This isn't a journey into Pynchon's mind, it's a journey into his fan base's collective mind. I understand the compulsion to read into Pynchon's mysterious reclusiveness as I too went through that period of time where it really seemed like, OH God Man, This Pynchon Cat KNOWS Something! This obsession that is built out of his mind-boggling and madcap works is something that you get over once you've read enough of his works to get a clear sense of his humor, a bit of his passion, and the joyful way he mixes his world with alternative worldviews. This documentary ultimately suffers from the same tendency in people of various foci to see correlation as causation. Yes, OBVIOUSLY Thomas Pynchon was aware of the crap raining down around him during the 60s and 70s, the strange counter-cultures popping up amongst paranoia and new chemical drugs developed by the CIA. Who wasn't? It doesn't mean he personally met Lee Harvey Oswald--as the gentleman in the interview sez, "It's fun to think about." And ultimately that's all the documentary offers, as much information (actually less) than you can find on Pynchon's Wikipedia page and a few too many "webmasters" compiling documents and texts and looking into the man's private letters while chasing down every phantom lead to find his image. Certainly there is something about seclusion that leads to mystery but a lot of these guys just gotta leave the man alone, know what I mean?
Honestly, if it's scary conspiracy theory meets famous shady person you're looking for, look into Dammbeck's "Das Netz." If you're looking into more information about Thomas Pynchon, reread his novels and enjoy the unmatched depth of detail. But it's a little disturbing having a man point at a television screen with two seconds of another man walking by just out of frame and reading every fold of that man's jacket as indication into the personality and mindset of Thomas Pynchon, provided that the videotaped man is actually he. Certainly Pynchon must have this extreme aching Thanatos desire to lead people to the mystery of himself and the truth behind the enigma of his writing--that's why he spends time on The Simpsons and writing letters of defense for Ian McEwan as regards taking from primary sources for historical fiction!
Ultimately the best parts of this movie are when the interviewees talk about the significance of his work to themselves and the way they view the world, and when Irwin Corey plays the recording of himself accepting Pynchon's national novelist award. There is a culture that extends beyond the man himself that is of predominantly more significance, and this movie sort of misses the real core of what it has in that fact. Instead of regarding Pynchonmania with an air of curiosity and friendliness, they juxtapose interviews with found footage of scientific experiments, propaganda animations, and really bad music.
I agree with some of the commentators in this movie: everyone should at least attempt to read a Pynchon novel and the problem is not that we are lacking information about Pynchon, it is that there is too much information in his novels to ever really settle. However, like with most artists, the person doesn't matter--it's what he creates that is truly significant. Leave the rascally old git alone so that he can get back to writing another novel.
--PolarisDiB
Honestly, if it's scary conspiracy theory meets famous shady person you're looking for, look into Dammbeck's "Das Netz." If you're looking into more information about Thomas Pynchon, reread his novels and enjoy the unmatched depth of detail. But it's a little disturbing having a man point at a television screen with two seconds of another man walking by just out of frame and reading every fold of that man's jacket as indication into the personality and mindset of Thomas Pynchon, provided that the videotaped man is actually he. Certainly Pynchon must have this extreme aching Thanatos desire to lead people to the mystery of himself and the truth behind the enigma of his writing--that's why he spends time on The Simpsons and writing letters of defense for Ian McEwan as regards taking from primary sources for historical fiction!
Ultimately the best parts of this movie are when the interviewees talk about the significance of his work to themselves and the way they view the world, and when Irwin Corey plays the recording of himself accepting Pynchon's national novelist award. There is a culture that extends beyond the man himself that is of predominantly more significance, and this movie sort of misses the real core of what it has in that fact. Instead of regarding Pynchonmania with an air of curiosity and friendliness, they juxtapose interviews with found footage of scientific experiments, propaganda animations, and really bad music.
I agree with some of the commentators in this movie: everyone should at least attempt to read a Pynchon novel and the problem is not that we are lacking information about Pynchon, it is that there is too much information in his novels to ever really settle. However, like with most artists, the person doesn't matter--it's what he creates that is truly significant. Leave the rascally old git alone so that he can get back to writing another novel.
--PolarisDiB