Inception (with implanted spoilers)

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.

With Ariadne, Nolan was probably mostly hoping it'd call forth the Theseus reference (+ you'd know how to pronounce it already coming in).

Fair enough, all good points.

But I guess it's worth asking if treating your characters that way can be in the service of pursuing a different kind of emotion...perhaps a "coldly intellectual" or detached one but perhaps pretty valuable considering how rare that is in movies.

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

don't know what that means.

lol whoever posted this is king or queen of the thread.

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.

"airy add knee"

Why do the rest of them do it? Simply for cash?

Wasn't there a 5 minute bit in the middle where Juno was all like 'f this' and Leo was 'she'll be back' and she was? I guess they are all addicted, but + cash and + no crazy ex wife fantasies, they don't yet see a downside to going in like leo or the bed ridden, especially if there is someone to pull them out?

xxxpost the film revolves around leonardo dicaprio and his tortured mind, his guilt, his longing, etc.--hypothetically, there is a cold intellectual way of exploring these conflicts, but INCEPTION doesn't attempt it.

thought this actually improved on second viewing

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.

idk man, they said her name several times, and it was a fairly self-conscious reference to the Greek myth of Ariadne helping Theseus escape a labyrinth. you could even use it as evidence to support the "it was all Cobb's dream" theory, because the symbolically named maze-maker was also the one who kept encouraging Cobb to work though his inner turmoil.

Yeah, I guess I'm just not up on my Greek mythology, so whenever they said her name I must not have caught it as her name. Isn't naming her Ariadne a little too on the nose? Regardless, she may as well been named Betty for all we know about her.

considering how much effort it took to explain it to u, I don't think you're really allowed to complain that it was too on the nose

I'm kinda into a big budget film maker using a greek mythology reference to further the thematic breadth of the film (she's leading him out of the psychological maze he is trapped in, she is also actually a maze-maker, etc) instead of just picking a greek name cause it sounds badass or cool or "meaningful," which is generally my experience watching blockbuster flicks.

anyway she served her purps, not sure what else id really want to know about her. this isn't like secrets and lies over here xp

What was she studying? Maze making? And why did she have no qualms instantly jumping into something illegal? And for that matter, why did Michael Caine have no problem recommending her for something illegal, especially working for the man many suspect of murdering his daughter?

I dunno. These are not important things, in the sense that they would not really change the story, but fleshing out characters helps me care about them as more than cogs and conveniences that serve their purpose. Part of the smarts of "The Matrix" is that many of the characters were literally cogs and conveniences that serve their purpose, but the absence of humanity was sort of that flick's gist.

think the only reaction to this chick being named ariadne is oh that's "meaningful"

"site:en.wikipedia.org mythology labryinth"

I just wanna know if cob blows up the prison ship or the ship with the innocent bystanders

i haven't seen this but

it's the kind of movie prized by the tarantinos of the world---its value is more instructional than it is artistic

seems wrong to me.. tarantino movies all swivel around ostentatiously "useless" human moments. his plots may be in a funny order but they're not machine-tooled befuddlement engines, they're just excuses for tarantino to deliver us "moment" after moment.

i think Sanpaku's posts on this thread are great. there is something terribly 90s about this, isn't there? those slick suits, "reality" "distorting".. it reminds me of Heavy Rain, which also came out this year.

(the posters and trailers i mean)

i have more time for DiCaprio than many people do but this from Sanpaku, while harsh:

DiCaprio still thinks squinting is an emotion

is sadly OTM

this film could easily have come out in 1999/2000. it feels pretty dated. apart from how it generally feels like a barrage in how it pummels you with cgi/spectacle/BIG IMPORTANT STUFF which is quite a modern blockbuster thing. josh in chicago otm.

it feels pretty dated. apart from how it generally feels like a barrage in how it pummels you with cgi/spectacle/BIG IMPORTANT STUFF which is quite a modern blockbuster thing.

so...

i mean, was ellen page even BORN in 1999? and people would have been like lol third rock.

"the film revolves around leonardo dicaprio and his tortured mind, his guilt, his longing, etc."

wish it did this more

I still liked this movie a lot, but when I read box office articles that start out like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/26/box.office.salt.ew/index.html

Yay moviegoers! You are rewarding the best-reviewed movies of the summer with your pocketbooks.

... I wish I didn't.

i mean, was ellen page even BORN in 1999?

if she wasn't, i'm going to have to spend a long time in confession

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6592eLBCp1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg

i used to get hopeful that interesting/ambitious movies (nevermind if they're even good) making a lot of money would lead to other interesting/ambitious movies getting made but that never seems to happen. at best it leads to someone like Nolan getting to basically do whatever he wants from now on.