Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

[Roger Ryan]

If anyone is still interested in how INCEPTION ties in with Nolan's other work, I was intrigued when viewing his debut feature last night (FOLLOWING) that the main antagonist of that film is also named "Cobb".

Self-deception seems to be the operative word in all of Nolan's films. His protagonists operate on a belief that they are completely in the right or aware of what the consequences of their actions will be. They will even develop means to prove this to themselves (the totem in INCEPTION, the post-it notes and tattoos in MEMENTO, the two-headed coin in THE DARK KNIGHT). Ultimately, this belief is dashed, but often only the audience will recognize the flaw behind the protagonist's convictions. Through structuring the stories in a non-linear fashion or allowing for ellipses in the narrative, Nolan hides the truth from the audience for as long as possible. This approach is already in place in FOLLOWING and, like THE PRESTIGE, the intent of its resolution is to offer a conclusive answer to the puzzle set up by the film. MEMENTO, and now INCEPTION, are more open-ended; the audience is left without a definitive answer which works to underline Nolan's reoccuring theme of belief in oneself and in one's actions.

For me, Nolan supports this theme quite well among the espionage mechanics and action scenes of INCEPTION which is why I find the film a refreshing take on the "summer blockbuster".

On an unrelated note, I was amused to see that the protagonist of FOLLOWING has a Batman logo sticker applied to the font door of his apartment! That must have been a bit of wish fulfillment on Nolan's part.

[HistoryProf]

perhaps if a person didn't continually hammer away that the film is "dumb" or a "mediocre action film" etc then he might get a more civil response. Your central conceit is founded upon your conviction that this film is immature, pretentious, and dumb (has anything ever been labeled both pretentious and for teenagers?)....what do you expect anyone who doesn't agree with that to say? Which is of course, just about everyone, even people who didn't necessarily like it.

I'm also sick of people declaring that everyone here thinks it's a "masterpiece" - I and many others enjoyed it and praised it while qualifying that it isn't necessarily the greatest thing ever. That is a projection from RT or Wellsville or whatever.

[HistoryProf]

I don't understand the obsession with what is or isn't "dreamlike" in the film. Hasn't anyone ever had a dream that was so real you woke up shaken by it? That it stayed with you for days and had you questioning whether it had happened? I recall one where a good friend of mine was in a terrible accident - I got up for school and took my shower in extreme sadness wondering if he was going to be okay...and then saw him in the hallway an hour later and felt the earth move slightly as the dream world and real world broke apart. It was very unnerving. It's happened many times over the years...and almost always with a subject that is very personal and emotionally intense. The ultimate conception of their final task fit right within that framework I've come to know as the foundation was rooted in something so utterly personal.

[Svevan]

(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.

[dx23]

The original post in this thread is exactly what we criticized Armond White for: disliking a film while not saying anything about it and insulting whoever liked it.

[franco]

I can't believe there are so many members here defending this movie.

[Jeff]

It's hard to believe that some people like things that others don't?

The thing is, I don't think anybody on the forum thinks that this is a great movie. Even its most enthusiastic "defenders" (myself included, I guess) basically said that it was a pretty good, but flawed, movie with some good ideas that were skillfully executed. The idea that anyone who didn't think it was resolutely awful has something wrong with them (or is a teenager, or a "boy," or immature, or pretentious) is incredibly silly. Such comments stifle discussion, discourage dialectical reasoning, and contribute nothing.

[gokinsmen]

Well, I apologize for not reading dozens upon dozens of big black boxes -- but I perused them now and I don't see any reason to change my mind. You've straw-manned me. My problem isn't that the dreams don't conform to MY dreams, but that imposing rules on dreams at all doesn't work for a heist film (e.g. "30 minutes of real time is three hours of dream time! So we're all gonna be in a coma forever unless our inner ear balance..."). Because dreams have no logic (they can be real, the can be insane, they can be both at once), these rules are inherently nothing more than a Maguffin -- and you can't base a movie on a Maguffin. It can spark the plot, but mumbo-jumbo can't be a source of dramatic tension.

Why? Because it's 100% arbitrary. For example, If Cobb and his team can make some magic drug and box that makes everyone share the same dream...why didn't they take a few more precautions, like dreaming up a bullet proof vest/car? Well, because they didn't expect Cillian Murphy to be trained against dream intruders, says Cobb...but if he knew that was possible, why not take said simple precaution? I mean, they knew enough to bring a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. And lovely matching ski-outfits. The answer is that Nolan wants to stack the deck for maximum thrills. Which amounted to nothing more than the average Michael Bay flick with a little Matrix thrown in.

Anyway, I'm sure you guys can sit down and figure out how all of this "works," proving me to be an idiot. But that's even not my biggest issue with the film. The fact is, the film is emotionally, ideologically hollow. It's a crossword puzzle to be hashed out, and that's not all that meaningful to me. If you found it "emotionally resonant"...nice. Doesn't change the fact that I didn't. Mindfucks are not art...nor necessarily good entertainment. I can always do a crossword puzzle or look at that optical illusion where the lamp looks like two lovers to get the same effect. It's much cheaper and the latter has more emotional resonance.

[Mr Sausage]

Because dreams have no logic (they can be real, the can be insane, they can be both at once), these rules are inherently nothing more than a Maguffin -- and you can't base a movie on a Maguffin. It can spark the plot, but mumbo-jumbo can't be a source of dramatic tension.

So what you're saying is that building your film world around a lucid and coherant set of rules and then following those rules cannot be done because...it's a Maguffin? Huh?

Also, don't you find it strange that you're totally willing to accept the impossible idea of shared dreaming, but just cannot accept the plausible idea that a dream might have a set of internal rules?

The answer is that Nolan wants to stack the deck for maximum thrills. Which amounted to nothing more than the average Michael Bay flick with a little Matrix thrown in.

So the movie is bad because Nolan tried to make it as exciting as possible?

Mindfucks are not art

It's easy to make an arbitrary generalization. What's hard is making a cogently argued account of that generalization.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think it's a true (and meaningful) statement about Nolan that, for the most part, he seems to be as or more interested in puzzle-box structures and labyrinthine plotting than in normal character arcs or development. I think it's fair to posit that as a reason to like his movies less, or dislike them altogether- it's one of the reasons I'm fairly ambivalent towards Memento and The Prestige, in both of which cases I felt the characters were designed around the puzzle rather than the other way around.

I don't think it's reasonable to say flat out that his movies are therefore not art- for one thing, the debate around what is or isn't art is incredibly reductive and stupid, and I think the most reasonable answer is "everything is art, not everything is good art."- any rule by which something is categorically declared "not art" is going to be a blinder rather than a help. A crossword is a form of art. Inception is a work of art. The gum splatter on my shoe is art. Who cares.

I don't know, I think Inception would be fairly disappointing if you were going into it looking for a deep psychological exploration of inner space, because that's not what it is. I do think it's more akin to summer blockbusters than to most art movies, and if you don't like the blockbuster form, than that's a reason not to like the movie. The problem comes in with the assumption that not liking it means that the form is inherently bad, or not art, or whatever- Inception is different from Michael Bay movies because Michael Bay movies are really awful at being blockbusters, they're visually incoherent and insultingly stupid and generally have very little going for them. Those things are not true of this movie, and stating that they are because they're broadly in the same genre is bad criticism.

[lady wakasa]

I don't have a problem with you not liking the film (and not feeling emotionally engaged is valid), but some comments you made about why -

Because dreams have no logic (they can be real, the can be insane, they can be both at once)

But in Nolan's world they *do* have logic, which he carefully lays out so that when things go insane it's recognized as a problem. You can argue whether he sets it up successfully, but saying that he shouldn't have included the logic goes back to your expectation of what a dream should be.

you can't base a movie on a Maguffin.

Just wondering if you've seen No Country for Old Men, because MacGuffin is exactly what the surface-level plot is about. And while it would be weaker than the whole, the surface-level plot could be a complete movie in itself.

I wouldn't call the dreams in Inception MacGuffins anyway, but that's me.

Mindfucks are not art...nor necessarily good entertainment.

And you must not be into David Lynch or Alfred Hitchcock much, either. (There's a wider list of candidates, but then we get into a whole semantic thing - which might make for a great forum, but would be a diversion here.)

[Galen Young]

Oh, that ending. Still love it after three times. If you still want more clues, here's what Jeffrey Kurland has to say about it:

Spoiler

...the children’s clothing is different in the final scene...look again...

[Svevan]

A couple of people have said it's a "great movie," but admitting that a film has flaws is like pointing out that the sun shines most days. Perhaps Inception's are larger than most films'; I happen to think that the film's flaws are almost as interesting to discuss as it's strengths, Nolan being the complicated and subterfuged director that he is. But even great films have flaws.

[gokinsmen]

@Mr_sausage
Actually, my problem with shared dreaming is that Nolan spends an hour-plus explaining the myriad of arbitrary rules of dreaming and dream-burglary, but doesn't bother explaining the craziest thing of all -- the actual shared dreaming. It's this kind of muddled execution and inconsistency that bugs me. To be fair, I don't think Nolan "failed." There's just an inherent problem setting a heist film in a dreamworld. If nothing's concrete and everything's arbritrary (as dreams are), I don't feel any dramatic investment -- "Saito's shot? We're screwed. Oh wait, no biggie. We'll just go one level below and hurry up. Oh, he's going to be in a coma indefinitely? Nevermind, he's awake and fine. Oh wait, it's all a dream? Maybe. THE END."

@matrixschmatrix
I believe that action and thrillers can be art, and it's also okay if Inception is "simply" good entertainment. But it wasn't even that for me because of the reasons stated above. The Matrix, for all its rules and invented world, has clear stakes and richer characters and ideas. And better action sequences. The ending resurrection isn't a mindfuck -- it's miraculous, but it isn't some gimmick for watercooler talk. It develops and advances the film's themes.

@lady wakasa
Lynch's mindfucks work (well, not always...) because it's about the unique mood and visceral sensory experience he creates. Hitchcock and the Coens (whom I enjoy, but neither of whom I worship) use Maguffins to spur plot. They don't rest an entire movie exploring the nature of a suitcase. It's about the characters, mood, and banter.

Inception doesn't invent rules as a platform to explore deeper emotional and philosophical issues. It's a heist film. And a heist film where everything's arbitrary and constantly changing for convenience is hard to get into. I apologize in advance if I can't keep responding to posts. I'm very lazy when it comes to anything I'm not 100% in love with, and needless to say...

[J Adams]

Why does it matter if Inception "works" or not. I'm not convinced it's worth the work.

I enjoyed "Knight and Day" more, found "The Human Centipede" to be a better traumefilm (sp), and got more emotional sustenance from the latest Rivette.

And agreed on "The Matrix", an infinitely superior film that suffered from, well, Jada Pinkett. I got over that eventually.

I'm glad Hollywood and the general public are throwing money at this, however.

[Mr Sausage]

There's just an inherent problem setting a heist film in a dreamworld. If nothing's concrete and everything's arbritrary (as dreams are), I don't feel any dramatic investment

A. Heist movies are arbitrary by nature. Who overcomes what obstacle is at the whim of the creator.

B. it is you, actually, who isn't being concrete. The movie supplies ample evidence for the qualities of its specific dreams that you may construct an argument around, and yet the best you can muster is an unsubstantiated claim about how "dreams are" in general, something that you cannot claim to know. You can claim to know only how your own dreams work, and your own dreams cannot prove anything about dreams in general. The best they can do is disprove someone else's generalization.

Basic rule of criticism: if a movie presumes that it does not inhabit your reality and invents it own reality instead, it is a waste of time to point out that, sure enough, the film diverges from your reality. The only criterion for judging the world of the film is whether or not it follows the rules it has set itself.

[gokinsmen]

A. Here's what I mean by my "arbitrary" complaint. Imagine if the bus in Speed dropped below 50 mph...and didn't blow up because, as it turns out, Keanu can use psychic powers to prevent it. Not quite as exciting, is it? Or imagine if Keanu had spent the first half of the movie explaining that this is no ordinary bomb -- "If you're ten feet away, you'll survive, if you're twenty feet away you'll die, if you're thirty feet away, it's equivalent to getting hit with..." Yet this is the kind of stuff we were treated to in Inception -- "Ten real minutes is one hour in Level 1 Dream Time is 10 hours in Level 2 is 1000 hours in Level 3...dying will wake you up unless you're in Level 2 or 3 in which case you'll be in a coma unless..."

B. Then I guess I'm saying that part of the problem is the film doesn't follow its own rules. Like I said, why do they know of "weaponized" subconscious defenders, yet fail to take such basic precautions as bulletproof vests/cars? Why do they defenders use measly guns? Bring tanks. So the subconscious mind is hostile to strange people and things...so why don't they act all suspicious about the fancy clothes and buildings around them, which were designed by an outside architect? It's all illogically stacked in favor of excitement...and it's not exciting to me because of that. Speed is fun because they find a way out of that situation without violating its rules or stacking the deck in their favor, etc. In fact, there's a funny moment where the filmmakers make it even tougher on themselves (Jack accidentally punctures the gas tank) -- Annie: "What you felt like you needed another challenge?"

[matrixschmatrix]

Honestly, it seems like your complaint is that it's more difficult to follow than Speed. I didn't have any trouble following the rules the movie set out for itself, and it held closely enough to those rules to maintain tension- and one of the exciting things about the movie was having an entirely new sort of environment to have a movie in. The Matrix keeps getting brought up here, and I think that was part of the appeal there- as the movies progressed, the internal logic of the Matrix system fell apart, but the really key thing about the movies (and something they moved away from to their detriment) was the playground the environment created.

Inception is that, a quickly sketched but entirely new sort of world to have a heist in. I liked that the explanations were offhand, and that they weren't frontloaded- it felt less like there were holes the movie was trying to hide and more like the movie trusted me to follow what was going on. The "oh well why didn't they do this?" kind of questions are mostly answerable in moviespace- they didn't arm themselves heavily going in because that would reveal the world they were in more quickly to be a dream to their target- but I fundamentally don't care about that kind of question here any more than I do in a Hitchcock movie. It's difficult to imagine sincerely wishing that Hollywood blockbusters were all as simpleminded as Speed.

[Mr Sausage]

B. Then I guess I'm saying that part of the problem is the film doesn't follow its own rules.

If so, why haven't you been able to provide a single instance? All you've given is an example of human error that you refuse to accept for the sake of it, and the faux-problem of whether or not some guy dreams up a tank in a particular dream, two things which have not the slightest bearing on the rules of the world Nolan invents.

A. Here's what I mean by my "arbitrary" complaint.

Your first Speed example is an example of a plot device. Your subsequent Speed example bears no relation to the first, and Inception bears no relation to either. Once again, all rules and all definitions are by their very nature arbitrary. Thus the set up in a heist movie is arbitrary, a series of problems that could easily have been a series of quite different problems. The only salient point is whether or not the movie follows its own set up logically and fairly.

That's it for me. I bow out.

[premierseat]

I don't know, I think Inception would be fairly disappointing if you were going into it looking for a deep psychological exploration of inner space, because that's not what it is. I do think it's more akin to summer blockbusters than to most art movies, and if you don't like the blockbuster form, than that's a reason not to like the movie. The problem comes in with the assumption that not liking it means that the form is inherently bad, or not art, or whatever- Inception is different from Michael Bay movies because Michael Bay movies are really awful at being blockbusters, they're visually incoherent and insultingly stupid and generally have very little going for them. Those things are not true of this movie, and stating that they are because they're broadly in the same genre is bad criticism.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but are you saying here that Michael Bay movies are not successful as blockbusters (for all the reasons you mention) but that Inception (because its design may be better than Bay films) is more successful in this respect?

[matrixschmatrix]

I don't know, I think Inception would be fairly disappointing if you were going into it looking for a deep psychological exploration of inner space, because that's not what it is. I do think it's more akin to summer blockbusters than to most art movies, and if you don't like the blockbuster form, than that's a reason not to like the movie. The problem comes in with the assumption that not liking it means that the form is inherently bad, or not art, or whatever- Inception is different from Michael Bay movies because Michael Bay movies are really awful at being blockbusters, they're visually incoherent and insultingly stupid and generally have very little going for them. Those things are not true of this movie, and stating that they are because they're broadly in the same genre is bad criticism.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but are you saying here that Michael Bay movies are not successful as blockbusters (for all the reasons you mention) but that Inception (because its design may be better than Bay films) is more successful in this respect?

I think Inception is, among other things, better at being a blockbuster than Michael Bay movies, yes.

I'm not sure I would put it strictly in that category, but it seems to me even if the more ambitious things it goes for don't work for you- and some of them don't really work all that well for me- it's still hard to make the "well Michael Bay makes that kind of movie and nobody likes him" argument stick, for that reason.

[Matt]

I think you may be confusing success within a genre with financial success. Any kind of film can be a "blockbuster," that just means that it's extravagant, very popular, and/or has made a lot of money. Perhaps you mean to say that Inception is a better action movie than those made by Michael Bay, but I don't really think you mean to say that Inception succeeds better at being successful than Michael Bay's films (at least not yet).

[matrixschmatrix]

Hmm, I meant 'blockbuster' in a different sense, which I should have defined- looking at it as meaning action-driven summer movies designed as crowd pleasers, rather than anything having to do with money. Sorry about that.

[bdsweeney]

While the tone of the opening post may have been misjudged, I think that accusatory responses indulge in the same problems.

If you have a problem, maybe just PM the guy. People make mistakes and not all are as eloquent in stating their argument as others. (I'm certainly not ...)

I see this heading for the Infighting and Navel Gazing thread.

[Svevan]

I know I talked bad about gladiatorial battles earlier, but we live for public crucifixion.