Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

[Gropius]

This one goes out especially to you, mfunk. Matt Zoller Seitz describes Steven Boone's review as 'the most original and passionate pan of "Inception" I've read, and definitely the only one that moved me'.

Some of that review's criticisms - of the slickness, the Bond-isms - are justified from a certain angle, but personally, having seen the film yesterday (and as no Nolan fanboy), I largely agree with the defences of Domino and co. Reviewers who complain that the dream scenarios could have been more Freudian and surreal, or that the characters could have had more emotional 'depth', are surely missing the point of Nolan's intentions.

I think his main strength as a director is a certain cool rationalism, the ability to marshal complex plot events without stopping to layer on any excess Hollywood sentimentality, although the flipside of that is that the scenes that are supposed to be emotional can seem forced. Another arguable weakness (not so surprising, perhaps, in a literature graduate) is a tendency to structure his films tightly around the script, so that the visuals are rarely allowed to 'breathe' independent of the dialogue for more than a few seconds. Yes, one can look at the frenetic cutting and frequently bland mise-en-scène and think 'Well, Lynch/Tarr/Weerasethakul/Tarkovsky/Buñuel/Vigo/Méliès/etc would have made this look so much better', but that would be pointless, because none of them could have made, or would have wanted to make, this particular film. As blockbusters anno 2010 go, it's the best in the class.

Oh, and I second the praise for the non-reduction of Page's character to a love interest. Still far too much chronic sexism in the industry, and Nolan makes a small step for feminism here. Typical that I search YouTube for promo interviews and find Page being interviewed by the rather obnoxious Craig Ferguson, who immediately asks her 'So, do you have a boyfriend?'.

[AWA]

So I watched this tonight and while I enjoyed it, I think I need to see it again to iron out some details I might be missing. Unfortunately the theatre I saw it at not only didn't project it properly but also the sound mix was terrible.... some of the quieter dialogue was drowned out in bassy soundtrack, and maybe it's like that everywhere... unfortunately, the city I live in has zero standards for this sort of thing so I'm fortunately going to be able to see it in Toronto this coming week as I'm visiting there for a few days. Maybe that will provide me with an enlightening experience.

As for the film:

Spoiler

Unfortunately, I saw the ending coming a mile away... suspected it when the spinning top was introduced and was absolutely positive it would end on that spinning top shot to leave the viewer questioning if he's still dreaming or not.

Kind of funny to think the whole movie consists of Leo being a professional, expert sleeper and is hired to nap with people.

I also agree with mfunk that Charlie Kaufman, and specifically Eternal Sunshine, has done this all before and much better / meaningful / personal. But as far as a Hollywood movie goes, this is one of the best I've seen in a while and I can appreciate the fact that Nolan might be one of the last working hopes to actually set a higher standard for Hollywood hacks to have to aspire to rather than the annual tinsel town tradition of seeing who can lower it even further every year with more mindless, idiotic ham-fisted nonsense. For that, Nolan has my respect and I hope he continues to kick some mega-millions arse in the process.

Some of the criticisms I, and obviously many others, had of Nolan's work before still remain... some of the action sequences were cut together so fast they made zero sense. Maybe I'll have a better understanding of it next time, but that battle in the snow ... what on earth was happening there? I couldn't figure out why they had split up and did they just introduce the monster-truck snow mobile towing a bunch of gun totting nobodies to blow them all up? What the hell was all that shit? Maybe I'm just getting old and them whipper snappers' MTV cutting is just too much for me. Oh well. Despite the fact I couldn't figure out the purpose behind that, I still seemed to follow the rest of the film and what really mattered ok.

Having read all the mystery black boxes here, it is hard to add much more... however one thing I kept thinking about, and I'm not sure what it all adds up to, is how much drug (heroin / opiates mostly) culture touchstones were used throughout the film. The entire movie was like following some drug runners, but in place of drugs it was dreams. You had everyone hooking their arms up to IV type tubes, Yusuf's character is introduced running what amounts to an opium den in his "business" (which makes enhancers, more or less), you have people getting their "dream" on that have to be watched over while they're on it... etc. And much like being on hard drugs, everyone is really only out for a little bit but the experience is so powerful everyone confuses it with reality and wants more. Hell, that's how Page's character even enters the plot... despite the fact she's repulsed by the idea, once she's had a taste she's hooked and Leo doesn't even bother putting forth one ounce of effort to change her mind... he knows she's had a taste and repulsive or not, she'll be back for another fix. The traumitizing life-view-altering side effects of the "trip" in the mind of Mal and Cobb's characters (which was basically nothing more than an extended afternoon nap) is very much in line with people who've taken hard drugs (acid, peyote, heroin, whatever) and can never reconcile reality with the altered perspective they experienced ever again... to sometimes tragic results (in this film's case, Mal, who

Spoiler

goes bonkers and jumps to her death thinking she'll return to her dream land if she does. Junkie logic 101.

Of course, just as easily that metaphor could work for people hooked on complex video game worlds or the Internet or whatever. Not entirely sure what that adds up to, but I had a really hard time ignoring that aspect of the film as it kept reappearing again and again, stronger and stronger throughout the film. Maybe it's just as simple as Drugs Is The Bad, Don't Do It Kids. Perhaps others here will be able to provide other ideas on that.

Nolan also touched on numerous cinema history points throughout this, and did so skillfully... the blindfold masks and wires of La Jetee to the

Spoiler

traumatizing repeated haunting memory of watching someone fall to their death ala Jimmy Stewart in Hitchcock's Vertigo with the Mal suicide scene

, plus hues of Solaris, Charlie Kaufman, The Matrix, etc etc.... could be the post-post modern Tarantino in that respect, that he doesn't do these homages with any sense of irony or pastiche.

Overall though, for a Hollywood movie, it was very good and I enjoyed how it kept the shoot 'em ups and ka-booms in perspective with a tense, taught psychological makeup that was omnipresent throughout the film. Ellen Page's character especially - not being reduced to a love interest with puzzling surrogate-wife coitus or whatever... plus Nolan was smart enough to keep having her ask the important questions, even if (as someone mentioned previously) that became sort of a routine and made her into a mouthpiece for the audience's questions.
Leonardo is a damn fine actor - I've had this opinion for quite some time, but for Hollywood types he has proven to me again and again what a remarkable talent he is. I think this and Shutter Island should put to rest any further doubts as to his ability to be a serious actor capable of handling difficult roles. Imagine how unwatchable this would have been with Tom Cruise in his place (oh wait... you *can* find out by watching Vanilla Sky).

And because I'm such a Woody Allen nerd, nice to see Jeffery Kurland doing more good work these days.


ETA: I also found the duel reflexive joke where Page questions Leo on shooting all the people in Fischer's mind, asking if that's messing with his memory... "no, their just projections".... projection/film ... joke... har har. Yeah....

[wattsup32]

This one goes out especially to you, mfunk. Matt Zoller Seitz describes Steven Boone's review as 'the most original and passionate pan of "Inception" I've read, and definitely the only one that moved me'. I have yet to see the film though so I can't personally testify to this review's accuracy. Still, he nails some of Nolan's shall-we-say characteristic idiosyncrasies.

Is Armond White writing under a pseudonym? Except that the sentences are readable, the Boone review has all the hallmarks of a classic White review.

This wasn't my favorite of Nolan's, but I liked it enough to still be thinking about it. My issue with Nolan's score isn't the mix as most people suggest. Instead, I dislike what the constant score does for the pacing of the film and the emotional depth. The score rushes the film along. It constantly drives the film to be further along than it is at any given moment. That drive to be elsewhere in the film leads the viewer to believe that where they are is of little importance, or at least, it's not as important as where they might be next. Because the score is urging the viewer to hurry up and get to the next scene, the dialogue reads like plot synopsis instead of character development. There's no time to assess why what's being said is important to a character or how it might provide insight into his emotional state.

There is little emotional depth because of the score. What little there is, I have the sneaking suspicion, would be deeper if Nolan treated what was being said as more important than what song was playing while it was being said.

[swo17]

But, other than that, you'd agree that it's the best film ever made, right?

No, only the third.

[Finch]

I thought it was a fascinating and often riveting film but it lost major points for Hans Zimmer's noisy, incredibly aggravating score (which succeeded not in adding suspense or drama but on the contrary in taking me out of the film: this needed a composer on a different level to Zimmer's) and scenes bogged down by too much exposition/explanation of the dreamscapes and causality within them ("A triggers B" etc). I think Nick Schager makes a fair point in his Slant review (http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/pos ... f=7&t=9771" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) when he calls Inception "instruction manual cinema". I would have liked the film to develop more along the lines of the excellent early sequence where Ariadne is introduced to the dreamscapes and walks with Robert through the dream city that constantly changes (shades of Dark City there).

Ultimately, while it shares the same flaws (too much exposition), I find Shutter Island the superior film dealing in the same tropes

Spoiler

(disturbed male protagonist struggling to come to terms with loss of loved ones caused by unstable wife)

[AWA]

Also... a couple other things I forgot to mention last night... having started on the script 8 years ago, I can't imagine Nolan did so without having seen Waking Life either, considering they both share the theme of lucid dreaming (and at times being unable to determine dream from reality). There is also much talk about how the difference in time in dreams vs real life is, the last 5 minutes of brain function being, theoretically, an eternity, etc.

And having re-read some of the other comments here, I also wonder what this film has to say outside of a complicated "puzzle box" - what the heart is. For such a complex dream world that Nolan has created, not once do we get any kind of reference to what involvement, if any, "God" has to do in all of this... in fact, it's possible the theological proposal here is that infinity is not outside / above us but rather within, these characters have harnessed the ability to create their own worlds within which can last forever (or simply hyper-extend one's actual life). I also was reminded of Kierkegaard's realms of being (especially when Mal was pleading to take a "leap of faith"). Sci-Fi Soren? Very existential in that respect, to literally be capable of constructing a world / meaning for yourself from within.

[Svevan]

Spoiler

I think the drug use connection makes this inward searching via dreams inherently dangerous, in the point of view of the film - this isn't a lark, it's a scary proposition. One can get lost for an eternity inside your own brain, and even if you plan to spend years in a dream with someone you love, doing things you love to do, it can still have adverse effects. Reality, after all, is what Cobb is searching for (whether he actually achieves that reality or a Solaris-inspired fake version of it) and reality is the only truly "safe place" in the film. To me, the film presents an existential dilemma between a world of endless possibilities, both good and bad, and the real world. The ending seems to present an alternative right in the middle of that dilemma.

[Fiery Angel]

But, other than that, you'd agree that it's the best film ever made, right?

No, only the third.

Awesome. It's in good company.

[Sloper]

My issue with Nolan's score isn't the mix as most people suggest. Instead, I dislike what the constant score does for the pacing of the film and the emotional depth. The score rushes the film along. It constantly drives the film to be further along than it is at any given moment. That drive to be elsewhere in the film leads the viewer to believe that where they are is of little importance, or at least, it's not as important as where they might be next. Because the score is urging the viewer to hurry up and get to the next scene, the dialogue reads like plot synopsis instead of character development. There's no time to assess why what's being said is important to a character or how it might provide insight into his emotional state.

Haven't seen the film yet and am avoiding spoilers, so sorry if this has already been said... But it's sad to hear (from Mr Finch as well) that Zimmer's score has all the same flaws as the one he did for The Dark Knight. I had really hoped that Nolan would use David Julyan again, as he has done for all his films except the Bats. Julyan's scores for Memento and Insomnia (and The Descent, for that matter) are some of the best I've heard in the last ten years, and I'd have thought his style would have been ideally suited to a film largely set in dream landscapes. The word 'haunting' is so overused, but it applies very well to Julyan's music, and he does such a wonderful job of evoking the characters' emotional state, during action sequences as well as during moments of inertia. Zimmer, on the other hand, is a clever but shallow Hollywood blockbuster man, and as wattsup says that means hurrying the film along to the next set-piece rather than investing in what's actually happening or being said. I can only imagine this decision was made under pressure from the studio. Nolan can't possibly think that Zimmer's 'POUND, duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, POUND, duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh' style is actually more evocative than Julyan's; but I guess it sells more tickets, and especially more soundtrack albums.

[flyonthewall2983]

I don't have much issue with the score, other than it does seem to be more strong in places where it would be more effective without it. I do agree that Julyan would have been a better choice, or even James Newton Howard on his own because he can do a lot with a little as well (his wonderful Michael Clayton score comes to mind). As for the score itself, it's kind of a throwback to his earlier scores where the synths were more present, than say the Batman movies. But it's not as in-your-face as some of his stuff he did for Simpson/Bruckheimer back in the day.

[John Cope]

I had really hoped that Nolan would use David Julyan again, as he has done for all his films except the Bats. Julyan's scores for Memento and Insomnia (and The Descent, for that matter) are some of the best I've heard in the last ten years, and I'd have thought his style would have been ideally suited to a film largely set in dream landscapes. The word 'haunting' is so overused, but it applies very well to Julyan's music, and he does such a wonderful job of evoking the characters' emotional state, during action sequences as well as during moments of inertia.

Totally agree with this. Julyan's Memento score is one of my favorite ambient albums. It's just incredible; his mood setting abilities really are second to none.

Zimmer, on the other hand, is a clever but shallow Hollywood blockbuster man, and as wattsup says that means hurrying the film along to the next set-piece rather than investing in what's actually happening or being said. I can only imagine this decision was made under pressure from the studio. Nolan can't possibly think that Zimmer's 'POUND, duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, POUND, duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh' style is actually more evocative than Julyan's; but I guess it sells more tickets, and especially more soundtrack albums.

I actually didn't mind Zimmer's Dark Knight score at all. Its propulsive bombast felt right to me. Subtlety would have been inappropriate. But come on, Sloper, you can't really want to dismiss Zimmer that easily. What about his Thin Red Line score (another absolute masterpiece)? The tone of his Nolan work, I suspect, was forged very much in direct collaboration with Nolan. In other words, it's what Nolan wanted.

[knives]

I'd say it's okay musically, but is used terribly. It's better than in TDK, but is still rather aggravating in some of its more obvious spots. the way it is used brings the film down excessively and is the only part that seems outright manipulative from an emotional standpoint.

[flyonthewall2983]

On it's own, it's quite good.

[Zombie-Luv]

Just got back from seeing it and I have come to a conclusion on Christopher Nolan: He isn't a filmmaker; He's a magician.

[Stagger Lee]

Spoiler

Unless I am misunderstanding something, it appears that both times that a character must be rescued from "limbo," the dreamscape of limbo is Cobb's deep subconscious. Is this a final confirmation of the film being entirely Cobb's own dream? Actually, the observation above about Cobb's daughter's voice on the phone is pretty definitive itself.

Why were they unable to "kick" Watanabe out of the dream when he is first shot? Because a kick has to come from a level above, it seems. But then why could Page kick herself out of Cobb's house at the end? Death while dreaming under sedation apparently drops the individual into limbo, but death in limbo appears to be the only way to revive to the waking world. So maybe she was killing herself rather than trying to initiate a kick. But then she should have revived in the plane immediately after plummeting to her death, rather than in each successively shallower layer, correct?

Anyway, this movie was a blast.

[mfunk9786]

Just got back from seeing it and I have come to a conclusion on Christopher Nolan: He isn't a filmmaker; He's a magician.

Oh, come on. Anyone can be a magician with enough of a budget.

[knives]

They also have to have a love of peas.

[HistoryProf]

returned from this a bit ago and have been reading the big black boxes here to see if anything could push me towards a definitive feeling on the conclusion...and the answer is nope!

I will say that it wasn't the best choice of the first movie to see in a strange town where I have moved ahead of my family and will be alone for some months while our house sells - i've been here a week on my new job but know no one longer than that here, i.e. a bit in an unreality to begin with. I found myself grasping at the Hy-Vee i'd been too twice already before getting back to the apt. I've rented, where my pile of B&N purchases anchored me and pulled me back. I even asked the person next to me, only half jokingly, "*this* is real, right?" as the lights went up. Someone earlier mentioned a concern that some might take drastic actions of self-destruction by the ideas of this film, and I can definitely say it was a bit of a mindfuck that had me wondering the same. It engendered a profound sense of detachment that wasn't easy to shake. That said, it was also a hell of a lot of fun, and I don't think i've ever so palpably felt an audience exhale at the cut to black ending of a film...it was like a weight was lifted by the lights and everyone was uncomfortably giggling and holy smoking each other as they walked out. Good stuff. For spoilerized points:

Spoiler

*I was initially in the "it was real" camp, but now i'm not so sure. As for Michael Caine's presence, my initial thought was that DiCaprio says before boarding the flight that "i'll either have my life back or go to prison the rest of my life when we land." Thus I figured he had called Caine and told him the same, so he was there to meet him and see which it was, and if it was good then take him home to his kids. But i'm a rather gullible guy when it comes to stuff like this, so I tend to fill in holes like that pretty easily. That was my initial reaction though that seems perfectly logical to me.

*I just kind of think that if it *was* all a dream, then it cheapens the experience and I want it to be more than that. It's too easy to do that....too matrixy. If it's all a dream, then I just don't think it works as well. But i really don't know what to think...as the camera cut away I was really anticipating the top falling, and certainly noticed a couple of skips or hesitations or whatever that suggested it was about to, at least to me. I wonder what that says about the viewer: are certain personalities more inclined to WANT it to be real or a dream? It's an interesting exercise I think.

*Ellen Page was fantastic: I echo all the positive comments and add an AMEN! her character was easily the best in the film, and while I was skeptical of her taking it on she fit perfectly within the worlds Nolan creates. The exposition of the landscapes within the dreams between her and Leo was the best part of the film...expertly crafted and with the perfect balance of explanation and her challenging the boundaries Leo was setting. The mirror bit as he watched on in amazement was genius.

*I can't begin to pick apart the ramifications of some of the rules in play with the conclusion that it was a dream. the only one that really had me wondering was the previously mentioned Leo still in the van thing. but then if I try to think that through we start getting into brainmelting categories of infinite layers of the universe and shit and I can't deal on a Sunday night. I guess I'm comfortable with it being reality, or Leo's reality. The kicker for me was Cillian Murphey's glance of recognition as Leo walked by - as though he noticed him again, and connected that the reason he was in HIS dream was because of their short interaction on the plane...which is, of course, precisely the kind of weird connections our brains make in dreams all the time. That moment above all said reality to me. but it's obviously meant to be inconclusive to keep the black boxes rolling on forums, so who knows.

[HistoryProf]

oh, and this is now my second favorite movie about dudes infiltrating dreams behind the masterpiece that is Dreamscape.

[HistoryProf]

This one goes out especially to you, mfunk. Matt Zoller Seitz describes Steven Boone's review as 'the most original and passionate pan of "Inception" I've read, and definitely the only one that moved me'. I have yet to see the film though so I can't personally testify to this review's accuracy. Still, he nails some of Nolan's shall-we-say characteristic idiosyncrasies.

I love boobs perhaps more than any living human, but I can't believe he included the lack of nudity in his initial criticisms of Nolan's dreamscapes. That's patently ridiculous, and like Sausage mentioned, merely complaining that his dreams aren't yours. Having seen the film I really don't consider that review much above 'hater' level given the jabs at Dark Knight and ludicrous comparison to R. Kelley's Trapped in the Closet. stupid. And, dare I say, annoyingly Armondy.

[matrixschmatrix]

Spoiler

*I just kind of think that if it *was* all a dream, then it cheapens the experience and I want it to be more than that. It's too easy to do that....too matrixy. If it's all a dream, then I just don't think it works as well. But i really don't know what to think...as the camera cut away I was really anticipating the top falling, and certainly noticed a couple of skips or hesitations or whatever that suggested it was about to, at least to me. I wonder what that says about the viewer: are certain personalities more inclined to WANT it to be real or a dream? It's an interesting exercise I think.

Spoiler

That's the major reason I prefer to take the ending as real- I think it makes a much stronger emotional arc for DiCaprio's character if he is a man trapped by guilt and tragedy, manages to let that go, and can return to a normal life as a result of that- if you make Cotillard's character correct, then DiCaprio is running away from reality rather than accepting it in that choice. That feels... hollow, to me.

If you look at Nolan's filmography, his characters are plagued by obsession- and the Prestige and Memento show the horrible emotional and physical damage obsession can cause. In Inception, you have a character who manages to let go of his obsession- it would seem out of place with Nolan's themes to conclude that it was the wrong choice.

Besides, if the ending really is DiCaprio retreating into his own head, the character arc is almost totally indistinguishable from Shutter Island.

[HistoryProf]

Spoiler

Unless I am misunderstanding something, it appears that both times that a character must be rescued from "limbo," the dreamscape of limbo is Cobb's deep subconscious. Is this a final confirmation of the film being entirely Cobb's own dream? Actually, the observation above about Cobb's daughter's voice on the phone is pretty definitive itself.

Why were they unable to "kick" Watanabe out of the dream when he is first shot? Because a kick has to come from a level above, it seems. But then why could Page kick herself out of Cobb's house at the end? Death while dreaming under sedation apparently drops the individual into limbo, but death in limbo appears to be the only way to revive to the waking world. So maybe she was killing herself rather than trying to initiate a kick. But then she should have revived in the plane immediately after plummeting to her death, rather than in each successively shallower layer, correct?

Anyway, this movie was a blast.

I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly,

Spoiler

that was a result of the specialized sedatives they were using...which took them much deeper into sleep and therefore did not work by the normal rules.

[HistoryProf]

I really need to see The Prestige. I apparently chose wrong by watching The Illusionist that year instead.

[mfunk9786]

The Prestige sets the viewer up for a dazzling conclusion and leaves them banging their head against the wall. But it's absolutely compelling for 90% of its running time, which is far more than I can say for The Illusionist.

[knives]

I'd say it's compelling for 100% of its run time and is , as I've stated already, for myself Nolan's most successful film.

Spoiler

Funny that things being a dream as a way of cheapening the movie has been brought up. I was talking with a guy on an other board about that very thing, so I suppose I'll just cap that. He was talking more about the urgency in regards to Fischer's situation, but I think this applies just as well to Cobb's.

I don't think the urgency of the mission would be gone though. This is getting real meta, but just because something is not real doesn't mean it shouldn't warrant suspense if it deserves it, sort of like a movie. The characters may be characters, but if they've earned your sympathy does it matter whether they are real or not? I suppose this interpretation makes the film in part about film. If you're happy with your reality does it matter if it is a dream when it is the only reality presented to you? The stuff with Mal works to this end. She became because of the inception so worried about if this is real that she didn't stop to appreciate what was in front of her face, real or not.