MovieChat Forums > Inherent Vice (2015) Discussion > Does anybody READ anymore?

Does anybody READ anymore?


Whatever your opinions are about this movie or PT Anderson, it's astounding that most people don't seem to appreciate that this movie is based on a recent novel by a man who is regarded as one of the great living American writers and whose previous novels have never been filmed and are all but un-filmable (some would say "Gravity's Rainbow" is also un-readable).

I'm glad most people at least know what film noir is. That's why this movie SEEMS a lot like "The Big Lebowski"--they were both influenced by film noir and the LA noir variant. But those were also based on BOOKS originally (which were called serie noir in France) like Raymond Chandler's "The Big Sleep", which has a confounding, labyrinthine plot that makes this movie seem relatively easy to follow.

If this movie (and the book its based on) was inspired very much by another movie, it is probably the Robert Altman's adaptation of Chandler's "The Long Goodbye", which updated the 1940's novel to an early 70's setting when that film was made. But the fact that this is a book of literary merit explains why it's too complicated for a lot of today's simple-minded movie audiences to grasp. But I think the problem is literature is allowed to be vague and ambiguous and tell things only from an oblique and limited point of view. A fly struggling in a spider's web is NOT going to appreciate the full design of the web, but a writer is allowed to tell the story from the fly's POV. Today's movie audiences though think they need to have every little thing explained to them.

My point is if Anderson had completely bastardized rather than (relatively) faithfully adapted the book, it would be a lot more popular with a lot of the illiterate nitwits bashing it on this page.

reply

I can't blame the viewers in this case. The trailers definitely tried to sell it more on the HUMOR. Which was there but not as prevalent as the trailers suggest. I was from the trailer expecting a more Lebowski-like film and got something a bit more melancholy and serious period film. So I'll have to give it a second watch with that in mind.

reply

It has far too many words & a few of them even have more than 2 syllables.

I agree with almost everything you said, incl (some would say "Gravity's Rainbow" is also un-readable). I got multiple headaches reading GR. I never finished it. The only thing I disagree with is your idea that not liking this film means someone is illiterate.

An AMerican over the age of 20 who does not know who Pynchon is, is borderline illiterate.

Someone who has read Pynchon but dislikes his work is not illiterate. Said person is probably a lot less self-indulgent and warped than Pynchon is.

Now, it does take a nitwit to watch IV & then complain here w/o yet knowing who Pynchon is & why IV is the way it is.


reply

An AMerican over the age of 20 who does not know who Pynchon is, is borderline illiterate.


Rofl. Sure thing Daddy O.

reply

Excellent novel, excellent film.

reply

illiterate.

"Take pride in your illiteracy" is his mantra.

reply

solari raises his hand to self-identify as.....illiterate. "Take pride in your illiteracy" is his mantra.


Good for you for responding to my almost 4 month old post, I had completely forgotten about it and moved on, almost 4 months ago.

If only your response didn't exemplify irony because you couldn't even read my handle, much less remember what you read within the last 5 minutes to type it accurately. I love morons like you who think they're much smarter than they actually are and expose themselves while arrogantly trying to show the world otherwise.

I'll desperately await your attempt at a rebuttal, maybe another 4 months from now. No, not really; that's sarcasm, another literary device.

reply

Is your pathetic existence supposed to motivate accuracy in anything?

hilari solari

reply

Handle also means online alias. Have you heard of a dictionary or search engine?

reply

Ah, breaker 1-9, this here's the rubber duck. you gotta copy on me, pig pen, c'mon?

Have you heard of an education?

reply

You're plucking the same strings over and over again, it's time to look in the mirror.

Solaris is an OS and the title of a philosophical sci-fi novel with 3 cinematic adaptations; one being by Tarkovsky with the latest directed by Steven Soderbergh, starring George Clooney and produced by James Cameron. Those are some big names considering the site you're on.

If only you weren't an uneducated nincompoop oblivious to all of those facts, you wouldn't have read it as "solari" just because of a capital S at the end.

reply

[deleted]

Ironic that you're morally outraged about our illiterate culture yet you say Gravity's Rainbow is "unreadable". I'm no genius but I made it all the way through. With a little effort at times, it's readable for anyone who tries.

reply

The fact that this movie was adapted from a novel, even a good one, does not mean it has to be any good at all. Many great films are not based on novels (Citizen Kane), while other terrible movies are based on good novels (Brewster's Millions).

You may as well say the Ten Commandments was the best movie ever made because it was based on the most widely-read classic of all time, the Bible.

reply

I don't see the point of comparing Brewster's Millions to Inherent Vice. Brewster's was a generic movie made for profit; Inherent Vice is a bold work of cinematic art that demands (and rewards) multiple viewings.


reply

[deleted]