PT Anderson is my fav filmmaker. I've watched his style evolve from David Mamet (his feature debut, "Hard Eight") to Terence Malick with his most recent couple of pictures ("The Master" & "There Will Be Blood"). I've loved every single one of his films. IV seems to be going for a "China Town" meets "The Big Lebowski". But the movie completely lost me. Was the issue the casting (or mis-casting?) of Joaquin Phoenix, who is a really good actor, but maybe not quite right for the lead role of anchoring this whole thing together, say, unlike Jeff Bridges in TBL, who owned that role -AND- kept the whole thing together so that you would be interested in the overall journey that film takes you on?
You're not the only one. The movie has a reputation of being overwhelmingly confusing.
The common viewing experience of Inherent Vice is watching it and just going with it, sort of letting everything wash over you and getting lost in the confused-stoner experience. And if you enjoy that, then you can slowly start absorbing the plot upon subsequent viewings. Believe me, there is something in IV but there's quite a bit to dissect so don't be alarmed if you don't catch everything right away.
It's a layered film but at the end of the day, it's about whether or not you enjoyed the ride, not if you understood the plot.
It makes sense. All of you people are just too stupider to get it. End of story. That's it.
Can't say it failed either as it came together in the end for me and I can make sense of the film. It's a very difficult film, intentionally so (Read the novel as well), but that doesn't mean it's without merit. This movie commits nothing that hasn't been done before when it comes to challenge, coherence and "formation" by the end
"The world is flat, that's it, end of story". "We'll never make it to the moon, that's it, end of story". Ad infinitum. Just because you're failing to understand something right now, you're deeming it impossible to understand, and forsaking all eternity of human consciousness.
Today is the day to say I love you to your best friend - chinese proverb
But that's like saying a rocket to the moon is a "bad" mode of transportation because it can't take you to straight Costa Rica. If you want to go to Costa Rica, just take a plane. Rockets are for going into space. Different modes of transportation with different mechanics for different directions, environments, and destinations.
Today is the day to say I love you to your best friend - chinese proverb
You're not really supposed to. I think the point of the book (set in a very confused and paranoid time) is that the protagonist gets drawn into a conspiracy so vast that he can't understand it and he starts to realize even the myriad of conspirators themselves don't understand it, so he decides to just ACCEPT the "inherent vice" of everything and live happily with a nice spliff and his cute, hippie girlfriend.
I think you really just accept that the perspective you have here is of a fly in giant web and you're not MEANT to understand the whole design of the web. Isn't life itself kinda like that? This not a riddle or a math problem you need to solve. You're trying too hard figure out something that's not meant to be figured out.
"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"
so he decides to just ACCEPT the "inherent vice" of everything and live happily with a nice spliff and his cute, hippie girlfriend.
Yeah but also preserve the genuine family unit, shown with the Coy situation against the parody of it with the golden fang front family.
It requires a certain sacrifice and Doc seems to make it. But where does that leave him? Lost in the fog and as the book says, waiting for something to happen.
My problem with this movie is that the plot and events dont appear to make sense. I loved the The Big Lebowski, LA Confidential and There Will Be Blood. Chinatown was good too. But I am afraid the style and confusion of this movie disguise a flawed plot. Sure it is possible that I am wrong because, after one watching, I admit I dont understand what exactly happened. PT Anderson has always been a "stylish" director. That can be good, but in some cases, in certain genre's of movies, it can be used to disguise flawed plots.
I wont hold it against the movie for being confusing, maybe that is my fault for being slow on the take. But I see no reason to spend my time trying to rewatch the movie or read the book if in the end characters dont behave as they should or the end result is really just based on coincidence and luck?
Particularly (SPOILER ALERT):
How can you trade kilograms of pure heroin/cocaine for the release of an informant off the payroll of an anti-communist group? If this informant is too afraid to just disappear on his own with his family, how can you trust said organization to honor their word and not kill him later as a traitor? Because they got their drugs back? Same goes for the protagonist. After the drugs were taken, why didnt they just hunt him down, instead of meeting him for lunch at an expensive restaurant? Why would such an organization leave any witnesses alive to their illegal activities?
And the whole scene where the protagonist went to a drug lord, apparently thinking he was a nice guy, and escaped the handcuffs and killed the drug lord was stupid. That happens only in the movies, he should be dead of an overdose and the movie would have ended there. :(
How can you trade kilograms of pure heroin/cocaine for the release of an informant off the payroll of an anti-communist group? If this informant is too afraid to just disappear on his own with his family, how can you trust said organization to honor their word and not kill him later as a traitor? Because they got their drugs back? Same goes for the protagonist. After the drugs were taken, why didnt they just hunt him down, instead of meeting him for lunch at an expensive restaurant? Why would such an organization leave any witnesses alive to their illegal activities?
Doc didn't really "see" much in that situation though. Everything he knew was unbeknownst to the organization, all they knew was that he had the gargantuan bags of heroin, and that's all they wanted. Killing a private investigator may have called for more trouble than desired so that may have been a last resort had the sit down went sour. Or maybe they knew Doc knew plenty about them and had been exchanging information (via Coy, Jade and Bigfoot etc.), and killing him would've been a misstep as that may have given the feds more material to work with, or even bring them closer to their operations.
Besides, for all we know, maybe they were planning on killing him up until Doc turned down the compensation of money for Coy's freedom, and swore Coy to secrecy, even promising to go after Coy himself if he tried anything. I suppose no bloodshed was highly preferred to keep their operations as clean and problem free as possible. Maybe they didn't see Doc as a threat and saw no reason to kill him unless he refused to cooperate. Who knows.
Also, as for Coy, Coy's connections as informant ran so deep that snitching on the Golden Fang or anyone else, MULTIPLE organizations (probably the LAPD included) would've wanted his ass on a platter so I'm sure it was understood for him to stay quiet on all fronts, otherwise he and his family would pay the consequences
And the whole scene where the protagonist went to a drug lord, apparently thinking he was a nice guy, and escaped the handcuffs and killed the drug lord was stupid. That happens only in the movies, he should be dead of an overdose and the movie would have ended there. :(
Well it is a movie....But yeah, that's the only part where the suspension of disbelief is demanded. I believe Doc's escape in the book was even more ridiculous (I think) but I was so about everything that I just didn't bother questioning that scene (It still doesn't really bother me to be honest. I usually hate it when characters escape out of sheer luck and coincidence, but it didn't bother me that much in Inherent Vice )
And no, you're not "slow on the take." Inherent Vice is very hard to take in. Without bringing the book into it, I will say that the "incoherence" of the film is definitely an attribute that pushes the feeling of intoxication, a mind possessed with paranoia and weed on a daily basis making everything hazy, and even go as far as to question our judgement in regards to the situation. It's a movie that gets better the more you watch it, like most of Paul's movies. That's all I can say, really.
I'm glad I saw the film first, then read the book and have seen the movie many times since. It has given me a fairly good understanding and appreciation of both the film and book. Anyone confused but still interesting in the film (not here to post about how they didn't like it or it sucked or some garbage) should give the book a read and then see the film again.