Issues with Inception
Monday, July 19, 2010 at 9:06AM 
This weekend heralded something truly rare for a Hollywood industry that has become scared of supporting films not based on some sort of existing franchise. Whether it be comic book, TV show or simple retread of a foreign or old film, there is a disturbing trend of lack of originality in both concept and quality of big budget films. So for the summer movie goers who have grown tired of seeing remakes that ruin the source material (see Airbender), Inception is a beacon of hope for those lost in a dreary nightmare of mundane films. Christopher Nolan's completely original concept is a marvel in both ambition and complexity and there's a lot to love about this film.
That being said I had issues with certain elements of the film that prevented me from loving it as much as the overflowing positive public response. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy the film but that I found Inception merely satisfying on a visceral level as opposed to an engaging level. The film didn't provoke any new thoughts for me about the nature of reality and dreams (which is what I was hoping for). Now you can argue, well isn't that what Inception is all about? Maybe, but it's conveyed it's such a non-committal ambiguous way that you have to really stretch your imagination to even begin to see the logic or inception of the bigger ideas at play.
Another problem I had with the film was the lack of emotional connection with the characters, in particular the supporting cast. Many of their backstories were shrouded in exposition, and their purpose really was just to serve a specific role in the dream heist. I found myself not really giving a damn about any of their fates. Even Leonardo's emotional conflict with his wife and children felt cut and paste dry, which at least for me deterred from any kind of resonance the film was trying to resolve about his inner psychology. Inception is very concerned with creating a universe with a set of maze-like rules for the characters to run around in like rats in a cage. Unfortunately, by concentrating on that aspect of the film, it lost its focus on the characters thus making everything going on seem kinda pointless.
It's hard to critique a movie like Inception because I wanted to like it based on the premise alone and because you almost feel indebted to support creative original work in this current cinematic climate. I think the viral nature of the marketing backfired for me because I was salivating in line at the IMAX waiting for a 2001-like experience and instead was greeted with something more akin to Ocean's 11 meets James Bond Dreamscape. For me, walking out of the film I didn't have the same 'WOW' feeling that I had after walking out of Dark City or The Matrix, two films Nolan specifically cites as an inspiration.
I'd like to stress the fact that just because I didn't think Inception was a masterpiece, doesn't mean you can't. There were many people as I left the theater who obviously did have that 'WOW' factor written all over their faces and the more reviews I read, the more I understand why people love this film. Two writers on the Film Stage, whose opinion I value very much, both gave it perfect scores. My friends love this film, hell even Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars (then again read Rex Reed's scathing review). I also love the whole 'Lost'-esque theories that are popping up like this one. Plus there were genuine moments where I was thoroughly impressed with the filmmaking technique and special effects, in particular the bending of the city sequence and the zero gravity fight with Joseph Gordon Levitt.
Like I said before, there's a lot to love about this film but for me, it didn't satisfy my cinematic urge for something epic that resonates deep within your soul. I'm still going to give it another chance, as I'm sure a second viewing might enlighten me with a different perception of Inception.
Dark City, Roger Ebert, The Film Stage, The Matrix, christopher nolan, inception in Film
Reader Comments (6)
Nice piece, Raffi. I believe I probably walked out of the theater with a little more WOW on my face than you. That being said, there was this tiny thing in the back of my head that was telling me something was missing. I can't quite put my finger on it, but perhaps it was the emotional connection with the characters, or lack of. Of course, how fleshed out can you make a character when... *SPOILER CENSOR*
Hey Raffi,
Nice piece. The emotional stuff hit me (especially on 2nd viewing) and I can agree with the supporting characters but they each had their moment and charm to them that I didn't mind. I also kind of new what to expect (in terms of a James Bond meets Matrix) and not some 2001 so even though my expectations were staggering they were geared towards that. As I said in my review:
"There is no highbrow psychological mysteries to be unraveled for decades to come nor any pondering ethereal contemplations. It’s an all-out enthralling action extravaganza centered on an emotional struggle, all while balancing high-level, but comprehensible dream logic. It does what it does perfectly and for a thoroughly captivating, completely enveloping experience Christopher Nolan has delivered beyond my wildest dreams."
Hey Raffi,
Well put. I had the same feeling when watching Inception that I wasn't fully connected to the characters and the level of depth that I was willing to go was much more than what the film offered. I really wanted to experience a new dimension. I did like the originality of the script and the surfaces that it scratched. I also agree that the supporting characters were only there to serve their specific role in the heist. I love Ellen Page and I thought her character was flat. I am looking forward to another look at the film and hopefully I will discover some new gems.
I re-read Hal Phillips analysis to make sure I understood his theory. I think it's definitely a cool guess, but I'm having doubts about it.
One common theme with all of Christopher Nolan’s films is to engage the audience to “think” and the cryptic ending of “Inception” was one of his tools. I suspect we’ll never know Nolan’s theory as he never reveals the true plot line to his films.
I strongly doubt Nolan would have created a movie where the entire film was a con on the audience. His other films such a “Memento” and “The Prestige”, while complex and fanciful, have an internal logic that you can follow.
(1) If we can't believe that facts presented in the film, then we can’t believe the rules of entering a persons dream. We can't believe anything.
(2) If Ariadne is performing an inception on Cobb, that would dangerously emulate the plot of “Shutter Island”. Nolan has been working on this script for 10 years – would he risk $160 million using an actor from a very similar film released only a year earlier? (I checked and “Shutter Island” stated filming an entire year before “Inception” so Nolan would have been aware of the plot).
There is also strong evidence throughout the film that Ariadne is exactly who she is as introduced and the “real” world exists. I am making the assumption that if facts were revealed in scene where Cobb is NOT in the scene, then there would be no reason to show or depict it IF this was Cobb’s dream or an inception on Cobb. On the examples below, if this was an inception on Cobb, characters could have simply told him that learned something or performed an act rather than show it.
(1) Eames visits Fischer's office and learned about the relationship between Richard and his father and Uncle.
(2) Arthur explains the rules of architecture to Ariadne (the Escher stairway scene).
(3) Arthur tells Ariadne that Mal is dead.
(4) Ariadne makes her chess piece totem before showing it to Cobb.
(5) When Ariadne enters Cobb’s elevator of dream-memories, she seems genuinely shocked to see Mal in the basement-hotel room. This is before Cobb enters the scene. If Ariadne were performing an inception on Cobb she would already know Mal was dead before entering his “dream”, if she were expert enough to lead an inception she would already know the rules of the architecture and already of a totem.
There are two final key scenes that indicate the entire film was not a dream:
(1) Near the end, when Cobb and Ariadne enter limbo or the final level, Fischer wakes up in the Alps bunker, enter the vault and opens the safe with the will and pin wheel. Cobb is already in limbo and is not there to see this event (only Eames sees it). If Fischer were part of the dream world (a “Sub Con” like all the extras were called in the credits) or a member of an inception team, there would have been no reason to show us this scene.
(2) The only person in the entire movie to suggest Cobb’s life is a dream is Mal – she tells him this in the scene in Limbo. But Mal is the least reliable person in the movie. She has been an antagonist in every other scene. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that her name means “bad” or “evil” in Latin and Spanish.
So what’s my theory? The entire movie, except the last scene, can be believed as presented. Throughout the film, every time Cobb exited a dream he spun the top to make sure he was in the real world. At the end of the movie when Ariadne escapes Limbo, Cobb is trapped there – he never leaves Limbo. The last scene with Saito is Cobb’s way of rebuilding the world in his dream. There is some possible evidence for this… for all the other dreamers, when they awake and return to the real world, we seem them wake at each level. At the end, Cobb wakes from Limbo directly to the plane. AND when Cobb is at the airport – everyone is watching him (or at least all of the Inception team) – if they were Sub Cons at this point in the film, they are sensing the dream was being manipulated. Then that’s why we don’t see the top stop spinning before the credits.
Yo Raffi whats good homie this is Kehinde (Priviledge). I couldn't agree more with your critique of Inception. I wanted to love it so much. And I did really really like it. But I also did not get that WOW factor after leaving the theater. I don't want to compare this film to momento as they are so different, but after leaving momento I was really like WOW! Where as after this film I was a little let down, wholly because of the hype surrounding the film, but even still I was yearning for a deeper connection with the story and characters, as you have so aptly pointed out.
Yo Raffi whats good homie this is Kehinde (Priviledge). I couldn't agree more with your critique of Inception. I wanted to love it so much. And I did really really like it. But I also did not get that WOW factor after leaving the theater. I don't want to compare this film to momento as they are so different, but after leaving momento I was really like WOW! Where as after this film I was a little let down, wholly because of the hype surrounding the film, but even still I was yearning for a deeper connection with the story and characters, as you have so aptly pointed out.cheap ugg boots
ugg boots sale