Dir: Christopher Nolan
I went into “Inception” knowing it was an acclaimed film. There has been a lot of buzz around the movie already, only a couple weeks since its opening. At this moment Rottentomatoes.com has it listed at 87%, meaning 87% of the critics who are credible reviewers of the film liked it. One of the reasons I like sites such as this is that it takes a wide-angle shot of the viewing community. It is by no means a truly accurate gauge, because whether or not a person likes a particular film is all a matter of conjecture and individual taste. For instance, I loved “The 13th Warrior” and list it as one of my favorite films, but Rotten Tomatoes has it ranked at 33%. Conversely, I fell asleep during “Public Enemies”, a movie rated at 68%. Nevertheless, I went into the theater knowing I was going to see a good movie, just how good remained to be seen.
What Chris Nolan has done is challenge the audience to follow the characters through a labyrinthine plot, and yet in a move that seems counter-intuitive in Hollywood, didn't wrap up the solution or lead us by the nose in the last fifteen minutes so we may understand what has really happened. Instead, we are left to piece it all together by ourselves, or with our companions over the water-cooler. It is as though Nolan respects me as a viewer, and knows I will look for the clues if I want to know more. I appreciate that perspective. I can name a couple films off the top of my head that, though they gained critical praise, didn't trust me to figure it out on my own; “Vanilla Sky”, “Fight Club”, and “6th Sense” only name three of the many. Don't get me wrong, I think each of those films were well made and fun to watch. And though they challenged me along the way, felt the need to ensure I got the message so they also explained it to me at the end, holding my hand like a small child and pointing out each of the clues I may have missed. “Inception” has tons of clues leading to a couple different potential alternate endings. For fear of spoiling the fun of discovering them yourself, I won't point out too many for you to notice. But the fact they exist, and weren't tied in a neat bow at the end, means Nolan trusts me to find the ending I like best. And I appreciate that.
I turned to my movie-going companion and remarked that Nolan found the Dream Cast when putting this film together. Dicapprio is a brilliant actor, and has successfully shed the stigma he incurred after “Titanic”, a movie he was also brilliant in, but his performance became trumped by pop-culture hype. He is joined by a cast that includes the people who ought to be considered 5 of today's top 10 A-List actors: Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy. Add to that the experience of Pete Postlewaite, Tom Berenger (in a surprise return) and Michael Caine and your round off an amazing list of talent. And they do a spectacular job, making each performance stand out individually.
But the real star of this movie is the script. I mentioned the plot was labyrinthine, and that is no exaggeration. In fact, from the clues I noticed, it is key to understanding the underlying story. Layers upon layers of depth. The movie is about stealing thoughts from dreams, and how the ultimate heist isn't a theft, but the implanting of an outside thought using highjacked dreams; the Inception. To do this, you must trick the recipient in the dream world using a confidence game that makes use of dreams within dreams, layered like a wedding cake, to ensure the subject doesn't reject the implanted thought as alien in origin. A separate con-game exists on each of those layers, lovingly crafted with the staggeringly brilliant editing of the film, which carries us through those layers as they unfold; when the seconds of one are minutes in the next, and years in the next; yet all occure simultaneously. As convoluted as that may sound, it is seamlessly performed. Implanted along the way is the question, “Are we seeing what we think we are seeing?” Lost yet? You won't be, surprisingly, because it is perfectly executed. The clues aren't hidden too deep, nor are they obvious; they simply exist for you to acknowledge or glance over. You can watch the movie one time and see a brilliant story unfold, and then watch it again and see the story underneath. I am still pondering the possibility of a 3rd layer, as is hinted at in the movie, but I didn't see it first go around.
When I got home I hopped on the internet and, along with my viewing companion, began looking for clues using Wikipedia. Suddenly yet another aspect of the movie opened up to me. Like a puzzle-box with compartments inside compartments, this story has symbolism inside symbolism, clues hinting at deeper and deeper insights. I'll give you an obvious one, just to whet your appetite: Ellen Page's character is named Ariadne, who was, in Greek mythology, the daughter of King Minos who helped Theseus find his way through the Labyrinth of Crete. I'll also give you a less obvious one: Ken Watanabe's character is named Saito, and in Japanese history Saito Dosan was daimyo, or fuedal lord, of the Mino province. Coincidence? I doubt it. The entire script is just that intricately worked.
“Inception” was a pleasure to watch because it is a well made movie, with breathtaking special effects and acting that is unparalleled. But it is great because it is the work of craftsmen, true artists, who know their tools and trust their audience. Watch this movie with open eyes, so you can see the hidden easter-eggs and clues along the way. But don't forget to watch it because it is fun as well.
As I write this I am reading a reviewer who didn't like the movie. He wasn't impressed by the challenge the movie made to him, the challenge to explore the film beyond the layered story. This particular reviewer was bored by the depth, and ultimately resentful of each tool used to create said depth; from the visual effects to the pieces of symbolism present but not overtly explained. I realize from his conclusion that not only did he not get it, but he wasn't interested in trying to get it. And I equally realize there are people out there who will feel, as did this reviewer, that the film was to convoluted and difficult to be enjoyable. For you folks I say don't worry; Sylvester Stallone is making a new film to balance these scales.
Having seen this movie twice in the theater (a rare occurrence for me), I will say that the depth of its labyrinth and the subtlety of its psychology had big appeal. Because I am a thinker, there are still a lot of things that I'm pondering about the message of this film. In the end, I believe it is about the risks involved with isolation and disconnection, an oft used emotional "protection" in an age where the appearance of being social takes a few clicks on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteOne of my disappointments with the movie were that not enough fantasy entered the dreamscape component. The more I think about it, though, I think this is an important element of the labyrinth. The other big disappointment was the use of guns. You are in a dream. The laws of reality do not apply. Be a little more creative that the stock-and-trade weaponry of every "real-world" action movie.
Saito, by the way, is also the name of a famous Japanese psychologist who has done ground-breaking research into people who withdraw from society. I'm just throwing that out there.