Inherent Vice (2014)

Wed Jan 7 12:43:12 CST 2015

Yes, the ending confined to the inside of the car was a poor choice. If I remember correctly, the perspective pulls out and it's not quite about the characters anymore. Instead we get a nice long static shot of Joachim's mug. 

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> DM > The end.. is a very different creature... Recall the ending of either adaptation of Ulysses, or John Huston's
> excellent one of Joyce's "The Dead" (or of various Great Gatsbys [Gatsbies?]) 
> 
> Oh, what choice touchstones for what the "voice" on the page can do vs. what real light and real sound can do.
> 
> Nabokov's Pnin leaving Waindell/Cornell: "Then the little sedan boldly swung past the front truck and, free at last, spurted up the shining road, which one could make out narrowing to a thread of gold in the soft mist where hill after hill made beauty of distance, and where there was simply no saying what miracle might happen." 
> 
> On the face of it, a screenwriter and director couldn't ask for a more straightforwardly cinematic final shot. Just think of all the movies that have ended with a character driving off towards a new life. But how many of them really catch that pale blue sedan?
> 
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I thought the voiceover was a good way to (1) preserve @ least some of
>> Pynchon's prose + (b) fill in backstory/help account for so many
>> characters/keep it moving/whatever (esp. given the running
>> time/character + episode excisions).  Where it needed it most,
>> unfortunately, was SPOILER ALERT @ the end, which I find genuinely
>> touching in Pynchon's novel, + which SPOILER ALERT is a very different
>> (albeit in Hollywood terms understandably so) creature in Anderson's
>> film.
>> 
>> Recall the ending of either adaptation of Ulysses, or John;s Houston;s
>> excellent one of Joyce's "The Dead" (or of various Great Gatsbys
>> [Gtasbies?])
>> 
>> I would have @ least appreciated a SPOILER ALERT pull-away to outbound
>> traffic on the LA Freeway (+ somehow, an allusion to Pynchon's
>> allusions to the Internet, but ....) ....
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:51 AM,  <msacha1121 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Not terrible, but not particularly substantial either (sorta like the book in that sense). All the doc/Shasta interactions seemed wrong, and I wish PTA had resisted the book-movie adaptation trope of having a character narrate over the film. Well, it's a silly flick and enjoyable enough in its own right, and it looks pretty nice in 35mm if you can find a theater that's screening it that way.
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:10 AM, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Enjoyed it.  Liked it fine.  My only real misgivings (so far, though
>> >> I'm seeing it again Friday, + again ...) are @ the very beginning +
>> >> the very end.  Completists should stay through the credits (see
>> >> misgivings).  My party (three out of four of whom have read the book;
>> >> one reviewed it way back when, even) largely agreed. Let me know.
>> >>
>> >> http://inherentvicemovie.com
>> >> -
>> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150107/fbc80199/attachment.html>