right he is. it is a dangerous world Doc is in, but he navagates his way through it. He is so worthy of admiration. Then there's the great line Doc says to Fenway when they meet towards the end, where he warns him 'if you jive with me...'. Way to go Doc!! But, as well, he is caring and empathetic, hence his word to Big Foot. He is a hell of a fella is Sportello!
I love this film and appreciate a lot a lot your analysis, but could you pls explain the scene of seduction the way you did with Bigfoot at the end? Tnx in advance! :)
This is how I explain the story: This movie is a character study from Doc's point of view, we see the world the way he sees the world. He has almost no idea what's going on, he's just following leads, therefore the audience has no idea what's going on and is just following him follow leads. Which I love, because we are there with Doc through the whole film, it keeps us close to him and it keeps it hilarious
Agreed. this is emphasized when we see Doc writing stuff like "something in Chinese" in his notebook. He's totally clueless most of the time, and it's hilarious.
Because in reality... a lot of times... nothing is going on. A bunch of characters running around if you're 'sober' enough to see it. But obviously you get closer to one you see their deep intricacies and fine detail. Very interesting.
I'll be honest. This story was sure as hell a bit tough to make sense of during various parts of the movie, but one thing that is unquestionable is Joaquin Phoenix's acting. He is just so convincing. He seemed naturally like a confused, out of touch stoner with the most carefree attitude in the world about everything happening around him. So convincing. Brilliant actor.
I had to re-watch it with subtitles on. Too much mumbling for me to make out what was being said. I thought it was a fantastic movie and I'm not a big fan of this director. I've never made it through There Will Be Blood and don't plan on trying again.
Shasta Fey wears orange in her opening scene, which is very much the blue/orange cinematic color wheel. In the end, when Doc takes Coy home, the light from inside the house is the same orange as Shasta's dress. ( IE Doc's reward for his journey is the completeness of this family. ) And Bigfoot is in an orange shirt and tie when he kicks in Doc's door and gives in to his urge to "join" the counter culture that has been so much a part of his career as a police officer. Color symbolism abounds throughout this wonderful movie.
When I first saw this in theatres I thought I was dumb because I couldn't follow it haha. But after reading a plot synopsis it made more sense to me and overall I enjoyed it. Especially Joaquin Phoenix, that man is so under appreciated as an actor. You should dissect I'm Still Here, that'd be cool
JP finally got that well-deserved Oscar, not that he cares about it that much..but I enjoyed the moment his name was called, and appreciated his speech which calls for all of us to fight injustice.
I like how PTA's recent movies focus on transitional moments in American history and center around pairs of characters who somehow sum up competing alternatives at the time: the Satanic oil man vs. the callow boy preacher in There Will be Blood, or the ebullient self-actualization guru and the damaged vet in The Master. In this film, you have two characters who embody competing sides of the '60s (the hippie stoner and the crew-cut authoritarian cop) yet gradually discover that, in the '70s, the conflict that defined their relationship is being obviated, as the world of drugs and New Age religion and the corporate world increasingly start to fuse.
You know I was so hyped on this movie, and when I finally got the chance to watch it I was still a smoker. Now after the first viewing, I was completely lost. Hadn’t watched it since and had recently got it on BluRay in an attempt to give it another chance. Now idk if it had just so long since my first viewing, but watching it again I went in with a completely separate mind set of how I interpreted. The story has come together so much easier than it had the first time and I’m not sure it is because of already seeing it once (albeit with memory of only vague details and the basic plot line, barely even remember how it had ended) or if it was because I wasn’t blitzed out of my mind like I was the first time. Basically just wanted to say that if you dislike or just aren’t vibing with a movie the first viewing, just completely zap it from your mind and see how you feel about a few years from then. You’d be surprised what time can do lol
Same, ish. It took me 5 years to watch this movie and actually understand the plot. I was immediately addicted to it just for its atmosphere (the way characters interact is so PRESENT), but never could interpret the plot. This time, I was minorly stoned, alone, and turned on subtitles. Also I had gotten over the cinematography and could focus finally on the dialogue
Reviews made it seem so incoherent when it came out and I kind of agreed initially. But since I wrote this, I’ve seen it a few more times and I appreciate it a lot more than before. Everything comes together perfectly. I think it’s one that people will come back to and appreciate a lot more later on down the line
I enjoyed your video, sir. I remember leaving the theater feeling confused but satisfied after watching Inherent Vice. The soundtrack is fantastic. There are enough moments of genuine heart and emotion to offset the meandering story. I remember feeling a similar way after watching The Big Lebowski for the first time. It's upon repeated viewings that you begin to see through the haze of smoke and finally understand it.
I'm gonna be a little controversial, but this is my favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film, he is one of my favorite directors and I know that movies like Magnolia, Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood are better, but I always come back to Inherent Vice.
Don't worry. Boogie Nights is not better than Inherent Vice imo. It's a bloated fictional biopic that tries to be Scorsese and Tarantino simultaneously (not that that can't be done right BUT) While I can see why Inherent Vice is controversial, most of PTA's later work is 1000% an improvement on Boogie Nights. His subsequent movies Magnolia and The Master being hard evidence.
This film, like all TPA films, is a marvel to behold. I believe I've seen this one 4 times and like all truly worthy works of Art it has taken me higher each time. Live long and prosper Mr. Anderson. I thank you.
The feeling of ambiguity of the plot is the same feeling i get even in present day to day life, politics or people’s relations and interest in one another, the movie reflects that perfectly in my opinion, there is an underlying truth just like the events we live in our present time, so they don’t hand over to you like in other movies, you are just as informed or left wondering by the events regardless of the era 60s 70s or todays, the end scene foreshadows the last scene nothing will change because of the human nature, only the frame is different just like our perspective
@@acevaptsarov8410 On the surface, yeah, but both of these movies have much deeper concerns that the surface relationship story. This maker of this viewer understands "Inherent Vice". "The Master" is really just about people's primal attachment to organizing ideas.
@jon8004 Pretty sure someone deleted a comment in this thread... haha my comment above wasn't a response to this OP, but someone else, who if I remember correctly listed a few PTA movies and was on about how totally sublime they all were. So I just added that I'd also like to ad The Master to that list. Hope that clarifies :)
the first time i watched this movie, i saw it with a friend. Neither of us could remember the last time a movie made us laugh like Inherent Vice did. Regardless of the plot being confusing, the characters made the movie enjoyable and hilarious. Upon watching it a second time, i understood the story better and loved the movie even more. I then showed it to another friend, who tried to follow the plot so closely, he completely missed the comedy in the movie. Im glad you mentioned this in the video. Looking foreward to more reviews!
Great video. This made me appreciate this movie even more. I always took it like - by the end of the movie we've gotten to the end, we don't really know how we got there but we know we got there - And that's exactly how Doc, feels, he got there and he doesn't know how because he's so high, but he got there.
What he did for Coy is fucking insane, he pulled some strings because of his connections and even Coy acknowledged it, and the reason he got that connection is literally by being kind, he returned the daughter of a powerful lawyer. With the exchange, he didn't even take any money, he just did what was right, Lege was his voice of reason and he listened to her.
First of, not my favourite PTA film (Magnolia gets the nod). Secondly, I'm a long time Pynchon fan, as is apparently PTA. This movie is a surprisingly accurate adaptation, despite the fact the book is even more confusing than the film. That PTA even managed to make it is a testament to his immense talent. In order to understand the film you need to read the book and preferably the entire Pynchon catalogue. That's asking a lot, I know, but at least reading VINELAND together with Inherent Vice will help. Inherent Vice, VINELAND and Crying of Lot 49 constitute what some would call the minor Pynchon novels or "Pynchon Light" (the major ones being V., GR, M&D and AtD btw). A bit of Archaeology at this point: I prefer to call the three minors his California trilogy. You can ignore Lot 49 almost entirely for the purpose of IV, but VINELAND is essential to understanding. Lot 49 was written in the 60s and plays out in the 60s, VINELAND plays out in 1984 (remember Orwell) but was released in 1990. IV was released in 2009 but takes place in 1970. The order is thus: Lot 49 -> Inherent Vice -> VINELAND in proper chronology. PTA has talked in interviews about wanting to film VINELAND, but failing, while also admitting it is one he often re-reads. This is understandable. VINELAND takes place in the 70s - 80s wasteland after IV (mainly in 1984), but with major historical flashbacks to the early 20th century. It is also the warmest of all his novels and depicts this surviving 60s hippie ("Zoyd" as he is called in this here, but might as well be "Doc".) as he is grappling with his alienation from his daughter and his wife (gone missing similar to Shasta but for even more sinister reasons) while staying true to his "hippie" ideals in the Ronald Reagan era of "Say no to Drugs", oppressive DEA agents and the ever present MTV and soap TV bombarding at 60 frames per second. In IV, Doc Sportello represents all the ideals of the 60s while Shasta represents America. She's not just his girlfriend he longs for (he lost her before the 70s happened as far as we can tell .. great clue btw) and while Doc represents the ideals of the 60s, Shasta represents the innocence of America as a whole. The name Shasta is not chosen by random btw. The county of Shasta in California was one of the liberal counties won by George McGovern (the guy Hunter S. Thompson supported in 1972 .. remember) but which then turned violently to the evil side and has remained staunchly Republican ever since. Either a selling out or a seduction. Make of it what you will. In VINELAND Pynchon makes the case that the innocent want to be seduced, or are open to seduction, while in IV he makes the case that perhaps it was the unreasonable expectations of the 60s generation to remain children forever that was the undoing of their utopia. IV makes it clear that the change is already under-way, and we see this through Docs eyes. Shasta has put her chips on what she believes is a rigged table, with open eyes (advised by one of the architects Micky Wolfman ... great name by the way for such a person) while 'Doc' is consulting with Ouija boards, astrology and pure stoned intuition and refuses to see what is happening. We see the unfolding of the 60s through Docs eyes as we pass into the 70s. In VINELAND 'Doc' .. sorry, I mean 'Zoyd', has understood this with the power of hindsight, and kind of understands the errors of the 60s -- the rigged table, the fog of the drugs, the seductive power of authoritarianism, but he can only act as a child of the 60s in this hostile environment. VINELAND is an extraordinary minor work by Pynchon, he addresses much larger topics in his "major books" but made quite a singular and personal work out of VINELAND which is in it self needed to understand IV. Pynchon is angry, sentimental and perhaps even remorseful; he was after all part of it. Inherent Vice is important as a compliment to VINELAND, to widen the perspective. The books enhance each other. VINELAND is a better book than IV but perhaps the latter made for better cinema. With all this said, IV the movie, lets us in closely on the personal agony of Doc Sportello (or 'Zoyd') as the great utopian 60s project falls apart. And it is beautifully executed by PTA. Especially the entirely original ending where Bigfoot kicks the door in. PTA clearly understood or "got" the book. The film is actually made by a Pynchon fan for other Pynchon fans and not easily understood for those unfamiliar with him. Let me also add that I'm neither British nor American, English is not my major language (I am Scandinavian) and that the time period was not my own. Still I feel this analysis to be true. Make of it what you will and enjoy the books. Cheers :-) Just my minor thoughts. [edits]: corrected some spelling errors and what not as I re-visited this thread.
This is one of the most helpful analysis I've read on the film. Have had Vineland waiting on my shelf for a couple months now. Thanks for being so thoughtful and spending that time.
Peter Grant Way better analysis then this video tbh. After watching this film I knew I needed to read some Pynchon and started with The Crying of Lot 49 (as everyone does) and absolutely loved it. I've picked up Slow Learner but am still undecided about which novel to pick up next. Leaning towards Inherent Vice since it's meant to be one of his simplest and best, but I'm open ears to any suggestion?
Firstly, I'm am not going to recommend any particular book but instead point you in the direction of some resources you will find useful. If you ever intend to read GR you should get the excellent "Gravity's Rainbow Companion" by Steven Weisenburger (I have it and can recommend it). There are book guides for Lot and V. as well but I have not read either guide, so I will not comment on their quality. The ultimate Pynchon authority on the net is thomaspynchon.com/ which has a "Pynchon Wiki" with entries on all his books. Despite this it is not as user-friendly (IMO) as having a reference at hand in book form while reading the works. There is a separate guide for VINELAND in pdf format only called "Babies of Wackiness", well worth printing out, and it can be downloaded here: www.mindspring.com/~shadow88/BoW.pdf (most of it was later incorporated in the Pynchon Wiki btw). Secondly, I suggest you read reviews of the books you intend to commit to. Pynchon Wiki has links to reviews for each separate book and even a guide for Pynchon newbies. (Make sure to search the web for Salman Rushdies review of VINELAND, it is great!) Thirdly and finally, Jack's Movie Reviews did a great job breaking down the film, I respect his views very much, but opinions differ. Don't bash him for doing this for free for your enjoyment. Cheers :-)
There is a super lecture on Lot 49 if you look up Yale and Dr Amy Hungerford. She did a series of lectures on post modern English literature. She tackles Lot 49 as art of this series. She explains as you do ho Pynchon deliberately gave added meaning to his characters by the names he gives them, so I think you are bang on with the Shasta idea.
This film was referred to as a "shaggy dog story" and although it may seem more than that, the aspect of shaggy dog stories being turgid and playing upon the viewers' enjoyment of humor makes its anti-climax all the more tolerable. There was no murder mystery but there were plenty of enjoyable and interesting characters from which this film derived its depth. The casting was first-rate, every role was flawlessly executed right down to the revelation that Bigfoot was hen-pecked to the max. Brolin and Phoenix were superb together.
PTA is prolly my favorite director, and this is certainly one of his best. IDK how critics didn't appreciate it. Joaquin may be the greatest actor of all time behind Daniel Day Lewis. His last string of performances have been phenominal.
Hands down favorite PTA film, and I love all of his filmography. His collaborations with Johnny Greenwood is one of the best things that's happened to humanity.
i love this movie! i've watched it over and over again since its release. when the title appeared to those amazing Can - "Vitamin C" drums at the start, i knew it was about to be one of my favorites.
Absolutely great movie. Incorruptible and lacking inherent vice himself, he subconsciously navigates the egoic world of hypocrisy and corruption to succeed with his relationships and integrity intact.
it took me 3 times before i completely understood the plot. the first time i saw it, i had no idea what i just saw but i knew i liked it. the 2nd time i saw the movie, i was still confused & actually wasn't sure if i really enjoyed it that much to begin with. but once i watched it a third time i finally figured out what was going on throughout the story & knew i didn't like the film... i loved it. it certainly meanders a lot but is one of those flicks that just gets better upon repeated viewings due to how it's aesthetic beauty, wonderful acting, & captivating dialogue.
First off, let me say excellent video. You're probably the only one who's managed to eloquently and coherently explain what Inherent Vice is and how it's woven, down to the finest detail. But outside of that, I agree with this 100%. I'd like to add, also, that the "second" scene with Shasta is not only the best scene in my opinion, but an incredibly unique tragedy that sums up what Doc's journey is about: A confused and drunk, yet, heartfelt attempt to bridge a connection to the peculiar lost spirit of innocence and moral balance, trampled by the corruption and avariciousness of 70s capitalism, beautifully personified by Shasta, given that the looming "inherent vice" of time is the change within itself and all the challenges that come with it. It's insane how Paul managed to capture the heartbreak of said scene without averting the careful attention to detail and nuance. Even weirder how such a sad scene was actually comedic in the book o.O Brilliant movie
I really appreciate that, Inherent Vice is a movie that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, you could spend HOURS talking about the different scenes, characters and what they represent, different shots, different interactions, but I think that the best way to discuss it is simply try and show the main message, apply that to a few scenes and let the viewers do the rest. I'm glad you enjoyed!
When talking about the "second scene" with Shasta, I assume you are talking about the racy long shot? Interesting how you viewed it as sad. I didn't get that impression on my first two views, but maybe I'll see it differently next time. Certainly not a happy scene, and I see what you mean about a lack of emotional connection, but I don't think it as sad...
Thanks for this, lots to think about. Just a couple of points: - Mickey didn’t go join a cult; after Shasta introduced him to hallucinogens he realised the evil of his development projects (“shelter should be free”) and his integration with the Golden Triangle (money laundering through the massage parlour he owns etc) and the links to the nazi group (which is also linked to the Feds who use them for strong arm tactics). Yep we need that white board but he was kidnapped and taken to the mental facility owned by the Golden Triangle and monitored by the FBI. The Golden Triangle and the feds weren’t going to be able to use him if he was off doing good deeds. - Doc didn’t return Shasta to her origins. Shasta represents the free vision of the 60s which has been demolished and brutalised, through our Inherent Vice. Personally I see their driving scene as just trying to move forward, but Docs keeps looking back… - I love your description of Doc’s character - how does he remain moral in this new world of Reaganomics? - There’s also a lot about Macarthyism woven throughout this film.
That is very possible, I've heard a lot of fan theories about that, a few that go into the idea of reincarnation. I'm not too big on speculation personally.
I would have to place this in my top 3 PTA films, alongside The Master and Boogie Nights (#2 and #1 respectively). I think, or at least hope, that Inherent Vice will become a cult classic in the next decade or so. As both a PTA and Pynchon fan I found it spellbinding, especially on a second viewing.
Also, two things about Doc Sportello that I find interesting. One is his arc, or lack of one. You mentioned it, but there's something realistic about a character who doesn't go through a dramatic personality change as a result of the plot. People tend to not change much, especially when given a short period of time, and Doc remains very much himself by the end of the mystery. Another thing about him is less unique to Doc and more a recurring element in Pynchon's characters, for those who have read his books. Doc is a perfect example of the sympathetic degenerate, someone who does drugs and/or indulges in sexual taboos but comes off as likable despite (or maybe because of?) these perceived flaws. A lot of Pynchon's characters fall into that type, although by film standards Doc is rather atypical.
Brian Collins I really like that, it feels like an excerpt in this crazy world. He is far from a high moral character, but a well written and phenomenally well acted one
our feelings towards him change though. At the start, we see him as just a hippie stoner, but by the end, when he is being told by Coy that he is 'a dangerous operator' and when he warns Fenway not to '...jive with me', my attitude towards him changes. I wouldn't f**k with him by the end of the story! He took on the Golden Fang and lived!!
Great video. I heard a theory, and kinda thought it as I watched, Shasta is dead and this is a story about grief and "ghosts" ( hallucinations ) Love this movie. Will have to watch it again.
This movie takes some work to love. Saw it at the Ace Theater premier, then the cinedome, then during it's standard release but it wasn't until I bought it on Blu-Ray and got really stoned that I was able to just focus on what the film is really about and not the plot. It helped having seen it three times prior and not having to try to figure out the plot.
I loved this movie. Great analysis. Inherent Vice also follows patterns of the Hard Boiled detective genre which also is prone to having an anti-establishment hero with a strong code of ethics and a convoluted mystery that is not easily followed. I almost feel like Pynchon was doing a satire of that genre or a reinterpretation like the Coens did with The Big Lebowski. Anyway . . . thank you for defending this misunderstood little gem.
Inherent Vice exquisitely captured the "60s." The internal and external pressures on the idealism of the 60s were too great, it wasn't inherently sustainable. Although it is easy to point blame on the external pressures, everyone knows that the idealistic 60s were doomed from the start because it was built on a house of cards. I wish it were not so, but everyone knows: "If you can remember the 60s, you weren't there.". Neither Shasta Fay nor Doc came through it intact. Blaming is the easy answer. There is no easy answer. I love this movie. it is both a comedy and a tragedy, depending on your perspective. 🎭
It was difficult to follow not gonna lie, but like you said , I enjoyed the characters more than the story. It's a comedy and when I read about the plot, the demise of the 60s due to its own nature aka inherent vice, the expression of the 5 stages of grief in different characters, how we come to an understanding in the end acceptance of this grief, is what makes doc whole, which is still a jumbling end in the movie coz now I'm thinking if Shasta was really there or he imagined her, coz of the dopers high. Her saying "It's like I'm underwater" is perhaps saying, she is no more and the doc has accepted that and won't look for her anymore, hinted when he says "This don't mean we're together" or u could just think of it as her describing coming from death to life and him accepting his future with her as nothing but sex. There so many things, this movie is pure art. I loved it.
I'm picky on movies and loved it. Plus I got listen to a song from Neil Young I never heard before and added to my playlist. Journey Through The Past is a great song that made me appreciate my woman even more ..❤
i think you summed it up at 6:02. modern audiences have no idea how to tamper their expectations, or how to handle films that dont completely pander to them intellectually
I saw this on Reddit, hopefully it'll get some more traffic because it definitely deserves it. To be honest, I didnt find the plot to be that hard to follow, or if I did I didnt notice since I was so invested in the characters and crazy scenes. I feel like in order to enjoy this movie to the fullest you just have to look at it as less of a mystery or detective story and more as a comedy with those elements. I didnt really grasp the capitalism analogy while watching but once you've laid it out it does add another layer that I'm sure I'll appreciate when I watch this again. Great video!
I like the analysis but don't agree that Doc himself isn't changing. Remember, at the beginning of the story he mentions he's "got an office now, it's like a day job and everything." He also shows that he's just as susceptible to outside influences as anyone when he changes his hair to an afro. Also, I'd like to say that yes I think you hit on a lot of the capitalism stuff, but I think it goes deeper in that these institutions somehow come to represent a lot of the aspects of human nature that are immutable. Capitalism is like the dark, selfish, animalistic code ingrained in our DNA. Shasta, after she comes back, seems to be attempting to draw Doc's more primordial side out when she "seduces" him. This makes us all wonder if she's there as an agent of Vigilant California or simply as an ex-girlfriend. At the end though, yes we see that Doc refuses the money, attempts to put the pieces back together, and go on with his life. However, I think he realizes that it wasn't the external dark forces of the Golden Fang and Capitalism that are eroding the 60s counter culture -- it's instead the inherent vice of the hippy movement which collapsed under the weight of its own unsustainable shortcomings. That's the real tragedy.
Thnx I really hate that ppl just blame capitalism for the end of the 60s. It was more of their own bad eggs that killed the culture than some big bad corporation demolishing their dreams by monetizing it. It was more so the fact their own culture couldn't be sustained due to the erosion of their own existence by meaningless search into redundant philosophical life styles. Under a socialist system they wouldn't have been even allowed to expierence those lives since the state is ur God and ur will is theirs to command. No govt would allow work shy pesants to roam their cities never mind the drugs and sex. In the end it was the drugs, sex and lack of productivity that killed them off. With the fear of manson protruding for the anti hippies to point to. Capitalism would be the only system where hippies could exist it turns out.
TThere's nothing certain - a surprisingly rewarding sensation that demands repeat viewings.inherent vice is confounding, challenging and consistently unique.
Not to toot my own horn here, but I honestly did not have any trouble following this story, this is an insanely brilliant film, I had never read anything by Thomas Pynchon, barely had even heard of him. Once again, Joaquin Phoenix puts out in his usual stellar fashion, I am totally spoiled by his command of craft.
Great summary. The moment I started to enjoy the movie and finished it was when I decided... You know let's just enjoy the vibe maybe the story will make sense later.
Tried to watch it a couple years ago but couldn't finish it because I couldn't follow the story. Tried again yesterday and finished it. I really agree with your point that you shouldn't demand from yourself to understand the story. It's not necessary to understand the story fully to watch and appreciate this film. Very unique film, I enjoyed it. Not sure what to make of it and not sure I have to make something of it.
I wouldn't call it a masterpiece and there were perhaps some boring bits, but there are several sequences that made me laugh so hard I thought I'd die, and that counts for a lot to me. Also brilliant performances from everyone in it.
The film is wonderful, and if you want to follow it, simply look at Joaquin's eyes. The most expressive eyes I've ever seen in a movie. Josh Brolin is perfection, sympatico, twisted, hilarious, all at the same time. Brilliant character. If you didn't see him in Hail Caesar, you missed out. By the way, Anderson is making another film with Daniel Day-Lewis, in production this year, 2017. See you there.
To me, the meaning of "Inherent Vice" is Shasta Fay Hepworth. Doc wants Shasta back, and he thinks he can get her back by solving the case she brings up... when in reality, Shasta just comes and goes as she pleases... first at the beginning of the film, to start the plot, and then at the end, she comes back and taunts Doc a story, told relishingly, of how she was treated as a sexual object while aboard the Golden Fang. How do you love someone who is going to periodically disappear for months at a time to have group sex with the types of powerful men you despise? Well, you have to tell yourself she has inherent vice, a capacity for her own self-destruction. Their relationship is similar to the characters in Phantom Thread, who agree that they can only be together if she periodically feeds him poisonous mushrooms.
I watched the first half and I was like alright I literally don't understand anything anymore, so I started again and when it ended I was in love with it.
Dark comedy, but a comedy for sure. I guess I have an odd sense of humor, I have always loved the irreverent, Dark Comedy genre...Like the phone conversation, between Doc and Bigfoot, when Bigfoot tells his young son to go to bed, and without missing a beat, Doc asks why he would go to bed? I'm working right now, he says adamantly lol...Just the strange and quirky humor I enjoy. I definitely found it hard to follow, especially the first time around. But the more times I watched, the more I appreciated the complexity of the characters, and the interesting and entertaining relationships they shared with one another, especially Doc. I remember years ago, having similar feelings about The Big Lebowski, the first time I watched it...But today, both movies are two of my all time favorites.
Nice video, I just saw Easy Rider, which is sometimes thought as the whole Hippie movement and how it came to an end, with all the inconsistencies of such movement, and I just felt that now that I understand Inherent Vice, I think that they share a very similar meaning. Just my opinion anyways.
This film is so brilliant in so many different ways. It accurately portrays LA in the early 70s, with its dichotomy of the hippie underground counterculture, and the "straight" world of cops, lawyers, and businesses. If you watch it through this lens, you notice that almost all the important characters and places are liminal - not completely of one world, nor entirely of the other. Straight society is hijacking the hippie style via capitalist enterprises, like in the commercial for channel view estates, but those selfsame capitalists have become infected by the drug culture, like in the case of Rudy Blatnoyd D.D.S. and the dentists he represents at the Golden Fang building. You have two polar opposite cultures vying for supremacy and eventually merging to become one, like when we see the very straight laced characters of Penny the DA toke up with Doc and Bigfoot, who betrays his cop code by stealing heroin and by smoking pot with Doc at the end, we see him as a man who has succumbed to cynicism, entirely amoral. Bigfoot is the perfect foil for Doc. Doc, as always throughout the film, serves as the heart and conscience of the dualistic culture he finds himself in. He's a hippie through and through, but unlike some of his hippy friends, he is thoroughly competent, talking a scared cop and his loaded friends out of a potentially disastrous encounter, escaping handcuffs and a locked door; fighting and winning against a huge terrifying neo Nazi and a professional hit man, all while tripping balls on PCP. Doc isn't just any hippy. A couple times passing reference is made to the Vietnam war, by his jacket we see he is a veteran. He is something very rare, the kind of man who can survive horribly traumatic situations with his heart intact. He can do the right thing time and again without ever becoming cynical and amoral like Bigfoot. Doc Sportello might be one of my favorite film protagonists in recent years. All in all Inherent Vice is a woefully underappreciated film. It is ambiguous and convoluted, but so is life. In this it reflects some important truths about the American way of life.
For one thing, medical supplies are in short supply because hospitals have to bid against one another for them in the middle of the current global crisis. That certainly is not because of socialism
i rewatched this the other night, loved it so much....and i feel it is better if you let go of following a straight story and just take in each scene as it goes down....wanna see PTA's most obvious nod here? i watched 'the long goodbye' the following night.....inherent vice's older uncle...
Knowing the author & his style before hand helped me out though despite this it took watching it 2x before I "got" it... with this in mind I can see why it had mixed reviews, as a lot of ppl don't like having to think too hard while watching a movie. Personally I rather enjoy any movie that has this effect of drawing you back into its story, gaining better perspective each time. Your vid was great & drew some really good links as to what's going on & the deeper meaning of all the characters especially Doc... books are always better then the movies though if anyone's read _Inherent Vice_ I'd struggle trying to adapt it for film... the links about capitalism, America, the changing of the times & so much more... even "Puck" with the swastica on his face, I've already wrote too much LoL Great vid... cheers
Thank you. I just posted a similar comment. And then looked if anyone else mentioned it. You did. Seems most of the comments here are more about the movie and not concerned with the connection to the novel and Pynchon.
Good video. I absolutely adore this movie and I have next to no concept of what the story is actually about. I always liked Joaquin Phoenix, but since watching him as Doc he has become my favorite actor of all time. Inherent Vice is one of those films with near endless rewatch value.
The whole film is Doc's stoned out of his mind dream. He's sitting in his room alone with his feet propped up and shoes off and next to his window showing the ocean, on the window sill there's a ship in a bottle. Throughout the film, you will see these things in every scene. The smoke on top of smoke goes to layer his mind even deeper. The characters are people that he knows or has seen or heard of in life and, thus, make their way into his dream trip. He's a detective in his dream, because he's trying to identify himself and his girlfriend if that's what she is in reality is what he hangs onto the most. He even tells police chief that he's his brother's keeper, referring to himself. In the end, looking into a ray of light, he is almost awakened from his dream, but isn't quite there yet and still struggles with his identity and longings/letting go-s. My opinion, outside the dream, I don't think he's a detective, just a major stoner, but that's just me. Also, note that throughout the film, he is often called a dirty little hippie, meaning that the whole thing is about him and the random characters and detective work is just that; randomness of his mind at work. Your thoughts?
This analysis is solid in some ways, for example, the transition from the free-love hippie 60's to the more consumerist and disillusioned 70's is the "Inherent Vice": all that free love and personal liberation contained the seeds of self-indulgence and dissolution. However, it's wrong in many ways as well. 1) Pynchon's novels are not incoherent except when narrators are themselves incoherent. They're difficult, but even Gravity's Rainbow (his craziest experiment) is not at all impossible to decipher, although the narrative reality of some events seem left up to the reader to decide. 2) Mickey Wolfman doesn't get himself kidnapped in the movie. He's being held with the help of the FBI so that he doesn't sell his assets and give everything away, thus making himself useless to several parties including the Feds who want a new non-Mob presence in Las Vegas. 3) The narrator of Inherent Vice isn't imaginary. Sortilege appears in Doc's imagination at times to give him advice, but she is a real person in the story that other people know and interact with.
Absolutely right, you have to have some understanding of who Pynchon was and what he wrote about. (which is not always the case with a book/film adaptation. Stanley Kubrick and most of his films being examples of that. PT Anderson sure as beans knew that. For example, the costumes Doc puts on were mirrored by other characters in other novels. Pynchon's protagonists have to leave the safety of their own worlds and somehow enter and investigate a new and strange one. One way they do this is by putting on disguises. Doc's disguises are always successful, you'll notice, unlike the other 'disguises' other characters like Big Foot try (his afro wig in the commercial, even his attempts at Chinese when ordering the pancakes) and Doc's Aunt (she is having trouble with her make up and lashes when she speaks to Doc early on.) It is just another way of illustrating what you say, that Doc figures it all out in this strange new reality he is plunged into, despite the folks who mock him not ever coming close themselves! Also. did you notice the 'hidden day'? Notice how clocks and watches appear on the screen often. YOu are instantly thinking 'must keep an eye on the clocks in this movie'. Notice how the clock in Doc's apartment doesn't move when Shasta appears there for the second time (when she confesses about Wolfman.). Pynchon doesn't explicitly say it's an extra day, but in the novel, which is careful to name the days and the dates, has one day happen twice. it is the famous Inherent Vice 'hidden day'....and PTA includes it. Sorry to go on, but PTA clearly loves the book, worked hard at adapting it as a film and got a lot closer to the vibe of the book than the mixed reviews would suggest. I think it is his most ambitious film since Magnolia and his most daring.
I could not properly connect to the movie, too. But a german critique adviced the audience to see Doc Sportello as James Bond burried under a ton of drugs. The moment the movie clicked for me.
I never even consider that the narrator wasn’t real….but it totally make sense…because she never has any interaction with any of the characters…not even Doc
Me and my fiancé watched for Joaquin Phoenix and did note it was hard to follow, but we definitely enjoyed the film for the dark humor and character interactions. It was strangely similar to watching a Wes Anderson film. Funny, yet dark. Silly, but serious.
A really nifty analysis. Nice work. The theme I picked up on from the film (not having much prior knowledge) was how speech and dress are no guarantee of someone's character. Witness, for example, a psychotic thug like Adrian Prussia using counterculture words like 'Psychedelic' while conducting business. Or look at the way Shasta dresses, in particular the Joe & The Country Fish T-Shirt ( the most prominent anti-Vietnam song of the era came from them) vs how she actually acts. The only slight disagreement I have with your analysis is the idea that doc restores Shasta to her former self. I think it all comes back to the title. Her actions call into question whether the flaw was within her all along - something that was fated to happen. It causes doc to have to reframe all his past experiences with her in light of this new information, in much the same way the counterculture reeled from cointelpro and the betrayals from within. IMO its why the final shot shows the characters up close experiencing sadness and happiness, but most of all, doubt and uncertainty. It's a thematically perfect ending.
Great review of a truly great film based on a truly great book by the one truly great author of our time (great photo, btw) I cannot approach this without shaking the paranoid delusion that Thomas R. Pynchon was my roommate in So Cal in the 70's and that Doc is me writ large. I have photos from '74 of me slipping across the border into TJ in that field jacket with that hat on wearing those muttonchops.
love your breakdown of this movie . just watched it and really enjoyed it on first watch . but you made a lot more things sink in. great channel. and great video here . thanks for your work 🙏
really diggin your analysis dude. there is a strip of dialogue though that i thought was worth mentioning. towards the end of the film, right before coy gets out of docs car and reunited with hope, coy mentions some old indian proverb. docs response is "nah, some old hippie said that". in this film, doc is a static character, or is he? what is doc? a hippie. and here he is, subtly looking down on the hippie lifestyle by saying "some old hippie said that." is this some indication of change in doc's mindset? one that has adapted to the straight edged middle class lifestyle that coy and hope are living? or is it him simply acknowleding that yes, times are changing, but he doesnt need to change, even though people will look down on him? the next scene is him smoking pot in his beachhouse so im thinking it probably is the latter, but id like to hear your thoughts on it
+Seth Really great point, I think that it may be him looking at society changing, but I also think it may be him not seeing himself as a hippie . Despite him partaking in some areas of the hippie life style style, but also avoiding others, he isn't really am activist. He is a character that judges others, and he judges the hippies despite being labeled as one.
+Jacks Movie Reviews cool way to look at it, seeing some parallels to the dude from the big lebowski. like the dude, doc doesnt try to be anything more than he is. he just simply is
+Jacks Movie Reviews At the time of its release a handful of critics actually caught that The Big Lebowski was "Pynchonesque" due to its inadvertent hippie anti-hero (e.g. Pynchon's "The Crying of Lot 49" and "Vineland"), the sprawling cast of eccentric characters the Dude knows and meets through the film, and the nearly nonsensical plot. In IV's case, Pynchon and the Coens's inspirations (Chandler, old noir films, subcultures) were the same.
Is it just me, or is this film PTA's "Big Lebowski"? It differs in that here Doc goes up against society, government and corporations (you will notice the importance of how I've chosen to list these things, ironically in order of the "least," to the "most," important). And The Dude is up against what society, government, and corporations (these collectively known as 'capitalism' lol) might look like if boiled down to one, single, individual. I would say Dude is also up against 'himself,' but Doc has that same issue too; at least in some sense, anyway. Interesting to see and then decipher I suppose: parallels the two films (and by extension the three filmmakers) share, and tackle in their own way(s) and/or with their own (or, collective, in the Coen brothers' case) cinematic vision(s).
Thoroughly enjoyable movie. Lots of WTF moments and all the actors nail the vibe. Incredibly well crafted film. Not everyone's cup of tea, and honestly not really mine. But it was good.
I can also see the name chosen "inherent vice"for permanent vice he had to love her, the kind of stuff he goes through just for her, and at the end their not back together but their sharing a similar moment like before, together. the rest of the movie as you said hard to follow but manageable ahah anyway nice analyses
One thing I want to add to the meaning of the title is that Inherent Vice doesn't just refer to something damaging itself, it means the damage came from an inherent property of the object. It means the chocolate melted because chocolate is fundamentally meltable. So it's not just saying that the dream of the 60's died under the oppressive vice of capitalism, it's more saying that the dream of the 60's was unsustainable due to the nature of man. It was killed by humanities inborn greed and desire for power. Our inherent vice.
Excellent phrasing, basically what I was trying to say but much more elegantly.
Perhaps the teeth are merely (or additionally) symbolic of Humans' tendency to deteriorate not just physically (and heroin induced), but as a society, as represented by the end of the whole Summer of Love/hippy idealism to the paranoid 70s, Vietnam etc etc. The use/sale of illicit/harmful drugs & propaganda to control/manipulate populations, fund black ops or bring people down for others gain (to name just a few relevant to the film). Very similar to the opium wars in modern times.
Further we see Shasta refer to the title and her own deterioration of spirit/self.
Spot on Wylkus42!
Cheers :-)
that was explained in the movie pretty well I felt. Like that line in Synecdoche, New York, 'the end is in the beginning'.
Wylkus42
Dang
That's good shit
watching The Big Lebowski and this back to back is why we are alive
Thats just like, your opinion man
Donnie you're out of your element.
You see what happens Larry?
One of my favorite part of this movie is at the very end when Bigfoot kicks Doc's door in. And takes a drag from his spliff, then they start saying the same words at the same time. And then Bigfoot starts eating all the marijuana on the table. Notice that in that moment Doc starts to cry. He asks in worry "Are you okay brother?" to which Bigfoot replies "I'm not your brother". Then Doc: "No, but you could use a keeper." This is after Doc has helped solve the mistery of who killed Bigfoot's partner (that wasn't a mistery to Bigfoot), and get his revenge. Throughout the movie they were constantly picking on eachother, messing with one-another but they also had respect, and even some kind of admiration towards one-another, that they never showed. That was the moment when Bigfoot accepted Doc by trying pot, well not just trying, but literally eating a handful of cannabis. Since in Bigfoot's head, Marijuana represents Doc, that is his thing, at least to Bigfoot. That is why Doc was crying, he was so moved by this gesture. And even though this was all done in the most Bigfoot way, Doc could see through all of that. I love this movie for these character interactions, that is shown visually, but not necessarily spoken out. Another one is when Chasta seduces Doc, but I'll leave that to you. :)
Lol. I think what works so well in this movie is the contrast between Bigfoot and Doc. They are both outsiders of a time left behind, but are also completely different
ruukaoz hi your commentary is exactly why I was looking at analyzing this film. Thank you...also my favorite scene. Possible Bigfoot is alien being from another planet....also he was abused by his wife. Bigfoot's wife was a bully.
A lot of people in the novel admire Doc I think. There are two lines that made me think 'yeah, go on my man!' in the way you do when you root for your hero in a movie. First, there is that wonderful line Coy says to him right after Doc rescues him, 'you're a dangerous operator', or something very similar to that. How right he is. it is a dangerous world Doc is in, but he navagates his way through it. He is so worthy of admiration. Then there's the great line Doc says to Fenway when they meet towards the end, where he warns him 'if you jive with me...'. Way to go Doc!! But, as well, he is caring and empathetic, hence his word to Big Foot. He is a hell of a fella is Sportello!
I love this film and appreciate a lot a lot your analysis, but could you pls explain the scene of seduction the way you did with Bigfoot at the end? Tnx in advance! :)
I was so confused when I saw that
I thought he was pissed instead of moved lmao
This is how I explain the story: This movie is a character study from Doc's point of view, we see the world the way he sees the world. He has almost no idea what's going on, he's just following leads, therefore the audience has no idea what's going on and is just following him follow leads. Which I love, because we are there with Doc through the whole film, it keeps us close to him and it keeps it hilarious
I totally agree, it's great seeing the world from this crazy character's eyes!
Agreed. this is emphasized when we see Doc writing stuff like "something in Chinese" in his notebook. He's totally clueless most of the time, and it's hilarious.
Because in reality... a lot of times... nothing is going on. A bunch of characters running around if you're 'sober' enough to see it. But obviously you get closer to one you see their deep intricacies and fine detail. Very interesting.
I like how you described this. Sounds like he might almost be a Holistic Detective. Going to take a watch now.
Yeah so the trick is to write characters that are incoherent so then when your story is incoherent it can’t be called bad writing. Genius
I'll be honest. This story was sure as hell a bit tough to make sense of during various parts of the movie, but one thing that is unquestionable is Joaquin Phoenix's acting. He is just so convincing. He seemed naturally like a confused, out of touch stoner with the most carefree attitude in the world about everything happening around him. So convincing. Brilliant actor.
I had to re-watch it with subtitles on. Too much mumbling for me to make out what was being said. I thought it was a fantastic movie and I'm not a big fan of this director. I've never made it through There Will Be Blood and don't plan on trying again.
Jesus I love this movie too death, my favorite PTA film.
Not my favorite but certainly one of his best
You missed the biggest Easter Egg...
what easter egg?
Yes it's his first real masterpiece. He is always stronger when he does outright comedy than, say, melodrama.
Can you make an explanation on why is your favorite PTA movie? Or even why do you exactly love about this film?
She went all groovy on us
shatsa........shasta fay.........shasta fay hepworth
@@oktg91 man, bigfoot fuck you. Lol
She's gone Gone baby
I laughed to hard at that part 😂😂
@@highniijii he told him "she's gone, she's gone Spinello. Gone? Yea, she went all groovy on us" lol asshole Bigfoot is to him lol
Shasta Fey wears orange in her opening scene, which is very much the blue/orange cinematic color wheel. In the end, when Doc takes Coy home, the light from inside the house is the same orange as Shasta's dress. ( IE Doc's reward for his journey is the completeness of this family. ) And Bigfoot is in an orange shirt and tie when he kicks in Doc's door and gives in to his urge to "join" the counter culture that has been so much a part of his career as a police officer. Color symbolism abounds throughout this wonderful movie.
When I first saw this in theatres I thought I was dumb because I couldn't follow it haha. But after reading a plot synopsis it made more sense to me and overall I enjoyed it. Especially Joaquin Phoenix, that man is so under appreciated as an actor. You should dissect I'm Still Here, that'd be cool
+Jared Kunish That could be really interesting, thanks for the idea!
JP finally got that well-deserved Oscar, not that he cares about it that much..but I enjoyed the moment his name was called, and appreciated his speech which calls for all of us to fight injustice.
"I'm Still Here". Hilarious.
I like how PTA's recent movies focus on transitional moments in American history and center around pairs of characters who somehow sum up competing alternatives at the time: the Satanic oil man vs. the callow boy preacher in There Will be Blood, or the ebullient self-actualization guru and the damaged vet in The Master. In this film, you have two characters who embody competing sides of the '60s (the hippie stoner and the crew-cut authoritarian cop) yet gradually discover that, in the '70s, the conflict that defined their relationship is being obviated, as the world of drugs and New Age religion and the corporate world increasingly start to fuse.
He does a good job at taking opposites and showing why they are the same
i thought the new age place was just rehab but in his weird mind looked like a cult
Glenn's sister is something that will not get out of my head for a loong time
You know I was so hyped on this movie, and when I finally got the chance to watch it I was still a smoker. Now after the first viewing, I was completely lost. Hadn’t watched it since and had recently got it on BluRay in an attempt to give it another chance. Now idk if it had just so long since my first viewing, but watching it again I went in with a completely separate mind set of how I interpreted. The story has come together so much easier than it had the first time and I’m not sure it is because of already seeing it once (albeit with memory of only vague details and the basic plot line, barely even remember how it had ended) or if it was because I wasn’t blitzed out of my mind like I was the first time. Basically just wanted to say that if you dislike or just aren’t vibing with a movie the first viewing, just completely zap it from your mind and see how you feel about a few years from then. You’d be surprised what time can do lol
Same, ish. It took me 5 years to watch this movie and actually understand the plot. I was immediately addicted to it just for its atmosphere (the way characters interact is so PRESENT), but never could interpret the plot. This time, I was minorly stoned, alone, and turned on subtitles. Also I had gotten over the cinematography and could focus finally on the dialogue
Reviews made it seem so incoherent when it came out and I kind of agreed initially. But since I wrote this, I’ve seen it a few more times and I appreciate it a lot more than before. Everything comes together perfectly. I think it’s one that people will come back to and appreciate a lot more later on down the line
I think the picture shown around 1:45 is not Pynchon but Gary Snyder. There are no known pictures of TP after 1957.
I enjoyed your video, sir. I remember leaving the theater feeling confused but satisfied after watching Inherent Vice. The soundtrack is fantastic. There are enough moments of genuine heart and emotion to offset the meandering story. I remember feeling a similar way after watching The Big Lebowski for the first time. It's upon repeated viewings that you begin to see through the haze of smoke and finally understand it.
I'm gonna be a little controversial, but this is my favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film, he is one of my favorite directors and I know that movies like Magnolia, Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood are better, but I always come back to Inherent Vice.
+Walter Olivero Christiansen It's one of my favorites, but so hard to compare it because it is so different
Absolutely. For me it replaced magnolia.
Walter Olivero Christiansen I agree with you, by far my favorite PTA film. My favorites would be Inherent Vice, The Master, and There Will be Blood
Walter Olivero Christiansen What about Punch - Drunk Love and The Master
Don't worry. Boogie Nights is not better than Inherent Vice imo. It's a bloated fictional biopic that tries to be Scorsese and Tarantino simultaneously (not that that can't be done right BUT) While I can see why Inherent Vice is controversial, most of PTA's later work is 1000% an improvement on Boogie Nights. His subsequent movies Magnolia and The Master being hard evidence.
This film, like all TPA films, is a marvel to behold. I believe I've seen this one 4 times and like all truly worthy works of Art it has taken me higher each time. Live long and prosper Mr. Anderson. I thank you.
The feeling of ambiguity of the plot is the same feeling i get even in present day to day life, politics or people’s relations and interest in one another, the movie reflects that perfectly in my opinion, there is an underlying truth just like the events we live in our present time, so they don’t hand over to you like in other movies, you are just as informed or left wondering by the events regardless of the era 60s 70s or todays, the end scene foreshadows the last scene nothing will change because of the human nature, only the frame is different just like our perspective
I agree with you.
This movie is over most people’s heads. It’s a love story.
And also The Master, I'd put in the same category
@@acevaptsarov8410 On the surface, yeah, but both of these movies have much deeper concerns that the surface relationship story. This maker of this viewer understands "Inherent Vice". "The Master" is really just about people's primal attachment to organizing ideas.
@jon8004 Pretty sure someone deleted a comment in this thread... haha my comment above wasn't a response to this OP, but someone else, who if I remember correctly listed a few PTA movies and was on about how totally sublime they all were. So I just added that I'd also like to ad The Master to that list. Hope that clarifies :)
the first time i watched this movie, i saw it with a friend. Neither of us could remember the last time a movie made us laugh like Inherent Vice did. Regardless of the plot being confusing, the characters made the movie enjoyable and hilarious. Upon watching it a second time, i understood the story better and loved the movie even more. I then showed it to another friend, who tried to follow the plot so closely, he completely missed the comedy in the movie. Im glad you mentioned this in the video. Looking foreward to more reviews!
+bryan guzman Thanks Bryan I'm glad you enjoyed! It is such a fun movie, and it works so well as a comedy, but also as a mystery on 2nd/3rd viewings!
Great video. This made me appreciate this movie even more. I always took it like - by the end of the movie we've gotten to the end, we don't really know how we got there but we know we got there - And that's exactly how Doc, feels, he got there and he doesn't know how because he's so high, but he got there.
What he did for Coy is fucking insane, he pulled some strings because of his connections and even Coy acknowledged it, and the reason he got that connection is literally by being kind, he returned the daughter of a powerful lawyer. With the exchange, he didn't even take any money, he just did what was right, Lege was his voice of reason and he listened to her.
First of, not my favourite PTA film (Magnolia gets the nod). Secondly, I'm a long time Pynchon fan, as is apparently PTA.
This movie is a surprisingly accurate adaptation, despite the fact the book is even more confusing than the film. That PTA even managed to make it is a testament to his immense talent.
In order to understand the film you need to read the book and preferably the entire Pynchon catalogue. That's asking a lot, I know, but at least reading VINELAND together with Inherent Vice will help. Inherent Vice, VINELAND and Crying of Lot 49 constitute what some would call the minor Pynchon novels or "Pynchon Light" (the major ones being V., GR, M&D and AtD btw).
A bit of Archaeology at this point: I prefer to call the three minors his California trilogy. You can ignore Lot 49 almost entirely for the purpose of IV, but VINELAND is essential to understanding. Lot 49 was written in the 60s and plays out in the 60s, VINELAND plays out in 1984 (remember Orwell) but was released in 1990. IV was released in 2009 but takes place in 1970. The order is thus: Lot 49 -> Inherent Vice -> VINELAND in proper chronology.
PTA has talked in interviews about wanting to film VINELAND, but failing, while also admitting it is one he often re-reads. This is understandable.
VINELAND takes place in the 70s - 80s wasteland after IV (mainly in 1984), but with major historical flashbacks to the early 20th century. It is also the warmest of all his novels and depicts this surviving 60s hippie ("Zoyd" as he is called in this here, but might as well be "Doc".) as he is grappling with his alienation from his daughter and his wife (gone missing similar to Shasta but for even more sinister reasons) while staying true to his "hippie" ideals in the Ronald Reagan era of "Say no to Drugs", oppressive DEA agents and the ever present MTV and soap TV bombarding at 60 frames per second.
In IV, Doc Sportello represents all the ideals of the 60s while Shasta represents America. She's not just his girlfriend he longs for (he lost her before the 70s happened as far as we can tell .. great clue btw) and while Doc represents the ideals of the 60s, Shasta represents the innocence of America as a whole. The name Shasta is not chosen by random btw. The county of Shasta in California was one of the liberal counties won by George McGovern (the guy Hunter S. Thompson supported in 1972 .. remember) but which then turned violently to the evil side and has remained staunchly Republican ever since. Either a selling out or a seduction. Make of it what you will.
In VINELAND Pynchon makes the case that the innocent want to be seduced, or are open to seduction, while in IV he makes the case that perhaps it was the unreasonable expectations of the 60s generation to remain children forever that was the undoing of their utopia. IV makes it clear that the change is already under-way, and we see this through Docs eyes. Shasta has put her chips on what she believes is a rigged table, with open eyes (advised by one of the architects Micky Wolfman ... great name by the way for such a person) while 'Doc' is consulting with Ouija boards, astrology and pure stoned intuition and refuses to see what is happening. We see the unfolding of the 60s through Docs eyes as we pass into the 70s. In VINELAND 'Doc' .. sorry, I mean 'Zoyd', has understood this with the power of hindsight, and kind of understands the errors of the 60s -- the rigged table, the fog of the drugs, the seductive power of authoritarianism, but he can only act as a child of the 60s in this hostile environment. VINELAND is an extraordinary minor work by Pynchon, he addresses much larger topics in his "major books" but made quite a singular and personal work out of VINELAND which is in it self needed to understand IV. Pynchon is angry, sentimental and perhaps even remorseful; he was after all part of it.
Inherent Vice is important as a compliment to VINELAND, to widen the perspective. The books enhance each other. VINELAND is a better book than IV but perhaps the latter made for better cinema.
With all this said, IV the movie, lets us in closely on the personal agony of Doc Sportello (or 'Zoyd') as the great utopian 60s project falls apart. And it is beautifully executed by PTA. Especially the entirely original ending where Bigfoot kicks the door in. PTA clearly understood or "got" the book. The film is actually made by a Pynchon fan for other Pynchon fans and not easily understood for those unfamiliar with him.
Let me also add that I'm neither British nor American, English is not my major language (I am Scandinavian) and that the time period was not my own. Still I feel this analysis to be true. Make of it what you will and enjoy the books. Cheers :-)
Just my minor thoughts.
[edits]: corrected some spelling errors and what not as I re-visited this thread.
This is one of the most helpful analysis I've read on the film. Have had Vineland waiting on my shelf for a couple months now. Thanks for being so thoughtful and spending that time.
Peter Grant Way better analysis then this video tbh. After watching this film I knew I needed to read some Pynchon and started with The Crying of Lot 49 (as everyone does) and absolutely loved it. I've picked up Slow Learner but am still undecided about which novel to pick up next. Leaning towards Inherent Vice since it's meant to be one of his simplest and best, but I'm open ears to any suggestion?
Firstly, I'm am not going to recommend any particular book but instead point you in the direction of some resources you will find useful. If you ever intend to read GR you should get the excellent "Gravity's Rainbow Companion" by Steven Weisenburger (I have it and can recommend it). There are book guides for Lot and V. as well but I have not read either guide, so I will not comment on their quality.
The ultimate Pynchon authority on the net is thomaspynchon.com/ which has a "Pynchon Wiki" with entries on all his books. Despite this it is not as user-friendly (IMO) as having a reference at hand in book form while reading the works.
There is a separate guide for VINELAND in pdf format only called "Babies of Wackiness", well worth printing out, and it can be downloaded here: www.mindspring.com/~shadow88/BoW.pdf (most of it was later incorporated in the Pynchon Wiki btw).
Secondly, I suggest you read reviews of the books you intend to commit to. Pynchon Wiki has links to reviews for each separate book and even a guide for Pynchon newbies. (Make sure to search the web for Salman Rushdies review of VINELAND, it is great!)
Thirdly and finally, Jack's Movie Reviews did a great job breaking down the film, I respect his views very much, but opinions differ. Don't bash him for doing this for free for your enjoyment.
Cheers :-)
There is a super lecture on Lot 49 if you look up Yale and Dr Amy Hungerford. She did a series of lectures on post modern English literature. She tackles Lot 49 as art of this series. She explains as you do ho Pynchon deliberately gave added meaning to his characters by the names he gives them, so I think you are bang on with the Shasta idea.
Peter Grant most excellent! Pynchon is a sublime commentator on our times, but he is equally hilarious.
This film was referred to as a "shaggy dog story" and although it may seem more than that, the aspect of shaggy dog stories being turgid and playing upon the viewers' enjoyment of humor makes its anti-climax all the more tolerable. There was no murder mystery but there were plenty of enjoyable and interesting characters from which this film derived its depth. The casting was first-rate, every role was flawlessly executed right down to the revelation that Bigfoot was hen-pecked to the max. Brolin and Phoenix were superb together.
I love the shot of Katherine Waterson in the rain.
Great analysis. I'm gonna watch this movie again.
+RUDE I'm glad you enjoyed!
PTA is prolly my favorite director, and this is certainly one of his best. IDK how critics didn't appreciate it. Joaquin may be the greatest actor of all time behind Daniel Day Lewis. His last string of performances have been phenominal.
JP completely disappears into his characters, every single time. I can't help having empathy even for the most "evil" ones.
Hands down favorite PTA film, and I love all of his filmography. His collaborations with Johnny Greenwood is one of the best things that's happened to humanity.
Thanks, Inherent Vice is my all time favorite movies ever, yer breakdown of the Golden Fang and Doc's journey is amazing!
i love this movie! i've watched it over and over again since its release. when the title appeared to those amazing Can - "Vitamin C" drums at the start, i knew it was about to be one of my favorites.
Absolutely great movie. Incorruptible and lacking inherent vice himself, he subconsciously navigates the egoic world of hypocrisy and corruption to succeed with his relationships and integrity intact.
it took me 3 times before i completely understood the plot. the first time i saw it, i had no idea what i just saw but i knew i liked it. the 2nd time i saw the movie, i was still confused & actually wasn't sure if i really enjoyed it that much to begin with. but once i watched it a third time i finally figured out what was going on throughout the story & knew i didn't like the film... i loved it. it certainly meanders a lot but is one of those flicks that just gets better upon repeated viewings due to how it's aesthetic beauty, wonderful acting, & captivating dialogue.
First off, let me say excellent video. You're probably the only one who's managed to eloquently and coherently explain what Inherent Vice is and how it's woven, down to the finest detail.
But outside of that, I agree with this 100%. I'd like to add, also, that the "second" scene with Shasta is not only the best scene in my opinion, but an incredibly unique tragedy that sums up what Doc's journey is about: A confused and drunk, yet, heartfelt attempt to bridge a connection to the peculiar lost spirit of innocence and moral balance, trampled by the corruption and avariciousness of 70s capitalism, beautifully personified by Shasta, given that the looming "inherent vice" of time is the change within itself and all the challenges that come with it. It's insane how Paul managed to capture the heartbreak of said scene without averting the careful attention to detail and nuance. Even weirder how such a sad scene was actually comedic in the book o.O
Brilliant movie
I really appreciate that, Inherent Vice is a movie that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, you could spend HOURS talking about the different scenes, characters and what they represent, different shots, different interactions, but I think that the best way to discuss it is simply try and show the main message, apply that to a few scenes and let the viewers do the rest.
I'm glad you enjoyed!
Jack's Movie Reviews
For sure, I agree man. Gonna show this to a friend tomorrow. Hoping for the best
Lynch Stan
I appreciate it! Thank you!
When talking about the "second scene" with Shasta, I assume you are talking about the racy long shot? Interesting how you viewed it as sad. I didn't get that impression on my first two views, but maybe I'll see it differently next time. Certainly not a happy scene, and I see what you mean about a lack of emotional connection, but I don't think it as sad...
Hey You! You're losing you're losing you're losing yourrrrrrrr vitamin C vitamin C....
-Can
Thanks for this, lots to think about. Just a couple of points:
- Mickey didn’t go join a cult; after Shasta introduced him to hallucinogens he realised the evil of his development projects (“shelter should be free”) and his integration with the Golden Triangle (money laundering through the massage parlour he owns etc) and the links to the nazi group (which is also linked to the Feds who use them for strong arm tactics). Yep we need that white board but he was kidnapped and taken to the mental facility owned by the Golden Triangle and monitored by the FBI. The Golden Triangle and the feds weren’t going to be able to use him if he was off doing good deeds.
- Doc didn’t return Shasta to her origins. Shasta represents the free vision of the 60s which has been demolished and brutalised, through our Inherent Vice. Personally I see their driving scene as just trying to move forward, but Docs keeps looking back…
- I love your description of Doc’s character - how does he remain moral in this new world of Reaganomics?
- There’s also a lot about Macarthyism woven throughout this film.
my public library has a copy and I've seen it a couple of times and I recommend it but one thing shasta isn't there she might even already be dead?
That is very possible, I've heard a lot of fan theories about that, a few that go into the idea of reincarnation. I'm not too big on speculation personally.
Rain scene was filmed in downtown Pomona CA!
I would have to place this in my top 3 PTA films, alongside The Master and Boogie Nights (#2 and #1 respectively).
I think, or at least hope, that Inherent Vice will become a cult classic in the next decade or so. As both a PTA and Pynchon fan I found it spellbinding, especially on a second viewing.
It's top 5 for me, I think cult classic status is entirely possible!
Also, two things about Doc Sportello that I find interesting. One is his arc, or lack of one. You mentioned it, but there's something realistic about a character who doesn't go through a dramatic personality change as a result of the plot. People tend to not change much, especially when given a short period of time, and Doc remains very much himself by the end of the mystery.
Another thing about him is less unique to Doc and more a recurring element in Pynchon's characters, for those who have read his books. Doc is a perfect example of the sympathetic degenerate, someone who does drugs and/or indulges in sexual taboos but comes off as likable despite (or maybe because of?) these perceived flaws. A lot of Pynchon's characters fall into that type, although by film standards Doc is rather atypical.
Brian Collins
I really like that, it feels like an excerpt in this crazy world. He is far from a high moral character, but a well written and phenomenally well acted one
our feelings towards him change though. At the start, we see him as just a hippie stoner, but by the end, when he is being told by Coy that he is 'a dangerous operator' and when he warns Fenway not to '...jive with me', my attitude towards him changes. I wouldn't f**k with him by the end of the story! He took on the Golden Fang and lived!!
Great video. I heard a theory, and kinda thought it as I watched, Shasta is dead and this is a story about grief and "ghosts" ( hallucinations ) Love this movie. Will have to watch it again.
This movie takes some work to love. Saw it at the Ace Theater premier, then the cinedome, then during it's standard release but it wasn't until I bought it on Blu-Ray and got really stoned that I was able to just focus on what the film is really about and not the plot. It helped having seen it three times prior and not having to try to figure out the plot.
If I see It again, I'll stay that is a real masterpiece
What about the scene where doc and bigfoot talk at the exact same time???
Rob Duncan they just feel bad about what happened last night and starting apologize each other
I loved this movie. Great analysis. Inherent Vice also follows patterns of the Hard Boiled detective genre which also is prone to having an anti-establishment hero with a strong code of ethics and a convoluted mystery that is not easily followed. I almost feel like Pynchon was doing a satire of that genre or a reinterpretation like the Coens did with The Big Lebowski. Anyway . . . thank you for defending this misunderstood little gem.
+solidsnake58 Absolutely! I'm glad you enjoyed, and its great seeing another fan of the movie!
Inherent Vice exquisitely captured the "60s." The internal and external pressures on the idealism of the 60s were too great, it wasn't inherently sustainable. Although it is easy to point blame on the external pressures, everyone knows that the idealistic 60s were doomed from the start because it was built on a house of cards. I wish it were not so, but everyone knows: "If you can remember the 60s, you weren't there.". Neither Shasta Fay nor Doc came through it intact. Blaming is the easy answer. There is no easy answer. I love this movie. it is both a comedy and a tragedy, depending on your perspective. 🎭
It was difficult to follow not gonna lie, but like you said , I enjoyed the characters more than the story. It's a comedy and when I read about the plot, the demise of the 60s due to its own nature aka inherent vice, the expression of the 5 stages of grief in different characters, how we come to an understanding in the end acceptance of this grief, is what makes doc whole, which is still a jumbling end in the movie coz now I'm thinking if Shasta was really there or he imagined her, coz of the dopers high. Her saying "It's like I'm underwater" is perhaps saying, she is no more and the doc has accepted that and won't look for her anymore, hinted when he says "This don't mean we're together" or u could just think of it as her describing coming from death to life and him accepting his future with her as nothing but sex. There so many things, this movie is pure art. I loved it.
I'm picky on movies and loved it. Plus I got listen to a song from Neil Young I never heard before and added to my playlist. Journey Through The Past is a great song that made me appreciate my woman even more ..❤
i think you summed it up at 6:02. modern audiences have no idea how to tamper their expectations, or how to handle films that dont completely pander to them intellectually
I saw this on Reddit, hopefully it'll get some more traffic because it definitely deserves it.
To be honest, I didnt find the plot to be that hard to follow, or if I did I didnt notice since I was so invested in the characters and crazy scenes. I feel like in order to enjoy this movie to the fullest you just have to look at it as less of a mystery or detective story and more as a comedy with those elements.
I didnt really grasp the capitalism analogy while watching but once you've laid it out it does add another layer that I'm sure I'll appreciate when I watch this again.
Great video!
+rinsimyaldee1 Thanks for watching!
I like the analysis but don't agree that Doc himself isn't changing. Remember, at the beginning of the story he mentions he's "got an office now, it's like a day job and everything." He also shows that he's just as susceptible to outside influences as anyone when he changes his hair to an afro.
Also, I'd like to say that yes I think you hit on a lot of the capitalism stuff, but I think it goes deeper in that these institutions somehow come to represent a lot of the aspects of human nature that are immutable. Capitalism is like the dark, selfish, animalistic code ingrained in our DNA. Shasta, after she comes back, seems to be attempting to draw Doc's more primordial side out when she "seduces" him. This makes us all wonder if she's there as an agent of Vigilant California or simply as an ex-girlfriend.
At the end though, yes we see that Doc refuses the money, attempts to put the pieces back together, and go on with his life. However, I think he realizes that it wasn't the external dark forces of the Golden Fang and Capitalism that are eroding the 60s counter culture -- it's instead the inherent vice of the hippy movement which collapsed under the weight of its own unsustainable shortcomings. That's the real tragedy.
Thnx I really hate that ppl just blame capitalism for the end of the 60s. It was more of their own bad eggs that killed the culture than some big bad corporation demolishing their dreams by monetizing it.
It was more so the fact their own culture couldn't be sustained due to the erosion of their own existence by meaningless search into redundant philosophical life styles.
Under a socialist system they wouldn't have been even allowed to expierence those lives since the state is ur God and ur will is theirs to command.
No govt would allow work shy pesants to roam their cities never mind the drugs and sex.
In the end it was the drugs, sex and lack of productivity that killed them off. With the fear of manson protruding for the anti hippies to point to.
Capitalism would be the only system where hippies could exist it turns out.
Man !
I watched this movie about a year ago and it's become my favorite hippie movie. . Now doc is one groovy dude...
TThere's nothing certain - a surprisingly rewarding sensation that demands repeat viewings.inherent vice is confounding, challenging and consistently unique.
This movie is a ton of fun to rewatch and pick up new details. I've watched it once since I made this video, and noticed even more things.
Not to toot my own horn here, but I honestly did not have any trouble following this story, this is an insanely brilliant film, I had never read anything by Thomas Pynchon, barely had even heard of him. Once again, Joaquin Phoenix puts out in his usual stellar fashion, I am totally spoiled by his command of craft.
I don't WANT to try and know what this movie means, so I'lm going to stop the video at 1:09...for my own protection from Inherent Vice.
Great summary. The moment I started to enjoy the movie and finished it was when I decided... You know let's just enjoy the vibe maybe the story will make sense later.
Tried to watch it a couple years ago but couldn't finish it because I couldn't follow the story. Tried again yesterday and finished it. I really agree with your point that you shouldn't demand from yourself to understand the story. It's not necessary to understand the story fully to watch and appreciate this film. Very unique film, I enjoyed it. Not sure what to make of it and not sure I have to make something of it.
I wouldn't call it a masterpiece and there were perhaps some boring bits, but there are several sequences that made me laugh so hard I thought I'd die, and that counts for a lot to me. Also brilliant performances from everyone in it.
The film is wonderful, and if you want to follow it, simply look at Joaquin's eyes. The most expressive eyes I've ever seen in a movie. Josh Brolin is perfection, sympatico, twisted, hilarious, all at the same time. Brilliant character. If you didn't see him in Hail Caesar, you missed out. By the way, Anderson is making another film with Daniel Day-Lewis, in production this year, 2017. See you there.
To me, the meaning of "Inherent Vice" is Shasta Fay Hepworth. Doc wants Shasta back, and he thinks he can get her back by solving the case she brings up... when in reality, Shasta just comes and goes as she pleases... first at the beginning of the film, to start the plot, and then at the end, she comes back and taunts Doc a story, told relishingly, of how she was treated as a sexual object while aboard the Golden Fang. How do you love someone who is going to periodically disappear for months at a time to have group sex with the types of powerful men you despise? Well, you have to tell yourself she has inherent vice, a capacity for her own self-destruction. Their relationship is similar to the characters in Phantom Thread, who agree that they can only be together if she periodically feeds him poisonous mushrooms.
Yea thats what I assumed as well
I watched the first half and I was like alright I literally don't understand anything anymore, so I started again and when it ended I was in love with it.
Dark comedy, but a comedy for sure. I guess I have an odd sense of humor, I have always loved the irreverent, Dark Comedy genre...Like the phone conversation, between Doc and Bigfoot, when Bigfoot tells his young son to go to bed, and without missing a beat, Doc asks why he would go to bed? I'm working right now, he says adamantly lol...Just the strange and quirky humor I enjoy.
I definitely found it hard to follow, especially the first time around. But the more times I watched, the more I appreciated the complexity of the characters, and the interesting and entertaining relationships they shared with one another, especially Doc.
I remember years ago, having similar feelings about The Big Lebowski, the first time I watched it...But today, both movies are two of my all time favorites.
inherent vice is a movie about vertical integration of cold war industries below the surface in the 70s. like most movies that display the time
YESSSS!! Thank you!! This is what i was hoping to find and did!! Score!!! Now lets burn one down and watch this again for the 4th time
Nice video, I just saw Easy Rider, which is sometimes thought as the whole Hippie movement and how it came to an end, with all the inconsistencies of such movement, and I just felt that now that I understand Inherent Vice, I think that they share a very similar meaning. Just my opinion anyways.
That is NOT a picture of Thomas Ruggles Pynchon, Jr. @ 1:46
Very underrated film. The book is great too
This film is so brilliant in so many different ways. It accurately portrays LA in the early 70s, with its dichotomy of the hippie underground counterculture, and the "straight" world of cops, lawyers, and businesses. If you watch it through this lens, you notice that almost all the important characters and places are liminal - not completely of one world, nor entirely of the other. Straight society is hijacking the hippie style via capitalist enterprises, like in the commercial for channel view estates, but those selfsame capitalists have become infected by the drug culture, like in the case of Rudy Blatnoyd D.D.S. and the dentists he represents at the Golden Fang building. You have two polar opposite cultures vying for supremacy and eventually merging to become one, like when we see the very straight laced characters of Penny the DA toke up with Doc and Bigfoot, who betrays his cop code by stealing heroin and by smoking pot with Doc at the end, we see him as a man who has succumbed to cynicism, entirely amoral. Bigfoot is the perfect foil for Doc. Doc, as always throughout the film, serves as the heart and conscience of the dualistic culture he finds himself in. He's a hippie through and through, but unlike some of his hippy friends, he is thoroughly competent, talking a scared cop and his loaded friends out of a potentially disastrous encounter, escaping handcuffs and a locked door; fighting and winning against a huge terrifying neo Nazi and a professional hit man, all while tripping balls on PCP. Doc isn't just any hippy. A couple times passing reference is made to the Vietnam war, by his jacket we see he is a veteran. He is something very rare, the kind of man who can survive horribly traumatic situations with his heart intact. He can do the right thing time and again without ever becoming cynical and amoral like Bigfoot. Doc Sportello might be one of my favorite film protagonists in recent years. All in all Inherent Vice is a woefully underappreciated film. It is ambiguous and convoluted, but so is life. In this it reflects some important truths about the American way of life.
You deserve so much more subscribers man you're great
I appreciate it! I've been growing faster than ever, and will hopefully continue to do so!
Amazing actors, great film.
"I for one am definitely pro-capitalism"
That didn't age well
What do you mean?
For one thing, medical supplies are in short supply because hospitals have to bid against one another for them in the middle of the current global crisis. That certainly is not because of socialism
There's just something about the genocidal wars and systemic poverty necessary to sustain it that irks me
@Ben Porter There's nothinhg wrong if you are part of the small percentage that has capital
I like this movie... Gud acting n dialogues..
i rewatched this the other night, loved it so much....and i feel it is better if you let go of following a straight story and just take in each scene as it goes down....wanna see PTA's most obvious nod here? i watched 'the long goodbye' the following night.....inherent vice's older uncle...
1:46 how do you know that's actually Thomas Pynchon? has this photo been confirmed as authentic?
No, it was an error on my part.
I see, thanks for clarifying it tho. Really good review btw, I liked it a lot.
Maximum Blaster
Thank you!
Knowing the author & his style before hand helped me out though despite this it took watching it 2x before I "got" it... with this in mind I can see why it had mixed reviews, as a lot of ppl don't like having to think too hard while watching a movie. Personally I rather enjoy any movie that has this effect of drawing you back into its story, gaining better perspective each time.
Your vid was great & drew some really good links as to what's going on & the deeper meaning of all the characters especially Doc... books are always better then the movies though if anyone's read _Inherent Vice_ I'd struggle trying to adapt it for film... the links about capitalism, America, the changing of the times & so much more... even "Puck" with the swastica on his face, I've already wrote too much LoL
Great vid... cheers
1:46 That's poet Gary Snyder dude
Thank you. I just posted a similar comment. And then looked if anyone else mentioned it. You did. Seems most of the comments here are more about the movie and not concerned with the connection to the novel and Pynchon.
Good video. I absolutely adore this movie and I have next to no concept of what the story is actually about.
I always liked Joaquin Phoenix, but since watching him as Doc he has become my favorite actor of all time.
Inherent Vice is one of those films with near endless rewatch value.
The whole film is Doc's stoned out of his mind dream. He's sitting in his room alone with his feet propped up and shoes off and next to his window showing the ocean, on the window sill there's a ship in a bottle. Throughout the film, you will see these things in every scene. The smoke on top of smoke goes to layer his mind even deeper. The characters are people that he knows or has seen or heard of in life and, thus, make their way into his dream trip. He's a detective in his dream, because he's trying to identify himself and his girlfriend if that's what she is in reality is what he hangs onto the most. He even tells police chief that he's his brother's keeper, referring to himself. In the end, looking into a ray of light, he is almost awakened from his dream, but isn't quite there yet and still struggles with his identity and longings/letting go-s. My opinion, outside the dream, I don't think he's a detective, just a major stoner, but that's just me. Also, note that throughout the film, he is often called a dirty little hippie, meaning that the whole thing is about him and the random characters and detective work is just that; randomness of his mind at work. Your thoughts?
VERY OBSERVANT! Great theory, I never heard, saw, or read that before. So do you think that any of it happened?
If you take this theory and replace "Doc" with "The idealistic mind-set of the late 60's", it is spot on.
Sometimes you can fit a square peg into a round hole but it just never fits exactly
This analysis is solid in some ways, for example, the transition from the free-love hippie 60's to the more consumerist and disillusioned 70's is the "Inherent Vice": all that free love and personal liberation contained the seeds of self-indulgence and dissolution. However, it's wrong in many ways as well. 1) Pynchon's novels are not incoherent except when narrators are themselves incoherent. They're difficult, but even Gravity's Rainbow (his craziest experiment) is not at all impossible to decipher, although the narrative reality of some events seem left up to the reader to decide. 2) Mickey Wolfman doesn't get himself kidnapped in the movie. He's being held with the help of the FBI so that he doesn't sell his assets and give everything away, thus making himself useless to several parties including the Feds who want a new non-Mob presence in Las Vegas. 3) The narrator of Inherent Vice isn't imaginary. Sortilege appears in Doc's imagination at times to give him advice, but she is a real person in the story that other people know and interact with.
Thanks for the explanation. Loved the movie, saw it twice and couldn't quite figure it out.
Absolutely right, you have to have some understanding of who Pynchon was and what he wrote about. (which is not always the case with a book/film adaptation. Stanley Kubrick and most of his films being examples of that. PT Anderson sure as beans knew that. For example, the costumes Doc puts on were mirrored by other characters in other novels. Pynchon's protagonists have to leave the safety of their own worlds and somehow enter and investigate a new and strange one. One way they do this is by putting on disguises. Doc's disguises are always successful, you'll notice, unlike the other 'disguises' other characters like Big Foot try (his afro wig in the commercial, even his attempts at Chinese when ordering the pancakes) and Doc's Aunt (she is having trouble with her make up and lashes when she speaks to Doc early on.) It is just another way of illustrating what you say, that Doc figures it all out in this strange new reality he is plunged into, despite the folks who mock him not ever coming close themselves! Also. did you notice the 'hidden day'? Notice how clocks and watches appear on the screen often. YOu are instantly thinking 'must keep an eye on the clocks in this movie'. Notice how the clock in Doc's apartment doesn't move when Shasta appears there for the second time (when she confesses about Wolfman.). Pynchon doesn't explicitly say it's an extra day, but in the novel, which is careful to name the days and the dates, has one day happen twice. it is the famous Inherent Vice 'hidden day'....and PTA includes it. Sorry to go on, but PTA clearly loves the book, worked hard at adapting it as a film and got a lot closer to the vibe of the book than the mixed reviews would suggest. I think it is his most ambitious film since Magnolia and his most daring.
happy i found this channel.
+jordan bottini Thanks Jordan
+Jacks Movie Reviews I love me a good cinephile.
I could not properly connect to the movie, too. But a german critique adviced the audience to see Doc Sportello as James Bond burried under a ton of drugs. The moment the movie clicked for me.
I never even consider that the narrator wasn’t real….but it totally make sense…because she never has any interaction with any of the characters…not even Doc
Really dig this movie. Joaquin plays a very unique character very well. Yes, watch the characters. They are more than worthwhile.
Me and my fiancé watched for Joaquin Phoenix and did note it was hard to follow, but we definitely enjoyed the film for the dark humor and character interactions.
It was strangely similar to watching a Wes Anderson film.
Funny, yet dark. Silly, but serious.
A really nifty analysis. Nice work. The theme I picked up on from the film (not having much prior knowledge) was how speech and dress are no guarantee of someone's character. Witness, for example, a psychotic thug like Adrian Prussia using counterculture words like 'Psychedelic' while conducting business. Or look at the way Shasta dresses, in particular the Joe & The Country Fish T-Shirt ( the most prominent anti-Vietnam song of the era came from them) vs how she actually acts. The only slight disagreement I have with your analysis is the idea that doc restores Shasta to her former self. I think it all comes back to the title. Her actions call into question whether the flaw was within her all along - something that was fated to happen. It causes doc to have to reframe all his past experiences with her in light of this new information, in much the same way the counterculture reeled from cointelpro and the betrayals from within. IMO its why the final shot shows the characters up close experiencing sadness and happiness, but most of all, doubt and uncertainty. It's a thematically perfect ending.
I'm reading the book now, can't wait to watch the movie. It is hard to follow though I won't lie
Great review of a truly great film based on a truly great book by the one truly great author of our time (great photo, btw)
I cannot approach this without shaking the paranoid delusion that Thomas R. Pynchon was my roommate in So Cal in the 70's and that Doc is me writ large. I have photos from '74 of me slipping across the border into TJ in that field jacket with that hat on wearing those muttonchops.
Thanks a lot, even on a 2nd watch i was missing the point and you opened my eyes. Great video
Sortilège isn't real?
Great vid, btw. Love this film and novel. I wish we would get a Criterion release of it with some actual good bonus material.
love your breakdown of this movie . just watched it and really enjoyed it on first watch . but you made a lot more things sink in. great channel. and great video here . thanks for your work 🙏
I hate that it's fifteen bucks to rent on amazon on account of I have to see it again!!!
I hate when that happens, the DVD is a bit cheaper if that helps
This was an incredible review, I've always had trouble understanding this film. I love your in-depth analysis, please make more revews!
Thanks for watching! And I will do, these reviews are so much fun to make!
really diggin your analysis dude. there is a strip of dialogue though that i thought was worth mentioning. towards the end of the film, right before coy gets out of docs car and reunited with hope, coy mentions some old indian proverb. docs response is "nah, some old hippie said that". in this film, doc is a static character, or is he?
what is doc? a hippie. and here he is, subtly looking down on the hippie lifestyle by saying "some old hippie said that." is this some indication of change in doc's mindset? one that has adapted to the straight edged middle class lifestyle that coy and hope are living? or is it him simply acknowleding that yes, times are changing, but he doesnt need to change, even though people will look down on him? the next scene is him smoking pot in his beachhouse so im thinking it probably is the latter, but id like to hear your thoughts on it
+Seth Really great point, I think that it may be him looking at society changing, but I also think it may be him not seeing himself as a hippie . Despite him partaking in some areas of the hippie life style style, but also avoiding others, he isn't really am activist. He is a character that judges others, and he judges the hippies despite being labeled as one.
+Jacks Movie Reviews cool way to look at it, seeing some parallels to the dude from the big lebowski. like the dude, doc doesnt try to be anything more than he is. he just simply is
*****
The movie obviously look a lot of inspiration from The Big Lebowski
PTA is an Altman freak. See "The Long Goodbye" for the initial point of inspiration. That is, beside Pynchon.
+Jacks Movie Reviews At the time of its release a handful of critics actually caught that The Big Lebowski was "Pynchonesque" due to its inadvertent hippie anti-hero (e.g. Pynchon's "The Crying of Lot 49" and "Vineland"), the sprawling cast of eccentric characters the Dude knows and meets through the film, and the nearly nonsensical plot. In IV's case, Pynchon and the Coens's inspirations (Chandler, old noir films, subcultures) were the same.
Is it just me, or is this film PTA's "Big Lebowski"? It differs in that here Doc goes up against society, government and corporations (you will notice the importance of how I've chosen to list these things, ironically in order of the "least," to the "most," important). And The Dude is up against what society, government, and corporations (these collectively known as 'capitalism' lol) might look like if boiled down to one, single, individual. I would say Dude is also up against 'himself,' but Doc has that same issue too; at least in some sense, anyway. Interesting to see and then decipher I suppose: parallels the two films (and by extension the three filmmakers) share, and tackle in their own way(s) and/or with their own (or, collective, in the Coen brothers' case) cinematic vision(s).
Definitely going to rewatch this. I loved the characters but got too wrapped up in the mystery. Great video.
Thoroughly enjoyable movie. Lots of WTF moments and all the actors nail the vibe. Incredibly well crafted film. Not everyone's cup of tea, and honestly not really mine. But it was good.
Some of the funniest scenes I've ever seen.
Brilliantly beautiful ahy
I can also see the name chosen "inherent vice"for permanent vice he had to love her, the kind of stuff he goes through just for her, and at the end their not back together but their sharing a similar moment like before, together.
the rest of the movie as you said hard to follow but manageable ahah anyway nice analyses
the photo in the video thats supposedly Thomas Pynchon looks nothing like him when you google him ? odd