Inherent Vice (2014)

Title: Inherent Vice (2014)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix , Josh Brolin, Benicio del Toro, Martin Short, Owen Wilson, Reese Witherspoon, Katherine Waterston, Eric Roberts, Maya Rudolph

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of those film directors who never miss; he’s on my “pitch perfect directors” list, right next to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Stanley Kubrick. These are directors who never disappoint me, even when they’re making one of their lesser films. Boogie Nights (1997)? There Will Be Blood (2007)? Punch Drunk Love (2002)? All amazing and engrossing Paul Thomas Anderson films; interesting part is that they are all vastly different films thematically and tone wise, yet one thing brings them together: they all have strong main characters, which I think is what Anderson specializes in, making films with strong, driven characters who will leave a lasting impression on you. He distills the most amazing performances from his actors, and he’s done it yet again in Inherent Vice. Anderson has created yet another memorable character in the form of ‘Doc Larry Sportello’. Inherent Vice gives us an amazing collaboration between actor, author and filmmaker, the result is a film with the makings of a bona fide cult classic.

Now I haven’t read Pynchon’s Inherent Vice (I’ll be correcting that soon) so I literally didn't know what to expect from this film. I’d read a few reviews that said that the film has an incomprehensible story,  others said it was their least favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film, others would praise it as the next Fear andLoathing in Las Vegas (1998), all these opposing views got me all fired up to see Inherent Vice. On which side would I fall on? Something told me I’d love it, it had all the indicators of awesomeness.  I was expecting a convoluted lovable mess, which is I think a good way to describe this film. So yeah, this is a polarizing film, it will divide audiences, some will love it to death (like me) some will leave the film feeling like they just smoked a doobie. While I watched it, a woman behind me said “I don’t get it”, the visceral reply in my mind was “you idiot!”, in the real world, I couldn’t help letting out an involuntary giggle. This personal anecdote best exemplifies what will surely happen in any given theater with this movie.   

I don’t blame anybody for not “getting it”, this movie can be confusing. Characters keep popping up and the story seems to twist and twist with every coming scene, which is the way it’s supposed to be. I think the best way I can describe the experience of watching this film is like reading a Chuck Palahniuk novel. Excuse me for my literary comparison, but it’s the first thing that popped into my mind while watching this movie. You see, in my experience, when I start reading a Chuck Palahniuk book (he’s the author of Fight Club and Choke) I always feel a little lost. Each chapter starts a little incomprehensible, but as you read on things get clearer and clearer, by the ending of the chapter, poof, everything makes perfect sense. This is how Inherent Vice unfolds. When the film ends you’ll feel that it really wasn't as confusing as you had thought, suddenly everything clicks! But ultimately, I guess what this film must really capture is the experience of reading Thomas Pynchon's book, which I haven't done yet. I guess Palahniuk and Pynchon come from the similar literary universe. But here’s a trick to enjoying this movie, don’t try to follow it so much, simply enjoy the crazy characters and situations, because I think that’s really what this movie is about, experiencing the crazy ass moments that unfold and the visuals, which are entertaining and beautiful to look at.

Paul Thomas Anderson drew inspiration from many places to make this film, aside from Thomas Pynchon's novel, Anderson has stated that Inherent Vice has a little bit of Gilbert Shelton’s ‘The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers’ an underground comic from the 70’s and the Cheech and Chong movies. Inherent Vice can be categorized as a Stoner Film, though I wouldn't recommend watching it stoned, it will only mess with your chances of “getting it”, the movie is already trippy enough as it is! With the character of Doc Sportello, we get yet another memorable cinematic stoner, ranking right up there with Cheech and Chong, ‘The Dude’ and Jeff Spicoli. Doc Sportello is smoking weed literally throughout the entire film, and you’ll feel that haziness, you’ll feel that care free who gives a shit vibe in Inherent Vice. In many ways, this is the ultimate stoner film. But like some of the Cheech and Chong movies, cocaine use also works its way into the story. In fact, if there are two movies that Inherent Vice shares its DNA with it’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) and The Big Lebowski (1998). Fear and Loathing because of its constant drug use and overall trippy vibe and The Big Lebowski because Doc Sportello feels like The Dudes long lost brother. 

A distinctive quality of Inherent Vice is how accurately Paul Thomas Anderson managed to capture that counter culture vibe from the 70’s where everyone was always high, had long hair, wore shades at all times, a time when everyone gathered around to philosophize, everyone believed in “good vibes” and in Ouija boards. I loved that whole relaxed breezy vibe the film elicits. There are scenes that take place in beach side communities filled with hippies and beautiful sunsets…loved that whole sit back and relax vibe that is a constant throughout the whole film. You will be transported to the 70’s, an era that Paul Thomas Anderson is apparently obsessed with; he also brought it to life to perfection in Boogie Nights (1997), one of Anderson’s best films. In fact, Anderson is so 70’s he even shot Inherent Vice on film! Personally, I immediately noticed the difference in look, there’s something about films shot on film. The images look so much better, the colors have richness; the definition is far superior than anything shot on digital. I am forever in love with films shot on actual film. Tarantino and Anderson are both on my good side for still doing it. 

  

Anderson is one of those “serious” directors, even when he’s films are funny, they are somehow disturbing. I mean, look at Punch Drunk Love (2002). There’s no doubt the film is hilarious, but it’s not slapstick, har har har slap on your knees funny, it’s dark, twisted funny. The main character is a complete anti-social nut job! The same can be said of Inherent Vice, it’s a dark sort of funny. You see this movie is about sex, drugs and hedonism. The movie will be hilarious, but only to those who enjoy black, acid comedies that are funny because of how fucked up the situations are. What type of comedy am I talking about here? Well, for example, there’s this moment in which Doc Sportello visits a spiritual retreat in which everyone's tripping out on some sort of high; a commune for spiritual trippers. At one point, someone orders a bunch of pizaas and as the camera pans back we start seeing how the scene resembles Davinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ with Sportello as Jesus, and pizzas instead of bread and wine and it's just hilarious! Again, this scene will probably be hilarious to a select few. Side note, I’m going to give this movie the award for “sexiest scene of the year” and the scene I’m referring to is a scene with the beautiful Katherine Waterston seducing Doc Sportello, holy moly, what an erotic scene. Made me shiver with antici…pation! So anyhow, final words are this movie is awesome for the many reasons stated above, the awesome cast, which peppers the film with awesome little moments acted out by great actors. Keep your eyes open for Martin Short. But again, this film is made for a select audience, it will not appeal to everyone. Which group will you fall under?

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Title: The Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Title: Wes Anderson

Writers: Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach based on the childrens book by Roald Dahl

Starring (voices): George Clooney, Bill Murray, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Michael Gambon, Owen Wilson, Willem Dafoe

Review:

Stop motion animation films are a special delight for me as a film fan. They have been with me since my early years, going as far back as my childhood when I would watch those holiday themed stop motion animation films like Mad Monster Party (1967) or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer (1964). Not that I’m that old, but these little stop motion animation movies get replayed a lot on television for years and years. I think they still get some air time during the holidays. But one way or another, stop motion has always been there. Even in those films that mixed both live action and animation. Films like Ray Harryhausen’s famous sword and sandal flicks like Jason and the Argonauts (1963) and Clash of the Titans (1981). Even well into the 80’s this technique was still being used in live action films to animate monsters and creatures like in Howard the Duck (1986) and Willow (1988). Robocop (1987) and its sequels did it a bit too.

Roald Dahls Book

But special mention has to go to those completely stop motion animated films. One of the earliest American stop motion animation feature length films goes as far back as 1954 with the film Hansel and Gretel: An Opera Fantasy. These films kept being produced, but not in large numbers. A lot of work had to go into making these animated wonders. And they were never released theatrically, most of the time, stop motion animated films were made as something to show on tv during the holidays. That all changed with A Nightmare Before Christmas (1993). This film was the mother of the big budget theatrical live action animation film. Tim Burton conceived and produced it and Henry Selick directed it. After that film came out, it opened the doors to getting these big budget stop motion projects off the ground and getting theatrical releases. Across the years, they have been released to mostly successful box office results in films like Chicken Run (2000) Wallace and Gromit and the Curse of the WereRabbit (2005) The Corpse Bride (2005) and most recently the unforgettable and visually dazzling Coraline (2009).

So here comes Fantastic Mr. Fox, Wes Anderson’s take on the stop motion animation world. Anderson isn’t a rookie when it comes to using stop motion animation in his films. He used it to animate the strange underwater creatures seen in The Life Aquatic (2005). But Fantastic Mr. Fox is his first fully stop motion animated film. How was it?

The story follows the Mr. Fox and his family and friends as they try to survive in the harsh world. Mr. Fox brings food to the table by stealing from nearby farms. But soon the human farmers realize that it’s the foxes who are stealing from them, so, they device a plan to dig the Fox out of its hole. Can Mr. Fox continue evading the tractors and excavators, or will he eventually get caught by the farmers? Will his family and friends be able to survive?

I liked what Anderson did with this movie. Essentially, he took the story from Roald Dahl children’s book and adapted it to our times, twitched it a bit here and there to make it a bit more contemporary. He fleshed out characters a bit more and gave the film new opening and closing scenes. Its interesting how in this story, a children’s story, the foxes have to steal in order to survive. Things are so harsh, prices are so high that the main characters are forced to survive by taking from the big companies that are bleeding them dry. There’s a song that gets played a few times during the film and it goes like this:

Boggis and Bunce and Bean

One fat, one short, one lean

These horrible crooks, so different in looks

Were nonetheless equally mean

Boggis and Bunce and Bean are the big farmers, producing food for the nation, and bleeding the dry with the prices. It’s why they are called ‘crooks’ in the song. So in a way, having Mr. Fox stealing from them is justified in a strange Robin Hood sort of way. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. And it is made clear early on in the film that the family is in deed a poor one. A poor but happy one. Still, Mr. Fox wants more for his family, and I can’t say I blame him. He wants more then just living in a hole; he wants to have a place of his own. But will the world allow him that? This is partially what this film is about. The film also comments on the food we eat. Is it good for us? Is that shinny apple in the supermarket really as good as it looks?

But, like any Wes Anderson film (and this is very much a Wes Anderson film) there are some family dynamics involved. It’s the one thing that has always united Wes Anderson’s films; they’re all about family in one way or another. On Fantastic Mr. Fox, there’s tension between Mr. Fox’s son and his nephew, who has had to move in with them because his father can’t take care of him. So there’s some sibling rivalry going on between the two children in the film. Will they ever learn to play along? Mr. Fox is the father, the group leader, the leader of his community, always looking for a way to lead his people to a better situation, but not always finding the best ways to go about it. What I liked about his character is that he was always coming up with some sort of a plan, always looking out for everyone.

The look of the film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson’s previous efforts. That’s the thing about this movie, even though its stop motion animated, it still retains that distinctive visual signature that accompanies an Anderson film. This is probably due to the fact that all of Anderson’s films are visually designed by his own brother, Eric Anderson. So they all have that unifying look to them. Anderson directs this film as if he was directing one of his live action films. His characters are always very articulate, very intelligent, even the children. Like the genius children from The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) or Max Fisher, the talented underachiever in Rushmore (1998) the children in Fantastic Mr. Fox are talented individuals; one of them is almost too talented, overshadowing in some ways the other, creating some tension between the two.

This was a very beautiful film to look at. Stop motion animation allows directors to manipulate ever single frame on screen more easily, so everything we see on screen is exactly what the director had in mind. These are puppets moving to Wes Anderson’s and Roald Dahl whims and ideas. And like any good stop motion animation film, this one is inhabited by many different little creatures that you can feast your eyes upon.

Is it too complicated for children? Is it too intelligent? Is the dialog too complex? You know what? I for once applaud that this film does not talk down to children. Honestly, I’m sick of children movies like Barnyard, where children are treated like retards, and everything is spelled out. Where the film is kept deliberately dumb, and we get the same old “believe in yourself” storyline. There are better things to teach our children then the dumb down crap shown in cineplexes. Same goes for regular films as well. You know what? Let the kids figure it out, let them use their brains more then they are used to. In the long run, they’ll thank you for showing them a film like this one. Never underestimate the young mind of a child!

Rating: 5 out of 5