Inception

Started by modage, August 24, 2009, 10:21:41 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

modage

GT is the Armond White of Xixax.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Gold Trumpet

Haha, I have no idea why I even bother.

samsong

first thing's first: this movie is as hollow as they come.  that said, inception marks yet another triumphant restoring of grandeur to hollywood movies from chris nolan.  this is a big fucking movie, and it's awesome for it.  there are, however, copious problems.  the screenplay is exhaustively "well constructed", both to the film's credit and detriment as it verges on tedium and hilarious convenience.  there isn't an ounce of elusiveness to this film, nothing to bring to the table by the audience except an inordinate amount of focus to follow along.  cold, this film is not, as there are some genuinely moving bits, but it is mechanical.  because nolan's execution is so sharp, these mechanized emotional cues are fairly successful.  in some ways i see nolan as the high brow, chic, english answer to tarantino.  his movies are clearly the work of a man who loves movies and knows how to make good ones, but what he has to offer doesn't go much further than the movies.

at no point is the frivolity of inception more clear than with the final shot.  at best, it's a post-modern touch, reminding the audience that it's a movie and that cinema at large is a dream (hardly an original statement).   otherwise, it only invites inane speculation to ends that are completely unearned by the film itself.  like gt said, that the ambiguity of the ending has such clear decisions renders it inconsequential.  really the only thing that can be taken from it is either that it was all a dream or it was reality, and i don't consider this type of "leaving it to the audience" to be productive or particularly interesting.  seeing it a second time while considering the possibility that the ending suggested that this is a loaded movie with complexities worth contemplating only highlighted just how little substance there is to this film, and that it's best appreciated as the extremely well made diversion that it is.  it capitalizes on a cool idea in terms of making for an immensely entertaining film. inception is there for awe-inspired gawking, of which it elicits much of.

polkablues

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS (Seriously, P; Just stay out of this fucking thread for the rest of the week)

I don't have time to delve too deeply into my impressions, since I have sleep to catch up on, so instead I'll link you to a very nice article by Devin Faraci at CHUD, in which he very persuasively makes the case for the all-dream interpretation of the film.  He also lays out a very eloquent reading of what a few here have touched on, that the film is an allegory for the art of cinema itself.  Lots of good points.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html
My house, my rules, my coffee

Stefen

I guess we'll have to wait for the sequel.
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

Gold Trumpet

I'm going to see this film a few more times so I want to keep my comments tentative, but I gave a tentative review over on my blog: http://filmsplatter.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/inception-1st-viewing/

To the people who have no interest in my argument, don't worry, what you read will sound like Charlie Brown's teacher talking so you can skip this blog entry.

Stefen

I heart Film Splatter.

Oliver Stone references and all, I love reading your blog, GT.
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

picolas

spoils of course

Quote from: samsong on July 19, 2010, 02:21:22 AMotherwise, it only invites inane speculation to ends that are completely unearned by the film itself. really the only thing that can be taken from it is either that it was all a dream or it was reality, and i don't consider this type of "leaving it to the audience" to be productive or particularly interesting.
you're being so dismissive it hurts. polka's article is filled with evidence. there are so many cool theories floating around based on very specific things in the movie. the idea that cobb is the real mark is a favourite of mine. and that's certainly taking things a step or three further from simply "it was all a dream."

modage

Quote from: modage on July 18, 2010, 03:43:01 PM
D. Everything is a dream, dream invasion technology doesn't exist and none of this happened. 

But that's too disappointing to ponder. 

That CHUD article is great and basically fleshes out D to be the most likely option now.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

modage

doublepost:

Chris Nolan 30 min interview on The Treatment podcast: http://media.kcrw.com/podcast/show_itms/tt

Long Q&A w/actor Dileep Rao: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html

Salon explanation: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/07/19/inception_explainer

Quote from: Stefen on July 18, 2010, 04:03:46 PM
Has Nolan touched on the ending at all?

Elvis Mitchell: Because there was such a kind of incompletion in the protagonists [in your earlier films] that there was that kind of a "now what" sense at the end of those films that you don't have here.

Nolan: [pause] Yes...I don't want to talk too much about the ending, but I think that depends a little bit on how you read the film as well.  But I would agree with that.  I think what I'm looking for in the story, I'm looking for that completion, I'm looking for that emotional fulfillment.  I've found that that wish fulfillment has become more and more important to me. 
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

matt35mm

Samsong hit on what bothered me about the film.  I really enjoyed watching it (the shifting-gravity fight was the most jaw-dropping thing I've seen in a movie in years), but I left feeling fairly empty, and I suspected that the over-constructed screenplay was the problem.  I can't exactly bring myself to call it a criticism, but I was very aware that almost every explanation at the front end of the film was placed there in order to solve a logical problem that the filmmakers ran into in the latter end.  I felt like the movie was thought through backwards, which is fine, except that it made it difficult for me to get emotionally involved while watching it frontwards.

I have more to say, but I'm writing on my phone right now and it's getting unpleasant.

RegularKarate

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!

Okay, just read the Chud article and am about to read the Salon article, but I wanted to get some stuff out first.

When I read blackmirror's theory, I fought it for the same reasons the Chud article explains, but once I thought about it more (and before I read the Chud), I started to accept it, mostly because of the mysterious agents who are after Cobb in his "reality".  

Now that I've read the first article I've allowed myself to read about this movie (I avoided almost everything about Inception before seeing it), I'm running with it.

Another theory that I just started to consider is this: What if in the reality we don't see in this movie dream sharing STILL exists.  Why are we assuming it's all part of a dream within our own reality?
What if the whole movie is Cobb's inception?  Perhaps by his father.
Maybe in the true reality, his father has gone into Cobb's dreams to help him get over the death of his wife and be able to look at his children's faces again.  His father gives him an awful lot of advice throughout the movie and perhaps he (or someone else helping him) is posing as Mol to make Cobb think that he's reaching this realization on his own.

This may be way off base, but I'm going to keep it in mind the next time I watch it.

Okay, on to the Salon article (which will probably make me change my mind again).

picolas

spoils?

Quote from: modage on July 19, 2010, 08:50:53 AMElvis Mitchell: Because there was such a kind of incompletion in the protagonists [in your earlier films] that there was that kind of a "now what" sense at the end of those films that you don't have here.

Nolan: [pause] Yes...
that yes is so funny. by yes he means no, you're completely wrong.

modage

Haha, yeah.  That is clear when you listen to the podcast.  He's probably thinking "Elvis, I can't believe YOU missed this!"
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

socketlevel

***maybe spoilers?***

yep samsong got it spot on. the problem with this film is there will be little to no replay value, 90% of the dialog is explaining the plot and the technical aspects of the universe. something that has to be done to follow it, but at the end of the day what brings an audience back should be more than tour guide driven characters and abstract setting reveals. the emotional parts of the movie arn't enriching enough for me to care to revisit it. the performances aren't enough either (though not poor by any stretch). i see this film easily becoming the contemporary matrix, it will be over analyzed and infused with pseudo-philosophical ramblings that mask how 'hollow' it really is.

i really enjoyed the film with that said lol, it's very well crafted and the visuals in the 2nd layer were pretty amazing. i'm interested in seeing it again only to test my suspicions regarding it's long term value. something i'll do when it comes out on dvd.
the one last hit that spent you...