Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

[FerdinandGriffon]

we live for public crucifixion.

Careful, Svevan, I'm sure Tark won't like the implicit blasphemy in your linking.

[premierseat]

Yes, I think a blockbuster is simply a movie that does well financially rather than one belonging to a particular genre. And although blockbusters may also be critical successes they probably aren't to the degree that they were 40 years ago - at the time of the new Hollywood and the emergence of a popular American auterist cinema. (However, we shouldn’t overestimate the success - both critical and commercial - of the auterist cinema of the early 70s, but there was a point when a less immediately commercial cinema was at least more visible than it is today.)

Going back to your point about 'art' - a very difficult concept to pin down - I think you (perhaps indirectly) raise an interesting point about more obviously commercial films (e.g., blockbusters) and art films (as opposed to the ‘art’ of cinema in general) in your discussion of Inception. For me, the problem with Nolan's film is that, stylistically, it operates as an art film, something which, it seem to me, is fundamentally at odds with the concept of the blockbuster, and, more generally, film designed for mass audiences, ‘arenas’ which the film’s distributors have clearly targeted. By ‘art film’ I mean its complexity around narrative, its hesitant and uncertain protagonist and its unwillingness to offer a straightforwardly comprehendible explanation of events. But, importantly, these factors are likely to have frustrated those critics who tend to view the film as mainstream product.

Of course, Hollywood cinema has taken on board art film styles and techniques (evident in films like Inception), but these have generally been contained by a desire to offer a, primarily, commercial cinema. And, I think, that where the emphasis shifts away from the commercial imperative and towards 'complexity' (a word I'll use to encompass the various functions of art cinema), the current climate in particular is, unfortunately, likely to be less favourable. This is evident not only in critical responses (here I am referring to professional critics which, to my mind, still determine the debate about particular films if not, necessarily, debates about the wider film culture) and responses in online communities such as this one. An account of this cultural shift would probably be too wide-ranging for this posting, but we can probably agree that there has been a shift in the terms I very briefly mention. Importantly, this shift also exists at the level of production, so a filmmaker with a clearly auterist agenda (e.g. Nolan) can present a problem for distributors, critics and audiences, and I think that the polarity in critical and audience responses to Inception is a reflection of this trend.

In a way, I feel that Nolan is seeking to achieve a kind of cinema for which his platform (mainstream commercial cinema) is not suited: the film’s art film style works against its commercial value. (A parallel could be made here with Coppola’s The Conversation; Coppola has – and does – function between the two worlds of cinema – conventional ‘entertainment’ cinema and art cinema – in much the same way that Nolan does. And, indeed, when one considers Hollywood in the late 60s and early 70s there was probably never the intersection between art and conventional/classical cinema that some critics seem to suggest.)

It seems to me that as long as Nolan’s film (and the work of other similarly ambitious filmmakers) operates as mainstream cinema it will inevitably encounter the kind of difficulties we have seen. Perhaps the problem with Inception (to get back on track) is its ‘platform’ and the arena in which it operates rather than its content, and I feel that Nolan may have misjudged this aspect of his film’s project. Indeed, much of its appeal seems to lie with a niche (though significant) audience – the followers of Nolan and a type of cinema that offers the ‘puzzles’ (the computer game analogy mentioned elsewhere is, I believe, a useful response to the film) that others have mentioned, an audience which, interestingly, quite often identifies itself ‘against’ the mainstream.

I’m not seeking here to evaluate Inception as a film, but instead its function (and the problems with this) which I think may, at least partly, explain the diverse responses the film has generated.

[Brian C]

I’m not seeking here to evaluate Inception as a film, but instead its function (and the problems with this) which I think may, at least partly, explain the diverse responses the film has generated.

I beg pardon, but I don't really know what you mean. It seems to me that the movie is functioning quite well in blockbuster terms, thriving during the summer despite not having the built-in audience that comic book adaptations or sequels typically enjoy. And even in terms of "diverse responses," I don't know if the responses to Inception are unusual or notable in any way. Many people like it, some people don't ... like a lot of movies. If anything, the response to Inception has been more favorable than "blockbuster" movies typically generate.

[matrixschmatrix]

Going back to your point about 'art' - a very difficult concept to pin down - I think you (perhaps indirectly) raise an interesting point about more obviously commercial films (e.g., blockbusters) and art films (as opposed to the ‘art’ of cinema in general) in your discussion of Inception. For me, the problem with Nolan's film is that, stylistically, it operates as an art film, something which, it seem to me, is fundamentally at odds with the concept of the blockbuster, and, more generally, film designed for mass audiences, ‘arenas’ which the film’s distributors have clearly targeted. By ‘art film’ I mean its complexity around narrative, its hesitant and uncertain protagonist and its unwillingness to offer a straightforwardly comprehendible explanation of events. But, importantly, these factors are likely to have frustrated those critics who tend to view the film as mainstream product.

Honestly, I think this view- which I realize is a pretty common one- as unnecessarily divisive and insulting to mass movie audiences. I think the idea that movies have to be simple, with straightforward narratives and characters, to succeed in the mass market is both demonstrably untrue and extremely harmful. I am delighted by the very things you're highlighting here: a big blockbuster movie (in either sense of the word) that is willing to trust that it doesn't have to play it stupid for the audience to follow. The money it's making is demonstrating that, at least when stylishly packaged, that assumption is correct.

I think critics who can't deal with a movie that asks its audience to engage with it anywhere but the arthouse are reinforcing the kind of people who have made Hollywood the crap factory it is so often accused of being, reinforcing the snobbish division between fun and art. It always makes me think of David Kalat's book on Godzilla, where he almost obsessively attacks that division- Godzilla and Kurosawa came out of the same studio, sharing actors, crew, and even some aspects of direction, yet somehow they are treated as though they are examples of totally different art forms. Sure, they're different, but branding one Art and the other Product does nothing to help elucidate how and why they are different, and I think that division is as unhelpful and artificial today.

[knives]

It always makes me think of David Kalat's book on Godzilla, where he almost obsessively attacks that division- Godzilla and Kurosawa came out of the same studio, sharing actors, crew, and even some aspects of direction, yet somehow they are treated as though they are examples of totally different art forms. Sure, they're different, but branding one Art and the other Product does nothing to help elucidate how and why they are different, and I think that division is as unhelpful and artificial today.

To further your point, don't forget that Kurosawa tried to get a Godzilla movie made on several occasions and was a great friend of Honda. In fact most 'art house' directors of yesteryear were studio run in much the same way Nolan is now. That sort of division people are trying to enforce would prevent all of the Hitchcocks, Lewtons, and Lubitschs of the past. If it's entertaining most people will go along with anything. We should be enforcing these big budget guys to do something personal with that entertainment.

[Svevan]

In a way, I feel that Nolan is seeking to achieve a kind of cinema for which his platform (mainstream commercial cinema) is not suited: the film’s art film style works against its commercial value. (A parallel could be made here with Coppola’s The Conversation; Coppola has – and does – function between the two worlds of cinema – conventional ‘entertainment’ cinema and art cinema – in much the same way that Nolan does. And, indeed, when one considers Hollywood in the late 60s and early 70s there was probably never the intersection between art and conventional/classical cinema that some critics seem to suggest.)

It seems to me that as long as Nolan’s film (and the work of other similarly ambitious filmmakers) operates as mainstream cinema it will inevitably encounter the kind of difficulties we have seen. Perhaps the problem with Inception (to get back on track) is its ‘platform’ and the arena in which it operates rather than its content, and I feel that Nolan may have misjudged this aspect of his film’s project. Indeed, much of its appeal seems to lie with a niche (though significant) audience – the followers of Nolan and a type of cinema that offers the ‘puzzles’ (the computer game analogy mentioned elsewhere is, I believe, a useful response to the film) that others have mentioned, an audience which, interestingly, quite often identifies itself ‘against’ the mainstream.

I’m not seeking here to evaluate Inception as a film, but instead its function (and the problems with this) which I think may, at least partly, explain the diverse responses the film has generated.

This is a retread that we've covered before. All this talk of "platforms" and "audiences." Gag. I find the attempt to pigeonhole "commercial" cinema vs. "art" cinema to be so wrongheaded and simplistic (borderline Noel Burch territory, yet a few lines of Robin Wood will discredit that approach).

Art cinema is "complexity around narrative, its hesitant and uncertain protagonist and its unwillingness to offer a straightforwardly comprehendible explanation of events?" I got a few Hitchcock, Dardenne Bros, Hawks, and David Gordon Green films to show you, all of which either represent simple art cinema or complex commercial cinema (and sometimes both within a single ouevre or a single film). I'm with Schmatrix here, this is a very arbitrary line. The main point from this poster seems to be that there are two types of audiences, A and B, and Nolan was trying to make a film for B while sprinkling in too much A, therefore the film is a failure. Yet watching it, as a fan of both Teshigahara and Michael Bay, I enjoyed it. I think most people here will admit to being fans of "commercial cinema," at least occasionally (okay, not Person); the line between that and "art" is invisible, non-existent.

[Sheriff Chambers]

dx23: I did say some things about the film, not much, but all I wanted to say at that point. How much or how little, either good or bad, am I required to say about a film before I can say I dislike it? I've already agreed that I may have been a little too direct in my initial approach but I did at least raise some points.

matrixschmatrix: It wasn't criticism, just my opinion (assuming that you weren't simply referring to my being critical of the film). I don't really know what you mean when you say ‘why would you watch a movie whose underlying premise you reject?' Do you think it necessary to accept or reject a film’s premise in order to watch it? Do we really watch films on this basis? If that were the case we’d have to avoid all sorts of films. I simply thought the concept silly (not necessarily a problem), but I did find it absurd that Inception was asking its audience to take it seriously.

[matrixschmatrix]

matrixschmatrix: It wasn't criticism, just my opinion (assuming that you weren't simply referring to my being critical of the film). I don't really know what you mean when you say ‘why would you watch a movie whose underlying premise you reject?' Do you think it necessary to accept or reject a film’s premise in order to watch it? Do we really watch films on this basis? If that were the case we’d have to avoid all sorts of films. I simply thought the concept silly (not necessarily a problem), but I did find it absurd that Inception was asking its audience to take it seriously.

It sounds as though you could not enjoy the film because you found the premise ridiculous, and you knew the premise going in- logically, then, you knew you would not enjoy the film going in.

[Sheriff Chambers]

I must think on this further.

[oldsheperd]

(has anything ever been labeled both pretentious and for teenagers?)

uh, well, Donnie Darko IS that, but in that case those may be positive qualities.

Everything Richard Kelly does is pretentious

[AWA]

Has anyone seen or heard about this Inception/Scrooge McDuck Comparison?

In the Scrooge McDuck comic book, "Dream of a Lifetime," the Beagle Boys use a contraption to enter into Scrooge McDuck dreams with only one purpose: extract the secret combination to Scrooge McDuck's vault. Sound familiar?

[matrixschmatrix]

It's kind of a cool coincidence- although the Scrooge thing came out in 2002, which is after Nolan's initial treatment.

[AWA]

It's kind of a cool coincidence- although the Scrooge thing came out in 2002, which is after Nolan's initial treatment.

Maybe the real secret here is Nolan is ghost writing Scrooge comics and trial running script concepts in them?

[domino harvey]

Who will play Flintheart Glomgold in the third Batman film

[John Cope]

Thompson and Bordwell's critique. Their appreciation of it is little surprise given their general sensibility. Still, for those thus inclined, it's a good read (and there is mention of the Scrooge McDuck thing, too).

[Mr. Ned]

Just saw this again and thought I'd give a few quick thoughts from the second time through:

Wow, some of the action scenes--especially the On Her Majesty's Secret Service-esque snow base infiltration--were beyond monotonous. I'm not sure if it's Nolan's lack of ability as an action director or if I just didn't like them because they detract from themes I'm more interested in, but sometimes they were boooooring.

The film's interlocking dreamscapes were much more cogent the second time through (not that they weren't before, but I was able to appreciate their relatedness a lot more after I knew what to expect). The plurality of the different layers was complex but never monotonous, each one with its own separate landscape and supervisor (not the member of the team whose subjectivity acts as foundation of the dream, but the member with objective responsibility for the rest of the party on that level, ie: Lewitt in Hotel, van driver, etc.) and the actions in one realm counteracting/effecting the others. One of the things I scrutinized this time around was whether or not each different dream represented a different sub-genre or video game genre and while each had their own stylistic flourishes representative of some console staples (besides various FPS games I sensed Hitman, especially in the opening scene with Saito) or singular movie none stuck out as vital constructs. Beyond the obvious inversion of the heist genre (inception instead of extraction), most motifs harkened to other movies in sensibility rather than direct reference: they feel like a James Bond movie or The Matrix, just like they feel like a video game, but never resemble any of those films in particular.

Speaking of video games, it's obvious Mr. Nolan has read his Deleuze. I definitely sensed a great deal of influence from Deleuze's insistent use of vitalistic allusion in his writings (what inspires true creativity, but more especially what hinders it), as well as the implications of the subject's immersion into plural worlds, be it art, video games, movies, literature, etc. Mal's final beckoning to Cobb in Limbo echoes some of Deleuze's more elegant criticisms of these ideas (you can traverse so many different planes it's as if you can choose your 'ultimate' reality). Granted, Nolan's (supposed) use of this is slight, to say the least, but I thought I'd bring it up. Many of the film's different themes--the emphasis on creation over perception, monomania, architecture of knowledge and the mind, the insistent refrains of familial motifs (home, children, lover)--all call to mind one of Deleuze's most prescient arguments, one that sometimes gets lost amidst his wheels-within-wheels exegesis, deeper than deep academia and complicated assemblages of Freud, Marx and Nietzsche: how does man create, and what is the basis of that creation? What hinders that creative spark, and how does one elicit inspiration in circumstances that encumber its true potential? Is creativity neurotic? Resistant/militant? Eclipsed altogether? That's a very basic reading, but shows Deleuze's emphasis on vitality as an important aspect to Nolan's main objective in the film: the purification of Cobb's perception of its varied neuroses so he can tap into that potential again--to take a ride on that "train that will take [him] somewhere" to new landscapes of experience, instead of ending up "an old man, filled with regret, waiting to die alone" in the stagnancy of memory. (but the use of memory is a whole other story)

That being said, I found the final moments of the film--from the group waking up in the water to the credits--to have an astonishingly curative property to it. Each character coming out of the water, seemingly born again, and then waking up in the plane, drowzy but nonetheless invigorated, to be a succession of events that bordered on holiness. One character mentions (I believe it's Cobb) at one point that the more tenacious and convoluted the relationship with a loved one (In Fischer's case, his father or, in Cobb's case, Mal) the more enlivened the final catharsis, and that idea is certainly put into play here. Stunning stuff, almost more so the second time through.

In spite of this, even though Nolan uses the Blockbuster framework and action sequences keeping its characters one-dimensional to his advantage, it's clear his usage sometimes cannot overcomes its pitfalls into cliche sometimes.

Spoiler

After Mal shoots Fischer in the snow base sequence, Mr. Eaves ruefully admits his disappointment and then nonchalantly says something to the point of 'well, at least now I get to go see my wife and kids.' Here, Nolan deliberately reinforces the fact Inception is Cobb's movie over everyone else's (but we already knew that), but also affirms some of the drawbacks of a narrative that centers around the catharsis of a single character (even if its completion needs a whole lot of different people and manipulations of time and space to get there). Imagine if Mr. Eaves--or, indeed, everyone on the team--didn't have such spotless and perfect family/personal lives that gave them a clear subconscious that was not dangerous. It's definitely a cop-out to make the plot more clear and geared towards the individual viewer, but imagine if it wasn't just Cobb's train running through the dreamscape but everyone's trains. Now THAT would've been crazy stuff.

All in all, I'm still a fan. It's still 4 out of 5 on the Netflix scale, but it's a real cinematic treat. All you's guys who are relentless in your shit-giving really need to lighten up and love the movie for what it is: a big and unabashed love letter to cinema, particularly the big-budget kind.

[John Cope]

An awesome takedown. Some of it seems a bit excessively negative to me (I didn't hate the film as this guy seems to have) but there are some very important arguments made here and its well worth contending with. The comments are valuable as well.

[Svevan]

That was terrible. Choice quotes:

Ever since the 1980s, it’s been the consummate gospel in Hollywood that if you want every last audience member to understand something, then you must repeat the info three times.

Ever since...the 80s?

It’s not really cinema at all, in fact: it’s an illustrated script.

It's...but it's not...what?

Here’s a list of more than fifty films dealing with memory or the unreal nature of reality, all of which are vastly superior to Inception...

Heard this argument before, and it's still lazy. For some reason, Charade, Amarcord, and The Beaches of Agnes are on that list.

Quentin Tarrantino, when he steals, is smart enough at least to do so from Howard Hawks and Jean-Luc Godard; Paul Thomas Anderson swipes from Kubrick and Scorsese. Nolan imitates George P. Cosmatos.

So...stupid...

And I kept thinking, my god, I have no idea how someone even begins planning to shoot a sequence like this, let alone shoots it, let alone figures out how to randomly intercut this footage into the film. So there’s a skill that Nolan really has—he and Michael Bay both—even though I regard it as a completely worthless talent.

I hate this man.

If you’d like to see a much better heist movie, check out The Asphalt Jungle (1950) …or Bob le flambeur (1956) …or—especially—Rififi (1955).

the Joker’s tricky bank robbery at the start of that film was cleverer and more thrilling than anything in Inception.

Wah...?

Inception is a pretty misogynistic film.

The folks who love this movie, who think it’s an instant classic, one of the all-time greats—this is what they think great filmmaking is: scenes of casual slaughter.

Combine this with the author's insistence that the scene of Ariadne's hesitance about shooting the dream people was pushed on Nolan by an executive, and you have a good ol' fashioned Catch-22. He then criticizes anyone who likes the "philosophizing" of the film. So, if you like the film's action sequences, then you like casual slaughter, but if you enjoy the ideas the film presents, then you're a pretentious git.

But the Matrix films, to their credit, are at least very stylistic...They have interesting special effects throughout—and the Wachowskis, admirably, kept working to one-up themselves as the trilogy progressed.

The best moment in the movie, I’d argue, hands down, is the one in the hotel dream, where Arthur tricks Ariadne into kissing him. It’s the only scene in the film that feels alive. (As a friend of mine said: “I bet it came from some on-set improvisation between Joshua Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page—and not from Christopher Nolan.”)

So that's the condensed version for anyone who wants to skip reading it (and I suggest you skip it).

[domino harvey]

It was such an intricate plan, how the Joker backed a bus into a building

[aox]

It was such an intricate plan, how the Joker backed a bus into a building

Well, I think the planning comes from the timing in terms of it seamlessly blending into the parade of school buses going by. I guess it is 3:30pm? I don't know when Gotham public schools let out.

[Svevan]

It's Gotham City, liberal stronghold, so I assume those kids are in forced labor and brain-washing until roughly 7 or 8 PM.

[aox]

I always assumed that Gotham was a Right Wing stranglehold since it relied only on philanthropy and charity (Wayne enterprises?), has terrible social programs which do nothing for the working class, underfunded police as a result (hence, the need for vigilantism), and is essentially controlled by the mob. Basically, a free market paradise.

[matrixschmatrix]

Gotham is basically The Wire's Baltimore with supervillains

[Svevan]

I always assumed that Gotham was a Right Wing stranglehold since it relied only on philanthropy and charity (Wayne enterprises?), has terrible social programs which do nothing for the working class, underfunded police as a result (hence, the need for vigilantism), and is essentially controlled by the mob. Basically, a free market paradise.

Sure, unless you're Christopher Nolan. In which case the underground mob is in league with the police and politicians, who tax the people for services they don't provide. Actually that may just be Batman altogether.

If vigilantism is a conservative response to a liberal problem, as I think Alan Moore argues, then it can't also be a conservative response to a conservative problem. Maybe that's too simplistic, and better for another thread.

[HistoryProf]

An awesome takedown. Some of it seems a bit excessively negative to me (I didn't hate the film as this guy seems to have) but there are some very important arguments made here and its well worth contending with. The comments are valuable as well.

if by "awesome" you mean "a review by a guy who aspires to be Armond White but isn't really smart enough" then yes, yes it is.