Movies Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 467
  • Views: 10K
  • Off-Topic 
I watched inherent Vice when it came out, I liked it but I don't recall being gobsmacked by it. Watched it again over the weekend and problem (or something) solved. I'm sufficiently smacked. Writing-wise, I never gloamed onto Pynchon, despite the assurances of greatness by some close literary compadres in whose literary opinions I set great store. Kinda figured I'd leave something for my golden years, at least to try. Well, I guess them golden years are here...

As far as the book (upon which, the movie) my studies have lead me to believe that this is considered minor Pynchon, which is probably all that could be captured on celluloid anyway. Be that as it may, I think this movie will provide years of rewarding rewatching. One interesting thing (purely filmic) I think is that I've decerned (or perhaps imagined, but I'm not sure if that's a difference without a distinction) the use of digital audio and visual palimpsests throughout the movie. Apropos, too, as it (I thought) captures (or releases) a certain aspect of "the drug experience" that is such an overt part of the movie, and, from what I surmise so far, Pynchon's writing in general. Based on that alone, you'd think I woulda delved into Pynchon way earlier than this, but for some reason I never did. Glad to have something to look forward to. This should take a good decade or so to get really familiar with. Hope I make it...
 
Last edited:
hedge said:
I watched inherent Vice when it came out, I liked it but I don't recall being gobsmacked by it. Watched it again over the weekend and problem (or something) solved. I'm sufficiently smacked. Writing-wise, I never gloamed onto Pynchon, despite the assurances of greatness by some close literary compadres in whose literary opinions I set great store. Kinda figured I'd leave something for my golden years, at least to try. Well, I guess them golden years are here...

As far as the book (upon which, the movie) my studies have lead me to believe that this is considered minor Pynchon, which is probably all that could be captured on celluloid anyway. Be that as it may, I think this movie will provide years of rewarding rewatching. One interesting thing (purely filmic) I think is that I've decerned (or perhaps imagined, but I'm not sure if that's a difference without a distinction) is the use of digital audio and visual palimpsests throughout the movie. Apropos, too, as it (I thought) captures (or releases) a certain aspect of "the drug experience" that is such an overt part of the movie, and, from what I surmise so far, Pynchon's writing in general. Based on that alone, you'd think I woulda delved into Pynchon way earlier than this, but for some reason I never did. Glad to have something to look forward to. This should take a good decade or so to get really familiar with. Hope I make it...
Click to expand...
I loved the book and really liked the movie. For me it was a somewhat lesser version of loving Fear and Loathing as a book and movie, pretty much equally. Capturing the hazy zany drugginess of it all probably has a lot to do with it, as that type of writing lends itself to visual representation and highlights the associated “time capsule” type qualities. Especially in the hands of directors like Terry Gilliam and PTA.

I guess an example of the movie being clearly elevated over the book in a similar genre would be Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punch being adapted into QT’s Jackie Brown.

Anyway it’s the only Pynchon I’ve read, but I also understood it to be “Pynchon-lite.” Helluva good time.
 
Finally brought myself to watch Warfare. No fluff and no frills in that movie. It’s a slice of life war movie, something you don’t see too often.

Very little artistic license taken, meant to represent the incident just as it happened. It’s a LOT but it’s a movie everyone should see, for an understanding of exactly what troops go through in an environment like that.
 
duluoz said:
For me it was a somewhat lesser version of loving Fear and Loathing as a book and movie, pretty much equally. Capturing the hazy zany drugginess of it all probably has a lot to do with it
Click to expand...
I love Thompson and all his fear and loathing. Bummed a cigarette from him once at the opera house in Aspen after a talk he had given. I eventually smoked it, but wish I had kept it. Anyway, I felt like the drug aspect of Inherent Vice was more subdued than in Fear and Loathing. I mean, it's all relative, and of course there's a druggy undertone permeating IV from start to finish, but it felt like F&L was more about doing drugs (and the concomitant snenanaigans) while in IV it was more of a substrate within which a more... compelling?... (I don't know the right word) story was told. Definitely there was an overall druggy mise en scene to IV (as there is in much of Pynchon's writing, from what I've gleaned) and the movie captured the feel and milieu of all that quite well but I felt like the movie delivered more than just that level. Not saying Fear and Loathing (book and movie) didn't, just that it felt a little different..
 
hedge said:
I love Thompson and all his fear and loathing. Bummed a cigarette from him once at the opera house in Aspen after a talk he had given. I eventually smoked it, but wish I had kept it. Anyway, I felt like the drug aspect of Inherent Vice was more subdued than in Fear and Loathing. I mean, it's all relative, and of course there's a druggy undertone permeating IV from start to finish, but it felt like F&L was more about doing drugs (and the concomitant snenanaigans) while in IV it was more of a substrate within which a more... compelling?... (I don't know the right word) story was told. Definitely there was an overall druggy mise en scene to IV (as there is in much of Pynchon's writing, from what I've gleaned) and the movie captured the feel and milieu of all that quite well but I felt like the movie delivered more than just that level. Not saying Fear and Loathing (book and movie) didn't, just that it felt a little different..
Click to expand...
Yeah they’re not apples to apples… just similar hijinks and you wouldn’t be shocked if the characters all showed up at the same parties. In fact, you’d expect it. But IV is a lot more like Leonard’s world-building than HST’s.

More so, I was comparing them because they’re rare instances of enjoying a movie of a book I’d previously enjoyed. And I think the hippie burnout scene, or drug noir, etc. as a setting begs for visual, filmic translations more than a lot of genres. It’s such rich fertile ground for a director, especially when there’s built-in humor.
 
an0maly said:
No, there's enough in my post for now, and I think UNCatTech should not read anything on the film before seeing it. Just sit down in the theater seat and buckle your mental seatbelt for quite a ride. The metaphor I mention is not prominent, and gets lost until you ponder it later on.
Click to expand...
My kids and I enjoyed the movie. After I did read about the director's life experience with loss. It really connected, for me, to many things in real life. Loss, addiction, how fear manipulates our decisions, etc.

I liked it and will probably watch it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top