Inherent Vice is special. I read the book a couple of years ago, loved it, and worried for PTA, because there's a lot of threads and loose ends, that often demand reconciliation in movie format presenting a narrative. I did remember there was a chance to pull it off because the point with the novel is not to worry about the threads. To follow the leads as Doc Larry Sportello does. To go with our gut like he is going with his. This doesn't mean inattention. It means being present through every interaction so cause and effect isn't lost. As long as one manages this much, Pynchon's worldview comes through like a sledgehammer.
The question for Anderson, I'm guessing, was, could he recreate the essence of that worldview despite the fact that he had to kill so many of Pynchon's darlings t make the narrative more coherent? Did he do it? For me, absolutely. If one compares a film scene to its counterpart in the novel, the faithfulness is astonishing. A lot of this has to do with the actors killing it and with the imagining of physical space being almost disconcertingly accurate. Anderson lops off chunks of narrative but deftly creates composites of conversations that retain the spirit of the film. This amplifies as the film reaches its conclusion, conceit needing to be more and more tied in with narrative.
At no point, through all the hilarity, sex, drug-fueled excess, has he forgotten what the story is about - the end of an era and the confusion and paranoia that accompanies its death rattle. The 60s are over. But the people that made it what it was are still around, and their opponents, as with most adversaries in great stories, are getting stronger, to the point of being intangible.
The film is a slice of someone's life in that period. Someone who, while on a whole other investigative trajectory involving a favour for his ex-girl, finds out more and more about nothing. The film doesn't quite piece together because it mirrors the frustration of the times. Who the fuck is really pulling the strings? Why don't they want us to know things? The world they inhabited once had a story. But that story was being taken from them, replaced with what higher powers felt was best. The film is a time capsule of that very cognitive dissonance. There's a scene in the end between Phoenix and Brolin that had me shattered, a point at which one man pities the other for his lack of happiness from being on the side he's chosen, magnified by the fact that seconds earlier it seemed like they were less divided by this inevitable dissonance as they apologised to each other at exactly the same time. It's a beautiful moment.
If there's a major change thematically, it's that he plays up the romance, and this has an effect on how he changed the final scene. I think it's a lovely choice.
In terms of technique, there's not much new here. PTA's trademark long takes are present as ever. I will say this is my favorite of his soundtracks. I find he keeps the soundtrack pretty loud in the audio mix, sometimes to point of making it difficult to decipher dialogue. It's less pronounced here, and I'd say he's used it with far more regard for context than usual.
Make sure to see it. It's funny as heck, it's tragic in the most hopeless sense. It's not as experiential as I thought it would be. There's lots of the absurd, but never to a point of confusion. I haven't mentioned too many specifics in terms of scenes and performance because I see no point in colouring anyone's viewing. Watch it scene to scene, soaking it in, and you'll enjoy it. Watch it with a little attention to detail, and it might be a more shifting experience.
Well said. One of the best movies I've seen all year. Much better than a lot of the movies getting all the buzz for awards season. Joaquin and PTA is the best actor/director collaboration working today.