Spoilers

My brain hurts and Paul Thomas Anderson is responsible. The pain in my mind has come as a result of watching his latest film, Inherent Vice. It is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by notoriously complex author Thomas Pynchon. I am not sure whether this film should be admired at as a remarkably faithful adaptation, one which goes to painstaking lengths to capture the novels essence, or whether it should be dropped to the bottom of the LA river wearing concrete shoes, a concrete hat and just about any other stone clothing you can find. I am not the only one to have had this reaction, with many taking my latter response as the most appropriate course of action. There is a deluge of evidence to support this on twitter (which I find to be as effective a way to keep a finger on the zeitgeist pulse as any):

You’ll notice one term floating to the surface constantly: Walked Out. So why then has a director like Paul Thomas Anderson, who is normally liked and lauded consistently, made a movie that divides audiences so definitely? In my arrogance I am going to list the most glaring problems of Inherent Vice as well as how they might be remedied.

Firstly there is the age old clash of high culture and low culture. The Guardian writer Owen Jones, tweeted afterwards:

“Lost the will to live watching Inherent Vice and walked out. Does that make mean uncultured? Probably…”.

This statement is a little ignorant as it is a well known fact that Anderson’s work requires multiple viewings to be understood. So the idea that an educated man like Jones is a little hard to swallow. What it does highlight though is the elitism of other critics who have been lauding Inherent Vice as a masterpiece. Another contributor for The Guardian, Steve Rose, sheds some light on this in his article on Inherent Vicei, explaining that critics sit through hours of tedious linear films. As a consequence of this anything new or different, in this case the rambling plot of Andersons film, is often embraced and the actual quality of the film fails to be assessed. The gulf between critic and audience is far more pronounced as evidenced above.

The trailer for the film has played some role in this. It is a well acknowledged fact that Hollywood’s revenue is shrinkingii. Blockbusters have increasingly become their biggest earners. This trend has led to many art house films, which is fundamentally what Inherent Vice is; art house noir, being given trailers that deceive audiences into believing that the film will have mainstream appeal. Have a look at the trailer:

The film is made to look like an exceptionally lighthearted comedy. Many of the excerpts show Joaquin Phoenix with exaggerated facial expressions and the victim physical comedy. One of the prime examples of misleading is the clip of Doc holding a gun asking:

It completely glosses over the exceptionally tense and violent scene that comes before, one filled with desperation and fear. That shows the only moment where Doc truly loses composure in the entire film. It is a scene that shows us Doc’s struggles with heroin addictions as well as the omnipresent fear it represents for him. Something that Shasta could bring back into his life. All this shows Doc not to be simply a bumbling detective but rather a man who holds daily battle with a temptation that once ruined him. This is never stated directly and so we see that it is a film layered with a subtle sub plot. It is one of the best things about the film but the audience will have difficulty realising it because it jars with the films trailer.

This is the fundamental difference between trailer and feature. Yes Inherent Vice is a comedy but it is black as they come, laden with irony and unfunny scenarios that are give a small breath of humour. This trailer has mislead a multitude of people into paying to see a film that they would normally never bother. All of this under the expectation of a completely different. Some form of backlash was inevitable. This is not the only film of 2015 to be baned by a deceptive trailer. Birdman, a film that dissects the nature of celebrity and its older sibling sensationalism, was given a trailer which utilised the only two minutes of CGI in the entire film. The resulting trailer is one that looks as though Micheal Keaton might once again rise up and fight crime as opposed to suffer a breakdown. Again a slew of those who care nothing for culture or high art flocked to the cinema expecting a quirky superhero romp and being disappointed. It is easy to disregard all this talk of “high” and “low” art as intellectual, elitist and snobbish, that a film should be entertainment. To do so represents its own peril. It would disregard those who created the work, those for whom film is art and they want there work to discussed as such. So then can Inherent Vice be excused it’s lack of mainstream appeal under the protection of shield of art, or is it simply a bad film? Sadly it may just be the latter.

Looking at Inherent Vice from a purely technical point of view it is a very poorly told story. It is a simple linear narrative, many seem to argue that it is non-linear but it follows Doc’s tale from the moment the first hint of the case is brought to him, to it’s closing at the end. The audience sees the world from Docs point of view never being given a single ounce of information that Doc himself is not privy to. Admittedly the narrative occasionally slips into human memory, but such flashbacks are always used to propel the plot forward as opposed to confusing or surprising the viewer. Though the confusion on whether or not the plot is linear or non-linear is justified as occasion it is near impossible to follow. The script seems beleaguered by nothing but conversations in diners, cars, country clubs and docks. It doesn’t matter where but there will be a conversation. These interactions often follow the same formula: Doc stumbles upon some new source of information, he talks to it, some new information is revealed that confuse him even further, rinse, repeat.

Noir traditionally follows this same format of new information being found generally by talking to people.iii So why am I complaining there is one key difference in traditional noir. Each interaction embroils the protagonist in further trouble and tension, thus making for a more interesting story. That’s just it Doc keeps talking but instead of seeking out new tension he stumbles around for fifteen minutes at a time to find anything new. The movies length makes many of these conversations tedious and repetitive and no doubt is the source of much of the walking out above.The Big Lebowski is an excellent example of Neo-Noir done well. Each revelation leading to a ratcheting in tension and intrigue. It works because all of it takes place within a short space of time making sure the tension lasts. Certainly there are moments of tension in Inherent Vice but Anderson constantly waits too long to capitalise on result in more of whimper than a bang.

Pacing is an issue overall with scenes sometimes dragging and other times leaping from line to line leaving the viewer feeling disjointed as though they were ejected from the story. One of the films biggest errors in this department occurs early on in the film when Taliq Khalil brings infortmation to Doc. Their conversation is forced and clunky as though the stereotypes for each character, a proud black panther and a stoned hippie, have suddenly possessed both men. They are not so much human beings anymore but rather cultural tension given form.

Strange tones and bad pacing plague the film overall with one of the most jarring of them being Anderson’s choice of narrator. The text of Thomas Pynchon’s novel manifests itself on the silver screen by way of narration which takes the irritating form of Sortilége. This particular woman is queen of the stoners in Pynchon’s novel and a long time confidant of Doc’s. Anderson gives a completely different function to her, she becomes the omniscient narrator. Below is a direct quote from the opening scenes of Inherent Vice:

” If it’s a quiet night out at the beach and your ex-old lady suddenly out of nowhere shows up with a story about her current billionaire- developer boyfriend, and his wife, and her boyfriend, and a plot to kidnap the billionaire and throw him in a loony bin… ”

The above is a slightly modified version of Pynchon’s original text. It works fantastically well as a piece of hard-boiled, noir, writing. It is tough, sharp and drenched in vernacular. You can picture Bogart, Mitchum or Lancaster bringing it a gravitas with all the misery and anguish that only a bottle of whiskey and a black eye can bring. Now imagine it being said by a pint sized woman, who sounds about the same, who mumbles her dialogue in a way that is supposed to evoke whimsy. Does it work? Of course it doesn’t. It never could. This isn’t to say that another woman couldn’t have done the job perfectly. Shasta would have made more sense as she has a clear idea of who doc is as well as the fact that in most of the memories mentioned through flashback, shasta actually took part. She could not be accused of unexplained omniscient narration as she took part in most of the key events described.

Anderson’s reverence for Pynchon is apparent throughout the film. It is partly the reason that some of the movie falls so flat. He is trying to do as much justice to the source as he can but in doing so forgets that a novel and a film are two very different beasts. He has acknowledged this flawed reverence himself in Marc Maron’s WTF podcastiv. It appears that Anderson’s homage extends to the entire noir genre in general. Hitchcock-esque features appear continually throughout. With music scores and tense scenes heavily mimicking the masterpiece that is Vertigov. Scenes that are particularly similar are the strange spanking domination scene between Shasta and Doc as well as the subsequent beach walk between the pair. It has been pointed out by many that Reese Witherspoon in her park bench rendezvous is dressed identically to Kate Novak’s Character in Vertigo:

Many would ask why this is necessary? The entire plot of Vertigo revolves around the slowly deteriorating certainty of the protagonist, played by Jimmy Stewart. It is apparent that Doc is suffering from a similar erosion of clarity with each new red herring casting a haze over his judgment, not the mention the copious amount of weed he smokes to stay steady. Witherspoon’s choice of wardrobe could also allude to her forthcoming betrayal of Doc to the Feds, much like Kim Novak’s strange betrayal in Vertigo. These homages to do detract from the film. In fact they enhance it and help to shape it into a more understandable film. It is Docs paranoia that warps the entire plot. Each scene hinges on unsteady ground and murky territory. The whole point of the film is to question why on earth there is a case in the first place.

As I stated: My brain hurts and Paul Thomas Anderson is responsible.

On the one hand as a noir film (one that is far too long) it is a decent homage. The inner conflict of Doc as well as the strange tone actually appeal to me, but is understandable that many would never even bother. On the other hand it could simply be a longwinded over ambitious adapatation. It is difficult to decide whether Inherent Vice is a great film with some glaring flaws, one that could be fixed by simply correcting a few bad choices and poor restraint, or whether I am being too kind (or too elite) in the defense of a film that doesn’t deserve it.