August 10th, 2010 / 12:46 am
Film
Blake Butler
Film
Inception in 3 Seconds
[via @Idea Shower, typo notwithstanding]
[I remember an interview somewhere with Quentin Tarantino where he dismantled Nolan’s Memento in one question: if he can’t remember anything, how does he remember he has a memory problem?]
[While I’m at it: A.D. Jameson’s 17 Ways of Criticizing Inception is slick.]
thank you
christopher nolan is maybe the most pretentious filmmaker i can think of
I like that Tarantino quote. Read Jameson’s article earlier today, enjoyed it. Total Recall.
I saw it a second time yesterday. I can’t think of a film that’s so simultaneously amazing and tedious.
Doesn’t solve Cobb getting his name cleared.
JAMESON THINKS HE HAS WON SOMETHING
I enjoyed Inception okay (the trick is not expecting too much) and I had fun with Batman (because it was Batman) but my definitive Nolan experience is knowing all of the twists to The Prestige from about twenty minutes in and how UNBELIEVABLY BORING that made the movie.
This is funny, but it’s not a plot hole. In France, Michael Caine tells him he’s taking a risk by being there – due to the extradition problem, we can infer. And we never see where exactly he ‘lives’. It’s pretty clear that he can’t have his kids flown to him because when he fled the country, he became a criminal to pay to remain on the move, or to pay for life beyond the reach of the authorities, the activity no doubt exacerbating his fugitiveness (he has to lay low after the failed inception at the start) and either way that’s evidently not the life he wants for his kids. Lol, but maybe if Nolan explained that three times for people, they’d get it ;)
Also, Tarantino’s observation on Memento is not at all observant: “Anterograde amnesia is a loss of the ability to create new memories after the event that caused the amnesia, leading to a partial or complete inability to recall the recent past, while long term memories from before the event remain intact.” Memento‘s all about partiality.
sorry, i’m a nolan fan
thank you. Tedious film.
thank you
christopher nolan is maybe the most pretentious filmmaker i can think of
I like that Tarantino quote. Read Jameson’s article earlier today, enjoyed it. Total Recall.
i don’t buy the fugitive thing. the only way to solve his problem is to go back into america, to the home they know he lived in, to see these kids?
and in memento, so he remember nothing but the act that caused the amnesia?
it’s too convenient in both cases, just the kind of logical fallacy that allows these kind of falsely contemplative movies to exist. as happens with all overconstrued storytelling.
I saw it a second time yesterday. I can’t think of a film that’s so simultaneously amazing and tedious.
Doesn’t solve Cobb getting his name cleared.
JAMESON THINKS HE HAS WON SOMETHING
I enjoyed Inception okay (the trick is not expecting too much) and I had fun with Batman (because it was Batman) but my definitive Nolan experience is knowing all of the twists to The Prestige from about twenty minutes in and how UNBELIEVABLY BORING that made the movie.
This is funny, but it’s not a plot hole. In France, Michael Caine tells him he’s taking a risk by being there – due to the extradition problem, we can infer. And we never see where exactly he ‘lives’. It’s pretty clear that he can’t have his kids flown to him because when he fled the country, he became a criminal to pay to remain on the move, or to pay for life beyond the reach of the authorities, the activity no doubt exacerbating his fugitiveness (he has to lay low after the failed inception at the start) and either way that’s evidently not the life he wants for his kids. Lol, but maybe if Nolan explained that three times for people, they’d get it ;)
Also, Tarantino’s observation on Memento is not at all observant: “Anterograde amnesia is a loss of the ability to create new memories after the event that caused the amnesia, leading to a partial or complete inability to recall the recent past, while long term memories from before the event remain intact.” Memento‘s all about partiality.
sorry, i’m a nolan fan
meh, well, i can’t really understand why the premise of the film – the idea of a machine-drug cocktail can allow you to share dreams in dreams – is acceptable in terms of narrative belief, while the fact his criminal life means he can’t bring his kids to him is some smoking gun of lameness. i guess if you don’t like the film than you’ve already decided the inability to have his kids with him is going to be inherently implausible, anyway, sort of like not being into the graphics of a warcraft role play game on your computer because you prefer playing first person shooters on xbox, or something. still, that doesn’t mean it’s not a fully coherent part of the story as such. to accord plausibly to its own interior logic is crucial in this kind of fiction, and it does that. basically, he flees, he falls back on his skill and becomes a criminal to maintain his extra-legal life – the problem of not being with his kids and not being an outlaw are linked. convenient maybe yet it makes sense to me. i mean, it seems like it’s importing an artificial standard if you’re suddenly demanding convincing dramatic motivation from an international dream thief, you know? but whatev, i’m a deadset nolan fan, for better or worse.
part of why people aren’t liking this movie overall, i think, is that they’re not really understanding that only the ending never happens: cobb never goes home. and as for memento, the suspiciousness is sort of intended to fall on that very fishy sense of convenience, no? given how the whole thing winds up, the way it’s all angled. leonard’s head is his wiggle room.
“This is not a film critique. This is a critique of what and how we choose to critique or how we choose who chooses.”
http://staugustine2.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/the-endless-thread-7-0/#comment-3688
Maybe the fact that there are a hundred other ways Cobb could see his kids, but he’s obsessed with this one, single way, supports the theory that the entire film is Cobb’s dream. He remembers his kids with their backs turned on the beach, so that’s how his minds tells him he has to see them again. He dreams what he remembers. I don’t think he would dream about meeting them at an airport Starbucks.
i don’t buy the fugitive thing. the only way to solve his problem is to go back into america, to the home they know he lived in, to see these kids?
and in memento, so he remember nothing but the act that caused the amnesia?
it’s too convenient in both cases, just the kind of logical fallacy that allows these kind of falsely contemplative movies to exist. as happens with all overconstrued storytelling.
Nice computer game metaphor (er, simile).
Jessica, you hit the nail on its dreamy head.
My basic, basic problem with the movie (aside from the, yes, tedious execution) was that its concepts of consciousness, dreaming, and ideas are awfully muddled and strike me as intuitively wrong. “We all know exactly where ideas come from?” Since when? There are multi-million dollar industries that do nothing but plant ideas, and it seems to work pretty well. “Inception” happens to everyone a hundred times a day; no dream equipment & architects necessary.
Thanks for the AD Jameson link, good stuff.
I think the typo makes it a lot funnier. It’s a reminder to just go with it, because it’s funny. The movie could have used a few more typos.
What’s tedious is casting about for small plot conveniences (not actually logical inconsistencies, b/t/w). These cries of “that’s not realistic!” always seem rather shrill. I mean, the graphic is funny enough, especially the last frame. And Jameson’s analysis is incisive, and there’s nothing in it to really quarrel with — I’m just glad I don’t think like that. I’m perfectly happy to be seduced by a blockbuster once in awhile. I was entertained. That’s all I was hoping for — but I can certainly see how, if someone was hoping to go home and write a thesis about it, Inception didn’t deliver.
Did you NOT see the part where they tried to drown Scarlett Johannsen?
That’s fine as far as it goes, but you’ll notice that Jameson’s also attacking the film *as* a blockbuster — Nolan is poor action director, and given Inception’s pacing and exposition problems, it’s not a lot of fun, either. I was ready to be entertained, but after the amusingly confusing first 20 minutes, I found it crushingly dull, with not a fun moment in sight. Like someone said, it’s like a video game that’s all tutorial and no gameplay. I was so bored during long stretches that I considered walking out.
Dunno about incisive, even. He repeated ‘there’s too much expositon!’ about two-hundred times. My ten year-old cousin picked-up on that. I was hoping he’d explain *how* Nolan was supposed to dramatize all the rules of dream world…
P.S. Did anyone go into this expecying it to stand-up to Persona or Hifoshima Mon Amour? It’s an action movie!
meh, well, i can’t really understand why the premise of the film – the idea of a machine-drug cocktail can allow you to share dreams in dreams – is acceptable in terms of narrative belief, while the fact his criminal life means he can’t bring his kids to him is some smoking gun of lameness. i guess if you don’t like the film than you’ve already decided the inability to have his kids with him is going to be inherently implausible, anyway, sort of like not being into the graphics of a warcraft role play game on your computer because you prefer playing first person shooters on xbox, or something. still, that doesn’t mean it’s not a fully coherent part of the story as such. to accord plausibly to its own interior logic is crucial in this kind of fiction, and it does that. basically, he flees, he falls back on his skill and becomes a criminal to maintain his extra-legal life – the problem of not being with his kids and not being an outlaw are linked. convenient maybe yet it makes sense to me. i mean, it seems like it’s importing an artificial standard if you’re suddenly demanding convincing dramatic motivation from an international dream thief, you know? but whatev, i’m a deadset nolan fan, for better or worse.
part of why people aren’t liking this movie overall, i think, is that they’re not really understanding that only the ending never happens: cobb never goes home. and as for memento, the suspiciousness is sort of intended to fall on that very fishy sense of convenience, no? given how the whole thing winds up, the way it’s all angled. leonard’s head is his wiggle room.
Cobb didn’t have kids. He implanted the wife and kids into his own head to give his life purpose. What is real and not real doesn’t matter when you’re running advanced industrial espionage rackets for multinational energy conglomerates.
Or maybe the kids/wife thing was implanted by one of his employers. Research shows that a feeling of purpose and mission increases productivity more than monetary incentives, and what better incentive than reuniting with your children. The final scene is him retiring to his psychological pension.
(I don’t really think this is an accurate reading of the money, but it’s fun.)
Not a single fun moment? Not even the zero gravity scenes in the hotel?
Tarantino is such a dunce. Lenny has the facts about his condition, mental and emotional, tattooed all over his body, written down in medical reports, etc. Not to mention the aforementioned fact that his condition only prevents him from forming new memories. Tarantino says the most idiotic things about movies sometimes (paraphrase: “I saw Matrix Reloaded and all I saw was just a bunch of Reservoir Dogs running around fighting Neo”), an idiosyncrasy that gets harder to forgive with the sliding quality of his movies.
Haha, “of the money” should be “of the movie”, but “of the money” is cool too.
“This is not a film critique. This is a critique of what and how we choose to critique or how we choose who chooses.”
http://staugustine2.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/the-endless-thread-7-0/#comment-3688
I forgot who, but somebody recently wrote a fine piece about how these semi-ambitious action movies are immune to criticism: if you point out they’re stupid action movies, the fans will trot out all the “deep themes” and “complex narrative questions,” but if you point out that none of that stuff actually holds up to closer inspection, they shrug and say, what did you expect, it’s just a stupid action movie. My point here is that Inception does neither very well.
The exposition could have been handled better by skipping it. I thoroughly enjoyed the beginning most, when I had no fucking clue what was going on. “Oh wow,” I thought, “they’re really just going to leave us to figure it out on the run!” No sooner the whole thing came to a screeching halt for 100 minutes to explain stuff that didn’t matter.
That was ok amusing for about 30 seconds. The scene I was most hepped up about was the Paris bit, but it turned out to be no more than what was in the trailer — look! the city is folding! — and not used dramatically at all. Disappointing.
The same principle holds true for LOST.
Tom Hardy is my giant fun moment.
Ive decided this is the only public opinion Im going to express abt this film.
Nevertheless, I’d like to have my subconscious militarized.
ultimately i don’t believe holes ever exist. there are ways for anything, or the inexplicable. but it’s funny in this instance i think. i think both of nolan’s films get overemphasized for their brilliance, when really they’re just simple fun.
What’s really objectionable is the use of “seeing one’s kids” as a kind of ultimate inducement.
THAT IS MY ONLY OPINION ABOUT THE MOVIE TOO
That’s exactly what I thought, too.
God, maybe I’m just lowbrow, but Nolan’s movies are always entertaining and they make me think and they’re certainly better than 99.9 percent of the shit coming out of Hollywood these days. I thought Inception was great and I don’t get the extreme hate. I think some peeps here, as well as Jameson, may be holding this movie to a slightly different standard, for reasons I don’t really get.
I also thought it held up as an action movie quite well. As a Bond fan, I loved the homage to Bond films in the ski/snow scenes. But then, you folks probably don’t like Bond either. What can I say? I’m a plebeian, I guess. I mean, don’t get me wrong–I can appreciate a great art film (and I do, often) and I can recognize a shit film when I see it (Avatar, anyone?) but I also just enjoy a good, well-done, well-acted blockbuster once in a while.
YES.
Maybe the fact that there are a hundred other ways Cobb could see his kids, but he’s obsessed with this one, single way, supports the theory that the entire film is Cobb’s dream. He remembers his kids with their backs turned on the beach, so that’s how his minds tells him he has to see them again. He dreams what he remembers. I don’t think he would dream about meeting them at an airport Starbucks.
Good for you — but Jameson’s point (and mine) is that Inception isn’t a “good, well-done, well-acted blockbuster” at all. I vastly preferred Avatar, which knew exactly what it was and had none of Inception’s plot, concept, exposition, pacing, and directing problems — Cameron is a master action director who can keep the most complex battles spatially coherent and legible. (Also: I love James Bond, and any Bond movie with skiing is automatically a great Bond movie — but the snow fortress scenes in Inception didn’t do anything for me, for reasons Jameson explains. Anyway. As you were.)
Nice computer game metaphor (er, simile).
Jessica, you hit the nail on its dreamy head.
I think all our subconsciousnesses were militarized long ago; so much of our “entertainments” are about conquest and/or killing, no?
My basic, basic problem with the movie (aside from the, yes, tedious execution) was that its concepts of consciousness, dreaming, and ideas are awfully muddled and strike me as intuitively wrong. “We all know exactly where ideas come from?” Since when? There are multi-million dollar industries that do nothing but plant ideas, and it seems to work pretty well. “Inception” happens to everyone a hundred times a day; no dream equipment & architects necessary.
Thanks for the AD Jameson link, good stuff.
I think the typo makes it a lot funnier. It’s a reminder to just go with it, because it’s funny. The movie could have used a few more typos.
What’s tedious is casting about for small plot conveniences (not actually logical inconsistencies, b/t/w). These cries of “that’s not realistic!” always seem rather shrill. I mean, the graphic is funny enough, especially the last frame. And Jameson’s analysis is incisive, and there’s nothing in it to really quarrel with — I’m just glad I don’t think like that. I’m perfectly happy to be seduced by a blockbuster once in awhile. I was entertained. That’s all I was hoping for — but I can certainly see how, if someone was hoping to go home and write a thesis about it, Inception didn’t deliver.
Did you NOT see the part where they tried to drown Scarlett Johannsen?
That’s fine as far as it goes, but you’ll notice that Jameson’s also attacking the film *as* a blockbuster — Nolan is poor action director, and given Inception’s pacing and exposition problems, it’s not a lot of fun, either. I was ready to be entertained, but after the amusingly confusing first 20 minutes, I found it crushingly dull, with not a fun moment in sight. Like someone said, it’s like a video game that’s all tutorial and no gameplay. I was so bored during long stretches that I considered walking out.
Dunno about incisive, even. He repeated ‘there’s too much expositon!’ about two-hundred times. My ten year-old cousin picked-up on that. I was hoping he’d explain *how* Nolan was supposed to dramatize all the rules of dream world…
P.S. Did anyone go into this expecying it to stand-up to Persona or Hifoshima Mon Amour? It’s an action movie!
Cobb didn’t have kids. He implanted the wife and kids into his own head to give his life purpose. What is real and not real doesn’t matter when you’re running advanced industrial espionage rackets for multinational energy conglomerates.
Or maybe the kids/wife thing was implanted by one of his employers. Research shows that a feeling of purpose and mission increases productivity more than monetary incentives, and what better incentive than reuniting with your children. The final scene is him retiring to his psychological pension.
(I don’t really think this is an accurate reading of the money, but it’s fun.)
Not a single fun moment? Not even the zero gravity scenes in the hotel?
Tarantino is such a dunce. Lenny has the facts about his condition, mental and emotional, tattooed all over his body, written down in medical reports, etc. Not to mention the aforementioned fact that his condition only prevents him from forming new memories. Tarantino says the most idiotic things about movies sometimes (paraphrase: “I saw Matrix Reloaded and all I saw was just a bunch of Reservoir Dogs running around fighting Neo”), an idiosyncrasy that gets harder to forgive with the sliding quality of his movies.
Haha, “of the money” should be “of the movie”, but “of the money” is cool too.
I forgot who, but somebody recently wrote a fine piece about how these semi-ambitious action movies are immune to criticism: if you point out they’re stupid action movies, the fans will trot out all the “deep themes” and “complex narrative questions,” but if you point out that none of that stuff actually holds up to closer inspection, they shrug and say, what did you expect, it’s just a stupid action movie. My point here is that Inception does neither very well.
The exposition could have been handled better by skipping it. I thoroughly enjoyed the beginning most, when I had no fucking clue what was going on. “Oh wow,” I thought, “they’re really just going to leave us to figure it out on the run!” No sooner the whole thing came to a screeching halt for 100 minutes to explain stuff that didn’t matter.
That was ok amusing for about 30 seconds. The scene I was most hepped up about was the Paris bit, but it turned out to be no more than what was in the trailer — look! the city is folding! — and not used dramatically at all. Disappointing.
The same principle holds true for LOST.
Tom Hardy is my giant fun moment.
Ive decided this is the only public opinion Im going to express abt this film.
Nevertheless, I’d like to have my subconscious militarized.
ultimately i don’t believe holes ever exist. there are ways for anything, or the inexplicable. but it’s funny in this instance i think. i think both of nolan’s films get overemphasized for their brilliance, when really they’re just simple fun.
What’s really objectionable is the use of “seeing one’s kids” as a kind of ultimate inducement.
THAT IS MY ONLY OPINION ABOUT THE MOVIE TOO
I saw the fifty images of twins implying that MAYBE THE ANSWER WAS TWINS.
That’s exactly what I thought, too.
God, maybe I’m just lowbrow, but Nolan’s movies are always entertaining and they make me think and they’re certainly better than 99.9 percent of the shit coming out of Hollywood these days. I thought Inception was great and I don’t get the extreme hate. I think some peeps here, as well as Jameson, may be holding this movie to a slightly different standard, for reasons I don’t really get.
I also thought it held up as an action movie quite well. As a Bond fan, I loved the homage to Bond films in the ski/snow scenes. But then, you folks probably don’t like Bond either. What can I say? I’m a plebeian, I guess. I mean, don’t get me wrong–I can appreciate a great art film (and I do, often) and I can recognize a shit film when I see it (Avatar, anyone?) but I also just enjoy a good, well-done, well-acted blockbuster once in a while.
YES.
Good for you — but Jameson’s point (and mine) is that Inception isn’t a “good, well-done, well-acted blockbuster” at all. I vastly preferred Avatar, which knew exactly what it was and had none of Inception’s plot, concept, exposition, pacing, and directing problems — Cameron is a master action director who can keep the most complex battles spatially coherent and legible. (Also: I love James Bond, and any Bond movie with skiing is automatically a great Bond movie — but the snow fortress scenes in Inception didn’t do anything for me, for reasons Jameson explains. Anyway. As you were.)
i agree that there’s been some out to lunch claims made about him, definitely, though i do think he’s a smartie
Avatar’s plot is overly familiar and tedious (Ferngully). Avatar’s pacing is terrible and it’s way, way too long. There are no interesting developments in the film. The action scenes were pretty forgettable too: Cameron can do better and has done better. If you’re saying that Inception does not compare favorably to Avatar then well, uh, no.
Avatar is pretty though.
Plus Inception is a heist film, not really an action movie.
true, alan, but then again, as i say, it’s tied in overtly with becoming legal again, the worthiness of which the end of the film throws into radical, even outrightly nihilist, doubt
I think all our subconsciousnesses were militarized long ago; so much of our “entertainments” are about conquest and/or killing, no?
Inception is actually not about dreams at all. Nolan could have just had the characters refer to the subconscious the whole time and there would be no difference. For one thing, there are no public objects in dreams, whereas there are clearly public objects in Inception. In a dream, if I dream of fog, it’s not like someone can come into my head and inspect the fog. So yes, if Inception is about dreams, the concept behind the film is kind of incoherent.
But really, Inception is about the subconscious + virtual reality. I think this makes the film more interesting. I’ve already seen the best film on dreams (Un Chien Andalou).
Plus, the characters in Inception are mind THIEVES so they need the equipment for that. To be a mind thief, you need to break into a mind.
It seems like you just wish Inception was a different kind of film, which is an interesting criticism, but I don’t think it’s a very good one.
Wait…wasn’t the whole point of Memento that Guy Pearce’s character was faking it?
umm…spoiler alert…
I saw the fifty images of twins implying that MAYBE THE ANSWER WAS TWINS.
Let’s start A CLUB.
We’ll call it HARD FOR HARDY.
EXCEPT — Is that name a problem re: inclusion of women?
i agree that there’s been some out to lunch claims made about him, definitely, though i do think he’s a smartie
Avatar’s plot is overly familiar and tedious (Ferngully). Avatar’s pacing is terrible and it’s way, way too long. There are no interesting developments in the film. The action scenes were pretty forgettable too: Cameron can do better and has done better. If you’re saying that Inception does not compare favorably to Avatar then well, uh, no.
Avatar is pretty though.
Plus Inception is a heist film, not really an action movie.
true, alan, but then again, as i say, it’s tied in overtly with becoming legal again, the worthiness of which the end of the film throws into radical, even outrightly nihilist, doubt
Right. I wish it was the kind of movie that didn’t suck. Glad you enjoyed it.
Not at all a problem. I can be hard for Hardy. Nipples, you know. Or metaphorically. Plus, I love alliteration and puns.
Inception is actually not about dreams at all. Nolan could have just had the characters refer to the subconscious the whole time and there would be no difference. For one thing, there are no public objects in dreams, whereas there are clearly public objects in Inception. In a dream, if I dream of fog, it’s not like someone can come into my head and inspect the fog. So yes, if Inception is about dreams, the concept behind the film is kind of incoherent.
But really, Inception is about the subconscious + virtual reality. I think this makes the film more interesting. I’ve already seen the best film on dreams (Un Chien Andalou).
Plus, the characters in Inception are mind THIEVES so they need the equipment for that. To be a mind thief, you need to break into a mind.
It seems like you just wish Inception was a different kind of film, which is an interesting criticism, but I don’t think it’s a very good one.
Wait…wasn’t the whole point of Memento that Guy Pearce’s character was faking it?
umm…spoiler alert…
Let’s start A CLUB.
We’ll call it HARD FOR HARDY.
EXCEPT — Is that name a problem re: inclusion of women?
Sorry that you didn’t enjoy it. However, just because you didn’t enjoy something doesn’t mean you have to think up poor reasons for claiming the movie “sucks”.
Right. I wish it was the kind of movie that didn’t suck. Glad you enjoyed it.
Not at all a problem. I can be hard for Hardy. Nipples, you know. Or metaphorically. Plus, I love alliteration and puns.
Sorry that you didn’t enjoy it. However, just because you didn’t enjoy something doesn’t mean you have to think up poor reasons for claiming the movie “sucks”.
I won your comment.
Criticizing something doesn’t preclude enjoying it (and I wish people wouldn’t think that). Even if I had loved Inception, I think all my complaints would still be valid. (I liked the Matrix movies, but I could run up a list of criticisms there, too.)
I didn’t enjoy Inception, to be sure, but I’ve loved dozens of other dumb Hollywood flicks. (At Big Other I’m known as the guy who enjoys, and often defends, the Harry Potter books and movies. Although they, too, are evil in their own ways. And Dungeons and Dragons remains one of my favorite Hollywood movies of the 2000s—the only recent “summer blockbuster” that I own on DVD. It’s so bad, it’s deliriously delicious: “Just like a thief—always taking things that don’t belong to you!”)
Add this criticism to my list, then: Inception is bad even as dumb entertainment. (Blake, that picture utterly nails it.) I wish that it weren’t. Like everyone else, I went in *wanting* to like it. It’s no fun to want to hate a film.
The problem, though, is that one isn’t limited to the shit coming out of Hollywood these days. Movies are more accessible than ever. One could spend the next ten years watching nothing but 1930s romantic comedies (there are hundreds of them, and more and more are released on DVD every year—and companies like Netflix are all too happy to mail them to you).
New movies need to compete with all of cinematic history. So, sure, Inception is better than, I don’t know, The Other Guys (which I haven’t seen yet). And I’d rather eat shit than nuclear waste, but I still don’t choose to eat shit.
I like that reading.
You’re right — criticizing something doesn’t preclude enjoying it. And it’s not like there aren’t valid criticisms of the film (the dialogue in this film ain’t great). It’s just that a lot of the criticism of the film seems like nitpicking, nitpicking that is just a reflex to the hype the movie has been getting.
A lot of the criticisms on your list aren’t real criticisms. One of the items on the list is just an attack on Nolan and Memento. Another one is just, hey, here is a list of what I think are better movies (some decent movies on the list though). A lot of them are essentially the same — there’s too much exposition, we get it. Even though I’m not sure how you would get rid of the exposition without making the film completely baffling and incoherent. Or what exactly what would be added to an already very long film if you dramatized extra scenes carrying the information in the dialogue.
Item 15 is terrible — what do random jackasses fist pumping have to do with the movie? Must I like all overrated crap because I liked Inception? Also, clearly, the anonymous dudes getting blown up are projections, so these are not even real deaths IN THE MOVIE. The characters in the film aren’t thoughtless murderers like in most action films. Do you get morally outraged by watching someone play a videogame?
I won your comment.
Criticizing something doesn’t preclude enjoying it (and I wish people wouldn’t think that). Even if I had loved Inception, I think all my complaints would still be valid. (I liked the Matrix movies, but I could run up a list of criticisms there, too.)
I didn’t enjoy Inception, to be sure, but I’ve loved dozens of other dumb Hollywood flicks. (At Big Other I’m known as the guy who enjoys, and often defends, the Harry Potter books and movies. Although they, too, are evil in their own ways. And Dungeons and Dragons remains one of my favorite Hollywood movies of the 2000s—the only recent “summer blockbuster” that I own on DVD. It’s so bad, it’s deliriously delicious: “Just like a thief—always taking things that don’t belong to you!”)
Add this criticism to my list, then: Inception is bad even as dumb entertainment. (Blake, that picture utterly nails it.) I wish that it weren’t. Like everyone else, I went in *wanting* to like it. It’s no fun to want to hate a film.
The problem, though, is that one isn’t limited to the shit coming out of Hollywood these days. Movies are more accessible than ever. One could spend the next ten years watching nothing but 1930s romantic comedies (there are hundreds of them, and more and more are released on DVD every year—and companies like Netflix are all too happy to mail them to you).
New movies need to compete with all of cinematic history. So, sure, Inception is better than, I don’t know, The Other Guys (which I haven’t seen yet). And I’d rather eat shit than nuclear waste, but I still don’t choose to eat shit.
I like that reading.
Well, there really was too much exposition; it’s pretty overwheming. As for how to dramatize things, it’s not my job to make the movie for Nolan. (Here’s my advice: cut most of it, because most of it is stupid and unnecessary. And then learn how to shoot something other than a shallow-focus single.)
As for standing up to Persona, Hiroshima, etc., I earnestly believe that good action films can be every bit as good as arty foreign dramas. I just taught The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and North By Northwest (1959), and I’d claim that each one of those is every bit as artistic as anything by Bergman or Resnais. Different, yes, but excellent. (I was just yesterday defending Die Hard to some friends as a rather sophisticated piece of filmmaking.) Did you notice that my list of superior films also includes Charade, Point Blank, Blade Runner, The Game, Fight Club, The Matrix, Oldboy…? (I should have included Face/Off, which I think is one of the best US films of the 1990s.)
Inception is a really, really, really lousy action film. It’s also a lousy heist film. So what is it? (Answer: lousy!)
It cracks me up that some people here think I’m down on genre films; I adore them (you just don’t know me). Think for yourself before you defend Inception with cliches like, “Calm down, it’s just a dumb summer action movie.” That’s an argument Hollywood has taught you, so they can excuse selling you garbage. Demand excellence everywhere, even from your fluff.
this is an awesome comment.
Hi Ed,
My main interest is in identifying structural and cultural deficiencies in Inception, en route to a larger argument that Nolan fails to exhibit much skill as a filmmaker/artist. I think that rather fair, since so many are so in love with the guy. (I agree with you that my criticism something of a reflex to the film’s popularity. That’s what criticism *always* is: a response to a work in light of how the rest of the culture perceives it. Having seen the film praised excessively, I want to contribute something different to the conversation. And, indeed, it seems as though more and more negative voices are being raised against the film as time goes on.)
Sorry if I wrote too much about the exposition for your tastes, but you must agree it’s relentless. I tried to identify different aspects of it each time, and still discussed it in I think 3 or 4 of the arguments (1, 2, 6? And 6 is really about something else.) 7 touches on this, but my real criticism there is the hamfisted, mechanical way in which Nolan writes characters (e.g., Ariadne barely exists as a character, she’s just a walking plot device–and not even thinly disguised). (One of the things I can’t stand in Nolan is how he so shamelessly and inelegantly employs cinematic devices. I don’t mind the device at all!)
re: Item 15, what I’m attacking here is the film’s wanton, casual violence. It astonishes me how much excessive violence has become even unnoticeable in Hollywood films–audiences really have become desensitized to gross amounts of violence and casual slaughter. (I was talking with some friends, and none of them consider Inception violent. That astonishes me.) What I’m trying to do in this criticism is to draw attention to how violent the film is. Whether that bothers you or not is up to you; it bothers me (and I wish people would discuss it).
I don’t see how it matters whether the people killed are “projections.” Even if they were “real people,” it would all still be simulated violence performed by actors. Images of violence are images of violence. (If anything, making them “just projections” is even more callous–like when kids TV shows make all the enemies robots, so the violence isn’t “real.”)
Thanks for the comments! Cheers, A D
P.S. I’m a huge Bond fan, always have been. Spy thrillers are among my favorite books/films. And that skiing scene was a lousy homage. (Nolan, your homework is to watch On Her Majesty’s Secret Service fifty times!)
I have to say, though, that I’ve always preferred the Len Deighton books/adaptations to Bond. Billion Dollar Brain is one of my favorite movies of all time. There’s just something about that Michael Cane…
You’re right — criticizing something doesn’t preclude enjoying it. And it’s not like there aren’t valid criticisms of the film (the dialogue in this film ain’t great). It’s just that a lot of the criticism of the film seems like nitpicking, nitpicking that is just a reflex to the hype the movie has been getting.
A lot of the criticisms on your list aren’t real criticisms. One of the items on the list is just an attack on Nolan and Memento. Another one is just, hey, here is a list of what I think are better movies (some decent movies on the list though). A lot of them are essentially the same — there’s too much exposition, we get it. Even though I’m not sure how you would get rid of the exposition without making the film completely baffling and incoherent. Or what exactly what would be added to an already very long film if you dramatized extra scenes carrying the information in the dialogue.
Item 15 is terrible — what do random jackasses fist pumping have to do with the movie? Must I like all overrated crap because I liked Inception? Also, clearly, the anonymous dudes getting blown up are projections, so these are not even real deaths IN THE MOVIE. The characters in the film aren’t thoughtless murderers like in most action films. Do you get morally outraged by watching someone play a videogame?
Well, there really was too much exposition; it’s pretty overwheming. As for how to dramatize things, it’s not my job to make the movie for Nolan. (Here’s my advice: cut most of it, because most of it is stupid and unnecessary. And then learn how to shoot something other than a shallow-focus single.)
As for standing up to Persona, Hiroshima, etc., I earnestly believe that good action films can be every bit as good as arty foreign dramas. I just taught The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and North By Northwest (1959), and I’d claim that each one of those is every bit as artistic as anything by Bergman or Resnais. Different, yes, but excellent. (I was just yesterday defending Die Hard to some friends as a rather sophisticated piece of filmmaking.) Did you notice that my list of superior films also includes Charade, Point Blank, Blade Runner, The Game, Fight Club, The Matrix, Oldboy…? (I should have included Face/Off, which I think is one of the best US films of the 1990s.)
Inception is a really, really, really lousy action film. It’s also a lousy heist film. So what is it? (Answer: lousy!)
It cracks me up that some people here think I’m down on genre films; I adore them (you just don’t know me). Think for yourself before you defend Inception with cliches like, “Calm down, it’s just a dumb summer action movie.” That’s an argument Hollywood has taught you, so they can excuse selling you garbage. Demand excellence everywhere, even from your fluff.
this is an awesome comment.
Hi Ed,
My main interest is in identifying structural and cultural deficiencies in Inception, en route to a larger argument that Nolan fails to exhibit much skill as a filmmaker/artist. I think that rather fair, since so many are so in love with the guy. (I agree with you that my criticism something of a reflex to the film’s popularity. That’s what criticism *always* is: a response to a work in light of how the rest of the culture perceives it. Having seen the film praised excessively, I want to contribute something different to the conversation. And, indeed, it seems as though more and more negative voices are being raised against the film as time goes on.)
Sorry if I wrote too much about the exposition for your tastes, but you must agree it’s relentless. I tried to identify different aspects of it each time, and still discussed it in I think 3 or 4 of the arguments (1, 2, 6? And 6 is really about something else.) 7 touches on this, but my real criticism there is the hamfisted, mechanical way in which Nolan writes characters (e.g., Ariadne barely exists as a character, she’s just a walking plot device–and not even thinly disguised). (One of the things I can’t stand in Nolan is how he so shamelessly and inelegantly employs cinematic devices. I don’t mind the device at all!)
re: Item 15, what I’m attacking here is the film’s wanton, casual violence. It astonishes me how much excessive violence has become even unnoticeable in Hollywood films–audiences really have become desensitized to gross amounts of violence and casual slaughter. (I was talking with some friends, and none of them consider Inception violent. That astonishes me.) What I’m trying to do in this criticism is to draw attention to how violent the film is. Whether that bothers you or not is up to you; it bothers me (and I wish people would discuss it).
I don’t see how it matters whether the people killed are “projections.” Even if they were “real people,” it would all still be simulated violence performed by actors. Images of violence are images of violence. (If anything, making them “just projections” is even more callous–like when kids TV shows make all the enemies robots, so the violence isn’t “real.”)
Thanks for the comments! Cheers, A D
P.S. I’m a huge Bond fan, always have been. Spy thrillers are among my favorite books/films. And that skiing scene was a lousy homage. (Nolan, your homework is to watch On Her Majesty’s Secret Service fifty times!)
I have to say, though, that I’ve always preferred the Len Deighton books/adaptations to Bond. Billion Dollar Brain is one of my favorite movies of all time. There’s just something about that Michael Cane…
Billion Dollar Brain added to Netflix queue, thx!
Billion Dollar Brain added to Netflix queue, thx!
“I vastly preferred Avatar, which knew exactly what it was and had none of Inception’s plot, concept, exposition, pacing, and directing problems”
I don’t want to rehash the Avatar debate, but you couldn’t be further from the truth. Avatar was rife with plot, pacing and directing problems…not to mention dialogue and acting problems that made it boarderline unwatchable (I’d say fully unwatchable outside of the novelty 3D theater experience.
The real bottom line for this kind of thing is what sticks with you? I can’t remember anything interesting from Avatar. Not a single scene felt original or interesting…. except the white tree things all floating down on the main character. That was corny, but it was a mildly unique shot.
I’ll have to give it some time, but I bet more bits of inception will stick with me than Avatar.
“I vastly preferred Avatar, which knew exactly what it was and had none of Inception’s plot, concept, exposition, pacing, and directing problems”
I don’t want to rehash the Avatar debate, but you couldn’t be further from the truth. Avatar was rife with plot, pacing and directing problems…not to mention dialogue and acting problems that made it boarderline unwatchable (I’d say fully unwatchable outside of the novelty 3D theater experience.
The real bottom line for this kind of thing is what sticks with you? I can’t remember anything interesting from Avatar. Not a single scene felt original or interesting…. except the white tree things all floating down on the main character. That was corny, but it was a mildly unique shot.
I’ll have to give it some time, but I bet more bits of inception will stick with me than Avatar.
[…] already infamous BEE vs. Ramona Koval interview slash stand-off. End up not deciding anything. See Inception in 3 seconds and am underwhelmed, but enjoy the final frame. Find my favourite thing on the internet for the […]
[…] In my post on Inception, I criticized Nolan for his inelegant use of screenwriting devices, like his endless reliance on (often irrelevant) exposition. Some took objection to this. (See the comment thread here, also.) […]
Seems like there are a lot of frustrated filmmakers here on this stream…Nolan at least tries to give us original stories…and I don’t know – isn’t one of the rules of watching a film anywhere/anytime the suspension of disbelief – it is after all…a movie…a story told on celluloid, not actually happening in real life – call me old fashioned but I like a good story – if its a bit challenging all the better…and the real story here is that Nolan is actually making movies…not just talking about it.
Seems like there are a lot of frustrated filmmakers here on this stream…Nolan at least tries to give us original stories…and I don’t know – isn’t one of the rules of watching a film anywhere/anytime the suspension of disbelief – it is after all…a movie…a story told on celluloid, not actually happening in real life – call me old fashioned but I like a good story – if its a bit challenging all the better…and the real story here is that Nolan is actually making movies…not just talking about it.
In “Memento”, he can remember things before the accident, but after he lost his short-term memory. Not all of his memory, but his short-term memory after the accident. I think it’s spelled out, specifically, that he can remember things before the accident.