Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

[HistoryProf]

The real surprise for me was how Marion Cotillard balanced her body language between being rather ominous in scenes and frail in others, and how it all gelled for her. Just the way she would move her head sometimes had me flinch in my seat.

agreed...in many scenes she was clearly on another level than I've ever seen from her, preferring her performance her over her Oscar turn for instance - though i've never been a big fan of handing out awards for doing impressions as the Academy so loves to do. Her name was the one I was most hesitant about when seeing the cast, but she was absolutely perfect and impressively menacing when she needed to be, with fleeting moments of downright evil flashing in her eyes. Creepy stuff.

[flyonthewall2983]

It was nearly the same reaction I'd had to Aaron Eckhart in The Dark Knight, thinking one way but ultimately being led to an unexpected emotional space. I liked her in Public Enemies and was expecting a variation on that character to a degree, from what I'd seen in clips and trailers. Needless to say this performance blew those expectations away, and her aspect of the story was what really drew me in on an emotional level.

Spoiler

In some less-than-subtle ways, the film can be seen as a metaphor for grief. In Cobb's unwillingness to let go of his dead wife, and also in Cillian's character coming to terms with his father's death and dealing with the emotional distance that was between them. And those things really compelled me more than anything else, because it's all palpable stuff that people deal with in life.

It's things like that which separate this film from other summer fare because few other directors can make action blockbusters that have it's head in the clouds, but it's feet on the ground. Spielberg does it with varying degrees of success, in my opinion. Not that it makes Chris a better director than him, but it definitely puts him on that list of people that can pull off that tricky balancing act.

[Grand Illusion]

Spoiler

The film starts out with a glut of exposition and an overbearing score. It's basically The Dark Knight 2 for the first 40 minutes. The only reason I paid attention was because I was actively looking for "the twist."

Once DiCaprio's heist crew actually has an objective, though, the film picks up. Leo's trickery to get the crew into the third dream level with actual consequences was well-played.

Then we get some poorly-directed action scenes. Nolan's spatial ambiguity sets him up for failure. He cuts from one car to another. Or one person firing and then to a person firing back. There's no tension because we have no idea where anything is happening in relation to the other stuff that's happening.

After that, the film really gets genuinely good with the intercutting between the different dream levels. It's an excellent conceit to have the mind be more active and, thus, expand time the deeper into dreams it goes. It made for some tense intercutting. Nolan even picked up a well-directed action scene when the forgettable Gordon-Levitt was doing his wire-fu work in the hotel. It's amazing what simply holding a wide shot and showing the choreography will do for a film.

Cillian Murphy's implanted revelation was well-done, and DiCaprio has a good moment when he leaves Cotillard. Page does solid work throughout.

Unfortunately, in the desire to make something epic and twisty, Nolan undercuts his entire film with a ridiculous ending. Certainly, the fact that the children don't age is a tip of Nolan's hand that we are supposed to interpret the narrative as all being a dream. The "it was a dream" interpretation isn't a letdown because it deprives us of a happy ending. It's unsatisfactory because it's predictable. It shouldn't take $200 million to use the cheapest narrative trick in the book.

Obviously, the themes of lying to oneself is an echo from Memento. It's a theme that means something to Nolan. But that film executed the idea with originality. This film's use of such a hackneyed device is unfortunate. It detracts from any character developments, except for the protagonist's, because those people don't exist. Worse, it adds nothing new, as we already had scenes spelling out DiCaprio's guilt and mental anguish.

Overall, I don't want to let the ending ruin the film. There were parts I enjoyed, such as the extended falling van sequence. The ending and the desire to pull the rug out from under the audience, however, are unfortunate obstacles in the way of just telling a good story.

[Joe Buck]

So many spoiler boxes...ending must have been special. I, however, didn't get to see it, because the movie was ruined by some whack-job in our theater who kept distracting everyone by constantly changing seats and cackling. I lasted 2 full hours, struggling to keep up with the complex story, but finally the nutjob sat down right beside me. He rocked back and forth like a crazy person, frightening my wife. At that point, I just threw down my Goobers and screamed, "FUCK IT!" and left. Regal was very generous, though. They refunded my money and gave us 4 free passes. I hope to return and see "Inception" undisturbed ASAP.

[tavernier]

the movie was ruined by some whack-job in our theater who kept distracting everyone by constantly changing seats and cackling. I lasted 2 full hours, struggling to keep up with the complex story, but finally the nutjob sat down right beside me. He rocked back and forth like a crazy person, frightening my wife.

Barmy?

[matrixschmatrix]

Spoiler

It shouldn't take $200 million to use the cheapest narrative trick in the book.

I really have no idea of how the cost of the movie is relevant there.

[Steven H]

Spoiler

I don't think the children's age is as big of a hint as people seem to be saying. Even if this was a film where Leo's kids were dream jumping sidekicks for a year it's not like they'd use a different actor to portray them by the end of the film or draw wrinkle lines on their face or something. As for the attire, when I was a kid I wore samey looking clothes fairly often and besides, it resonates more that you finally see the alternate face-showing version of that kid-motif shot. This reasoning doesn't and shouldn't totally convince that the children are real, but I do think it's ambiguous.

I've been enjoying this thread a lot. Going back to a few comments made, I think one reason Nolan filled the dream layers with genre conventions is that it works as a shortcut for understandability. Not that audiences shouldn't be given more credit, but what better way to keep threads distinct than in a fashion that isn't too obviously "unreal" (he could have done an in your face Jeunet tinting effect for instance).

[knives]

Spoiler

I don't think the children's age is as big of a hint as people seem to be saying. Even if this was a film where Leo's kids were dream jumping sidekicks for a year it's not like they'd use a different actor to portray them by the end of the film or draw wrinkle lines on their face or something. As for the attire, when I was a kid I wore samey looking clothes fairly often and besides, it resonates more that you finally see the alternate face-showing version of that kid-motif shot. This reasoning doesn't and shouldn't totally convince that the children are real, but I do think it's ambiguous.

I've been enjoying this thread a lot. Going back to a few comments made, I think one reason Nolan filled the dream layers with genre conventions is that it works as a shortcut for understandability. Not that audiences shouldn't be given more credit, but what better way to keep threads distinct than in a fashion that isn't too obviously "unreal" (he could have done an in your face Jeunet tinting effect for instance).

Spoiler

They actually had two different sets of kids cast to play the two age groups. The only time the older kids got any work though was through the phone call.

[Steven H]

Spoiler

They actually had two different sets of kids cast to play the two age groups. The only time the older kids got any work though was through the phone call.

That doesn't count! Maybe the first two went mute.

[matrixschmatrix]

Spoiler

They actually had two different sets of kids cast to play the two age groups. The only time the older kids got any work though was through the phone call.

That doesn't count! Maybe the first two went mute.

Spoiler

Or possibly the actors playing the children in person gave poor vocal performances. Explaining it as a way to represent an age difference seems surprising- his kids still sound pretty young on the phone, and I don't think most people could nail down a kid's age that closely from their voices.

On the other hand, the shot of the kids at the end was a clear shot reference to his dreams.

I think that aspect resolves best in my interpretation as it being real, but there are manifestations of how long DiCaprio has lived in a fantasy world popping up- his perception of reality has gone a little soft, and he's getting confused. I don't think you can explain Caine showing up and Watanabe's ease in getting his charges dismissed that way, but I don't think it's necessary- Watanabe's power is pretty well established ("I bought the airline. It seemed simpler." and there have been pretty good explanations for Caine's presence.

Other things- like Watanabe's real line anticipating the dream event that made it meaningful, DiCaprio's reunion with his kids playing out exactly as it did in his dreams, and the general slightly unreal feel of the end scene- those all seem like work pretty well in terms of DiCaprio's grip on reality having partially gone.

Of course, I think even more strongly that the end of the movie is definitively ambiguous, and that any absolute proof one way or the other is going to be more likely a mistake than a secret message- but then I'm still in the 'Deckard is not a replicant (because that lessens the movie)' camp.

[flyonthewall2983]

So many spoiler boxes...ending must have been special. I, however, didn't get to see it, because the movie was ruined by some whack-job in our theater who kept distracting everyone by constantly changing seats and cackling. I lasted 2 full hours, struggling to keep up with the complex story, but finally the nutjob sat down right beside me. He rocked back and forth like a crazy person, frightening my wife. At that point, I just threw down my Goobers and screamed, "FUCK IT!" and left. Regal was very generous, though. They refunded my money and gave us 4 free passes. I hope to return and see "Inception" undisturbed ASAP.

Man, that sucks. One reason I almost always see matinees.

[Matt]

We saw a 10 AM Saturday show and it was perfect. Not a peep out of the 9 or so people in the audience.

[Joe Buck]

I don't wake up until noon on the weekends.

[flyonthewall2983]

I love that feeling of almost having the whole place to yourself for the next two hours.

[Zombie-Luv]

My theater was packed and after it was over, half the audience (including me and a friend) applauded.

[AWA]

Regarding the ending:

Spoiler

Specifically the children and people assuming that children not aging is supposed to be a clue... I'd like to point out that the "reality" time frame of the movie, specifically that of Cobb's life in exile post-wife's suicide, probably hasn't been more than a year. While he's spent a substantial amount of "time" in dream states, the amount of time from the death of his wife to the present in reality shouldn't be assumed to have been 10 years, or something more substantial that a little boy is no longer a little boy or whatever. I'm not sure where people are drawing the conclusions on that, but considering Cobb looks pretty much the same in his flashbacks to the time spent with his actual wife in "reality", it's not as though he's suddenly approaching middle age or anything of the sort. I don't recall anything mentioned in the film and thus don't think it has been *that* long since he's seen his kids, and thus the kids would be relatively still the same age / look.

As for using two different sets of kids in the film for the acting and the voice over on the phone, that doesn't mean anything to the plot, especially considering the on-screen actor kids don't have any lines.

[knives]

Spoiler

To which I suppose I have to reply, why would he credit them as two different, by a number of years, ages?

[AWA]

Spoiler

To which I suppose I have to reply, why would he credit them as two different, by a number of years, ages?

The credit says the young son, James, is 20 months old - almost 2 years old. The "telephone voice" James, the only James that speaks in the film, is supposed to be age 3. Therefore, what I pointed out above, that merely a year has passed since seeing his kids is indeed correct. Therefore, the physical age difference of his memory of James vs what he looks like a year later would be very small, impossible for the audience to tell. Which is my point - the kids at the end of the film are the same actors because it has only been a year since he last saw them (although he's since spent much longer in the "dream" worlds).

[Highway 61]

Spoiler

Regarding the ending:

Specifically the children and people assuming that children not aging is supposed to be a clue... I'd like to point out that the "reality" time frame of the movie, specifically that of Cobb's life in exile post-wife's suicide, probably hasn't been more than a year. While he's spent a substantial amount of "time" in dream states, the amount of time from the death of his wife to the present in reality shouldn't be assumed to have been 10 years, or something more substantial that a little boy is no longer a little boy or whatever. I'm not sure where people are drawing the conclusions on that, but considering Cobb looks pretty much the same in his flashbacks to the time spent with his actual wife in "reality", it's not as though he's suddenly approaching middle age or anything of the sort. I don't recall anything mentioned in the film and thus don't think it has been *that* long since he's seen his kids, and thus the kids would be relatively still the same age / look.

As for using two different sets of kids in the film for the acting and the voice over on the phone, that doesn't mean anything to the plot, especially considering the on-screen actor kids don't have any lines.

This actually makes a lot of sense. When they're on the phone, Leo's kids ask him when he's coming home as though his prolonged absence is unusual, almost as if he were on a business trip. If Leo had been away for a year or more, and his kids had aged significantly without him in their lives, it seems like the tone of that conversation would have been much different.

And yet, I feel as if this nitpicking is giving Nolan too much credit. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the details that we're debating never occurred to him at all while making the film.

[wattsup32]

Spoiler

To which I suppose I have to reply, why would he credit them as two different, by a number of years, ages?

The credit says the young son, James, is 20 months old - almost 2 years old. The "telephone voice" James, the only James that speaks in the film, is supposed to be age 3. Therefore, what I pointed out above, that merely a year has passed since seeing his kids is indeed correct. Therefore, the physical age difference of his memory of James vs what he looks like a year later would be very small, impossible for the audience to tell. Which is my point - the kids at the end of the film are the same actors because it has only been a year since he last saw them (although he's since spent much longer in the "dream" worlds).

At the age those kids are, a year is an enormous difference. Three or four months is a huge difference at those ages. I'm not suggesting it is or isn't a clue, but I am suggesting that a person would be able to notice radical differences in how the children look.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Scrutinizing the science of Christopher Nolan's Inception.

[FerdinandGriffon]

Spoiler

To which I suppose I have to reply, why would he credit them as two different, by a number of years, ages?

The credit says the young son, James, is 20 months old - almost 2 years old. The "telephone voice" James, the only James that speaks in the film, is supposed to be age 3. Therefore, what I pointed out above, that merely a year has passed since seeing his kids is indeed correct. Therefore, the physical age difference of his memory of James vs what he looks like a year later would be very small, impossible for the audience to tell. Which is my point - the kids at the end of the film are the same actors because it has only been a year since he last saw them (although he's since spent much longer in the "dream" worlds).

At the age those kids are, a year is an enormous difference. Three or four months is a huge difference at those ages. I'm not suggesting it is or isn't a clue, but I am suggesting that a person would be able to notice radical differences in how the children look.

Yeah, but try casting that difference in a believable way. It's like Bowie playing a teenaged Celliers and a 40 year old one in the same film; it may look ridiculous, but slightly less so than the alternative.

[Roger Ryan]

Spoiler

I believe the entire film takes place in Cobb's dreamscape, but do not feel cheated by that nor find the ending shot a cop-out. Cobb at first claims not to be able to see his childrens' faces in his dreams, but later forces himself not to see them because he wants to believe that he will only see their faces in the real world. When he finally reaches them at the end, he panics because the tableaux is too close to the one he has been dreaming of. He grabs his totem top and spins it to confirm the reality (of course this is useless as his mind will allow the top to do anything he wills it to), but before he can see the result he has convinced himself the dream is real. He allows himself to see the faces of his children and he's content. Nolan's camera pans to the spinning/possibly faltering top to demonstrate how ultimately meaningless it is, that it has no bearing on Cobb's happiness. However deluded, he has achieved what he wanted.

Note that Fischer is similarly deluded - he believes he is following his father's wishes (and that his father actually loved him) when we know that isn't true. To say that Nolan wouldn't have structured his story in such a way just to pull the rug out is missing the resolution that Cobb's transcendance doesn't depend on truth. This is the same theme Nolan uses in MEMENTO when Leonard has convinced himself he is justified in killing, whereas the viewer realizes he has misinterpreted the reality of the situation.

I don't think Mal (what a great name!) is actually trying to infiltrate her husband's dream world, but I believe she represents the part of Cobb's subconscious that is preventing him from detaching from reality altogether. She plainly tells him that his "reality" of sinister corporations sending out assassins to kill him is just as illogical as the dream worlds he enters, but he doesn't want to believe it and thinks it's his own sense of guilt that is trying to steer him the wrong way. There's no more telling scene than the one (supposedly taking place in the real world) when Cobb becomes stuck between two buildings while trying to escape the hitmen. That is classic dreamworld imagery and it registered with me immediately as I am always getting stuck between two cars or in cramp spaces in dreams while trying to escape pursuers.

On a more meta scale (as mentioned in at least one previous post), Cobb's plight is the same as a film watcher: he's trying to suspend his disbelief. He wants it to be real in the same way the viewer of the film wants to believe it. I love how Nolan positions the camera in such a way that it should plainly be visible in the reflection of the two mirrors Ariadne pulls into place...but it isn't! We're led to expect that our "suspension" will be dashed, but it's saved by some digital hocus-pocus. That's the magician in Nolan.

I also like the idea of "killing oneself will wake you from the dream" because it reflects the spiritual idea found in some religions that the world we live in now is the dream and the "real one" will be revealed after our deaths. Cobb doesn't want what's real, he wants an ideal. That's often how many of us choose to live our lives to a certain degree and it's what we expect from the world of film.

[Murdoch]

Just saw this and, well, thoughts:

Spoiler

Cobb and Mal age 50 years within their dream state, yet when they kill themselves with the train in the dream state they are both young. This part kinda peeved me since, while their age was simply a construct of the dream, they had spent what felt like 50 years there and from what I understand aged accordingly, so their youth would have been a mere memory by then and thus if they had flashed back to their youth before they offed themselves it would have been a construction based upon their memory of what they looked like young, no? I was just thinking shouldn't they be their elder selves during that scene and it struck me as a discontinuity.

Anyway, I liked the Cobb-Mal relationship and every time Tom Hardy spoke - he's got a great voice, makes me want to go see Bronson. Also, the anti-gravity scenes were probably the best I've seen in a decade or more, who ever coordinated them did a fantastic job.

[domino harvey]

So I saw the film again, this time on IMAX. I said before that this was a very good film. I feel I'm ready to bump that up to "great" on second-viewing.

Spoiler

I'd like to pretend that I was able to test out a lot of theories this time around, but mostly this time, instead of focusing on what I wanted it to be and focusing on its value as a static film, I found the work all the more exquisite. The construction and structure of the film holds up, and I'll touch on this at a later time, but some of the faults I perceived can possibly be explained away better than I'd thought. Sure, this is going to be a movie that's going to make party discussions unbearable for the next fifteen years, but it's nice to enjoy the pleasures of this film now.

Back to the score for a moment: Y'alls crazy, it is even better than I remembered and one thing I didn't notice and haven't seen mentioned is the repeated sort of low, bass-heavy horn motif in the climax of the film is a musical integration of the beeping on the bridge in the van dream level-- an exceedingly clever and effective trick!