What's The Last Movie You’ve Seen?

[spycam1]

Just for ****s and giggles, here's a 70's style trailer for Inherent Vice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrK7Im5UqP4

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Watched Vice. Not even sure if I liked it.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I watched it stoned too,so the whole time I was just like etc is going on. I guess they want us to question whether everything is actually connected or if it was all just paranoia, definitely a movie you probably have to watch a few times

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

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.

Word.

 

[sirkickyass]

 

[spycam1]

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.

https://www.filmcomment.com/article/everybody-must-get-stoned

 

[spycam1]

 

[spycam1]

Interesting stuff.

“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.”

 

[spycam1]

 

[spycam1]

 

[prodigy]

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.

 

[spycam1]

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 think that's what the aim is. For you to feel lost and such. PTA has described the film as being like Alice in Wonderland that way.

Whether doing that is a worth while venture is the question. I personally liked going down the rabbit hole.