It seems almost mandatory to begin any discussion of “Inception” with an acknowledgement of its scale of ambition – both aesthetic and intellectual – not least when set against the sights of most other $200 million summer studio pictures.
So yes, let’s acknowledge it. Christopher Nolan’s latest is an uncommonly heady and intricate tentpole blockbuster, taking on themes of memory, mortality and family that, in conventional Hollywood logic, don’t tend to mesh with noisy, rain-sodden car chases and 007-style explosions in remote Arctic fortresses. I saw it on Monday in pristine IMAX splendor, and took immense pleasure in watching something on that scale that demanded to be kept up with, puzzled out, mentally reassembled, and not merely looked at. And yes, in a season of few mainstream pleasures — and unsurprising ones at best – I’m glad it’s in theaters.
But it’s easy to praise “Inception” for not being the film it was never intended to be in the first place. Certainly, we can pat Nolan on the back for having crafted an immeasurably brainier and more beautiful summer blockbuster than “Transformers 2,” or even “Iron Man 2,” but to me, it feels glib and condescending to do so: handling with kid gloves a work that asks to be judged by more rigorous standards.
As an in-the-moment thrill-ride, “Inception” is pretty smashing, even as it’s weighed down by overlength and talky exposition in the middle stretch. But on the more sophisticated levels on which it seeks to engage, the film is less rewarding: as cinema of ideas, it’s dry and reliant on telling; as a metaphysical love story, it’s cold and under-characterized; and crucially, as a dream study, it’s strangely timid and stubbornly literal-minded.
It’s this last weakness that is the most disappointing, since it curbs “Inception”’s own structural and visual possibilities. Not they aren’t already quite elaborate: I don’t want to get into a detailed evaluation of the plot’s mechanics (except to say that, contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere, they are perfectly user-friendly), but it’s no spoiler to say that the narrative is arranged over four nested levels of dream consciousness, each occupied simultaneously by the principal characters as information is implanted in (or occasionally extracted from) the mind of the dreaming subject.
The action unfolds in parallel, as each dream is gradually burst by the one that enfolds it – both an elegant architectural conceit and a nifty way of making the plot appear more convoluted than it sometimes is. The film is a deconstructed Chinese box of sorts, methodically assembled so as to be propulsive rather than confusing: critics who complain they can’t follow it are possibly not working hard enough. However, in a story of the unconscious, Nolan’s organization isn’t necessarily an asset; his logic comes at the expense of the dream logic the film needs in order to fly.
The trouble I had with the dreams that make up “Inception” is that they don’t feel much like dreams at all: each one is a linear, cohesive episode with a practical objective and a consistent, unbending locale. It’s entirely possible that Christopher Nolan dreams in these straight lines, but I, and I suspect most viewers, don’t. Marion Cotillard’s character occasionally disrupts the status quo by appearing in worlds where she shouldn’t logically be, but for the most part, the dreams Nolan has devised are entirely too plausible, not to mention wholly unconcerned with the sensual and sexual components of dreaming. (Nightmares, meanwhile, are a tantalizing narrative possibility that the script leaves frustratingly untouched.)
Obviously, Nolan still has an action thriller to attend to, so a “Mulholland Drive”-level meditation on desire and doubling is off the table, but even more approachably structured genre pieces have taken bolder risks with their respective dreamscapes. David Cronenberg’s “eXistenZ” and particularly Tarsem’s underappreciated “The Cell” played more daringly with the human mind’s capacity for the surreal.
Nolan teases us with flashes of gorgeous, disorienting imagery that aren’t organically tied into the story at hand: the spectacular doubling-over of a Paris street is a show-offy stunt, never used or repeated, while a long stretch of zero-gravity acrobatics serves merely to move some characters from A to B. Once the action kicks in, however, the characters appear to dream mostly in high-octane Hollywood set-pieces – some of which, incidentally, expose Nolan’s still-lingering weaknesses as an action choreographer.
“Inception”’s denial of its wilder psychological potential would be less of an issue if the film were warmer or more involving on a human level, but that dimension, too, has fallen foul of its creator’s preoccupation with schematics. I like how Nolan wastes no time on set-up, plunging us from the first scene into the dream-invasion quest of Leonardo DiCaprio’s protagonist Dom Cobb, and trusting us to catch up with the nuts and bolts of the process as we go along. But if these becomes clear, the stakes of the mission never do; the motive is corporate skulduggery of sorts by glassy businessman Ken Watanabe, meaning the emotional payoff once the mission is completed is approximately nil.
Of course, this whole adventure is arguably intended as a mere MacGuffin to the more penetrating dream conflict between Cobb and his late wife (Cotillard) – an investigation that owes much to both screen versions of “Solaris” – but even then, I found their relationship detailed in terms too arch and fractured to invest in emotionally. Nolan might have suggested more about the marriage through more expressionistic leaps of imagination in Cobb’s dreams – rather as Scorsese did in the most successful passages of “Shutter Island,” a film which history might well end up pairing with “Inception,” and not just because DiCaprio’s performances in the two films are all but continuous.
Possessed of a brain if not a heart, then, “Inception” is a frequently dazzling Tin Man of the summer movie scene, confirming its director as one of Hollywood’s most essential thinkers, but is finally too cautious a film to bridge the gap between multiplex and arthouse in the ways that its advance publicity suggested. Nolan is to be thanked for asking questions of the Hollywood blockbuster, but considering studio bosses would have been willing to indulge his weirdest impulses after the success of “The Dark Knight,” he might have dreamed even bigger.
Comments
35 responses to “‘Inception’: the dream is (too) real”
Guy, what does “even Iron Man 2” supposed to mean? Are you saying that it was “brainy?” Seriously?
I’m saying that it’s one hell of a lot better than “Transformers 2.”
lovely review. i’m with you on the film not really engaging with how we actually dream. But i forgave that on the grounds that they are actually artificial dreams, designed by one person who is not actually the dreamer.
but totally hear you anyway and it’s what most bothered me visually (though the visuals are eyepopping for what tehy are) and narratively — shootouts and car chases as primary dream? action. weird.
but i love the zero gravity sequence because it feels the most dreamlike.
I can see why people may have a problem with the dreams being too realistic thing, but personally, when I dream (and remember the dream) it always feels pretty real and bound to reality. I don’t dream about pink elephants and purple dragons, I dream about slightly distorted but ultimately realistic scenarios, particularly in nightmares. Cobb even says at one point in the film “Dreams feel real when you’re in them. It’s only when you wake up that you realize something was actually strange” But I can see why people who dream of the colorful animals may have a problem with reality based dreams ;)
In any case, I’m seeing the film in IMAX in a few hours, and based on the reactions I’ve seen from people who share similar tastes with me, I imagine I will come out loving it. Great piece, Guy.
“Possessed of a brain if not a heart”
This doesn’t compute for me. I think people typically classify films by Nolan, and Michael Mann, as lacking emotion when the truth is they simply use emotion much differently than other filmmakers. It’s there, nevertheless.
Kris, I couldn’t have said it better. I think Nolan simply doesn’t delve into melodrama. The emotion is all there, just not in your face. It’s subtle, implied, etched into the character’s faces. People get too caught up in the narrative tricks of films like Memento to see what Nolan is doing with the character. Maybe people miss scenes like where Guy Pearce talks about how he misses his wife but can’t heal because he can’t feel time due to his memory-loss. Just because it doesn’t hit you over the head with “THIS CHARACTER IS SAD” moments and dialogue, doesn’t mean there isn’t emotion. It’s there, you just have to look.
That is as may be. I still didn’t feel anything — and I usually do in a Nolan film. But that’s me.
It makes sense that this film would draw somewhat divisive reactions. Those who dream a certain way will come out with a certain opinion. Count me as one of those whose dreams are fairly realistic, so I imagine the realism won’t bother me. Afterall, from what I can tell, Inception has intentionally crafted the dream sequences to be different from the syrupy shadow-worlds of other movies. And why fault a movie on something that it’s not trying to do? Then it’s not a critique anymore, it’s a bias.
This is how you write a “pretty good, but its not all there” review. You don’t criticize other critics, people who rave about it, or the people who made it. You just stick to the movie and how it made you feel. I wish more critics were like you.
I thought there was something profound about watching someone come to grips with…
SPOILER
…his projection of a vengeful person he knows wasn’t who his wife was, and by proxy, the pain and guilt he has spent years re-directing inside his psyche. Quite the sophisticated sort of “emotion,” sure, but I felt it, and I thought it effective.
Andrew: Huzzah.
Great piece, Guy.
Although strangely enough, I’m with Kevin in that my dreams are surprisingly realistic, even in a mundane way (running to avoid being late to class and having people keep stopping to talk to me is a recurring one, for some reason). But, I’m probably in the minority on that one. I wish I had cooler dreams!
And on a side note, “The Cell” always seems better to me in hindsight. I’ll look forward to watching it, and then be kind of disappointed right afterwards. Then, after a few months, it starts all over again.
I love your review Guy. It has made me want to see the movie more while at the same time bringing down my expectations to a tad more appropriate level. This review along with your piece earlier today about critics needing to express their own opinions about movies instead of following what everyone else is saying are just two good examples of how invaluable you are around these parts.
As an aside, just curious have you ever seen the Satoshi Kon animated film Paprika? It is one of my favorite animated films of recent years and ever since I first saw the trailer to Inception, I have always thought that it reminded me of a Hollywood-ized live action version of Paprika. Anyway, I was just wondering since you mentioned Mulholland Drive, eXistenZ, and The Cell as recent “dream” themed movies.
Sadly, I’ve never had a chance to see “Paprika.” I should pick up a DVD.
I can’t recommend it enough, especially if you are ever in a head-scratchy bat-shit-crazy surreal-imagery dream-themed movie mood.
I can see the comparisons to Paprika, but I don’t like them one bit. Paprika is much more about the fantastical while Inception is gorunded in an emotional reality.
I enjoyed this review. It leaves me with no questions to ask.
Have to agree with the others who have realistic dreams. Sometimes I have really crazy dreams but other times I have dreams involving the so-called mundane, including work.
@Fitz – sorry you don’t like the comparisons, I haven’t seen Inception yet (seeing it tonight) but just from the visuals alone I can’t help but see the two related in my mind at least. But who cares if Inception is grounded in “emotional reality” – what does that mean anyway? I love Paprika, and I am really looking forward to Inception so I don’t see how comparing the two is a negative thing.
I agree with you Guy that Hardy was the best in show. Such amazing screen presence! Where has this guy been for all this while?
But he like the others was given a hollow character to portray. There was really nothing to root for , for any of the characters.
“I thought there was something profound about watching someone come to grips with his projection of a vengeful person he knows wasn’t who his wife was, and by proxy, the pain and guilt he has spent years re-directing inside his psyche.”
Thats a plot point, or a summary description of what happens, but DiCaprio never lets you in to feel the tortured anguish like say Watts did in Mulholland. It was an aloof performance. But you were right, this is not a performance kind of film anyways. More a tech accomplishment.
Guy I hope another blockbuster, TS3 fares better with you. I was devastated by its climax, almost over-burdened by its immense humanity.
Yeah, I agree with a lot of your points, even though I loved the movie. As for the underdeveloped characters: I’ve heard the theory that when….
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Mal killed herself, she was actually waking up and going back to the real world. And Cobb created a whole world and all of the characters we meet in the movie in limbo. That’s why they’re all very basic and underdeveloped. I’m not sure if I buy it, but it’s interesting. It sort of makes my head explode. Regardless, I can’t tell you how much I love that final shot…
Spoilers,
I don’t think the dreams having to much action is a problem at all. The dreams weren’t supposed to be an action set piece, but when people go into the dream the projections of the subconscious try to kill them, which turns it into an action set piece.
Also, I kind of agree the theory Omeed stated. We never see any of the characters use there totem, except when Ellen Page was making her’s which could of been unfinished.
Interesting talking points here. I really have to say that the only two Nolan films I really have connected with were Insomnia and Memento (to a lesser degree). These had real characters and real characterizations in them that felt alive. The only other would be Ledger’s Joker, who was actually the lead in TDK for me. All the other characters in Nolan films feel a little cold. Of course, I haven’t yet seen Inception.
i would like t0 see you do better i just g0t back from seeing the movie and you are way wrong and that movie conjured up more imagination then you could create in one life time Christopher nolan is a god among people like you!
and anyone that has not yet seen the movie should just shut up now
all you people feed into way too much of this it was just a movie thats it! it was made to make money from you and leave you with all this crazy speculation it is what it is and whatever you take away from the film that’s what the director wanted to accomplish
“i would like t0 see you do better”
Always such an odd way to respond to film criticism. I’ve noticed that whenever I praise a film, no one ever says, “I’d like to see you do worse.”
“it was just a movie thats it!”
I agree, which is why it’s odd that you’re allowing yourself to get so upset.
wow I can’t believe I actually read this. If the only thing bad you can say about it is that the storyline made sense and followed a plot and mostly real life rules instead of being a sex dream or nightmare that jumped all over as a cheap excuse to have a loose plot, then you sir are a polygamist.
I finally read this after seeing the movie. I can see your point about the dreams being so undream-like, save for the occasional shift in gravity or apparition of Mal. My main complaint with Alice in Wonderland was along the same lines, that it didn’t capture the whimsical spirit of Carroll’s classic, and it felt too plot-driven. I want to say that ultimately, what should be judged is what ends up on the screen, but unfortunately my quibble with AIW is too big for me to do that, just as I imagine how your quibble with Inception is. (Not saying that you didn’t objectively judge the movie, simply commenting on how one small idea that doesn’t even make an appearance on-screen can seriously affect how one views a whole movie.)
Finally read this after seeing Inception yesterday, and it was a truly great article. Thanks, Guy for providing thoughtful writing on the film (as usual, it must be said). If only more bloggers would look to you as an example.
I kind of agree with you about the dream worlds being surprisingly un-dream-like (I use the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode “Restless” as a prime example of how to portray dream states), BUT… I think the film kind of gets away with it by not entirely explaining how the whole “shared dreaming” thing works. This is what I think, but I could be wrong: Somehow the world the architect designs is uploaded into that machine they all hook up to, the dreamer is plugged in first, then everyone else follows. Since they’ve already given the dreamer the location of their dream, what’s to say they can’t also establish some rules to go along with it, such as they can’t move to any other location besides the one they’re already in. It’s basically a form of mind control. They can’t control things related to the dreamer’s natural dream state (thus the relative instability of the dream world), but they can control, to an extent, where the dreamer’s mind goes, thus keeping the dream in check, not allowing it to get out of their hands. But of course, as the film never really explains this process in any satisfying way, the audience is really on its own in determining this. To my mind, it’s the biggest flaw of the film (although I’ll admit, more exposition was the last thing Inception needed), but overall it wasn’t enough to inhibit my enjoyment of the film.
@B: You’ve seen right through me. I am a polygamist, not to mention a terminal sex addict. I’d do something about it, but am having far too good a time.
@Hans and Denny: Good points, both. Thanks for allowing for some flexibility in this discussion.
I finally got to see “Inception” after four attempts (it was sold out each time), and I must say that I agree with you to a tee. Guy Lodge for the win!
I’ve decided that I don’t agree with Guy much, but he seems like a helluva nice guy anyhow.
There is a reason why the dreams have to be real.. and that’s because they are doing a MISSION… they are not jumping into people’s heads for a holiday, the dream hoppers are actually working… Robert Fischer is NOT supposed to know that he is dreaming. The thing about the dream sequences being real relate to that and if Robert was to know that he was dreaming that early on then the mission wouldn’t have gone that far
Buy cheap Pistons jerseys