Inherent Vice

[poliphilo]

Here we go again. It's the Raymond Chandler thing; only this time we're thirty years on- it's 1970- and the complexity of the plot has been further curdled by a sweet influsion of marijuana smoke. Who's doing what to who? Frankly who cares? Everyone is corrupt and everyone is in cahoots, except of course for our Marlowe figure- the man who is not himself mean- in this case the perma-stoned Doc Spolito- winningly played with ridiculous mutton chop whiskers by Joaquin Phoenix.

You could allow yourself to be annoyed by the shaggy-doggedness of it all or you could lie back and take it as it blows, relishing the cameo performances by the likes of Martin Short, Owen Wilson and Josh Brolin (so deeply in character that I couldn't put a name to his face even though I'd just watched him in two back to back Coen brothers movies) and- which is really the point- luxuriate in the distillation of the tricks and manners of woozy 1970s California. As one of the bad guys says shortly before the tables are turned on him, "psychedelic!"

As for the bloody plot I suspect I could probably work it out if given time and pencils and graph paper. Besides, the Big Sleep is pretty befuddling too.

Comments

[huskyteer.livejournal.com]

Ha, I went to see this last night! It romped cheerily through all the PI movie tropes, including the one of making no bloody sense whatsoever. I loved it.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It's divided critics (always a good sign.) Apparently lots of people walk out.

[huskyteer.livejournal.com]

Blimey. Because it's offensive, or simply incomprehensible? I just sat back and enjoyed the show...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I suppose because it's difficult to follow. I'd read the reviews, went in forearmed and had a thoroughly good time.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

I have been reading this book for I don't know just how long and am unsure whether I shall ever finish it. It's not bad, really, and holds my attention well enough while actively reading, but it just does not seem sufficiently compelling or coherent to make me care what happens next. I lay it down and don't take it up again for days, or even weeks, at a time.

I suspect it's because Pynchon is trying so very hard to do Chandler and just can't. Perhaps he should have been content being one of the great American novelists and left writing the great American novel to lesser literary lights.

Was, The Big Sleep, befuddling? I don't know that I've seen the movie, not as an adult. The book has a somewhat infamous hole in the plot, but I've read it a couple of times and didn't find the plot too terribly confusing. By the way, if you haven't read Chandler's, The Long Goodbye, you might consider doing so. I'd suggest reading all seven of his novels, but that one's probably his best and for that matter probably one of the best American novels of the 20th century.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the Big Sleep. I'm thinking of the movie- which- as I remember it- has one of those plots you forget about five minutes after the credits roll.

I'm not keen on Chandler. I prefer Hammett- more authentic, or at least that's how it strikes me.

I've never read Pynchon. I'm thinking perhaps I should- but maybe not this example of his work.

[huskyteer.livejournal.com]

To me, Hammett reads as crude after Chandler (I agree that Long Goodbye is the best).

I've not read any Pynchon and didn't know the film was based on a novel until enlightened by one of my companions. My flatmate has been struggling through Mason & Dixon for about 3 years now...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I find Chandler too sophisticated for his subject matter. To be perfectly frank I don't like him at all- though I'm happy enough with movies based on his work.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

"Too sophisticated for his subject matter": I think I can see that, but isn't that the point of Marlowe's character, a fairly sophisticated man in a very crude business? Or am I missing your meaning altogether?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

No. That's largely what I mean. I suppose I don't really believe in Marlowe- this character who writes self-consciously poetic prose and goes round breaking jaws.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

I came away with essentially the opposite impression. I thought Sam Spade two-dimensional and cartoonish, while for me Phillip Marlowe was entirely plausible. Could it be cultural, I wonder?

Part of what struck me, as I burned through Chandler's novels, was how distinctly American his work seemed. He impressed me to the point that I started to actually believe in American literature.

[porsupah.livejournal.com]

Apparently, the screenplay even has Pynchon's blessing - he's not exactly been keen to embrace Hollywood. I'm quite intrigued by it all, being new to the work, so I have little idea of what to expect, but I suspect it'll work for me, even if the plot complexity's likely to lose me - I'm terrible at keeping track of large numbers of characters.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

I must agree with huskyteer. Hammett indeed seemed crude, after Chandler. The Maltese Falcon, was as much fun as the movie, but also somewhat kitsch and just as shallow, I thought. The Glass Key, as literature, was immensely better and I enjoyed it, but it was one of the bleaker, more disagreeable, stories I've encountered.

I don't know about Chandler's authenticity. I just love his prose. It's the kind that makes me wish I could do more than scribble and his dialog is possibly the best in American literature, bar none, until Elmore Leonard. Raymond Chandler actually changed my mind about the American letters. Until then, I'd strongly suspected they were largely a myth.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Hammett had worked as a Pinkerton man and Chandler was a litterateur who was educated at Dulwich College. I feel it shows in the writing. But I've got to admit I've read very little of either of them- so I'm on very thin ice.