Podcast Summary: New Books Network – Episode 161

One Battle After Another: A West Newton Cinema Discussion with Peter Coviello and Ethan Warren

Aired: December 4, 2025
Host: John Plotz
Guests: Ethan Warren (Paul Thomas Anderson expert), Peter Coviello (Thomas Pynchon expert)
Topic: Paul Thomas Anderson’s film One Battle After Another and its adaptation of Thomas Pynchon’s Vineland

Episode Overview

This live-recorded episode, taped at West Newton Cinema, brings together film critic/author Ethan Warren and literature professor Peter Coviello for an in-depth post-screening conversation on Paul Thomas Anderson’s (PTA) new film One Battle After Another—an adaptation of Thomas Pynchon’s 1990 novel Vineland. The discussion explores how the film updates Pynchon’s themes for 2025, the nuances of adaptation, and the shifting politics and aesthetics of both creators. The experts analyze the core messages about fascism, family, revolution, and the representation of America’s contemporary moment.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introducing Pynchon’s Vineland and Its Core Themes

• Peter Coviello gives an overview of Vineland:
  • Vineland (1990) is both “hysterically, anti-cartoonishly funny” and “a novel about the police state.”
  • It details the aftermath of 1968’s counterculture, showing how American governance “organizes itself on the model of counterinsurgency”—a state that identifies and eliminates internal ‘insurgents’ (03:38).
  • The book mirrors the paranoia and anti-fascist thread across decades (04:47).

2. PTA’s Evolution and the Present Moment

• Ethan Warren situates the film in PTA’s oeuvre:
  • First film by Anderson set in the 21st century since Punch Drunk Love (2002) (05:40).
  • This film is “messy” and reflects the “ugly sides of life in America” in 2025, including direct engagement with racism and immigration (05:40-06:30).
  • Anderson’s work divided into thesis-antithesis-synthesis:
    • Early period: Overly expressive, ensemble casts.
    • Middle period: Inward, loner protagonists.
    • Recent films: Sprawling, less direct—this film marks a new phase (07:26-08:23).

3. Antifascism, Paranoia, and Political Resonance

• Pynchon’s warnings about fascism and capital:
  • Pynchon is “a career-wide antifascist,” questioning standard WWII narratives and seeing “fascist potentials of American life” that are continually renewed (09:06).
• How PTA “reads” Pynchon:
  • Anderson remains faithful to the sense of “the police as an antagonistic force” (04:47, 09:57), preserving the anti-fascist spirit, although the film is less overtly comedic than the novel (10:08).

4. Family, Romance, & Revolution

• Family as recurring motif:
  • PTA’s films often explore complex family dynamics, particularly strained or non-nuclear families (13:06-14:12).
  • The movie ends with a “family romance resolution” but in tension with Pynchon’s text, where “family romance is always being subordinated to a different romance—the romance of a long revolutionary tradition” (14:12).
  • Coviello notes, “Here we have this mother who is explicitly selfish… I don't know how he sometimes feels about mothers, and he has a complicated relationship with his own” (13:44).

5. Politics & Aesthetics: Humor, Violence, and Mobilization

• Comparison to Kubrick and comic tone:
  • Spielberg’s review linked the film tonally to Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, which the panel both affirms and problematizes; Anderson’s film is “warm-blooded” and deeply moving in its depiction of fear and solidarity (15:04-15:44).
• Insurgency/violence:
  • The adaptation makes the insurgents in the film “armed”—a more direct stance than the book, reflecting the world’s shift and raising questions about justified violence under oppression (11:52, 24:05).
• Mobilization vs. Cooption:
  • Pynchon’s work often warns of the dangers of “mobilizing and getting co-opted”; later novels (e.g., Mason & Dixon) move beyond pure paranoia towards “sentimental admiration about unions and organizing” (31:22-32:08).
  • Anderson’s film reflects similar ambivalence: organizing as the “opposite of fascist organizing isn't violence necessarily. It's organizing” (29:32).

6. Race, Immigration, Authority

• Risks and rewards of representing racial politics:
  • Both experts note their surprise at Anderson centering “white supremacy, immigration, the raw politics of policing in 2025”—a notable departure for a white filmmaker (05:40-06:45).
  • Immigration and abortion are smart as “handles… easy to visualize” for screenwriting and connect directly to 21st-century counterinsurgency (22:37-23:16).

7. Mixed Personal Responses & Criticisms

• Coviello is “alarmed” and not a huge fan:
  • “I don’t like this movie that much… grim and unpleasant… politics are a little bit fuzzy” (20:18-21:28).
• Warren finds it “one of my favorite writers thinking hard about antifascism” and deeply admires its engagement, especially with anti-fascist armed networks (21:41).
• Both agree some comic elements (ex: “supervillain” Christmas Adventure Club) didn’t work and felt out of step (25:22-25:54).

8. Key Motifs in Authority, Policing, and Identity

• Modern authority visualized under the heading “POLICE,” reflecting the post-2020 American landscape (26:06-26:37).
• Questions about whether anti-fascism inherently requires violence, and the tension between family loyalty and revolutionary solidarity (28:12-28:50, 29:11-30:30).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Peter Coviello on Vineland’s core:

  “It's a hysterically anti-cartoonishly funny book while being the funniest novel you've ever read in your life. My Hand of God. It’s also a novel about the police state.” (03:38)

• Ethan Warren on Anderson’s engagement with the present:

  “This is a messy movie about how messy it is to be alive in 2025… It's his first movie with significant non-white characters in a long time, and it's a movie that engages with racism pretty directly.” (05:40)

• On the anti-fascist thread:

  “Pynchon is a career-wide antifascist… interested in the fascist potentials of American life… He wants you, his viewers, to think about the shape of fascism in the 21st century.” – Ethan Warren (09:06)

• On family and revolution:

  “For Pynchon in the novel…the family romance is always being subordinated to a different romance. The romance of a long revolutionary tradition.” – Ethan Warren (14:12)

• On weapons and the revolution:

  “The insurgents are armed. And the movie just is unblinking about that.” – Ethan Warren (12:06)

• On politics of adaptation:

  “I find this a really grim and unpleasant movie. Yeah. With politics that I think are a little bit fuzzy.” – Peter Coviello (20:18)

• On mobilization and organizing:

  “The opposite of fascist organizing isn't violence necessarily, it's organizing. Does that preclude the possibility of violence? No, it does not.” – Ethan Warren (29:32)

Timestamps of Key Segments

• Introduction of guests and framing the discussion – 01:42-02:20
• Peter Coviello on Vineland’s themes – 03:38-04:38
• Policing and the security state, film as adaptation – 04:47-05:17
• Anderson’s career and this film’s place – 05:40-08:23
• Antifascism and Pynchon’s vision – 09:06-10:08
• Sentimentality, family, and adaptation differences – 10:34-12:23
• Motherhood and generational trauma – 13:06-14:12
• Comic tone, Kubrick, and the “warm-blooded” film – 15:04-15:44
• Individual vs. collective action in Anderson’s films – 18:02-19:43
• Cellphones, modern paranoia, and Anderson’s present-tense engagement – 19:43-20:09
• Experts’ opinions diverge: criticism and admiration – 20:16-21:41
• Why immigration and abortion frame anti-fascism – 22:27-23:39
• Armed insurgency: adaptation choice and critique – 24:05-25:54
• Police as the unifying symbol of modern authority – 26:06-26:39
• Authority, skepticism, and systemic power – 26:39-27:52
• Debate over revolutionary purity and family ties – 28:12-29:11
• The power and risks of organizing vs. co-option – 29:11-32:08
• Future of PTA: is this a new political phase? – 32:08-33:00
• Final summary by experts, closing gratitude – 33:30-33:49

Closing

The episode offers a rich, sometimes contentious discussion about adapting literature to film, the evolving work of Paul Thomas Anderson, and the ongoing political resonance of Pynchon’s critique of America. It’s a must-listen for lovers of postmodern literature, contemporary cinema, and those interested in the links between art, activism, and the changing face of the American ‘police state.’