Inception
By David Napier at 16 July, 2010, 10:00 pm
Inception is the fruit of a creative mind that knows what an audience wants whilst staying completely true to its own vision.
It’s cinematic, rousing and captivating, yet with a humility rarely seen in anything of such sheer ambition.
As the crack team of “extractors” try to navigate and understand dreams in search of their elusive goal of implanting an idea, the film continuously asks questions whilst explaining itself simultaneously.
The exposition never feels a chore – It is necessary to establish the rules of a whole new game.
The bending, twisting dreamscape effects and the intense, booming soundtrack are amongst the most immersive you may ever see – a testament to Chris Nolan‘s slow, steady pace – yet all of it still seems to skip by in a heartbeat.
However it’s not perfect, and Nolan’s plot and ideas-driven filmmaking style unfortunately on this occasion, unlike the Dark Knight, is at the expense of strong, memorable characters – Whilst effectively drawn, they are clearly there to serve the film’s higher abstract purpose.
Furthermore, the traumatic situation suffered by Leonardo DiCaprio‘s Cobb and his intimate relationship with his wife, the immaculate Marion Cotillard, is only conveyed in essence, and while a deeper, more profound emotional core lurks beneath the surface, it is never truly explored in depth.
A plausible counterargument to this is that it’s simply not a character-centric film.
But Nolan has assembled an insanely talented and diverse ensemble cast who give it everything they’ve got for this mind-bending conceit – so good, in fact, that you’ll surrender to the moment.
His eye for X-factor performers (Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, the always terrific Cillian Murphy) is offset perfectly by his Tarantino-style interest in drawing out unseen sides of pigeonholed stars (here Tom Berenger’s small but subtle turn as a corporate executive).
DiCaprio, meanwhile, demonstrates his maturity as a movie star by keeping the whole thing anchored, without histrionics, smugness or scene-stealing mania, all in spite of a character with a deeply destabilised mental state.
Despite slight emotional gaps, cinema really doesn’t get much better than this.
Nobody could see everything in here first time around – it’s one of the most challenging blockbusters ever made, and confirms Nolan a true giant among 21st century filmmakers.
I don’t entirely agree with the diagnosis here; I think Dave isn’t giving the characters and the emotional core of the film sufficient credit.
I was actually a little underwhelmed by some of the more visual aspects of the film, which is not too say that it wasn’t stunning, but I didn’t find that to be the most compelling aspect. The zero-gravity hotel fight is admittedly one for the canon of truly mind-blowing action sequences, but beyond that, I didn’t find the visuals to go above and beyond the spectacle that high-end quality blockbusters tend to produce each summer. Wonderful, accomplished and staggering: but nothing game-changing. Honestly, I think I’d say the same about the Dark Knight.
I know this sounds a little strange, because Nolan’s films are always so visual, and by no means am I suggesting this is a weak point.
But what I’m driving at is that I found myself pulled in by the personal story of Dom Cobb and his deceased wife. That narrative of guilt and redemption permeates the spectacle and gives it meaning. For me, DiCaprio’s performance is magnificent, for the very reason that it isn’t showy. This is the story of a man who must confront the consequences of his past if he is to have any future. Marion Cotillard makes an outstanding spectre of vengeful rage.
Cillian Murphy puts in a magnificent turn and the film could easily have been turned upside down and turned into a study of his character. The other players all put in fine performances, though I’d grant that the characters do get a little thinner on the outer edge of the narrative. Although it does make me smile to see Tom Hardy playing a buffed-up Giles Coren!
My only problem with the film is that I find some of the dream logic unconvincing. Unlike The Matrix, the dreams on display are just that, lucid dreams. I ultimately find the peril waiting at the very bottom of the dream-cycle a little unconvincing intellectually, though it is a necessity for the narrative to function.
There’s far too much to talk about in one post, but I will just say that I did think the film had more than the requisite emotional resonance and, in fact, would have been a clinical mess of ideas without it. However, it always, ALWAYS felt like it could have gone further developing its characters and their relationships. Like most of the film’s flaws I suspect this is a symptom of having such an ambitious script that to fit everything in would literally require an extra hour. And to be honest, it doesn’t detract from anything, because
[arghhhhh damn all keyboards to 7th circle of hell] …the film is about the moment and the headrush and having your constant attention, which it does command. The performances are universally top-drawer, and it’s the personalities that three-dimensionalise their characters and make them more compelling than the script allows. I think Nolan probably knows this too. I’ve been championing Leo since The Aviator, since which he has rarely disappointed – and like Nolan, he just keeps getting better in his understanding of the medium. In summary: woo.