dissapointing

[M Thomas Stevenson]

Oh yeah, all of this. Much of the talk I was hearing was it was this trippy, fastpaced thing. It felt like the fourth dreggy joint, rather than the first. Very baggy, not so much "loose" as puddled - which I do think was intentional; it does alter your consciousness, to a degree, via one's expectations of a typical film vs the editing and acting choices of this one. But maybe not quite enough, maybe too subtly to register proper. I spent most of it feeling bad and questioning my objectivity or whatever because I don't think I actually laughed once. And I'm one o those garish, hipstery PTA fans you all keep ruing! I just wanted more surf, more wildness. It may not be exactly on the nose, but I think this film could've done with just a pinch of Fear and Loathing... in there, to tighten it up. I also wanted many of the actors to believe it or feel it more. Whatever you think of Boogie Nights, it's fairly plain the actors are really wrenching the material and the cartoonishness of the characters up to a raw realness that I think IV could've done with. . . 

On 12 January 2015, at 02:04, Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with pretty much everything you say, here.


In IV and BE, Pynchon definitely evinces a surprisingly fresh voice. Young at heart to be sure. That alone is impressive on some level, for a man approaching 80.


What I found very surprising about IV, the movie, was how few laughs there were in it. And, again, the mumbling. The first few scenes felt like rehearsals to me. 


Second viewing tomorrow. Gotta try to find Pynchon's cameo! Any leads?


Jerky


On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:50 PM, gary webb <gwebb8686 at gmail.com> wrote:

I think one of the reasons PTA's rendition of IV is a little hard to wrap one's head around is the simple fact that it is a major motion picture, the film must necessarily constrain Pynchon's riffing, the film, though in many senses is an homage to Pynchon, it isn't necessarily made for Pynchonfiles. I have read many bloated and obviated reviews of both IV, the novel and the film, as well as Bleeding Edge... I don't think Pynchon is writing for the V., TCoL49, and Gravity's Rainbow obsessives anymore... IV and Bleeding Edge, his more contemporary work, feels exactly just that, young and fresh... Pynchon is young at heart... I think he has left the New York Times Book Review crowd and moved onto a new more fresh generation, his son's generation... his message isn't as enigmatic because it doesn't have to be... I thought IV a much more bleak and harsher rendition of the novel... it doesn't have to compare with the Long Goodbye or Lebowski, it flows a lot like the more cynical noirs of the 70s, like Altman's take on the Long Goodbye...  


On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Toby Levy <tobyglevy at gmail.com> wrote:

Yes it was great to see the novel in graphic display on a big screen, but as a discreet work of art, the film fails on all levels that I measure movies.  If any objective viewer was to view The Big Lebowski, The Long Goodbye and Inherent Vice in short order would know exactly what I am talking about.

Toby



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150112/c2e1b3b4/attachment.html>