the m0vie blog

Does the dreamer dream the dream, or the dream dream the dreamer? Nolan’s Inception somehow finds a way to cram a year’s worth of philosophical questions and big ideas into a two-and-a-half-hour epic which seems fleeting even with that runtime. Indeed there’s so much on offer at this cinematic banquet that I feel I need a second helping to fully savour the flavour. I can see Inception being divisive film – between those who feel it somehow is somewhat conceited and not as clever as it would have you think (many of whom, for example, may focus on the movie’s ending – some may even have honestly claimed to call it) and those who favour a movie which intelligently poses all manner of questions for it’s audience, believing answers – like dreams – are subjective and personal, and to offer or share them is a recipe for disaster. I am firmly in the latter camp.

Mind- (and corridor-) bending...

The defining image for Inception is the circle. Illustrating how the mind processes and creates information within dreams, Cobb draws a circle. Asked to offer a challenging maze, his archetect offers a a circle instead of the conventional square. The archetecture of the mind is repeatedly demonstrated with the image of MC Escher’s stairs brought to life, a closed loop always heading upwards – a physical impossibility. Even the film itself is structured as something of a circle. Nolan returns to the non-linear style of storytelling that he has used for every film save The Dark Knight. The film is the inverse of the stairs – instead of always heading up until you reach the start again, the film goes down, deeper and deeper.

The film suggests that balance is the key. Dreams allow us to sustain ideas – physical ideas like structures, but also emotional constructs – that could never exist in real life, and never should. They allow us catharsis, a chance to balance it all in a way we can’t in life. There’s a reason the film offers us the image of a perpetually spinning top, which capsizes in reality (but in the dream it can spin perpetually).

I haven’t offered a plot synopsis, and I don’t intend to. I made an effort to see the film unspoiled, and I think it was the better for it. Besides, a dream is no fun if you can see where it’s going.

Here Nolan continues the exploration of the creative mind, hinted at throughout his work (his filmography is populated with characters that shape and mould their own world, from Batman’s conviction to do what he does by blaming the criminal rather than himself for the loss of his parents (“my anger outweighs my guilt”, reinforced by Alfred, “It was all him, Master Bruce”) to Leonard’s desire to remember things a certain way to make him a hero of a certain story). Here it’s the archetects of the dream who stand in for the artist, in a way which consciously mirrors the use of magicians in The Prestige. Of course, the characters have different goals (although both Cobb in this film and Borden (and possibly Angiers as well) in The Prestige are practiced in the art of self-deception, suggesting none of them truly comprehend the creative process they harness), each of them is a dealer in illusion, a salesman of the fact but magnificent. Both reflect the artist at work, though here Nolan is arguably much more cynical about the dreamsmith, for whom the act of creating is inherently selfish, at both a conscious (he’s a thief) and subconscious (he has some stuff to work out) level.

What’s more fascinating is the deft hand with which Nolan suggests uses ideas as a storytelling device (a macguffin, even, to quote the great Hitchcock), in a movie filled with great ideas. Indeed, the title – defined within the movie as putting a thought into someone’s head without them really realising you’ve done it – could just as easily be a mission statement for the film, which is sure to leave me pondering many a metaphysical quandry over the next few days. Indeed, there are several suggestions throughout the film (and it’s my own pet theory), that the movie itself is Nolan’s attempt at inception within the American popular consciousness – the movie is really just a collective dream shared by all us movie-goers. But I think I might be waffling here.

The film is awash with great ideas...

I don’t know. I need to see it again to fully process it, and probably will next weekend with the better half, who adored it. I can see the movie generating many heated debates (in fact, I look forward to it), but I want to see it again to soak it in. By the way, the better half loved it even more than I did.

Technically, the film is magnificent. You’re unlikely to see a film which looks or sounds better this year. The special effects are wonderful, as are the set pieces. Every single dollar spent on this movie is on the screen, and even with it’s phenomenal budget, it still feels well spent. I hope I don’t spoil anything by suggesting it has possibly the most innovative fight sequence since The Matrix.

The cast is amazing. DiCaprio is a great lead, but Nolan skilfully surrounds him with an assorted bunch of thespians who manage to make fully formed characters out of small supporting roles. Ken Watanabe and Cillian Murphy in particular benefit from promotion, seemingly earned by time served in Gotham. It’s great to see Tom Berenger on screen again. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page are wonderful in roles that could have been easily cardboard cutouts. And I think the movie reaffirmed my man crush on Tom Hardy (“You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling,” sounds a whole smuttier now, eh?). And my hetro crush on Marion Cotillard. It’s that damn French accent.

Nolan himself continues to impress. There’s a lot of world-building here, and a whole host of fascinating ideas thrown out together quickly. I’m not sure I got all “the rules”, but the film is smartly enough constructed that I can zero in on the important ones. And Nolan does an amazing job presenting us with an abstract threat in an engaging manner. Let’s face it – ‘the dream is imploding’ is a threat a lot more difficult to realise and generate tension around than ‘this bomb will detonate in ten seconds’. Making the abstract and philosophical dangers tangible to the audience is no small feat, and another feather in Nolan’s cap.

Of course, the film is not perfect. There is a price to pay for the originality of the venture. The first half is chocka blocked full of exposition and setup – most of it beautifully executed – before the story is finally allowed to kick off in the second half. The whole film is a bit of a jumble, to the point where you risk a migraine concentrating too hard on certain aspects. But this is the cost of new ideas. Indeed, the reason so much time needs to be devoted to set-up is because it’s such an unconventional movie – there’s no cinematic shortcut to take, no way of delivering the setup by framing it in familiar pop conscious terms.

I’ll likely have more thoughts into next week, but for now it’s a wholehearted recommendation, with a caveat. Inception calls its audience out – it asks you whether you really want an original film in the midsts of all those sequels, remakes and reboots. The cost is high – it’s a dense and challenging piece. However, “dense” and “challenging” are not negative remarks, and perhaps it’s a cruel reflection on the dumbing down of popular culture that they have become such. The film is also, I’d suggest, a rewarding one. It’s a film lover’s dream come true.

Filed under: Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: blockbuster, Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy, dream heist, dreams, Ellen Page, fantasy, films, Inception, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, ken watanabe, ken watanbe, Leonardo diCaprio, marion collitard, marion cotillard, Michael Caine, Movie, non-review review, review, science fiction, tom berenger, tom hardy |