Inception (with implanted spoilers)

so i take it ilx did what i did and didn't overanalysise this film, instead just treating it as a fun james bond movie for yr summer?

this is a really stupid zing imo

it's obviously not just a fun lil bond movie

but the people who say this kind of stuff -- i kind of wonder what movies they think don't deserve condescension

it really did hit every beat to make the internal logic work

Here's just one obvious question that, for me, collapsed any idea of "so beautifully crafted internal logic wow":

+ Why did Cobb have to "inceive" Mal with the falseness of their world?

Because according to him at the end of the film (in the limbo conversation on top of the building with Ariadne and Mal) she was so far gone into the shared dreamscape that said inception was the only way to get her to snap out of it.

The follow-through being Cobb's realization that Mal ended up thinking the real world was itself false -- inception can be successful but it can be too successful.

Because they were in limbo, and purposely building environments from memories and desires, so their understanding of whether it was real or a dream was blurring; Mal (consciously?) decided she preferred it 'down there' in beatific limbo, as it were, and hid her totem, intending to stay there forever, but Dom wanted to wake up and go back to the kids. So he planted the idea that the reality was fake, and sadly it stayed with her back in reality, so she was convinced she needed to wake up one more time. Of course, there is (circumstantial) evidence to suggest that they DID need to wake up one more time, and that she was right.

xposts

Saw it a second time last night too. It was on a smaller screen in a regular theater (saw it on IMAX the first time) and a lot of the dialogue was suddenly harder to make out and it did feel less impressive. I wonder if that has anything to do with anyone else's experience. It was still a fun movie however and the six people I saw it with who hadn't seen it before seemed to enjoy it and debated various elements of it on the drive back home. I've seen so few movies with people that actually get them talking about it afterward that this seems like a positive thing.

I think this thread is pretty key evidence for it being a very good film, purely for the amount of discourse about it.

this is a really stupid zing imo

it's obviously not just a fun lil bond movie

but the people who say this kind of stuff -- i kind of wonder what movies they think don't deserve condescension

― pieter brogel the elder (history mayne), Sunday, 25 July 2010 15:52 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Ok yeah you are right but this thread is gigantic and I just don't know whether there is really that much to talk about other than lol dreams.

I also saw it in a smaller/non-IMAX theatre and it didn't feeling as punishingly overwhelming on an audio level for kinda obvious reasons. If anything I caught a little more of the dialogue, and 'smaller' lines and acting moments stood out though at the same time that's probably down to having had seen it the one time already. My friend Matt was seeing it for the first time and was fully engaged with it, really liked it.

Saw it for the second time I should say.

she was so far gone into the shared dreamscape

This is what the film says but does it actually mean anything? M and C went to limbo together. M liked it better than C. But where does this lead to M forgetting limbo isn't real?

Mal already knows limbo isn't real. There's no need to inceive this. They both went there together.

One thing I noticed is that the opening scene is, I believe, different from that final scene with Cobb and Saito. Made me think that the whole movie was them attempting to mutually wake each other up (you've come to remind of something, let's enact this whole adventure to see if we can remember what).

Sean; she locked away her totem and made herself forget (or so Dom tells us).

On a modest screen the bass action was totally overwhelming, to the extent that I briefly considered we weren't meant to be able to make out all the dialogue. Found it amusing that this is the second Cotillard film in a row (after "Public Enemies") where the audio makes it tough to make out the exposition.

This is def. a good movie-movie. I guess the debate is whether it's in essence pretty middlebrow or (like "Being John Malkovich" or "Eternal Sunshine" or "Memento") more profound. I lean toward the former because, again, TOO MANY MACHINE GUNS!!!!

Still wondering about unexplored avenues in the film. Like, if there are (literally) underground dream dens (a la opium dens), then the practice is either widespread or illegal. Or both, since the drug abuse metaphors abound in this flick. Wonder what someone edgier, like Aronofsky, would have done with it.

Fucked it up, probably.

My idea for a hypothetical prequel, since everyone wants to know, involves the invention of the extraction practice and the subsequent invasion of Cobb's dreamscape, with the big reveal being that his two kids are merely disguised projections of the nascent inception concept that someone wants to steal. Or, even trickier, that his "kids" were hidden there via inception by someone, and a third party was trying to extract them. That would square a lot of the logic (as such) issues I have with this film.

Aronofsky, by the way, is two for three, and even then "The Fountain" counts as an ambitious failure rather than an abject failure. And for all his cold formalism, Aronofsky has a much better grasp of emotion and the human condition than Nolan.

OK, here's a proper flaw: if an architect/Page (does her character even have a name?) can alter her mazes/maps/cities in real time, even though it risks attracting attention, then why doesn't she do it to mess with the defensive machine gun toting projections, since they're under attack, anyway, and the mark already knows he's in a dream? No biggie; just another distraction.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l61pw0Kw5t1qcbjrjo1_500.jpg

Page's character is named Ariadne?!

Yup, she's introduced as such by Michael Caine's character.

One thing I noticed is that the opening scene is, I believe, different from that final scene with Cobb and Saito

Yeah, you're right, I caught that as well, a difference in dialogue but it's bugging me I can't remember exactly what now.

Meanwhile, take it as you will:

In the new issue of Entertainment Weekly, which features Inception on the cover, Nolan says that the metaphor for cinema developed organically as he wrote the script over a 10-year period. Cobb’s crew of mind-hackers don’t infiltrate people’s “real” dreams—they actually build ersatz dreams and place them inside people’s heads, in the same way moviemakers craft worlds that are transmitted into our brains via movie projector. Nolan explained that each member of the team serves a role that has a movie analog. The Architect (Ellen Page) would be the production designer. The Forger (Tom Hardy) would be the actor. The Point Man (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) would be The Producer. The Extractor (DiCaprio) would be the director. And The Mark (Cillian Murphy) would be us—the audience. “In trying to write a team-based creative process, I wrote the one I know,” says Nolan.

There’s actually a great deal more of Nolan in the film. Inception is also a reflection of his artistic life. The various dream scenarios are implied homages to his favorite movies (including 2001: A Space Odyssey) and filmmakers, including Alfred Hitchcock, Ridley Scott, and Michael Mann. He also says he can relate very much to his hero, Cobb, who is at risk of becoming lost in dreams and must fight to reconnect with reality and return to his family. “I can lose myself in my job very easily,” says Nolan. “It’s rare that you can identify yourself so clearly in a film. This film is very clear for me.”

Personally I would have thought that Saito would be the Producer but maybe he's the Executive Producer or Studio Boss. (But does that make Yusuf the Drug Connection?)

The one guy Arthur fights in the hotel hallway sequence = clearly Armond White. (That's Rex Reed later in the sequence hiding under the overturned cart.)

won the box office again.

I don't get people (fans) getting infuriated about poor reviews. If you really loved the flick shouldn't you just feel pity that dude didn't get out of it what you did?

well there are people who get aggravated over any negative review (which usually means they have some sort of inferiority complex and need to reassert themselves), but then there's also those who get aggravated over 'smug' bad reviews (a la Armond White that implicate audience members that like the movie). That I suspect is what ILX is on about (as well as me).

the Dr. Morbii of the world are merely amusing.

just for the record, it wasn't me who posted

I don't think the end says "it was all a dream" so much as "i used to read word up magazine"

but yeah, i wasn't at my best when i saw this film at 9.30am on a sunday (following 7am alarm call and confusing supertram journey, sheffield rip), which may explain why i completely failed to respond to it on an emotional level. but i stand by my basic criticism, which is that, in the absence of character development, credible drama, etc., the premise is just not interesting enough to sustain the entire film and the action is feeb. cf. eternal sunshine and most star trek episodes.

I feel like I'm the only person who thought the aspect of 'man feels psyche-destroying guilt over his wife's suicide' was interesting and touching and I LIKED that it was played very coolly and not overblown, or with Cobb's anguish becoming the whole focus of the movie (I mean, arguably it was, but not on the surface). I agree that a different actor could have brought more to it.
This is probably down to my own personality and dislike of how movies 'talk about feelings' generally, I admit.

What I didn't like about it was the implication that only Cobb had some horrible guilt or regret haunting him and endangering the team, whereas in real life everyone has something horrible lurking in their subconscious (which would have made the dreams more interesting than simply anonymous modern sprawling cityscapes). That and the fact that the relationship with his wife and particularly the kids is just totally glossed over. I know not being able to see the kids' faces is part of the narrative, but ... we don't even get to see the kids' faces. It was hard for me to care about what seemed no more than plot convenience ciphers grafted onto the shoot 'em up, even if we leapt to the "it's all in Cobb's head" conclusion.

BTW, was the wife the daughter of Michael Caine? That's sort of glossed over, too. If Michael Caine knows about extraction, and taught Leo, then surely he would have made a good character witness in defense of Leo. Unless, again, extraction is totally under the radar. But then why would people train their minds against extraction? Anyway ... all that stuff, totally glossed over in favor of relentless anonymous machine gun fire. Liked Scott's take on all the shooting int the Times review:

The conceit that they’re all dreaming takes some of the edge off the movie’s violence, since it’s hard to grieve for extras who are just “projections” in some else’s mental theater. On the other hand, that is pretty much what all movie characters are.

What I didn't like about it was the implication that only Cobb had some horrible guilt or regret haunting him and endangering the team, whereas in real life everyone has something horrible lurking in their subconscious (which would have made the dreams more interesting than simply anonymous modern sprawling cityscapes)

True, and up to a point I was expecting some 'twist' where another member of the team was either a mole or unwittingly endangering them through their own issues. That would have been a step too far, perhaps.

I think this thread is pretty key evidence for it being a very good film, purely for the amount of discourse about it.

STFU

that is a stupid stupid STUPID argument that makes no fucking sense and does nothing to absolve this film from its suckiness

xp
^ also one of my criticisms upthread, come to think of it :)

Leo wasn't allowed to know the layout of the dream designs because his messed-up psyche could try and interfere, so presumably all the rest of the team are 100% well-adjusted and psychologically 'normal'? Wasn't too sure about this.

BTW, was the wife the daughter of Michael Caine?

Yup, and Caine's wife, based on her being overhead in the phone conversation with the kids near the start, is French too based on what I could tell of the accent. It's not spelled out as you note but while Caine could argue for Cobb in court the unstated implication throughout is that extraction is indeed 'under the radar,' something that's known at a very high power-politics/research level, transnationally -- thus the idea that a number of high end targets could well be trained to resist it -- but is otherwise hidden in plain sight. It's glossed over because it doesn't really need extra explication, at base it's a fairly standard story device of what high-end politics/money/etc. could involve, and as I muttered upthread somewhere a big strength lies in the fact that this is NOT addressed in detail. Like the whole question of how Saito could 'fix' the charges against Cobb -- which the script itself points out is hardly assurable anyway.

Adding quickly to this -- consider, say, James Bond's car in Goldfinger. At the time, a gee whiz element is the 'location monitor' in the car telling you where you are in the world. This fails as a gee whiz device now because of technological advancements/the spread of GPS as a standard thing that's accessible worldwide. But at the time this device, while the audience would have rightfully thought 'well that's not real' is framed as real in the film and is accepted as such by the audience, because they're thinking, "Well, it's not real for me or anyone else in my life but a super-spy working for a national security force, why not?" And in turn that's because it's recognized as a fantasy film thriller, not a documentary. That's the way the dream technology here is working, along with all the attendant factors, something that isn't 'real' but has the veneer because we're talking about security teams for massive multinationals, not trying to find out if that jerk at the gas station has been shortchanging you.

that is a stupid stupid STUPID argument that makes no fucking sense

Why is it a bad argument? I think it's a legitimate argument about art that sparking discourse + discussion is part of the object's job. I guess you could have some extremist l'art pour l'art position about it, but it's not so insane to believe that creating discussion is something that can make a film important or interesting.

True, and up to a point I was expecting some 'twist' where another member of the team was either a mole or unwittingly endangering them through their own issues

First time through I was waiting to see who the mole would be, and was guessing Ariadne as a faux-naif student of the process. Turns out I was wrong and I'm kinda glad of that, really.

he didn't use that line to argue that it was "interesting" or "important," he used it to argue that it was a "very good film"

i was so happy JGL didn't end up betraying them all, was worried that was coming

I'm sure if he could've found the platonic very good film and compared and contrasted he never would've made such a mistake :P xp

What's odd is that JGL totally knows of Cobb's issues, and yet continues to go on missions with him. Again, what makes Cobb so uniquely qualified for these missions. When he needed a new Architect all he had to do was ask Michael Caine, who's all, I know just the right person, dude. I will continue to harp on this, but had Nolan cut, say, 15 minutes of mindless shooting and replaced it with five minutes of more speechifying, he could have easily filled a few of the more prominent holes.

Speaking of the Architect, the assignment of roles - Architect, Chemist, etc. - was yet another echo of "The Matrix," which I really do think did this much better over a decade ago, and with a vacuum cleaner as a lead, no less. Then again, "The Matrix" was smart in making its protagonist someone with nothing to lose, as opposed to someone who had lost everything. You care about Keanu's voyage because he's in over his head in something out of his hands. Leo, on the other hand, is a victim of himself, which makes him less sympathetic, esp. since he does not seem that interested in redemption. Also, why not just Skype with your kids, man? The future is now.

I actually felt a bit like you first time through in that Cobb's emotional trauma seems a little too removed on the one hand from any sort of real-life experience and on the other, accepting the rules of the film's universe, was trying to make me sympathize with someone who had done something pretty awful to his wife. That it worked for me more the second time through honestly surprised me a bit but as I say a bit upthread I think it was because I wasn't sure where everything was ultimately going to go and was trying to rush to a resolution -- the same way, say, that the first time I read a book I'm often *really* ripping through the final pages because I really want to know how it ends, dammit! Second time through, that pressure's off and then Cobb's dilemma and Leo's portrayal of him -- however much it grows out of a standard trope (guilt-ridden protagonist needs to reach a resolution) -- actually grew a bit, and some of the moments I had first thought were more melodramatic weren't as much that next time along. (The first encounter with Mal, for example, I had initially framed as a 'oh, that must be his opposite number working for Saito and she and Cobb had had a relationship before and that's going to be a source of tension throughout' thing. Again, turns out I was wrong! So watching that scene again with the knowledge of where it was going to go in mind meant paying a little different attention to it.

many xposts

saying that this movie "sucks" and "is bad" is emo challopy nonsense as far as i'm concerned. it may be emotionless and hollow, with flat acting, but that doesn't mean it's ~actually bad~. it is merely very, very competent. it's the kind of movie prized by the tarantinos of the world---its value is more instructional than it is artistic. the script's internal logic is pretty rigorous once you accept the initial, and crucial, deceit; the special effects, though extensive and show-offy, seem legitimately in service of the plot (though it is fair to say that the plot ~demands~ extravagant effects); the dialogue is so slavishly expositional that it's literally impossible for bad acting to sink it (what's there to sink?) and for exceptional acting to escape the constraints.

basically all of the technical aspects of the film are fucking dialed, right down to the acting. which is why it "sucks," i guess---the characters are there to provide animus to dreamscape set-pieces, not because they are real people we should give a shit about. so the whole enterprise is necessarily reduced to a technical exhibition. which is why the film is "instructional": it seems destined to be fetishized by young directors/writers/cinematographers/soundpersons/etc as a "great (or at least worthwhile) film" because it is pretty and well-crafted.

cf 14 yo me being blown away by The Usual Suspects, and later seeing the poster on the dorm room wall of a certain kind of dude.

xpost -- Also I'd have to disagree that 'he does not seem that interested in redemption' -- the film constantly foregrounds his desire to come back for the kids, and that his guilt is two-fold (causing his wife's death, abandoning his kids to run away). Where the redemption comes in is the one thing he can change in the real world, returning for his kids so they don't think he simply left them and became a distant voice on the phone. If he's fairly cold-blooded on one level in engineering that return via the 'leap of faith' offered by Saito -- "Hey, can you help one energy company combat another?" -- on the other the logic of the film's universe implies that there's simply no other way to return, and that he is prioritizing his interests and that of his children above whatever that energy company combat results in. Which sounds pretty human, really.

this isn't a movie about real ppl with real problems u can relate to. but I'm cool with that. a lot of great movies (many MUCH greater than this) aren't. worrying about whether liking this aligns u with the wrong kind of person with the wrong kind of poster on their dorm room wall is just... I dunno... kind of silly imho

what? i ~liked~ this slocki! i totally agree with you, just saying that the part of me this movie appeals to is precisely the part of me that loved the usual suspects and wanted the poster on my wall.

xxxpost i agree with lots of that--I've had much more nuanced conversations irl about this film's artistic problems over the past week; "THIS FILM SUCKS," while true, is my silly reactionary internet personality talking--but i don't think it's ok for a film to be solely 'instructional' (which explains my documentary tastes) and i certainly don't think this film needed to be 'instructional.' Post-DONNIE DARKO/DONNIE DARKO: DIRECTOR'S CUT analogy (which is OTM, btw), the film I keep comparing INCEPTION to is STRANGE DAYS, which also deals with weird futuristic mind travel and incorporates a concept sim. to 'limbo,' but is one million times better, in large part because Bigelow is a much stronger director--both technically and artistically--but also because Cameron cares about human emotions and characters (unfortunately he also cares about tidy Hollywood endings).

Yeah, exactly. Cameron (and Bigelow) care about people, not just cogs. That Cameron frequently gets lost up the tech specs of his ass is his Achilles Heel, but there are always characters to fall back on. Nolan specializes in the intimation of character, but while brooding implies a compelling depth it doesn't always convey it. For better or for worse. I've liked every Nolan flick, including this one, but I liked "Dark Knight" a lot better because (sort of like "Memento") its nihilistic tropes trumped its cartoon characters, who went about their brooding business like they had no choice. "The Prestige" features characters caught in the throws of compulsion as well, as does "Memento." "Inception" implies the act is compulsive, like drug addiction, but only Leo seems addicted. Why do the rest of them do it? Simply for cash?

As for Leo's redemption, I just don't see it. He feels guilty, but not so guilty he'd, say, martyr himself in jail to see his kids. The "final job" doesn't offer redemption, just a faked Visa home. Which I assume Leo could finagle some other way.

i dont really find "cares about human emotions and characters" to be a particularly compelling reason to rate one director or film above another...but i think you'd have to have a pretty narrow idea of what constitutes human experience to say that Nolan doesn't care. I'd say most of his films have a qualitative emotional core (much the same as Kubrick's movies do...)

Oh, he totally cares (as did Kubrick, as does Mann). But I'm not entirely sure Nolan cares about these particular characters more than he cares about the set pieces, and when he acts like he does it comes off false and incomplete (which is why to my mind the dead wife gambit rings sort of perfunctory, and the kids a convenient but oddly passive plot propeller). The team in "Inception" is mostly a vessel for portentous exposition, with each member allotted the barest of motivation/backstory, etc. And again, I know what her name is now, but damned if I can even pronounce Ariadne, which shows how much weight even a proper name carries in this anonymous world.