Movie Review Inherent Vice

Inherent Vice (2014) 

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Written by Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Josh Brolin, Katherine Waterston, Owen Wilson, Reese Witherspoon, Benicio Del Toro, Martin Short, Jena Malone

Release Date December 12th, 2014

Published December 10th, 2014 

Professor Matthew Strecher defines magic realism as "what happens when a highly detailed, realistic setting is invaded by something too strange to believe." In the case of the movie "Inherent Vice '' Doc Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix) is that thing that is too strange to believe. Doc is a doped up Los Angeles Private Detective who stumbles on a massive government conspiracy involving drugs, the feds, the Justice Department, the mob, black power and white supremacists and all of it tied to his ex-ol lady Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston). 

Putting together the pieces at the center of the conspiracy in "Inherent Vice" is like listening to a stoner tell you his theory about the Kennedy Assassination, it sounds completely plausible but the story teller is a tad unreliable. The conspiracy in "Inherent Vice" breaks down like this: the government works with drug dealers who introduce dope into the hippie communities of Los Angeles, get them hooked and then use government subsidies to build facilities to help clean up dopers who want to get clean, all the while brainwashing the soon to be former hippies to send them back to society as upstanding citizens. 

The term vertical integration gets dropped more than once in "Inherent Vice" and it refers to a rather devilishly ingenious bit of business. Think of a sugar company that also sells toothpaste, or what if the tobacco companies began opening cancer treatment centers. Here, drug dealers run rehab clinics that are a government front for converting hippies from drug addicts back to upstanding citizens. It sounds rather outlandish but as posited by director Paul Thomas Anderson, based on the novel by Thomas Pynchon, it plays out in a way that's quite believable as something that may have in fact taken place in 1970. 

The last person anyone would believe could uncover such a massive conspiracy is Doc Sportello. He is the perfect catalyst for this story because he simply doesn't seem like he could function on a daily basis, as high as he is, and yet he's quite competent and even insightful in uncovering what he seems to uncover. And yet he's not the most reliable witness as he literally has a magical voice in his head, Sortilege (Joanna Newsom)-her name is literally Latin for 'Magic'- who acts as our narrator and the curator of Doc's memories which slowly, hazily begin to form this conspiracy into a believable, even logical form. 

If you met Doc and he attempted to tell you this story about the government, drug dealers, the mob. white supremacists and black power, you would never for a moment believe him and that's kind of the point. The plot, the conspiracy, it's all very believable but Doc isn't. Doc invades this conspiracy, invents it before our eyes simply by witnessing it and yet we can't really believe much of any of it because Doc is the one telling the story. That's a remarkably devilish narrative trick and one Paul Thomas Anderson pulls off with great style and panache. 

The setting for the conspiracy is very real but that Doc Sportello, of all people, would be the one to uncover it is simply too impossible to believe. No matter how many times Doc turns out to be right about something we're still talking about a guy who's been stoned for years and has a magic voice in his head. How wonderful it is for this conspiracy to pulse with such life and then have a character like Doc, our hero, be the one who compromises its very truthfulness. In another movie this would be played as tragedy as an innocent character becomes disillusioned by events out of his control. 

Doc is far too gone to be disillusioned, the moment he finds a piece of the conspiracy that he can chalk up as a win and walk away, he takes it. That minor victory comes in the form of Coy Harlingen (Owen Wilson), a former doper who was being used by the government to turn up hippies to be reformed in dope clinics run by drug dealers. Rescuing Coy is the one thing Doc manages to accomplish in the film and for him that will be enough of a happy ending. Doc, you see, is as aware as everyone else that he's neither reliable nor believable enough to tell this story and have anyone believe it. 

Did you know that 'Inherent Vice' is an insurance industry term that refers to a hidden defect in a physical object that causes it to deteriorate because of the fundamental instability of its components? That's a pretty great description of who Doc is to us, the audience for his story. Doc, because of his years of drug use, is fundamentally an unstable and thus unreliable narrator of events. Sure, the story is sound, even logical, but because it's Doc telling the story we can't help but be skeptical. 

That's part of the genius of the movie, we love Doc and we're wildly entertained by his journey but we don't take any of it very seriously because it's Doc. Paul Thomas Anderson thus gets to lampoon early 70's corruption without the hassle of an actual target for rage or disillusionment. We get all of the fun of being a cynic while also being stoned out of our heads enough not to get down about it. 

Movie Review: There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Written by Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Daniel Day Lewis, Paul Dano, Ciaran Hinds, David Willis, Kevin O'Connor 

Release Date December 27th, 2007

Published December 26th, 2007 

Sometimes when I am writing an odd thing happens. A review that I initially would be quite positive becomes slightly or entirely negative. When I walked out of There Will Be Blood, for example, I was expecting to sit down at my computer and praise the film endlessly. I was transfixed by the performance of Daniel Day Lewis and I marveled at the cinematography of Robert Elswit and the films stunningly authenitic early 20th century California setting. However, now, as I sit down to write I still have appreciation for certain aspects of the film but I am also more aware of the films many flaws. Hanging strands of plot, sloppy storytelling and unformed ideas and metaphors. I still like much of There Will Be Blood but the initial euphoria has definitely worn off.

Daniel Plainview was a prospector, searching for silver and gold like any other late 19th century gold rusher. However, when Daniel accidentally comes upon a supply of oil in one of his mines, his new calling in life is found. It's not long before he is erecting derricks and hiring workers to pull his black gooey gold out of the ground. After an accident killed one of his workers, leaving behind the man's baby son, Plainview makes the boy his own son and ostensible partner in the new business. You see, having a son and playing the role of family man is just one of the many ways an oil man might seperate the willing sucker from his land and thus his supply of oil beneath that land.

By the time that Plainview meets Paul Sunday, he is already quite well off. He doesn't need the lead that Paul offers him on a supply of oil beneath the small community of Little Boston California. However, when Paul mentions that Standard Oil has been buying up the surrounding towns, Plainview decides he needs to get Little Boston before his competitors do. To get the land Plainview will have to deal with Paul's father Abel (David Willis), a willing sucker, and Paul's twin brother Eli, a preacher who is far more aware than his father is of the value of the land Plainview is trying to fleece from them.

Eli wants to start a church in town and feels that the money from the oil should be used to build and fund it. Cutting a deal with the devilish Plainview, Eli gets his 'donation' and Plainview begins drilling. The two men then begin a battle of wills over the soul of this small town.

That is a simplified description of the plot of There Will Be Blood with the biblical undertones laid out much more specifically than What Paul Thomas Anderson presents in the film. Anderson paints the metaphors much more vaguely than I have and thus leaves the viewer grasping and puzzling over the films intent. Though it would be easy to believe that this is a story of good vs evil, corruption vs virtue and whatnot, at some point There Will Be Blood loses it's grand ideas in favor of being just a portrait of one arrogant, disturbed character and the havoc he wreaks on the lives around him.

That isn't such a bad thing given the astonishing performance of Daniel Day Lewis as Plainview. From the accent to that mustache, everything about Lewis' performance stands head and shoulders above the film. Lewis dominates the screen and shows the true power of a great actor, that even in a movie that is less than the sum of his performance he can still shine. There Will Be Blood is a real mess all around the performance of Lewis but you won't realize it until later because while you watch it you are simply transfixed by the great Daniel Day Lewis.

What may occur to you days later are the hanging plot strands of There Will Be Blood. For one, there is a character named Henry (Kevin O'Connor) who claims to be Daniel's brother. Henry is introduced to us for a moment and then cast aside in stunning and confusing fashion. The great Ciaran Hinds is in There Will Be Blood though you would be hard pressed to notice him. Then there is the questionable casting of Paul Dano as both Paul and Eli Sunday. Some have wondered if there is a deeper meaning to having the same actor in both roles. The reality is, the actor playing Eli quit or was fired a few days into shooting and director Anderson just called Dano back and decided they were twins. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the brother character, Henry, his introduction is fumbled and confusing. He exists not to further the plot but rather so that Plainview can deliver one of the films most important speeches and have someone there to witness it. Henry is then is dispatched when no longer needed. It's sloppy filmmaking and just one of many examples of where Anderson could have adjusted the film to flow smoother and quicker to his ending. The film is desperately bloated at 2 hours and 30 minutes. Hand off the speech listening to Ciaran Hinds or young Dillon Freasier as Plainview's son, cut the brother character completely and the film might get to it's conclusion in a more timely fashion.

I get that Anderson may have fallen for the performance of O'Connor who is quite good in this small role but then the answer might have been expanding the role so that it matters to the rest of the film. Introducing him and then shuffling him offscreen several scene later without effecting the plot in an important way is just shabby.

Too much of There Will Be Blood is characters just standing around marveling at Daniel Day Lewis. Don't get me wrong, we in the audience do it to, but then when the ending comes and we are to rely on the other characters to deepen the tragic ending, there is nothing there but Lewis. The tragedy is communicated but it lacks depth beyond our fascination with this character. There should be a greater tragedy, There Will Be Blood needs to leave us gasping for air and instead simply ends with a thud. "I'm done".

Movie Review Punch Drunk Love

Punch Drunk Love (2002) 

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson 

Written by Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Adam Sandler, Emily Watson, Phillip Seymour Hoffman 

Release Date October 11th, 2002 

Published October 10th, 2002 

Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia was, in the eyes of this critic, an unqualified masterpiece. While some complained about its quirks, its length, and it's strange use of frogs, I defy anyone to create a scene as moving as the final shot of Melora Waters' smile at the end. The film was a long journey, but well worth the trip. Anderson's latest isn't quite the epic that Magnolia was but, in its minimalist manner, it is almost as moving, and it is a far greater surprise, considering it features an awesome lead performance from, of all actors, Adam Sandler.

In Punch-Drunk Love, Sandler plays Barry Egan, a schlubby, put-upon brother to seven overbearing sisters. Barry owns his own business selling novelty plungers, and spends his free time collecting Healthy Choice pudding. (More on the pudding later.) In the opening, we see Barry standing in front of his office, a converted garage, when, in typical PT Anderson fashion, he witnesses a massive car crash that is immediately followed by the unusual delivery of a small piano left at the end of an alley. Barry then meets Lena (Emily Watson), who is dropping off her car to be serviced at the garage next door. Actually, that was the excuse she was using so she could meet Barry before Barry's sister—who is Lena's best friend—could set them up.

The connection isn't immediate but Lena does see something in him. In the meantime, a lonely Barry makes the mistake of calling a 900 phone sex number. As it turns out the 900 number is part of an extortion scam being run by a furniture store manager in Utah named Dean Trumbell (Anderson favorite Phillip Seymour Hoffman). Eventually Barry and Lena do get together and it is their unique love story that is the soul of this very unusual film.

The pudding subplot is actually based on a true story. A guy in Los Angeles figured out that if he bought three thousand dollars worth of Healthy Choice pudding cups and redeemed them as part of a Healthy Choice frequent flier mile giveaway, he could earn enough miles to never have to pay for a plane ticket for the rest of his life. That actually happened, and it is these little details and character quirks that surround all of Anderson's characters. They can occasionally get tiresome if they become too obvious, but thanks to the amazing lead performances of Sandler and Watson, that never happens in Punch-Drunk Love.

Sandler is perhaps the biggest surprise of the year. I don't know if it's because the role was so well written or if he benefited so greatly from the supporting cast—Watson especially—but somehow, Sandler crafts a really stellar performance. (Did I just write that? Yes I did.) For the first time in his career, Sandler proves he can act. For a Saturday Night Live alum, that is saying something.

At a mere 89 minutes Punch-Drunk Love is barely a subplot compared to Magnolia, but that isn't a bad thing. As quirky as Punch-Drunk Love is, it's good that it never wears out its welcome. Watching Barry strain and push for any longer would make him more difficult to like, and he is already difficult to like. I don't think Punch-Drunk Love is as brilliant as Magnolia but, in its own way, it's charming and sweet, and features two very Oscar-worthy performances. Punch-Drunk Love is a unique, wonderful love story that shows a side of Adam Sandler that we will likely never see again.