 |
| (Photos courtesy of Warner Bros/NYFF) |
Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film, “Inherent Vice,” asks an important question of its viewers: Where does a coherent plot factor into what makes a movie “good” or “bad?” If you place heavy importance on plot, then you will likely leave the film extremely frustrated. If you tend to rely on the feel of a film rather than specifically what is going on and why, however, then you will find it a hypnotic experience unlike anything else in cinema.
It comes as no great surprise that the film’s helmer himself is an advocate of the latter contention. At his “On Cinema” masterclass at the New York Film Festival, where “Inherent Vice” premiered to mixed reviews this past weekend, Anderson stated: “I never remember plots in movies. I remember how they make me feel. I remember emotions and I remember visual things that I’ve seen and my brain has just never connected the dots of how things go together.” This almost seems to be an indirect response to the early criticism of his film, which almost entirely centered on its confusing plot. While it is certainly reasonable to be put off by a movie that (so far) seems to universally confuse, there is far too much else to “Inherent Vice” to simply write it off.
The film follows Doc Sportello, an often-stoned hippie private eye with long greasy locks and prominent mutton chops (played by a typically excellent Joaquin Phoenix), as he tries to appease ex-girlfriend Shasta (exciting newcomer Katherine Waterston) by investigating the disappearance of her new lover. Set in a drugged out ‘70’s Los Angeles with a hazy noir feel, Doc must weave his way through a maze of characters ranging from a saxophone player turned undercover cop (Owen Wilson) to a cocaine addict dentist (Martin Short), who is not above corrupting a young blonde patient of his, in order to find out just what the heck is actually going on.
“It was a bit episodic and there was a sort of jumping from stone to stone to stone and sometimes these connected pieces were made in the book, sometimes they weren’t. There were various blind alleys and dead end streets,” said Anderson of adapting the novel.
Indeed, the film has a rapid pace and often the viewer is introduced to characters and situations that quickly disappear and end up having no real bearing in anything. That’s life; everything is not going to directly tie into everything else. In the detective field, that must be dealt with regularly. In that way, “Inherent Vice” honors realism, but it is really its surrealism that is eye catching.
In the lead up to the film’s first viewings, most expected Anderson to return to his “Boogie Nights” roots. In other words, most expected a lighter and more formal ensemble comedy. Instead, the film is much closer to Anderson’s most recent film, “The Master,” in its look and feel. Throughout that film, there are moments that although apparently embedded in reality, feel surreal. An apparent dream that ends up having some bearing in actuality towards the end of the film comes to mind. The same can be said of many moments in “Inherent Vice,” such as an odd trip to a psychiatric hospital by Doc.
Despite all of its outrageous comedic elements, there is a brooding sadness just below the surface of “Inherent Vice”. Pynchon readers say this is also present in the novel. However, it is also a common theme in Anderson’s work. In “The Master,” beneath lead character Freddie Quell’s (also played by Phoenix) corrosive veneer, there is a very detectable sorrow. The same can be said of most Anderson protagonists, but “Inherent Vice’s” contrasting tone is highlighted by raw, often sensual camerawork and an eventual sense of self-discovery by the protagonist, just as it is in “The Master.” Also, at the heart of the two stories are a girl and the regret of love lost, both of which come to an explosive peak in an incredible long-take between Doc and Shasta in “Inherent Vice.”
It is interesting to note that Anderson has reteamed with cinematographer Robert Elswit for “Inherent Vice.” The two worked together for all of Anderson’s films except “The Master,” yet the look they create in this is closer to that film than any of their past collaborations.
Fans of Anderson will most certainly be pleased with all of this, but the film interestingly has the guns to keep general audiences satisfied as well despite its plot difficulties. The part deadpan, part outrageous stoner comedy script is hilarious. Look for the film to gain cult status among the same group that holds films like “The Big Lebowski” so high. Because of this, it should serve as a confirmation of Anderson as one of the most versatile directors in the world today. Also, the environment is so rich and expertly crafted that is will likely compel both those who lived through it and those who did not.
The score, another product of the Anderson-Jonny Greenwood marriage now in its third film, is fun and an effective match to its on-screen material. It features everything from Neil Young’s “Harvest” to original work by Greenwood. Performances of the actors are as compelling as one would expect from such a talented cast, particularly Phoenix and Waterston (although Brolin just might be a show stealer of sorts).
Overall, complaints of a confusing plot feel weak in comparison to all that “Inherent Vice” has going for it. Cinematic history is riddled with confusing films that have nonetheless been deemed masterpieces. Take “2001: A Space Odyssey,” for example. Widely considered to be lofty among the greats, the film is also considered to be one of the more confusing films in history. If someone could explain the entire plot beginning to end without theorizing, they’d be the first. So the question then becomes, if deeply serious films can become revered without an entirely discernible plot, then why can’t comedies? Especially one as beautifully crafted and spellbinding as “Inherent Vice.” (Grade: A-)
