Wednesday, January 14, 2015

BOOK VS MOVIE: Inherent Vice

The nostalgia filter. It's something frequently seen in fiction, always painting a particular time period in a flattering light. Though as of late (such as Mad Men and Masters of Sex), fiction is willing to show the not-so-ideal lives of the past.

Such is the case with Inherent Vice. Set as Charles Manson's trial is underway, it's a story with a menagerie of characters, a whirlwind plot, and the dying era of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.

Thomas Pynchon's novel is a work of sheer insanity. It's a work that reaches many bizarre levels and being unfamiliar with Pynchon's writing style, it was hard to know what to expect. The result is something adventurous and original.

And who better to adapt Pynchon than Paul Thomas Anderson? Sure, it has the usual traits of a film adaptation (characters reduced/removed, scenes changed/taken out), but Anderson keeps Pynchon's wild nature intact. Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin ("Motto panukeiku!") are great but special mention goes to the rest of the cast as well. (Also, though not in the novel, the last scene between Phoenix and Brolin is hilarious.)

So which is better? Pynchon's novel does have some gems (a good portion didn't make it into the film) though Anderson's film has an easier flow. Well, that consensus made things a lot easier, don't you think?

What's worth checking out?: The movie.


  1. I didn't realize this was based on a novel. I'm going to see this on Friday if all works out. Great post!

  2. Such an awesome post. Hope you keep these up. Look forward to the rest of them. I do want to read and see this :-D

  3. Planning on seeing this, but it sure seems like a divisive film adaptation. Seen IV on both best and worst of lists for 2014.

  4. I saw the film on Sunday. Very weird as I hope to see it again soon as I need to know what happened and such.


Comments are appreciated. More so if they are appropriate.