When you figure out what all was happening in Inherent Vice, you realize very little of it truly mattered. Doc really just wanted his ex-girlfriend back. In looking for her, he was able to do something good, which was to re-unite Coy (Owen Wilson) with his son and wife, Joy (Jena Malone). That was the heart of the story. Everything else were just sub-plots of sub-plots within sub-plots, yet they were all interesting and all connected.

Loved every minute of it and I didn't get the plot at all, and this is after I've read the book and the script. But I loved the experience of sitting through the authentic recreation of the forever lost hippie era and its various eccentric characters populating the film and the rich atmosphere. The more you watch it the better it gets, like Anderson said, it's how the movie makes you feel that matters, less so the plot. I've seen it 3 times already and I wanna watch it again, it's actually very funny, wildly entertaining and a joy ride.

"Plot isn't necessary" I first learned that by watching Wong Kar-Wai's films :)

I'm glad to see PTA always changing his style. Not making the same movie over and over . That being said , i really enjoyed your video. Keep it up!

I read the book and read the script and watched the film and I must say PTA did an excellent job to convey the tone, he really is one of Americas best filmmakers certainty there best screenwriter, ever since The Master he really has taken dialogue and narrative film to a new level.

Ive watched this movie of a total of 20 times now, and it gets better every time!

Rich atmosphere is exactly right. PTA is masterful at creating internal symbolism and infusing elements of his movie's worlds with meaning. He assembles a roster of symbols boasting a variety of meaning and emotion, but it's done in the way that always refers back to the element's place within the larger setting. When these meanings are invoked, it has the dual product of not only advancing character or narrative (more often the former) but also of teasing the setting to life, stressing in the viewer's mind the context of the events on top of whatever feelings or ideas they pull from them. Just as important is how fluid PTA symbolism tends to be. An object or idea will never stand in for one thing. PTA shifts these elements around, having them interact with each other, swapping and mixing meanings as the movie progresses, on top of their function as it relates to the story. Oil becomes blood, a symbol of faith and God (H.W's "baptism"), but also blood as a symbol of death and violence (and internal to that, of victim and perpetrator: H.W. is bloodied following the explosion; Daniel has blood on his hands as he watches the derrick burn), both becoming water by the film's final act at which point all coalesce into a powerful evocation of the consumption inherent in almost Darwinian industry ("I drink your water. I drink it up. Everyday. I drink the blood of lamb from Bandy's tract." All the while, Daniel, a far-gone drunk, drinks water, while Eli sips liquor). The thirst for God. The thirst for material and power. And finally, introduced at the moment of the metaphor's conception, a thirst common to all humans: physical sustenance. Multiple elements, occupying a variety of meanings, all called to the surface at once, never throughout this process losing their link to the original setting. Everything comes alive while nothing seemingly happens. Three hours later and you ask, "how did I get here? Where did all these feelings come from? And why am I terrified by the prospect of visiting California farmland?"

I'm GLAD Joaquin got the role. He's fantastic

I've been searching for video reviews of this film since I left the cinema today. It's a shame to see so many people uncomfortable with the film's baffling nature. I loved the film. It felt like a collage of squirming details that don't really matter when studied in isolation. As long as they kept the film moving. And we end up with a bizarre portrait of a bizarre era of American culture. I think this film will grow on me in the same way The Master did. I still need to see it for a second time. Great video! Subscribing now.

You're on the money dude. I saw the movie. Read the book twice. Having read the book, I noticed a conscious removal of material that would've made the "plot" more pronounced. However, the movie was primarily a practice in tone, nailing a stoner-selective-memory in terms of storytelling. Everything else (I could say) was brilliantly summed up by this video. This has been the most accurate summation of "Vice" I've seen (or read) thus far. Good job. Thanks for posting! Do more!

I love this new channel, everything about film is fascinating.

I'm sure this came up before but this movie seems to be even more influenced by The Big Lebowski in many ways, which also pays tribute to The Big Sleep. I never read Thomas Pynchon though.

It really saddens me how many people actually HATED this movie. I guest they just don't get what PT Anderson movie is all about.

when I first watched Inherent Vice, the first thing that came into my mind was Big Sleep. I was like *those are my two favourite movies! I can watch them on repeat, because as soon as the end credits roll I have no idea what just happened and "who killed"*

I've seen this film four or five times and it DOES get better each time.

This was an awesome video. Good editing, surpassed my expectation!

The Chuck Jackson version of any day now was the best pairing of a song and film. Both song and the movie had to be utterly flawless to avoid stifling itself with its own corniness. Books a lot trippier and atmospheric, but I read it more as a satire. The movie rely made me feel a lot deeper for the characters. Word to the wise, never approach any form of art with the expectation of "getting it." What it means to you is all you'll ever know and all that matters. Great video

*Phew!* Now I feel much better about having not understood one bollock of The Big Sleep when I saw it too.

I've been on a PTA kick recently and saw this for the first time the other day. I loved it. I had only seen a small clip or two when it came out and it didn't interest me, even though I love PTA's other work. I was watching while I was working on an art project and I found myself watching more than painting. then the next day I was trying to describe it to my girlfriend and said, "I need to rewatch it because some of it didn't make sense." good to know I was somewhat correct. I was surprised by how funny it was. Joaquin has the best comedic timing. Even when he's not acting, he's just a funny dude. and PTA utilized him perfectly. but the acting was just SO GOOD. among many other lines and situations, the "Howard Hughes was Italian?" line made me LOL. Can't wait to rewatch it. glad I came across your video.

This was a fantastically directed film with great acting, great music, gorgeous photography, all per usual with PTA, but it was also the most punishingly abstruse work he has yet done. To his credit, this is the 5th movie in a row where what he presents is something totally defiant of the expectations you may have based on his last movie. Magnolia was a clear departure from Boogie Nights. PDL was a clear departure from Magnolia. TWBB totally unlike anything he had done before. The Master was definitely not what I was expecting after TWBB, and now this, Inherent Vice. It's almost like he's afraid if he gives you what you're expecting from him, then he's been "caught." So his material keeps shapeshifting.

Well done! One of my favorite aspects of the story is that the you, as the audience, are getting the story from a third party. It might have been told to her by Phoenix's character, but since he is on a controlled substance most of the time it makes sense that the story is very muddled. Great film and really good points on your video! Also I'm addicted to this soundtrack, but such is the case Johnny Greenwood/PTA soundtracks.

@Ramsie Shick (there isn't a 'reply' button under your comment) Thanks! It’s amazing how obscure some of the inspirations for the IV style were (especially the Grimes music video). RepoMan has such a unique look to it, but when I went back and watched it again, I noticed various similarities in the visual style of most PTA movies. Thanks for the comment and stay tuned for more!

Love it, dude! It's so great someone is making a series like this. Thank you! Kent Juliff

this is probably one of the greatest movies of all time, and an adaptation at that of a masterpiece of the greatest american writer; and can you believe we're also getting Vineland from PTA, hope the old man Pynchon knows how much he is still adored, and maybe he's got one more story for us at the end of the road!

I find it odd that a decision to not make media appearances is considered being a 'recluse'. 99% of people don't appear in published media - this is normal behaviour, it is not reclusive. I'm sure Thomas Pynchon has a normal family life and doesn't avoid people in everyday life. It's those who constantly crave the media that are odd.

I read an article about the movie Smiley Face, and the author talked about how it was edited in a confusing way on purpose. To make you feel stoned without actually being stoned. He said that PTA used the same type of editing and storytelling for Inherent Vice. I think that makes sense based on the main character

I love these videos. You make some of the best videos about film on youtube.

incredible video man, awesome takes

Really interesting video dude! Love your use of those NYFF press conferences and other interviews. Having seen the film twice now, I can confirm it gets better on the repeat viewing but I still might need to see it again!

This is Brilliant! Thanks for the clarity.

I've seen this film 8 times and it get's better with every watch. Can someone please explain the Grimes reference? I didn't catch the connection.

This is so true! I so agree!

i can't explain how much i agree with you and what you cut into this video from Paul. I gave up trying to follow the plot halfway through the film, and i was so glad to do that it was so libearting afterwards. And i had to watch it again to realise there is a coherent plot, but that doesn't really matter.

Just subbed! I read a nice take on PTAs movies recently, I think on Blu-ray.com. Basically it was about, especially on first viewing, just sitting back and enjoying the great dialogue and wonderful performances. Figuring out the plot can come later. The cinematography is always top notch also. Nice to see a channel where the comments section is just as interesting as the video too : )

I'm a HUGE PTA fan, out of his generation of filmmakers (Tarantino, Rodriguez, Smith, Fincher...) he's probably my favorite director, but I can't say I'm satisfied with this one that much. Actors did a pretty good jog and it is a really good ensemble piece, but as far as everything else goes I don't think I'm aboard. Andersons film aesthetics has really changed and he has evolved into having an aesthetic of his own now, but this movie really feels like a filmed stage play. What I mean by that is that it's not that cinematic, sure there are few really good shots but those are either important moments for the characters, transitions from scene to scene or a character introduction... the rest 2/3 of the movie are just cross cutting between shots of people talking to one another, the same shot sizes, or it's just one take all together. That can really help your actors perform and not waste their energy while you're resetting and shooting for coverage, but you gotta keep in mind that films are visual medium and by shot sizes, movement of the camera, movement of the actors, position of camera in space and all other tolls you tell a story with, and by just trying to place your camera in such a way to not get in a way of actors perform kind of ruins that. A lot of shots ended up being not framed evenly as a result of that, and a lot of the times parts of shoulders, arms, clothes etc. from other actors would end up being in the shots because camera is placed way in the back, is on a telephoto and they're just rolling and it's not really a over the shoulder subjective shot, nor is it POV... He did similar things in both There will be Blood and The Master but there was some aesthetics value to those shots... In there Will Be Blood, when Paul first enters the room to tell Plainview about the oil, he does almost an entire scene in one take but it changes from long shot to medium close up to over the shoulder... telling the story with camera but not being too over the top with it like in his early work. Here it seams he lost that, it's great that he gives actors freedom (the way they approached it is the way you would do a theater play) but he should also think about the cinematic techniques also. The other thing about the movie is that a lot of it is repeating it self, from one scene of people just sitting and talking to another one, which can be tiresome because... again... we're watching a movie, try being clever with the staging and blocking, mix it up a bit. the Big Lebowski is a similar movie also inspired by The Big Sleep, but that movie sucks you in and you always feel drawn to it. As far as remembering the whole plot or the story, i know of didn't even give it my best to remember it and it didn't really hurt the experience... Sorry for the long post, this doesn't mean I didn't like it, I just love PTA so much that I don't like him making movies that are not as great. It's not even problem in that but in that this could have easily been Chinatown on weed and it missed the mark on that. But I'll be damned if I don't rewatch it soon.

Great video man, perfectly edited!

This was a great video and really well edited!

Great video! Thanks for making it. :)

thanks for your insight into a film I might have otherwise discounted as not worthy of a second look. You perspective was truly helpful, and very much informed.

Really enjoyed your video. Just saw IV yesterday and had the feeling, that i didn't get the point of the film. But your video with all its references to other movies sort of gave me a different perspective on the film. Thank you.

supercool breakdown! just saw the film - the repo man reference - that's wild. i didn't see that coming & that explains so much. more than all the rabbit holes.. actually repo man has bothered me since it first came out. i would've been too young to know it was something as simple and ubiquitous as "theres just never any friggin light ever". yer kinda distracted by "all that other stuff". ha ha : ) cool review-breakdown. inherent vice is super great with great book to work with. anyone giving it explanation - good reviews- more power to you.

@Nathan Richan (for some reason there isn’t a ‘reply’ button under your comment) No worries. I have not read the book myself. It could very well be a rumor, but it is a fairly widely known bit of trivia. As it turns out, it was Hawks himself who allegedly sent a telegram to Chandler after an argument with Bogart. “When Howard Hawks filmed the novel he asked, “Who killed the chauffeur?” and Chandler replied that he had no idea. To him, plot was always subordinate to character, mood and atmosphere” (Guardian). The source from Turner Classic Movies is much more enlightening: “Raymond Chandler's original novel was so convoluted that, according to legend, neither Hawks nor any of the writers could figure out who killed the Sternwood's chauffeur. Finally, he wired the author for an explanation. Chandler suggested one killer, but Hawks wired back that he was nowhere around when the murder took place. Chandler wired back, "Then I don't know either." The story may have been invented by Hawks, however, as the film's initial cut features a scene, written in the first draft, in which Marlowe explains all of the murders, including the chauffeur's, to the district attorney” (TCM). And this last source seems to support the authenticity of the legend: “While many claim the story is apocryphal, Raymond Chandler refers to the telegram in a letter to Jamie Hamilton on March 21, 1949, that is published in The Raymond Chandler Papers by Tom Hiney and Frank MacShane. ‘I remember,’ Chandler wrote to Hamilton, ‘several years ago when Howard Hawks was making [“The Big Sleep”], he and Bogart got into an argument as to whether one of the characters was murdered or committed suicide. They sent me a wire (there’s a joke about this too) asking me, and dammit I didn’t know either. Of course I got hooted at.’ (Parentheses in original.)” (williamahearn). Thanks for the question! I don’t think I would have dug as deep had you not asked. ☺ www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/24/100-best-novels-the-big-sleep-raymond-chandler www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/45/The-Big-Sleep/articles.html www.williamahearn.com/bs1945.html

Very well done!

Great channel man!!

The is a terrific analysis. You've covered some relatively comprehensive aspects of film theory with clarity and concision.

Point 2 was something I learned when I first watched WIthnail & I. Not because the plot's confusing, but because there is virtually no plot. First time I watched it, I had no clue what to make of it. Then some time later, a brilliant quote would just pop up in my head, and the more I thought about it, the more I realised how fantastic the characters and the dialogue were. It's now one of my all-time favourite films, and it really doesn't have much of a plot in the slightest. I suspect that, after another viewing, Inherent Vice will be the same for me. I wasn't sure what to think on my first viewing, but the more I think about it, the more I really want to watch it again.

awesome channel man. keep it up!

I've seen Inherent Vice multiple times now, and every time I go in thinking that this is going to be the time it clicks for me, and every time I walk away disappointed. I'm not talking about the plot, just the experience. And I think I've figured out why. The acting in it is phenomenal, the music is excellent, and Paul Thomas Anderson is probably the most gifted constructor of a scene alive today. But the cardinal rule of film is "show, don't tell", and (with just a couple of really brilliant exceptions), the film is scene after scene of people talking about what happened, what's happening somewhere else, or what's going to happen. The book is like that, too, but I guess it's better on the page because that's what novels are: a verbal recounting of events.

Inherent Twice. Great vid, loved the movie.

Please make more videos about Paul thomas Anderson! I really enjoyed this video.

Very good points and observations. I do think the plot is there, though elusive and subtle, but I've found you almost have to concentrate so much on every bit of dialogue and focus to make all the nuanced connections that you'll easily lose the emotion and fun enjoyability of every other aspect going on out side of the dialogue. Yes, better and better after each viewing. One of my favorite pta films!

Great video!

Great video Tyler, I just finally got to see Inherent Vice, and I really liked it. I realized about halfway through that the plot was very secondary to the characters, so that probably helped me enjoy it a bit more. Your video is really well put together, with some great use of interviews as well as your own opinion. I got a really Chinatown vibe from it, what are you thoughts. Thanks as always, keep up with the awesomeness.

You keep discovering this world he's in. And sex doesn't save it. I love this film.

great video - really well made ! this film will gain in appreciation kinda bridges The Long Goodbye and Big Lebowski into it's own genre

Great review! I read the book and watched the movie 2 to 3 times each and i still havent figured out the plot. And you're right, since the characters and scenes are intresting, it does not matter. The movie contains more Police Squad humor than the book. but both draw a lot from all the absurdities in which it is fascinating to get lost in. Frozen Bananas, Ouja and paranoia.

great job! loved the movie and this perfectly explained why.

I need to rewatch this film...

I didn't get a single thing at Inherent Vice first time I saw it, but I was indeed captivated by its rhythm and the characters. I watched it a couple of times since then, but I don't think just repeating the experience would have been enough for me to get it. I might be the last one to understand it, but what actually helped me, is when I realised the importance of Doc's pot overuse. The whole movie is about memory loss, and I think that's what the film does best: it makes you live and feel this investigation through an eye of an heavy pot smoker. And I though it was hilarious, once I got that, it made nearly every scene of the movie crystal clear. Everything Doc's living is real, but deformed, in a paranoid way. When he stares at Big Foot sucking on his ice cream, when Big Foot phones him and says "Shasta's gone", when he parks his car home and he gets scared at kids skating behind him etc...

I liked it a lot. Unfortunately I haven't read the book. I've only read Crying of lot 49 by Pynchon. Only P.T.A. film I still need to see is Hard Eight/Sydney

I adore this video, great analysis! Now do more pta please!

Nice video!!

Cool Video Dude!!

I've just discovered this channel and I'm really enjoying your videos. I don't know if you're a fan of Charlie Kaufman, but if so I'd love to see a video on Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It's such a great mix of emotion, idea, and visual inventiveness. Some other movies I think would be interesting to do videos on: Alien; No Country for Old Men; Walkabout; and Under the Skin. These all have interesting technical and cinematographic things going on I'd like to hear you discuss.

Well done sir!

I loved it and I think it fits well in his body of work.

Man I finally understand the plot after 9 years and some internet guides lol. So much information in each line of dialogue, and sometimes just don't make sense (like why did Doc's partner not tell Doc that he couldn't drive).

Loved Inherent Vice.

Psychedelic neo-noir stream of consciousness thriller from an unreliable mind under a mild drug stupor; how it felt anyway, and like all fuzzy memories or dreams even, there is barely much connecting them but reoccurrence. Anyhow, I thought it was decent enough, it had a strong mental state portray, which is always nice to see in film, like visiting an old memory, it also helped that the film was long and wasn't afraid of its own pace. I cant say it was meaningful, and at times it felt really shallow, but enjoyable nonetheless, I don't regret watching it and I certainly don't want my time back for I consider it acceptably spent.

The picture on the wall at 1:28 is of a very famous Los Angeles police chief named William H. Parker.

The film was truly amazing :,)

Hey I really enjoyed your video. Its good to know theres some guy on the internet out there whos as passionateabout movies as I am. And Im more happy to see somebody actually at least "liked" the picture...I get the impression inherent vice is almost forgotten by everybody. I havent seen it yet...reason for that is causeIm german, and germany is a fucked up place, cause vice comes to theaters february...so I still have to count the fuckin days

Great video! Could you do some more videos on PTA movies? Or how they connect with each other? Would be awesome!

Yo, I would like to see all of Pynchon's novel being made into movies by PTA.

the most underrated film of the 2010's

@Brock The Craftsman (there isn't a 'reply' button under your comment) Totally agree. There is so much more going on than simply the plot. It’s definitely one of those movies that gives you a new experience each time you watch it. Thanks for the comment!

I would suggest any fans of this movie to read Phillip K Dick novels and VALIS (and of course A Scanner Darkly) in particular, he provides a similar twisted view of hippies and narcs so up in eachothers worlds that there is no clear demarcation anymore and the "values" of the time and place are blurred into hyperreality by acid and other drugs.... really awesome stuff

big sleep is in the same verse as Lebiwski and Long Goodbye which makes sense visually amd cause hes admittedly a HUGE altman fan

totally agree

very nice :)

I don't buy that line about Howard Hawks writing to Raymond Chandler, who said he "didn't know" who the killer was. Do you have a source? I'm not trying to be a dick or anything (and I actually haven't seen the film yet), but if you read the book it's really quite clear who the killer is...

My wife hated it, me and my ex-roommate found it fascinating, funny and beautiful. I think your comments about the incomprehensible plot is the key. My wife really likes to know what's going on, to figure things out and make sense of things whereas I usually just go along for the sensory ride.

taking your advice a weird thought hit me: do it twice. I mean what if you did this same essay again about this same movie after a second viewing? It would be interesting checking out

He references Primer which is a brilliant film but only if you understand it. I was warned that i would not get it on the first viewing, or ever without help and is hugged it off. Well being a time travel film it gets incredibly complex and I totally lost it towards the end. That, I think is due to bad film making where things could have been clarified with film making techniques alone and no changes to the script. Either way it is brilliant and there are flow charts, minute by minute explanation lists and forums one the net. When you reference one of those to get over the hump it makes this film a total joy for time travel fans. That said, there is no way I could stand it if it didn't gave a plot or I didn't understand it in the end so there is no way I would enjoy inherent vice. I don't know how you can have a without a clear plot be any good except to the occasional art house fan that it hits directly.

Can you recommend any other films with similar atmosphere of California (or maybe US in general) from the 70s? Because I've watched this movie so many times now my gf suspects I'm going nuts.

Hey man, great video but what's the name of that awesome song that plays in the background?

The Plot for Primer actually makes sense tough.

My favorite movie of all time

Upon repeated viewings it feels more and more to me that Maya Rudolph had a heavy hand in PTAs conceptualization/realization of this film. That being said, prob my favorite film of the 2010s.

"Moto panucaku" Love it

I much prefer a story where everything is not explained for you and, like you said, developed naturally. Over explaining can lead to dumbing it down to the point where it feels more and more like "movie". You can't get lost in it.

what are you saying at the end: "a series of exposition dumps, the complexity seems to be drowning out."?

This movie has more mixed reviews recent history outside of the Last Jedi. People love it or loathe it. Personally, I love this movie since it's so different from all the other movies regurgitated out every year. And because it doesn't repeat the same tropes and plots every other film does, PTA might not be able to take chances like this again.

just finished to watch it for the first time. The first 2 hours i was just trying to figure out the plot, then i gave up. I really liked it but I don't know why.

can you please do a review of The Master?

except that Primer is not confusing because of how is written, but because of the impossibility to show how actual time travel affects "reality"

What does Inherent Vice teach us about filmmaking? What inspirations did Paul Thomas Anderson draw from while making Inherent Vice? Does Thomas Pynchon make a cameo in the movie? Watch today's episode and find out! #inherentvice #paulthomasanderson #thomaspynchon #filmmaking #filmschool #cinematyler

great book, great film. the film does indeed get better with repeated watching

This is going to be helpful to tell anyone who criticizes me for having "no plot." As I say, if you can't give them a plot, give them a story.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏