dissapointing

[Keith Davis]

Agreed, there was a feeling of being altered upon leaving the theater, and
all night I dreamed I was riding around with Doc in his crappy car smoking
joints and barely escaping from various misadventures...

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, M Thomas Stevenson <
m.thomas.stevenson at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
www.innergroovemusic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150111/cbd1a29d/attachment.html>