Film Review: Inception

Story by Andrew Johnson | July 19, 2010 | Tags: arts, Film, News

Film Review by Andrew Johnson for CaryCitizen

There is a two-minute sequence in Inception that I’m convinced will one day be viewed with respect to Christopher Nolan the way Psycho‘s classic “shower scene” is treated  in relation to Hitchcock.

It is a scene so inventive, so brilliantly edited, so jaw-droppingly cool that both times I saw the film, the audience I was with could only respond with stunned silence.

When it was over, it took all my resolve not to stand up and start applauding the sheer audacity of what I had just witnessed.  The only thought my brain could produce was an echo of a line from The Matrix, when its protagonist can only stare dumbfounded at the feats he’s witnessed and respond: “Whoa.”

The Director

It’s been two years since Christopher Nolan stunned audiences with The Dark Knight, which went on to become one of the few films to cross the $1 billion mark at the worldwide box-office.  It was one of those rare cases where commercial success was matched almost equally by critical acclaim, with many asserting his brooding take on the superhero genre deserved a Best Picture nomination.

While he had long been noticed by film buffs and none of his films had been box-office or critical failures, it was the overwhelming success of The Dark Knight that would make Christopher Nolan a household name – at least as much as most directors can hope to be.  It’s no surprise, then, that Warner Bros. would do everything in its power to keep him happy, lest he refuse to return to direct the as-yet-untitled Batman 3, even if it meant giving him nearly $200 million to direct an original script about dream invasion in the meantime.

And thank God they did.  Though it’s far from a perfect film, Inception has more creativity pulsing through its first 20 minutes than most films do in their entire runtime, and emerges as a breath of fresh air amidst this year’s batch of mostly-unspectacular mainstream cinema fare.

The Story

The premise is simple on the surface: Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a dream extractor, capable of breaking into people’s dreams while they sleep and stealing their secrets. An outlaw for crimes unknown, a mysterious businessman offers him a clean slate in exchange for doing the impossible: inception.  Rather than stealing an idea, he’ll have to plant one deep inside the mind of a subject.

It’s the details of the central conceit that may leave some viewers scratching their heads.  Certain background information (like how the dream creation and entry process works) remains a mystery, while other important exposition comes so quickly it’s easy to miss.

Unlike The Matrix, which had numerous scenes in which all the rules were carefully explained and then concretely demonstrated, Inception doesn’t have time to spoon-feed its audience.  Most of the logistics of dream architecture are mentioned quickly and in passing – if you aren’t listening carefully, it’s easy to get lost amongst the whirlwind of rules, ideas, character conflicts and plot threads, particularly when they could radically change at a moment’s notice.

The Next Kubrick?

In the wake of Inception, many critics have begun to compare Christopher Nolan to renowned auteur Stanley Kubrick (“2001 A Space Odyssey”), another director who dealt frequently with lofty themes and ideas.   While I personally think Kubrick was the more mature filmmaker, the comparison is more apt than it might first appear.

They share what some might say is a single, overriding flaw: they are such technical perfectionists, capable of crafting such detailed and precise imagery, that the sheer artistry may in some cases distance the audience at the expense of emotional resonance.

While their work is rightly perceived as innovative and brilliant, it’s far more likely to tug at viewers’ minds than their hearts, whether it’s through the use of morally ambiguous protagonists or sheer thematic ambition.

Ironically, though, it’s this similarity which illustrates a key difference between the two filmmakers.  While they both arguably emphasize technical precision over emotional depth, Kubrick favored the abstract, while Nolan is one of the most literalistic filmmakers to emerge in decades.

From the naturalistic lighting of Barry Lyndon to the bizarre art design of A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick demonstrated he was quite capable of making films that felt very dream-like in nature.  In fact, his final masterpiece, the vastly underrated Eyes Wide Shut, has been interpreted by many critics to be entirely a “dream film,” with its graceful cinematography and subtle manifestations of psychosexual desire.

Nolan’s Inception, on the other hand, is a painstakingly precise and transparent look at the subconscious, leaving no room for ambiguity or alternative interpretations.  We are aware when things are proceeding into the realm of the psyche not merely because characters directly state we are, but because in Nolan’s vision thoughts are just as concrete as reality.  Their setting has a distinct layout, all the players are clearly defined, and were it not for the occasional shift in gravity one could easily forget this is all mere mental projection.

Cobb’s inner demons are not presented as anything but what they are – black-and-white, with no room for gray, and lacking the surprisingly flexibility and complexity of actual psychology.

At one point Nolan depicts the layers of the mind by using an actual elevator to navigate the different floors.  Is it a fitting metaphor?  Sure, and it works within the context of the film, but it’s far from Kubrick’s more understated approach to filmmaking.

An Ambitious Film

And therein lies Inception’s greatest flaw. The script is so complex, the rules of the dream so numerous, and the action so carefully crafted, that the entire venture at times feels very cold and empty.  We understand Cobb’s past and psyche because Nolan tells us what they are, rather than showing us and allowing us to reach our own conclusions.

If there’s any audience sympathy towards him, it’s because we want to know the outcome on an intellectual level alone rather than because we legitimately feel his pain.  If he failed in his goals, I doubt anyone would feel truly disappointed, since Inception’s primary characteristic is that of spectacle.

We don’t have to care about the characters (and most of the time I didn’t) because we’re too busy doing mental jumping jacks and marveling at the set pieces to notice how one-dimensional they actually are.   

Inception is an absolute marvel to behold, but I can’t help but feel that even with its two-and-a-half-hour runtime, Nolan bit off more than he can chew; the plot is dense enough for two films or a miniseries, and it’s a testament to his skill as a director (not to mention editor Lee Smith, who deserves an Oscar nomination for his work here) that the final product is this comprehensible.

Most of the tremendously talented supporting cast (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page and Tom Hardy to name a few) are under-utilized, reduced to spouting exposition or making Cool Stuff Happen.  Multiple viewings reveal plot holes and contradictions that go by unnoticed the first time, due to the sheer amount of said Cool Stuff Happening.  It doesn’t need to make sense (and it doesn’t once you stop to think about it), because you’ll be so busy trying to keep up with everything to do anything other than be taken along for the ride, trusting that Nolan has it all figured out.

Remarkable, Yes

Ignore the hype about Inception being Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece.  It’s not.  Time, and repeated viewings, will make its logic gaps and flawed narrative more apparent.  The storytelling that many are touting as “genius” is actually in many ways quite shoddy and imperfect.

But even with its flaws, one fact still remains: that Inception was made at all is remarkable.  The real hero of Inception is not Christopher Nolan, but Warner Bros.

For a studio to pump so much money into such a brainy script and then give a director so much control over his vision is miraculous, and a welcome change from the norm.

The result, while not perfect, is a refreshingly original idea allowed to be executed without limitations, for better or worse.  The visuals and sheer density of the ideas on display alone are worth the price of admission.

See this movie.  Give it your money.  It’s not perfect, but it’s darn good, and Hollywood needs to be shown that taking a chance on something original with a talented filmmaker can be profitable.  The world needs more films like Inception, bold in vision and unafraid to try something new.

Plus, at the end of the day, all the nitpicking in the world can’t take away the feeling of overwhelming ecstasy that may very well spread over you for those two hypnotic minutes, when the music is pounding, the suspense is rising, and you’re utterly spellbound by the pure cinema unfolding in front of you.

Then, as quickly as it came, the moment passes, and you’re left to exhale and bathe in the afterglow, wondering if it was all a dream.

Andrew Johnson is the host of MovieChatter, a weekly podcast about film. Of all the opinions out there about the current state of cinema, he swears that his are the right ones. Continue the discussion by following him on Twitter.

News on CaryCitizen is sponsored by Ashworth Drugs.