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

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.