Christopher Nolan – Inception
Words: James Emerson
Emerson, IF’s main film critic, had the idea to post film reviews on the site immediately after they’re written, rather than waiting to publish them in issues. That way, readers will have a better idea of whether or not they should pay to see it while it’s still in theaters. We will henceforth publish some form of the film review on the site immediately after it is written. This particular review is a slightly abridged version of the full review, which will be published in the upcoming Volume II, Issue 6, due out Wednesday, July 28th.
Christopher Nolan’s first feature-length film, Following, was shot around the schedules of its actors, who continued to work their day jobs during production. Nolan’s latest movie cost some $160 million and its success at the box office suggests that studios will happily provide oodles of cash for his next project. Throughout the twelve years that saw Nolan move from no-budget to big-budget, he evinced a unique and consistent style that both makes one wonder at and explains his blockbuster status: while Nolan often uses disjointed, non-chronological plot structures (to which Hollywood is not usually endeared), he can also tell an exciting story when he chooses.
In the world of Inception, a person’s subconscious is accessible to others, allowing for shared dreams. Leonardo DiCaprio and his surrounding cast use this technology for a new kind of theft: that of ideas. The mechanics of this process occupy much of the first half of the movie; these portions play out with all of the wit and pacing of an instruction manual. Sure, there is the occasional gem in this stretch—DiCaprio on the unfettered creative potential of dreams, for instance. But until we get to the central dream of the movie, we have to endure a flat script bursting to the seams with exposition. Inception suffers from the reverse affliction that DiCaprio’s last flick did: while the pat explanations of Shutter Island weaken its ending, the preliminary explanations of Inception weigh down its beginning. As he did in The Dark Knight, Nolan can have some serious problems with plot structure and pacing.
But Inception also has the strengths of TDK, including natty dressers, a dense Hans Zimmer soundtrack, and good old-fashioned thrills. The multiple layers of subconscious that the characters create—making dreams within dreams—is riveting to watch as they grow and teeter. There is even some poignancy in how the mission—to implant, rather than steal, an idea—is carried out. The zero-gravity scenes (all accomplished without CGI) are outstanding. Some critics have decried a lack of feeling at the base of the movie: there is no reason we should care about these characters. Whether or not you care as much for them as for any made-up people, Inception is undeniably cool. If there is such a thing, Nolan is undoubtedly an auteur; he tells stories in a way and with ideas unmistakably his own. Inception, his first original story since his first movie, is another fine addition to this still, in all its messy and fascinating glory.
Browse Timeline
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
