July 18th, 2010
|08:52 am - Inception|
Last night I went to see Inception, the new film by Christopher Nolan (director of Memento, The Dark Knight, The Prestige etc.) People have asked me whether I liked it, and I don't really know. I suppose that in itself is slightly a criticism, because I ought to be unequivocally saying 'Yes, it's brilliant'. Many people to be fair, are saying that. This metafilter post links to a lot of positive reviews.
Inception posits a near-future where people with secrets can be drugged, and plugged into dream machines, so that trained dream-workers can plunder the subconscious via a shared dreaming experience. Leonardo Di Caprio (once again, an impressive performance) is hired to go one further - to plant an idea deep in the subconscious of Cillian Murphy. Most of the action takes place in nested dreams within dreams.
I am prima facie sceptical about films which are set in dream-land, or in virtual reality, or in Limbo. I am sceptical about films which are written and directed by the same person. Both suggest 'self indulgent'. And yet, sometimes, these are wonderful films or TV shows - Life on Mars, the first Matrix film. Inception is unusual in that it isn't a failure, but it isn't a total triumph (to me).
I think a film where much of the action happens in an unreal world, where there are no rules, must paradoxically be structured by a strong self-discipline of rules. I think it should also express something real about the Self. It should involve real peril to the Self. And finally, I think it should make us question the ground of being, changing the way we see the world after we have left the cinema.
How does Inception match up to those four criteria? Quite well actually, though I won't say more for fear of spoilers. The idea of 'Peril to the Self' is I think particularly well handled. There are a lot of visual references to other Nolan films, and other films about dreams and virtual reality, which is a way of using cinema-memory as a proxy for the internal referencing we do within dreams.
So why don't I think the overall film is brilliant as it might be? I think firstly because the seeming-structure of rules doesn't quite make sense, though it's a good effort. That wouldn't really matter, if it weren't for the bigger issue, which is that I don't think it quite gives the feeling of heavy dangerous reality that you get when a film touches something deep inside yourself. I am tempted to think that studio heads stepped in and watered it down. Deep deep inside the self things are not so busy, so anonymous, and so like a James Bond film. There would be a feeling of recognition, that things had always been this way, that great projections of the self were slowly moving into place like spaceships around the sun.
What is left without this is an intellectual puzzle, a thought game, which perhaps doesn't quite hang together, but plays with various familiar psychological and philosophical issues entertainingly enough. Certainly worth seeing.
Haven't seen the film yet (but was planning to catch it at some point, RL permitting). I always thought that not knowing straight after the movie what you thought of it or whether you liked it was a good sign. Because it normally means that it made you think, and that there are ambiguities and grey areas, which mostly I like in movies. And then there are the film where after 3 weeks of contemplation and discussion you come to the conclusion that the director just used all that thinky, ambiguous and complicated stuff to disguise the fact that the story he is telling is not really worth telling.
Yes, perhaps I need to let it sink in.
I wonder whether perhaps the subconscious of the average male cinema viewer actually is like a James Bond film? Nah, surely not.
We saw this over the weekend as well and tend to agree with you. To us it was enjoyable but felt too clever by half, although we would welcome another viewing. Nolan tends to alternate between Batman films and personal projects, so I think your view that this is self-indulgent holds true.
It's not as bad as it might be. Generally these sorts of projects are a complete waste of time, or a clear success. I'm increasingly impressed by DiCaprio. In the pub yesterday when I said he was in it people were all 'Oh, I won't bother then' but actually I think he is a real decent actor, not just an aging boychild.
We've always liked DiCaprio - yeah, everyone lusted over him in Titanic but there was always a lot more to him than that. He was absolutely brilliant in What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1994), great in Romeo and Juliet (1996), and more recently his work with Scorsese has been uniformly excellent. Yeah, Inception was fine, just felt a little self-indulgent and we didn't have the impact of Nolan's other 'less commercial' projects (Memento, The Prestige)
I think this is at least partially deliberate, that Nolan is trying to make a big commercial film (like Batman) using the concerns from his more personal films (like Memento). And in this I think it is a success. But no, not as interesting as either Mememto or the Prestige and I hope Nolan hasn't been seduced over to the blockbuster for ever.