Director Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Prestige and
The Dark Knight) demands more from his
audience than most of his blockbuster-directing peers. His most recent film, Inception, perhaps epitomizes that statement. Calculated and cerebral, it struggles
slightly to make the audience emotionally invested in all the characters. However, these minor flaws do not come close
to overshadowing the elements of film-making at which this movie excels. This is stimulating, challenging and risky
blockbuster filmmaking. It sets a high
standard for what can be accomplished by big-budget movies not just
commercially but artistically and intellectually as well. One wishes that more filmmakers can have the
free reign Nolan had to follow his vision and ambition unimpeded by studio
input. Then again, not many filmmakers
have the clout that Nolan has earned.
Inception takes
place in a world in which it is possible to infiltrate people’s dreams to
either steal sensitive information or even more complexly implant information, the
goal of inception. While the premise of
alternate realities has been covered many times before, the joy of watching
this film is seeing how well the high concept setup is explored and executed.
I do have a couple of quibbles about the film. The first act of the film is bogged down by a
lot of exposition. I understand that
exposition is necessary in high-concept films.
While it is interesting to learn the rules and intricacies of invading
people’s dreams, usually through Ariadne (Ellen Page), it could have been more
effective to have the information delivered more organically as required by the
story. I will not pretend to know
exactly how to achieve that, but I do know that I felt the writers were telling
me the rules when I would have appreciated learning the rules through the
events in the film. It is also the
portion of the film that exemplifies the coldness for which Nolan is often
criticized.
The object of my second complaint is paradoxically one of
the elements that I enjoyed a lot, and that is the action scenes. The third act set-piece feels like it belongs
in a Bond film but lacks the visceral punch that Casino Royale, for example,
dealt in spades. Nolan is excellent at
ratcheting the tension leading up to the action, but still seems out of his
element when shooting the actual action scenes.
Nonetheless, I remained invested because of the steady buildup.
The last set-piece largely suffers because the audience
expects the action to crescendo at this point, but it really pales in
comparison to the action set-piece in the second act, namely the hand-to-hand combat
in the spinning hotel corridor. The
gravity-shifting scene is undoubtedly the highlight of the film. It demonstrates how practical stunt work
maintains a sense of reality and thus ups the tension. It also shows how the audience can come to
understand the rules governing dreams within dreams without having to be told. Despite the disorientation felt by the characters,
because the scene is not overly cut, the action is very easy to follow with a
clear sense of geography and space that is sadly lacking in modern day action
movies. It is eye-candy of the highest
caliber; the expensive stuff you savor.
The film was shot by Wally Pfister, a frequent collaborator
of Nolan’s. Ever since Nolan’s Insomnia, I have been a fan of Pfister’s
composition and lighting skills. Pfister
takes advantage of the numerous and varied shooting locations around the world
and makes every frame look absolutely beautiful. Even though no footage was shot on IMAX, I
watched the movie on an IMAX screen, which enhanced the details and immersed me
even more into the scenes.
Stitching together all those gorgeous scenes could not have
been an easy task. Editing three
parallel threads, each taking place in a distinct level of dreams, each at
different relative time-spans is a tall order.
That I was not once confused about what, when and where the story
unfolded is testament to the skilled editing.
In fact, jumping from scene to scene only heightened the tension, since
events in one dream directly affect events in the others. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, the film
is technically perfect.
Nolan populated his film with talented actors, who each have
his or her moment to shine. This is
technically a heist movie, and as per conventions, the characters are basically
archetypes of this genre: the leader,
the con, the technician, the victim and now the ‘architect’ in the dreams. It is a lot of fun to see them set up the
sting, but only Leonardo Dicaprio, Marion Cotillard and most especially Cillian
Murphy are the only ones who wring out real emotions from the audience. This is not a limitation of the other actors,
but of the script. Joseph Gordin-Levitt,
Tom Hardy, Ellen Page and Ken Watanabe are all very watchable and do their best
with the script they have been given. But
overall, there is more heart here than is typical of a Christopher Nolan
film. This was clearly a passion
project.
Two years after its release and after the hype has
dissipated, I find myself still talking to others about this film, dissecting
its plot, its logic, and debating its intentionally ambiguous ending. We also talk about what was arguably the most
shared theatre-going experience we ever had.
When the film cuts away from the wobbly spinning top, I have a moment of
catharsis. Every single time.
Score: 9/10
