Inception Impressions: Vacant Dreaming

Christopher Nolan’s Inception is in essence a heist film. Let’s start there.

Sleepwalkers

Inception builds its premise out of very simple building blocks. It is the marrying of a not unconventional science fiction foundation with the heist movie format. It also includes something of an emotional rope for the audience to hang onto. With these ingredients, a Chinese puzzle or a labyrinth–have your pick of metaphors–is presented, slowly picked apart scene by scene.

Dominic Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is our leading man. He’s a thief who operates in dreams, where he is capable of procuring, for instance, information that would perhaps be harder to obtain in the waking world. He gets that one-last-job chance when Saito (Ken Watanabe) hires him to perform an inception, the supposedly more difficult task of inserting a thought into someone’s head (as opposed to extracting it, of course).

It’s a job of some importance, because Saito is a man of considerable influence, considerable enough that he is in a position where he can call off the criminal charges against Cobb and allow him to return home to his children again.

Cobb, of course, takes the offer, and goes onto assemble his team. Through the eyes of young Ariadne (Ellen Page), we get taught the rules of the game. This here is the first half of the film, an instructional section where we are taught what’s possible in dreams and what’s not.

Through it all, we are introduced to the boundaries, the target, and the plan. We are also introduced to Mal (Marion Cotillard), Cobb’s deceased wife. In the process, it becomes clear that she haunts Cobb to such an extent that it affects his ability to do his job, although to say more would perhaps be indiscreet, even if it is a film that doesn’t depend on a major plot twist or an ingenious secret.

Indeed, like most good heist movies, Inception is about the unfolding.

The Thinking Man’s Action Film

The premise of Inception is not complicated as long as you stick with Nolan and allow him to lay the groundwork. Many have said that it’s something of a brainy thriller, which it is, in the way that it’s not simply about big guns and pretty explosions. It takes slightly more brainpower to understand what’s at stake (such as why we can’t die in this particular dream) and every proposed resolution (such as a method of providing a kick in free-fall) when compared to your average summer action movie.

Because Nolan assumes that his audience will be able to keep up with him, he avoids condescension. Events unfold almost like clockwork, defining rather concretely the film’s pulse. To that end, Inception successfully combines summer blockbuster thrills with a measure of intelligence. It’s popular entertainment presented in a cerebral package. That is to say, there is no doubt that this is an entertaining film. In an almost metronomic way, Inception proves engrossing.

Intelligent Design

This cerebral approach to the action movie is arguably best represented in the second half of the film, an extended finale sequence that is in essence one gigantic set-piece. Having completed its instructional phase, Inception enters its execution section. Cobb’s team attempts to pull off the heist of a lifetime by devising an elaborate plan of such complexity that it is probably simplest to describe it as a matryoshka doll of dreams.

The best parts of this second half also represent the best parts of the film. It’s wonderful entertainment to watch as pieces fall into place or as things go awry. Nolan (and Cobb) work with a team of seven as well as a collection of realities, with the effects of each reverberating through to the next. It’s impressive primarily because virtually no character or reality is left in the lurch, and also because of how every little element seems to fit nicely together in this enormous machine.

Dream a Little Dream

Of course, the excellent execution phase of Inception is helped by the fact that it is a pretty movie. In fact, the whole film is all rather aesthetically pleasing. Its liberal use of CGI has been featured prominently in the trailers, and rightly so as well, because not too many other films contain scenes of a city folding onto itself or exploding spontaneously into bits.

I am partial, however, to the gravity-less situations, a particularly memorable use of practical effects. There is something oddly beautiful about watching sleepers floating about in free space, seemingly oblivious to the firefights taking place around them. These effects also allow for some well-choreographed action scenes taking place across gravity-less corridors.

Huff and Puff

For all its beauty, precise execution, and clever structures, however, Inception falls a little flat when you realise how empty it is. It surprised me when I arrived at the end to realise how little the emotional weight that the film mustered.

The whole movie hinges upon the relationship between Cobb and Mal. It is the crucible within which we are supposed to find ourselves moved by our leading characters. It is also the basis of the existential themes that the film attempts to tackle. It is, as I said, the emotional rope for the audience to hang onto. In a manner of speaking, this relationship is meant to imbue the film with purpose and direction, some kind of meaning. But it doesn’t.

Most of this is down to the film’s treatment of Cobb and his family. It gives me no reason to bother about him, his two faceless kids or his wife. In fact, I wouldn’t even consider his wife a character. She is–appropriately, one might say–a shadow of a person, a caricature more than a believable human being. That works fine from a technical standpoint, but it does leave me with very little to care about. As for Cobb, it is strange to observe how flat he is compared with the rest of his crew. He isn’t as funny or as charming as some of his colleagues; he has a threadbare background story; and he is basically a nervous man quite on the edge as he perform the most important job of his life. I shouldn’t be able to summarise him like that.

In effect, Cobb is much like the structure of this film. He is a puzzle, a riddle, waiting to be solved. But people are not films, and when the picture ended, I couldn’t help wanting someone to care about.

Two-Pronged Failure

You would think that even if the Cobb’s love story didn’t work out right, we would still be left with rich material to work with. After all, that same relationship is at the heart of the movie’s larger, existential themes. There is no question that the film signals in this direction and tries to ask questions such as how we know the world around us is real and how real is real enough for us.

They are basic philosophical questions, no doubt, much like the basic components with which Nolan creates his engaging finale. The difference, however, is that the film seems reluctant to tackle these questions with the same enthusiasm. It is incredibly frustrating to watch as the script signals in that particular direction, only to steer clear of them save for the occasional superficial retort.

I also can’t help thinking that the conspicuously absent existential angst on the parts of both the lead characters may have given us something to care about.

Dreaming Big

At one point in the film, Eames (Tom Hardy) tells Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) rather cheekily: “You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger.” In terms of scale, structure and aesthetic design, Inception does that pretty well, but in terms of its thematic approaches, I wonder if it could’ve done with a little bit more. At the same time, I wonder if the design of the film lent to the deepening of such problems.

Inception is a film built on logic. One thing always leads to another; there are boundaries on more or less everything because it was designed as something of a game, with its own set of rules; and resolutions have to be allowed within the context of the film. This creates a compelling action movie, but it doesn’t serve the film’s other aspirations so well.

For one thing, it prevents it from exploring the ambiguous nature of reality. The set-up virtually begs for a more ambivalent treatment of this, but things occur so literally in Inception that one never seriously doubts if a particular world is a dream or the real world. (Save, of course, for the scene in the ending, which really just comes across as a cheeky afterthought rather than a significant development of the existentialist themes.) For a film about the tenuous nature of reality, reality doesn’t come across as being very tenuous at all.

This also kills any remaining sympathetic potential with Cobb and Mal because the film’s simplistic treatment of dreams and reality results in Mal coming across as being simply insane.

In a way, the film is trapped in its form. It is unwilling to tackle the uncertainties that lie outside its rather systematic structure and suffers for it. To me, it wouldn’t have been such a problem had the film not pointed in the direction of some of these themes. As it stands, it just seems afraid of breaking its own rules, of being more than a primitive existentialist meditation, and of dreaming bigger.

All Smoke, No Fire

Inception is like a good magic trick in the way that it is something that is constantly entertaining to watch. It is, however, also like a magic trick in another way. Many good magic tricks rely on misdirection, and Inception is no different. It busies itself with a lot of imagery, a lot of action, and a fair degree of structural ingenuity, but it succeeds and fails entirely on the basis of this grandiose design.

Again I will say that Inception is a heist film, and it works best on that level. It is smart, cool, and thrilling in its own intelligent way. It’s a puzzle that unfolds somewhat elegantly with each passing minute and yet also a riveting action movie.

Where it falters, however, is in the narrowness of its ambition. That’s not to say that it is a film that lacks ambition. Visually, it contains some of the most expansive and properly realised imagery in film in a long time. Thematically, too, it seems to want to punch above the weight of the average summer blockbuster. Perhaps one might say, for example, that it is an extended metaphor about film-making. Or perhaps one might call it a movie about what’s real and what’s not.

However, there it’s ambitions stutter. Inception lacks an emotional core. Its main emotional thread functions on the basis of stereotypical signals (family man, tragic love, etc.) rather than true development. The exploration of its themes also lack sufficient depth to convey, for instance, the fear of living in a counterfeit world. As a metaphor for film-making, it fails to capture the visceral aspects of art-making. As an existentialist’s action movie, it doesn’t do enough to offer any perspective. In fact, it doesn’t do very much at all.

In the end, Inception is a good movie, especially in the crowded league of summer blockbusters. It’s pleasant enough to watch from start to finish and has its moments of cleverness. Still, I think it’s possible to come out of the theatre feeling more than a little disappointed. It is a film trapped in its own form, such that it is unable to express its bigger, bolder dreams.

d

Toy Story 3

I watched Toy Story 3 last Friday and here I will tell you very quickly what I think about it.

I liked it. It was funny and adorable, and probably one of the more charming shows I’ve seen in recent months. There is a definite mastery to the way Pixar puts together its flicks, and that was pretty much apparent here. Suffice to say, I was very entertained and it hit all the right spots.

But that’s not to say that I thought it was perfect.

I think the biggest issue I have with it is how it starts and ends by being a movie about growing up and moving on. Those parts work brilliantly. There’s a sense of dissonance, however, because the middle bits don’t actually work this theme in very effectively. In fact they almost don’t work the theme in at all.

Instead, we’re treated to something of a roller-coaster ride. There are bad guys; there is adventure; and there are a lot of jokes. More pertinent to what I’m saying, though, there are very few things that remind you that it’s about Andy going to college and the toys having to grow up as he does. In a way, it seems like an almost completely unrelated middle section. It’s like having a French starter and dessert, and a Thai main course.

That’s not to say that it wasn’t an excellent main course, but I thought it could have done with a little more solidarity, because, as I said, I was thoroughly entertained. Sure, so the story isn’t exactly breaking new ground (and is in fact sort of predictable), and sometimes it feels as if things have been stuffed in just for the laughs, but it was all executed very competently.

So I don’t think that Toy Story 3 ranks among Pixar’s best, but they’re own standards are so high that it still turned out to be quite an excellent film. Nonetheless, because the film sets up the wonderful premise of growing up, changing, and leaving things behind in its opening and ending, the middle section–the main section, even–can upon reflection feel a little hollow, a little disappointing. It’s wonderful entertainment, but ultimately can feel more than a bit unsubstantial.

d

9 about 9

I went to see 9 yesterday. Here’s what I liked about it:

1. Design: 9 manages to tackle some very familiar influences and roots in its design without turning out stale, and that to me is quite an achievement. It is a thing of imaginative beauty and this aspect of the film at least ought to be applauded. The sack people look great. The machines too are lovely. It’s really a showpiece that ought to be marvelled at.
2. Animated People: Of course, all the pretty design in the world wouldn’t make a difference if the film didn’t look good, but it does. It’s some pretty decent work by the studio.
3. Set-Piece Spectacular: When I emerged from the theatre, the thing that stuck with me was the monsters and the action sequences. 9 is at its best when it pits the little sack people against this or that giant machine monster. It’s in these sequences that the film manages to prove that it’s a gripping piece of filmmaking.
4. Nice Direction: Shane Acker does a pretty great job, especially considering that he probably could have had some more material to work with.

And here’s what I didn’t like about it

1. Dialogue Dud: The dialogue isn’t terrible. It just never catches you, and sometimes even manages to bore you. The characters never say anything terribly clever or memorable, and it always seems to border on the obvious. It feels a bit like the script came out of a standard Saturday morning cartoon. Yes, I think obvious is the word. Obvious and tired.
2. No Character: 9 is made up of obvious characters who tend to be mostly one-dimensional. It doesn’t help that most of them don’t actually end up having a lot of screen time.  Lead character #9, for instance, is about as exciting as a cardboard box, and he is flanked by #5 and #7, the first a secondary character who seems to be there just to say the things that needed saying and the latter presumably a potential love interest although they didn’t really seem to be very interested in exploring any of that. The end-result is that it’s quite difficult to invest very much into the film.
3. Ending, Wut?: I think quite a bit has been said about the ending, and I suppose it tried not to seem like a cop-out, but it was a little bit convenient and definitely felt rushed. And the final, final scene was a little bizarre and strange to me for some reason. It’s almost as if it didn’t want to live with the consequences of earlier plot devices.
4. Dull Drama: 9 tries to be dramatic, but it doesn’t do drama very well. Part of it will imaginably be down to the characters, but it also just fails to push the right buttons for the drama to succeed.
5. Too Short: It’s short. About 80 minutes or under. And I think if it afforded more time to fleshing out the ending, put in an additional monster or two (or gave more time to the existing ones), gave the characters a little more space (and thought), it might have been a much better film.

As it stands though, 9 feels more like a technical showpiece than a proper movie. It’s a beautiful piece of work, but it’s also threadbare in the narrative department, which left me more than a little disappointed.

d