Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

[willoneill]

My two cents:

I've read a lot of comments here and elsewhere complaining that dreams in this film aren't as elaborate or "out-there" as people had hoped/expected. However I was thinking about that, and I disagree with the premise. I don't see this as a film about dreams, or the nature of dreaming, at all, because the dreams in this film are not natural. They are all induced dreams, created for a specific purpose. So pretend for a second that your part of a group constructing dreams to steal information; Would you not want to keep the environment you're entering relatively simple, to make your task as simple as possible? I just don't see this as a film about the nature of dreams at all, but rather just a heist film, where Christopher Nolan has epped the ante into making it the most complex "safe/vault" ever".

[Marcel Gioberti]

Why do some people take it so personally if others found Inception to be puerile nonsense ("puerile nonsense" being no less hyperbolic than saying it's a masterpiece or even a "great" film)? Neither side of this clearly divisive issue are going to convince the other, despite the many requests I've seen from its defenders. There are many times when another's reading of a film enriches my experience, but that's not likely to happen here because I fundamentally disagree on so many of the basic talking points.

It's worth noting that the dissenters are being dogpiled though and why is that? I've seen it many places on the net, not just here. Of course, at CF, it's not a mean-spirited dogpile, but the accusations are still flying that people who failed to appreciate Inception "didn't get it" or should read domino harvey, Mr. Sausage, et al. a few more times. Are the criticisms deemed less valid than the praise for some reason?

To suggest that Chris Nolan's blockbuster is anything less than genius is to invite torrents of abuse from fans. But is a bad review necessarily one that disagrees with you?
...
Now, none of this is designed to start a similar debate about Inception (a decent film that like so much in life isn't quite as mind-boggling as it, or you, would want it to be), or even to stick up for Zacharek (although I have my own answer to the person who asked whether she has a better track record than Nolan). But there is something at work here that would be recognised by almost anyone who ever writes about films (and, in fact, most people who talk about them) – which is the air of scowling zeal around a certain kind of movie whereby to feel anything but awe is to invite all manner of personal grief, not from paid PRs but overprotective fans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog ... n-sceptics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[swo17]

For the record, I'm not defending the film, as I haven't seen it yet and I'm not even that much of a Nolan fan to begin with. But this is a forum for discussion of the film, not a dartboard for opinions. You have every right to feel however you do toward the film, but if you are unwilling to engage with the ongoing discussion here, there is no point in you posting. Incidentally, I would say the same thing if you liked the film but gave no good reason for it.

[Marcel Gioberti]

http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtop ... 47#p299147" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I did actually engage the discussion, albeit less eloquently than Mfunk's post I linked above.

[Sheriff Chambers]

Svevan - I don't think I need permission to take a particular approach, which in this case is through audience responses to Nolan's film rather than the film itself.

My view is that this film functions as part of a trend in popular contemporary American cinema and I didn't set out to discuss the film itself but rather (admittedly, in fairly general terms) the responses to it. Perhaps I should have done so via another thread, but I don't think it inappropriate to comment in the way that I have on a thread dealing with the film itself. Am I not allowed to say that I'm surprised at some responses? Why (as you seem to suggest) is it off-limits to raise questions about why audiences should respond as they have - even if it implies criticism of those audiences? Yes, I do think it odd that this film has generated such glowing responses. Please don't try to tell me what I can and can't comment on.

If it’s more acceptable, I don’t think Inception is a ‘quality’ films (are subjective value judgements allowed?), and nor do I think he is a filmmaker deserving of great praise. It therefore follows that, given the usual sophistication of contributors to this site and that of professional critics elsewhere, I should be surprised.

[knives]

Marcel Gioberti, the dissenters aren't being dogpiled though. Once again, Mfunk has probably brought the strongest criticism to the film, which no one here is accusing of being a masterpiece, and there was fair and interesting discussion going on. The problem people have with yours and others comments is the black and white unwillingness to discuss. There are a few questionable elements to the film, such as characterization, that could be discussed. As Swo pointed out you're just not discussing anything and trying to turn this into an editorial.
Hell I'll play my own devil's advocate and quote one of Mfunk's posts that is fantastic.

I'm surprised to come here and see this film garner such thorough praise, as I was exhausted and overwhelmed throughout. I went in with no predisposed notions about it, I hadn't even seen a trailer.

I can't even begin to explain how much I resent Nolan's signatures - an awful, overwhelming score during action sequences (which the entire first and third acts of this film are); those fucking helicopter flyovers of any new setting introduced; and banal conversation that absolutely fails to engage the viewer in the concept of the film. I'm not asking for some loopy mess, but to militarize dreams into a rigid, shoot-em-up blockbuster is exhausting when a film like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind captured the concept of the subconscious with a breezy simplicity that felt organic without divurging into the nonsensical.

Here we get the wet dreams of a chronic videogamer: slick chases, shiny hotel rooms, even a snowy espionage mission. Heap the bad dialogue and unforgivably Alan Wake-ish "cutscenes" (I mean, really, we're dealing with a videogame here - the father and wife goofiness is just the "press start to skip" hamminess that desperately aims to tie the huge setpieces together and in a lot of ways, fails miserably) on and you've got a pretty difficult sit for anyone expecting anything remotely engaging. Every single role in this film is either thankless (especially Page's - it's all "ask DiCaprio a question, act surprised, give advice, repeat") or majorly expendable (why is Gordon-Levitt here, again?).

The whole film is a self-serious masturbatory fantasy for any director who dreams of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on what amounts to a predictable Twilight Zone episode, and the thought of ever having to sit through it again is far more terrifying than any cinematic torture that I can imagine. Sorry, folks. I just can't see the appeal of this film, whatsoever, but I'm glad you all enjoyed it.

[Galen Young]

I know Hans Zimmer says all musical roads in his score lead back to the Piaf song; call me crazy but I detect a shade of A Zed and Two Noughts-era Michael Nyman in it. (compare bits in cues like "Dream is Collapsing", "Dream Within A Dream" or the eight minute mark of "Waiting For a Train" to ZOO's "Car Crash", "Time Lapse", "Up For Crabs" or "Venus De Milo" -- blown up to bombastic levels of course. Even the melancholy piano of "Time" recalls the devastating piano of "Lady in the Red Hat"...) The mix of orchestral/synth/guitar hit all the right notes for me. As in ZOO, the music communicates a driving, overwhelming feeling of inevitability.

And maybe I got all that because of those shots of the van drifting off the bridge, suspended in time -- can't shake that image as feeling a bit Peter Greenaway-like somehow. (can't finger a particular film, maybe just his style of extreme repetitiveness?) Even if its just me, a wonderful association in my book, completely unexpected from a big budget Hollywood blockbuster.

Loved all the long-winded exposition that some seem to hate -- the payoff for all of it was nothing but pure delight. The weightless hallway battles are as visually inventive as any of the "bullet time" scenes of The Matrix. Dug that the dreams were lucid rather than over the time surreal a la Tarsem's The Cell. (which I loved on its own terms as well.) The simplicity of the final shot is beautiful. Who cares what it means!

I've only seen Nolan's Memento, which I didn't really care for, but will now have to revisit, along with Following whenever Criterion finally releases it. What got me in the theatre was its being based on an original script and not from a book, comic, graphic novel, TV show or film remake. Plus that supporting cast -- brilliant! Not a big Leo fan, but I definitely enjoyed his performance here more than in Shutter Island.

The story may not be as deep as 2001, but for me this has been the most exciting large-scale SF genre film since the Wachowski Bros dropped us into The Matrix over ten years ago. Have seen it twice already and will see it again.

[Brian C]

I'm not sure what Marcel's problem is, exactly, since no one was dogpiling on him at any rate. He made a comment criticizing the film, Knives disagreed with it, and that was that.

And the only one that is getting dogpiled is Sheriff Chambers, who insists on trying to psychologically analyze audiences instead of talking about the movie itself.

[Sheriff Chambers]

Brian - not sure what dogpiling is but, yes, I'm wondering why people are interested to the extent they apparently are by a very mediocre action film. So, just to clarify, I think the film is juvenile and audience responses to the film surprise me. Doesn't seem too problematic does it? By the way, audiences form a major part of our film culture and our thinking about cinema in case you hadn't noticed. Having said that, I’m not conducting some sort of survey, merely surprised at responses.

[knives]

Why do you feel it is juvenile? I understand if you didn't like the film not understanding why someone else would, but I think it tried to tackle its subject in a more mature way than say Ironman or I Stand Alone did with their own for instance.

Spoiler

For me this film talks about empathy with regards to fiction and I really can't think of a movie that has done it so well in recent memory. Just focusing on that last shot for a second, the top stops, the dream stops, as the movie stops. Why is it any less worthy ton treat as human and give our empathy, or in your case I guess apathy, to characters from a dream than if the events were all 'real'? Considering the complaints of the 'it's all just a dream' mechanic that gone down since before the Wizard of Oz I think this manages to be, for narrative theory, an interesting and important topic.
I've been rewatching a lot of Keaton lately and in almost all of his shorts (and Sherlock Jr.) he's tackling all of these same ideas of dream reality and empathy. I think Keaton manages to do it better, but that doesn't mean Nolan does it poorly (for me). Maybe if you were to look at it as a 'serious' Keaton film you may be able to see it in a better light even if you still think it fails in its ambitions.

The movie is far from perfect with enough flaws to hit a flying cat with, but attacks on it maturity or the dreamscape seem to be missing the point, but I'd love to understand better why you think this is a juvenile film.

[Sheriff Chambers]

Knives - I've a feeling that anything I say about this film (and its audiences) is going to be unpopular, almost as if it's a personal attack on others on this site who like it.

I'll be brief. I feel the concept of entering dreams (in whatever form) is pretty silly. To be honest, the dream idea strikes me as a gimmick to which Nolan has attached lots of running around and shouting. To this extent I couldn't distinguish it from any other action movie with lots of running around and shouting. I also thought there was a lot of silly strutting masculinity. I had a 'so what' response to the effects (they're hardly groundbreaking). There didn't seem to be any development (of any kind). There was an awful lot of self-conscious overdone acting. I have a feeling that this is a veichle for LDC and Nolan's career. I feel Nolan is being disingenuous if he thinks (as I suspect he does) the film is anything other than a rollercoaster. I felt that the narrative (what there was of it) was burried in the (dull) action. In a way, and although I think the concept is silly, it might have been better served by a smaller film, and specifically one not tied to the action/adventure genre.

I feel contemporary Hollywood is on firmer ground with comedy (not all mind - plenty of that is juvinille too). I liked The Hangover (and await criticism for it!).

[Svevan]

Please don't try to tell me what I can and can't comment on.

Far be it from me to do so. We'll let the forum rules do that.

Don't troll. Don't post provocative statements just to get a response. If you need attention that badly, walk down the middle of a busy street. You'll get lots of attention. Also, if you don't like a film (or whatever the topic under discussion is), no one really needs you to comment on that fact and disappear. If you must post your disapproval in a thread, at least back it up with some reasoning.

You seem like an intelligent guy who may have something to say. But busting into this thread and saying that you're surprised we all like a film made "for boys" is trolling.

[Sheriff Chambers]

Svevan - I watched the film last night and while doing so my thoughts strayed to the audience and why we were watching such a dumb film. Yes, I wondered why we were watching. I couldn't figure out its appeal. Not trying to be provocative or offering dissent for the sake of it. Can't believe I've broken the rules. It's not a personal attack for God's sake. I'm afraid raising questions about who's watching and why is a reasonable point to raise, but I apologise if this wasn't within the appropriate parameters.

[knives]

Don't worry about people here throwing you back for disagreeing as long as you try to explain why you're doing such.
I guess I'll start with the part that I most strongly disagree with. I don't think this is a film at all about masculinity. The female characters are, going back to my Keaton comparison actually, are treated as humans, not necessarily women. This is especially true of Page's character who is one of the most fully, yet subtly characterized people I've seen in a Hollywood product of recent years. Everyone's already talked about her much better than I could though and I suggest you look at that here.
As for the effects, which i honestly couldn't care less about, I think that there is a so what treatment of them is refreshing. We don't ohh and ahh, it's just a part of life. As for every other criticism you bring up, I think that is just the meta part of the film. Nolan works up so many excuses to turn the film into a generic action film, Page's questioning about the killing of the mooks being the obvious example here, that it almost turns the film into a mechanical look at the separate parts to a modern action film. I just really love that I'm seeing a dramatic Keaton film I guess.

[Svevan]

My two cents:

I've read a lot of comments here and elsewhere complaining that dreams in this film aren't as elaborate or "out-there" as people had hoped/expected. However I was thinking about that, and I disagree with the premise. I don't see this as a film about dreams, or the nature of dreaming, at all, because the dreams in this film are not natural. They are all induced dreams, created for a specific purpose. So pretend for a second that your part of a group constructing dreams to steal information; Would you not want to keep the environment you're entering relatively simple, to make your task as simple as possible? I just don't see this as a film about the nature of dreams at all, but rather just a heist film, where Christopher Nolan has epped the ante into making it the most complex "safe/vault" ever".

I wanted to quote this person, first, for daring to take us back on topic, and second, because I agree with him (her/it). I'm repeating myself here, but I find the virtual reality and videogame connection to be much more apt than "dreams," and it puts the film in context: controllable worlds that are generally, but not permanently, bound to the laws of nature (as set up by the Architect). Knives' comment on the "meta" aspect is also in line with my thoughts.

[Sheriff Chambers]

Knives - I don't mean to treat your response briefly but I must sign off shortly and don't have time for a longer response. But I just want to clarify a point of mine that you have picked up possibly incorrectly. Masculinity – I too don’t think the film is about masculinity but, rather, think that it is presented to us as ‘masculine’ cinema (the suits, the obsession with activity – not just action). I suppose this is a politer way of saying it’s a ‘boy’s’ film (which I don’t want to say for fear of attracting criticism). Such cinema has no appeal for me. Also, I’m baffled by the interest in plot details and narrative development. I thought these were ridiculously serpentine for a film whose success would usually be built around clarity and economy. Perhaps it’s not a straight action film after all … But as I say, I did find this pretentious.

[Mr Sausage]

Not trying to be provocative or offering dissent for the sake of it.

Really? Then would you care to explain why you implied that I and Jeff, and Domino, and knives, and some others are a bunch of teenagers:

I really don't understand why anyone would think it's conceptually interesting (perhaps it might be for some teenagers)

Now, granted, you probably don't think we are literally teenagers. Just immature. Thanks for that.

Perhaps it’s not a straight action film after all … But as I say, I did find this pretentious.

When action films are straight-forward, they're called simplistic and dumb; when they're complex, they get called pretentious.

By the way, what exactly is Nolan's pretense, and on what basis are you presuming to know his intentions and motivations?

I suppose this is a politer way of saying it’s a ‘boy’s’ film (which I don’t want to say for fear of attracting criticism).

Then don't say it. Not all of us appreciate a gender being used as a by-word for negativity.

[Sheriff Chambers]

The use of 'boy's film' here acknowledges that some films are designed around (a perceived) gender-specific appeal and is not the personal attack you seem to think it is. Inception is not aimed at people in the 40 plus age range though anyone may, of course, enjoy it. This is not a criticism of any kind. I really wish you wouldn't respond in such a sharp manner. I've already apologised. I feel like I'm in the Criterion court accused of heresy.

[Brian C]

[Marcel Gioberti]

Is flame baiting tolerated here?

[Mr Sausage]

I sympathize with Brian C.

[matrixschmatrix]

I'll be brief. I feel the concept of entering dreams (in whatever form) is pretty silly.

That's a terrible criticism. This is you, the viewer, refusing to allow the movie its premise (why would you watch a movie whose underlying premise you reject?) and then criticizing the movie for having the effrontery to expect you to take it seriously. That's meaningless, and it's probably why your opinion is so 'unpopular' while other people's, negative and positive, are treated as elements of discussion.

[Grand Illusion]

As someone who found the film hit-and-miss, I didn't receive any real negative backlash when I posted my thoughts in the other thread. The tone of the original post is just ridiculous.

Also, when it comes to your standard Hollywood tent-pole (the only fiscal environment in which this film could be made), Inception, with its action sequences, CGI, and male protagonist, is much less a "boy's film" than most of the other releases coming out of the Hollywood Summer machine.

[lady wakasa]

I agree as well. I tried discussing this with someone who'd gone in waiting to see what Nolan did with dreams: it's not about dreams, it's about reality and what is / isn't (at least in my eyes). But she was too disappointed it wasn't a treatise about the dream state to get where I was coming from.

[zitherstrings]

Its CGI use is fairly minimal. Stuff like the hotel no-gravity fight was done without it (ala 2001's rotating ship jog).