Except for the fact that both of the main characters are stoners and have similar hair these movies have actually nothing in common. The hair was a very common look at that time. Why all of the comparisons? Inherent Vice is a stoner detective story and Big Lebowski is a film about a stoner’s attempt to get a new rug after a case of mistaken identity.
shareyeah, why so much talk about it? like this thread for example
share[deleted]
Cuz the grandkiddies of yesteryear's prototype quasi-hippy dudes like their generalities concocted in the most simplistic easy-to-understand connect-the-dots renderings. No nuances permitted.
shareI guess that includes Paul Thomas Anderson, who said:
I also remember thinking, when I read the book, This is like The Big Lebowski. And that was a reason not to make the movie. That was a reason to say, like, "Why would I have to do something like The Big Lebowski? Why would I even come close?"share
Probably because Joaquin Phoenix is trying to emulate Jeff Bridges the Dude. They should have just hired Jeff Bridges
shareBoth movies are overrated!
It's that man again!!
Except for the fact that both of the main characters are stoners and have similar hair these movies have actually nothing in common.It seems to me that they have more in common than that.
Both essentially based on the template established by Chandler and Hammett and the films of their work, with a hippie twist.
The older viewers amongst us may also have thought of Altman's "The Long Goodbye", for the same reason.
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
It seems to me that they have more in common than that.
-- Both include narration from a semi-mystical person who is otherwise unrelated to the plot (The Stranger, Sortilege).
-- Both involve a missing woman who turns out not to have really been missing (Bunny, Shasta).
-- Both involve the protagonist being used as a patsy by someone they thought was on their side (the "Big" Lebowski, Bigfoot).
-- Both have scenes in which the protagonist is abused by the police to humorous effect (the Dude getting a glass thrown at his head, Doc getting knocked to the ground).
-- Both have scenes in which other people break into the protagonist's apartment while the protagonist just stares on in disbelief (the beginning of The Big Lebowski; Bigfoot's final scene in Inherent Vice).
-- Both involve the protagonist brushing up against extreme sub-cultures (the Aryan brotherhood, nihilists).
Basically, the films have quite a bit in common. The one significant thing that's different is the tone. Inherent Vice is less funny and more somber.
They have quite a bit in common. Big Lebowski is a detective story as well. Both movies features a stoner trying to solve a mystery. Both movies clearly draw inspiration from Film noir, e.g. both feature a femme fatale.
shareI think there are some similarities, but this one is much darker and deeper than Lebowski and harder to follow...a better movie upon multiple viewings I think..though I've only just seen it recently.
sharedeeper than Lebowski
I wrote about it in the other thread regarding IV. I'm not saying Both aren't deep, just think this one is a bit deeper/darker. Both have comedy, but Lebowski is tad more silly, while IV is more subtle.
shareI'm not sure "deeper" is the right word here. Maybe more "ambiguous"? The ambiguity of Inherent Vice lends itself to a greater diversity of interpretation.
That said, fairly or unfairly, I still think Lebowski will be the one that is remembered as a classic and studied years from now.
TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com
I disagree. Both are great. Lebowski is just easier to follow and more entertaining. IV is more obscure and cryptic. For the avg viewer it's going to be a bore though. Definitely have to watch more than once and REALLY pay attention..even I fell asleep first time.
shareLebowski is just easier to follow and more entertaining. IV is more obscure and cryptic.
I wasn't disagreeing with your ambigious comment, just the "classic"/remembered part.
There are even more interpretations to Lebowski I've seen that are interesting. No time to get into right now though.
I think IV is more confusing in both plot/meaning. Most people don't even see a plot.
Ah, I gotcha. Thanks for clearing up that ambiguity (ba-dum tish!).
Yes, I didn't mean to suggest the neo-con interpretation of Lebowski is the only one. It's a rich work ripe for interpretation.
TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com