dissapointing

[Dave Monroe]

I've been running the GR trailer in my head since the 2-th century
(music included).  I'd be happy just to be able to make that.

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Gary, too. It's 2014, and we're spiraling along, up or down,
> who can be sure, and we ain't in Kansas anymore, and it isn't 1976. I think
> the movie's very good. There are some things I would like to see in it that
> I don't, but it isn't my movie.  What if you saw it without reference to the
> book? It definitely feels more bleak than the book. I see more humor in the
> book than I saw in the movie. Then again, I was the only one laughing out
> loud in the theater.  How to translate all the subtleties, and winks and
> nods, of Mr. P, however critical you may be towards this particular work, to
> the screen?
>
> Maybe we, as the P list, should come up with the 42 gazillion dollars it
> takes to make a movie, and collectively make our own version? And, if we're
> going to do that, let's go ahead and tackle GR, the untackle-able! Whatever
> faults it may have, I'm glad to see our man P on the big screen!
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:04 PM, 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
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l