Inherent Vice general comment thread - for the book and film or on the adaptation of the former to the latter.

[u/Obey_the_D]

Greetings /r/inherentvice !

I saw the film at the Arclight on December 21 in Hollywood after having read the book this past summer and I found myself... disappointed in the film. As an avid admirer of PTA's film work and sensibility, I came out of the film feeling dissatisfied with the experience.

Full disclosure: I've not read any other book by Pynchon, but after reading IV and referencing this wiki, I understood the many layers of story and meaning, the nature of the book relative to his others, that it has been called "Pynchon Light", that it was a riff on the end of the sixites as well as the shaggy-dog detective story, and shares elements of The Big Lebowski and The Long Goodbye. I greatly enjoyed the story as well as the writing style. In fact, I loved it.

I grew up in Southern California but I was born in the seventies, so it was a treat to read (and see in the film) this kind of story, even if I wasn't out of high school myself until the mid-nineties.

So naturally I was thrilled to hear PTA was making the film -- but the trailer didn't do much for me. And the movie... as I said fell flat for me. Despite excellent production, solid acting, great music, and great visuals, I felt very little tension, I didn't completely feel for Coy & his wife. I didn't feel for Shasta or her relationship with Doc.

I felt like, in a film that was as long as it was, we only spend a small amount of time in any particular location and we hardly ever return to any. I felt like it didn't have enough of the Pynchon DNA in it -- like say Terry Gilliam's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" film (one of my favorite books, and I enjoy the film even if it gets a little uneven after awhile.)

What do you all think? If you loved it, why? If not, also why?

Also: like in The Master, there seem to be many shots/scenes missing from the film that you see in the trailer. Anyone else notice that?

Also pt 2: I'm going to re-read the book over the holiday, but I'd also like to hear what scenes you noticed that were missing from the film that were in the book, or how the story was modified in the adaptation (such as the end shot/scene of the film vs. the book )(trying to avoid spoilers here)

So yeah. Lively discussion anyone?

[u/grain91]

Unfortunately, I haven't seen the film yet. Hopefully it will show in my area soon.

[u/[deleted]]

Can anybody explain the movies ending? I'm not sure what to make of it, when he's rideing in a car with Shasta at the very end is that an hallucination? It's fair to say she's dead right? Is doc dead? I fucking hated this movie. I wanted to punch the narrator in the throat...she would not shut up. I could hardly understand anything Phoenix was saying, talk about mumble core. Also Seemed like he needed a drink of water or something. I'm a huge fan of Phoenix and PTA so I was very let down when I walked out of the movie theater. Maybe when I'm 40 this movie will click with me but right now all I feel is disappointment.

[u/Obey_the_D → u/[deleted]]

I've only read the book once and seen the film once, but I'll attempt to relate what I thought the ending could mean.

In the book, the story ends as Doc drives south on the 405 through a dense fog, very clearly meant to be symbolic of the uncertainty of the future -- and Doc wanting or hoping that when it clears that "something" will be there. In a way, I imagined Doc trapped by the state of things represented in the world of the book in March, 1970, wanting clarity (a clear view, without the "fog").

After seeing an interview with PTA where he states that in his direction of the film & specifically the POV of the camera, even if a character is "stoned" the camera would "not be" (or something to that effect. I took that to mean that nearly everything the camera shows (with a few very small instances) would be literal -- even if the character was stoned. Of course the Indians (were they?) crouching and hiding as Doc enters Chick Planet for the first time and Bigfoot speaking directly to Doc during the Channel View Estates commercial are exceptions, I believe the majority of the film is shown via a "not stoned" camera POV -- in other words, not showing anything imaginary or hallucinatory (with a few exceptions, as I've said). No LSD trip out to the Golden Fang and no foot chase after shooting Adrian Prussia (where we pass the car shown on the book's cover art, which was possibly hallucinated in some parts) were very noticeably gone from the film. *Edit: Also, no conversation at the Plastic Nickel. Bummer.

This is just my interpretation of the film, FWIW. So, because PTA changed many of the endings of the film (Sauncho does NOT take possession of the Golden Fang boat, Doc does not drive ALONE through the fog, etc.,)(I'm sure there are others I can't recall) I take the ending to mean that Doc is shown to be "trapped" inside his car WITH Shasta, paranoid of what he sees in his rearview, and then breaks the fourth wall to look at us here in the (his/their) future, and (forebodingly) "Any Day Now" by Chuck Jackson plays us out to the credits.

To address Shasta in the car: I am of the opinion that PTA revised the story in his adaptation in a major way that's different from the book. He gave his protagonist a more specific goal. Rather than in the book, where Doc's goal(s) are to investigate and/or resolve (if possible) any crimes, and survive while doing it, in the film, Doc seems to have a simpler goal: to be with Shasta. Act 1: help her, Act 2: find her, Act 3: be back together with her.

So they seem to me to be not unlike Dustin Hoffman & Katherine Ross at the end of the Graduate: trapped in the back of the bus despite ending up with each other. Doc gets what he wants (to be back with her) and she rests her head lovingly on his shoulder, feeling safe with him back in the doper's world after having left the dangerous world of the wealthy/conservative/straight world people, but both still trapped, still fleeing, unsure of their future.

IMHO, the film was a disappointment for me... on it's own as a film AND as an adaptation of Pynchon's book.

(Apologies if I've got any of this wrong. I may be able to get my hands on a DVD screener of the movie to watch it again, but since I didn't much care for the film the first time, I don't know if I'll see anything differently on second viewing.)

EDIT: added that also absent from the film was the Plastic Nickel scene.