Skip to main content

They're helping me wake up from my bad hippie dream.

Inherent Vice
(2014)

(SPOILERS) I can quite see why Inherent Vice hasn’t been clutched to collective bosoms in the way some of Paul Thomas Anderson’s previous pictures have. It isn’t funny enough to be designated an all-out comedy (like The Big Lebowski), or intriguing enough to be termed a fully-fledged mystery (like Chinatown), too disinterested to be a commentary on any kind of times (like The Long Goodbye) and insufficiently whacked out to be celebrated as a intoxicated space ride (like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). But it’s definitely got something and, in Joaquin Phoenix’s Larry “Doc” Sportello, relishes a protagonist who may not be as instantly iconic as The Dude but is singularly memorable in his stoned well-meaning and good nature. A real hippie.


I haven’t always been Paul Thomas Anderson’s biggest fan. I thought Boogie Nights was merely okay, and found Magnolia actively irritating. But both There Will Be Blood and The Master were rich, immersive experiences, ones that were rewarding and resonant. I don’t think Inherent Vice (ironically, given half the title) exerts the same grip; it’s too sedate in embracing its main character’s stoner ways and, ironically (again) given the reports of a loose and chaotic set, rather studied in its capturing of the period, but if you’re willing to go along for the rambling ride, with its frequent detours from the point and non-integral interludes, PTA’s adaptation (as Wikipedia calls it, a “stoner crime comedy-drama film”) of Thomas Pynchon’s 2009 novel is highly enjoyable.


Revolving around private investigator Doc’s looking into the case of a disappeared real estate developer (Mickey Wolfmann, played by Eric Roberts), at the behest of his former girlfriend Shasta Fay Hepworth (Katherine Waterstone), whom he is still hung up on and who has been seeing Wolfmann, the plot spins off in multiple directions, some of them clues, others red herrings.


Shasta disappears, spurring Doc’s efforts. There’s Aryan Brotherhood member Glen Charlock, one of Wolfmann’s bodyguards who shows up dead, the rumoured intent of Wolfmann’s wife and lover to have Mickey sectioned, and the mysterious Golden Fang, a syndicate of dentists, a boat, or an international drug smuggling ring (or all three). Then there’s his second (or third, since the second is Tariq Khalil’s – Michael K Williams – request to find Charlock, who owes him money; “You see, outside of Glen, I ain’t never liked the company of Nazis”), to find the husband of recovering heroin addict Hope Harlingen (Jenna Malone).


En route, Doc is interrogated by the FBI (“There’s no need to be insulting” responds one, when Doc suggests they are in the same business) and continually hassled by nemesis Detective Christian F Bigfoot Bjornsen (Josh Brolin), who alternatively confides in Doc, sets him up, makes worrisome innuendos or gets him to do his dirty work (in respect of loan shark Adrian Prussia and his connection to Bigfoot’s former partner).


Seen through Doc’s heightened gauze, the plot only attains anything approaching urgency on those occasions when he is in direct danger (the sequence in which Prussia and his lackey intend to administer an overdose to Doc proves him surprisingly capable, and is the only point where the picture enters into straightforward thriller territory). The narration from Sortilege (Joanna Newsom) emphasises this, a seductively drowsy piece of half-spun wisdom somewhere between off True Romance/Badlands and The Stranger from The Big Lebowski (“These were perilous times, astrally speaking, for dopers”).


Like the Dude, Doc continually wanders haplessly into far-out and dangerous situations, navigating them in a permanently half-baked state. Half of what he writes on his notepad is gibberish (“Paranoia Alert” is his response to the synchronicity of Kalil presenting a case connected to Wolfmann) and at various points he is high on laughing gas and snorting coke like a demon, just to modify his drugs regimen. Oh, and he gets shot full of PCP.


That said, apart from a sequence in which Doc is hit on the head and we see Dude-esque visuals, Anderson is restrained on the whole hallucinatory state, allowing the larger-than-life characters to do the work for him. Visually this has the kind of hazy ‘70s sun-bleached vibe you’d expect (complete with burnt orange miniskirts and green telephones), and Johnny Greenwood furnishes an appropriately psychedelic score, like The Doors if they were doing background music.


For Doc’s misadventures, the journey’s the thing rather than the destination, so it may not be surprising that some found Inherent Vice confusing (I have to say that even with three nominal investigations, it’s easier than many detective pictures to keep a track off; I expect it depends how stoned you are when viewing it). Doc’s inability to move on from Shasta makes her a hippy era femme fatale, one who can show up and wrap him round her little finger (or any part of her, depending on how disrobed she is at the time), and with whom the nominal happy ending (“This doesn’t mean we’re back together”) might be regarded as a reflection of the finite and on-the-turn hippy dream (this is 1970, and Manson-type cults are repeatedly referenced, while the down side of the liberation of drugs is emphasised when it is noted that Doc is one of the few who doesn’t use heroin). Alternatively, this could just be Doc’s own fantasy (we see Shasta only with him once she returns, and she’s all over him).


Waterston is very good, but her character is little more than a cypher, a means to move the plot and add colour to Doc’s motivations and illusions. The primary relationship is with Brolin’s Renaissance detective Bigfoot, a flat-topped lieutenant with “an evil twinkle in his eye that says civil rights violations”. His uptight fury at the liberated generation reminded me a little of his character in Milk, just as a fully-fledged caricature this time. It’s Doc’s responses to Bigfoot that humanise him (when he is losing it in the last scene, and Doc sheds a tear; “I’m not your brother”; “No, but you need a keeper”), or the scene where Mrs Bjornsen starts haranguing Doc on the phone about the therapy Bigfoot has to endure as a result of dealing with him; Bigfoot’s a man whose world no longer makes any sense, and is crumbling around him.


The heart of the picture comes in respect to f the Harlingen case, though, and Doc’s intent to get informer Coy back with his wife and child. Owen Wilson is perfect for this kind of role, almost too perfect, while Jena Malone as his matter-of-fact wife (discussing the ravaging effects of heroin and her false teeth) is equally strong.  There’s a scene between Coy and Doc at a party, in partial code, that forms one of the picture’s fitfully wholly engrossing moments (“Are you saying the US is somebody’s mom?”). This is the difference between the precision of the Coens and the coasting, freewheeling approach of PTA, where not everything has to count. Likewise, Doc’s conversation with Bigfoot concerning Robert Prussia is precise and holds the attention, and its with these kinds of moment that the picture is at is best, as we integrate the fractured information fed to the doper.


PTA, with Cheech and Chong and Furry Freak Brothers as touchstones, ensures there’s a healthy vein of absurdity coursing through the picture. It’s often very funny (“He perished in a trampoline accident, didn’t he?”); Doc’s slalom entering the police station so as not to get beaten on; his scream on seeing baby Harlingen photo; the mother and daughter drugs couriers; the gloriously unhinged performance from Martin Short as Dr Rudy Blatnoyd (the name itself is bliss) a coke fiend predator-come-shrink (“Doctor, I think there’s a problem with the couch in your office. And bring that bottle” instructs his female assistant; Blatnoyd follows her, his trousers around his ankles).


Anderson’s willingness to indulge means some of the broader, goofier stuff doesn’t quite work (Bigfoot’s phallic food oral fixation is overdone in the way an 14-year-old would probably find hilarious), while the offices of Voorhes-Krueger is the kind of cheap reference you’d expect from an Adam Sandler fan. Likewise, his staging of last supper with pizza is kind of visually puerile; the sort of thing Kevin Smith would do if he had any directorial ability.


The cast is magnificent, top to bottom. I don’t know if Robert Downey Jr. would have been better as Doc, but he certainly isn’t missed. Reese Witherspoon has some fun as the Assistant D.A. sometime girlfriend of Doc, Benicio del Toro plays a relatively sober attorney (unlike in Fear and Loathing), Martin Donovan, Eric Roberts, and Serena Scott Thomas all cameo to memorable effect.


Inherent Vice (apparently: a property of or defect in a physical object that causes it to deteriorate due to a fundamental instability of its components, so it may make the item an unacceptable risk, and the insurer may not be liable to a claim if they haven’t been forewarned about it) definitely deserves its place on the many Top 10 lists of 2014 (including mine) but I’m not yet sure whether I’ll come to regard it as an all-time classic. It’s a picture that needs to percolate through repeat visits, so perhaps so. I was fairly certain the first time I saw The Big Lebwoski of its longevity, and that one took a few years to catch fire in cultdom. Certainly, it shares box office failure with the Coen Brothers’ picture, so if that’s any testament to merit it ought to be some consolation to Anderson. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

We’re not owners here, Karen. We’re just passing through.

Out of Africa (1985)
I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal. 

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

Now we're all wanted by the CIA. Awesome.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)
(SPOILERS) There’s a groundswell of opinion that Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the best in near 20-year movie franchise. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but only because this latest instalment and its two predecessors have maintained such a consistently high standard it’s difficult to pick between them. III featured a superior villain and an emotional through line with real stakes. Ghost Protocol dazzled with its giddily constructed set pieces and pacing. Christopher McQuarrie’s fifth entry has the virtue of a very solid script, one that expertly navigates the kind of twists and intrigue one expects from a spy franchise. It also shows off his talent as a director; McQuarrie’s not one for stylistic flourish, but he makes up for this with diligence and precision. Best of all, he may have delivered the series’ best character in Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa Faust (admittedly, in a quintet that makes a virtue of pared down motivation and absen…

Yeah, she loused up one of the five best days of your life.

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
(SPOILERS) The zeitgeist Best Picture Oscar winner is prone to falling from grace like no other. Often, they’re films with notable acting performances but themes that tend to appear antiquated or even slightly offensive in hindsight. Few extol the virtues of American Beauty the way they did twenty years ago, and Kramer vs. Kramer isn’t quite seen as exemplifying a sensitive and balanced examination of the fallout of divorce on children and their parents the way it was forty years previously. It remains a compelling film for the performances, but it’s difficult not to view it, despite the ameliorating effect of Meryl Streep (an effect she had to struggle to exert), as a vanity project of its star, and one that doesn’t do him any favours with hindsight and behind-the-scenes knowledge.