Anderson’s Inherent Vice ensemble and dual-register direction creates a fascinating emotive-spatial-collective logic all its own: word-picture-sound collages operating inside a streamlined, forward-lunging, insidiously romantic narrative.
In lieu of an airtight case, Anderson lays out a mood that’s totally, ardently specific, yet elusive as catching a perfect wave at twilight: it washes over you before you can get a handle on it.
“Was it possible, that at every gathering—concert, peace rally, love-in, be-in, and freak-in, here, up north, back East, wherever—those dark crews had been busy all along, reclaiming the music, the resistance to power, the sexual desire from epic to everyday, all they could sweep up, for the ancient forces of greed and fear?”
“Gee,” answers Doc, as though breaking the fourth dimension and becoming able to hear her mordant narration, “I don’t know.”
It's just not your traditional narrative film. The book, from what I read, is the same way.
This reminds me a bit of Nicholas Winding Refn. Drive quickly became a cult classic, so everyone was super excited for Only God Forgives. Then tons of people hated it. Because it's more surreal, and experimental; not easily interpretable, and therefore, seemingly meaningless.
These are "art films". Their artistic merits don't necessarily come from the narrative, per se, which is hard for a lot of people to understand. Attempting to comprehend these films the way you would with most other movies just doesn't work. It's like trying to read an abstract poem the same way you would a novel. They're very different forms of expression--even if they both are forms of literature--and thus, require different modes of analysis.
I've seen plenty of art films that can be confusing but as long as they can relate to me in some way I feel like I can understand them better. With Incoherent Vice I just felt like an outsider for the entire duration of the film. With nothing to snatch onto it wasn't a enjoyable experience.
I watched the interview tonight. Laughed lots.
I love them guys though. (Rogan, franco, hill, kenny powers, etc)
"I think you're kind of meant to go through it like a doc. You know, meeting one character that gives you massive amounts of information, meeting someone else who just contradicts that and then meeting someone else who verifies the contradictions, while in fact reinforcing the first thing you heard, continuing to just spiral you around into a complete paranoid frenzy."
I'm just starting The Babadook.
Well let you all know what I thought.
Anyone seen magnolia? Was it any good? (Thought about watching that but went with the babadook instead)
Birdman was alright, just watched. Kind of disappointed.
Exodus = The Prince of Egypt (with live humans)
What's wrong with Ridley Scott? I mean one minute he's doing great work like Gladiator and Prometheus, the next minute he's doing stuff like this?
Is there a film professor out there who can explain this phenomenon to me???
I watched the interview tonight. Laughed lots.
I love them guys though. (Rogan, franco, hill, kenny powers, etc)