INCEPTION Post Release - Page 37

Why? I think this is a conversation well worth having. And after the months of nonstop praise this film has been getting here and abroad I feel it's long overdue.

Are you in a mood, Spike? You already attempted the conversation. Unless you just wanted to come in and call some of us "fucking bizarre." Which, well, you know.

Man, it did for me. It actually hit me fairly hard numerous times. Sorry the film didn't work for you (emotionally anyway), Phil. I'd been wondering where you stood on it actually (don't recall reading your thoughts earlier).

The more I've seen it it only grows on me as well. I truly think it's close to a "perfect film" in that there isn't one wasted frame; every single piece of this film is essential and builds towards what Nolan is driving at.

My 4th viewing was recently when I got the Blu Ray, and I'm continually marveled at the details I keep discovering here and there that are so tiny, yet are so clearly deliberate attempts on his part to begin carefully building that ambiguity.

It's just that

a) Both sides of the argument are based on intractable emotional responses to the film

b) We're both stubborn enough to not back down

c) I don't like you

A + B + C = A fruitless waste of time.

And Judson, it's not that I can't "see" your points, I do. And in many movies the heavy exposition might kill it for me, and so many other things you've mentioned.

But for this film, I think it's extremely fitting and necessary in order to be the film that it is.

Sweet Jesus, man. What's not to like about Phil? It's almost tired and cliched at this point, but sometimes cliches are there for a reason. Phil is awesome and diplomatic to the last. Can't imagine how he could rub anyone wrong on here. But, to each their own I suppose.

Wow! We were watching completely different movies (especially with the "not a wasted frame" part). Well, you are in love with this movie. And that is really cool. I'm jealous.

I'll agree with a, disagree with b (I'm willing to and interested in watching the film again; I've changed my mind on many films over the years).

But c's a shock. I thought we was cool. I still like you.

It happens, man. I've done that, though I'm having a hard time thinking of a great example. I fucking HATED the much-championed Observe & Report the first time I saw it. Of course, I totally came around on that, so... but rest assured, I've been there. And it can be frustrating watching the love in from the outside (*cough, AVATAR, cough*).

While one can certainly make a case that the characters lack dimensionality, I really and truly cannot believe that anyone could seriously dismiss the performances as "poor". I really don't get that.

Surely Spike is joking. It's hard to read tone.

I will direct you to Leo and Ellen's scene at the dream cafe. I swear you can see the point where they stop trying to act and are just plowing through that dialogue as quickly as they can. Poor.

You know what? I'm misremembering a little bit. The bit with Cillian Murphy getting closure over his dad in the dream did a number on me, but I suspected that was more me bringing my own daddy crap to the table than the film hitting all the right emotional grace notes.

I've seen the film a few times, it's an exposition scene (yeah, yeah, I know), there's nothing wrong with it.

That's kind of what I love about it. With the whole dream/filmmaking as catharsis theme wedged firmly up in there, it's actually entirely appropriate to bring your own daddy crap to the table.

It's one of the many reasons I consider this film "perfect."

But yeah, I can see how some people might be left cold because you have to bring something yourself for those moments to work because Murphy's character really doesn't have the depth within the film for that moment to be truly effecting by itself. It's asking you to insert your own situation in there if you're going to feel something. Which many would consider a fault. But in this case, I don't.

Maybe I was bringing my own daddy issues to the film as well, but that's the moment that resonated with me. It's the "Gotta get back to my kids!" stuff that left me cold.

Nolan talks about how DiCaprio was the one who helped him find the emotional center of the film with his contributions to the character, but it really didn't do anything for me.

But it clearly worked for a lot of people. Parents, in particular.

The kids turning around finally at the end just melts me, still. I must admit though that I'm a sucker for that sort of thing and a good score. But... it works for me big time.

I tend to be a sucker for that type of thing too, but in this case it didn't click. I think it might be a case where I would've preferred having been spoon-fed a close-up of DiCaprio's face brightening up when he finally sees his kids. SOMETHING like that. I feel like one of the reasons Cillian Murphy's catharsis works so well for me is that we get that nice sweet close-up of his face as the catharsis hits him.

Despite my numerous daddy issues (child of a single parent) I was hit way harder by Cobb losing Mal and Cobb's interactions with his kids than the Fischer stuff. I really liked Cillian Murphy in the film, but his reconciliation felt kind of on the nose for me. I'm the guy who cries when Royal dies in the Royal Tenenbaums EVERY time, but Fischer realising he wasn't a disappointment didn't do much for me.

Right, except that Nolan's trying to make a big action film. So I tend to see the structure as being dictated by the concept as much as anything else. Not sure how else one would craft a story around this basic concept without all the rules and exposition (which I don't find as clunky or offensive as some do, but I can understand that complaint).

That said, you keep pointing out these poor performances and I really don't get that at all. In fact, the I think the acting is quite excellent and does a great job of filling in the blind spots in the script. You might find the characters lacking, but that's not necessarily the actors' fault.

I do tend to be someone who likes the big dramatic moments to be 'on the nose.'

I was moved by the moment between Royal and Chaz in the ambulance though.

The thing is that I'm a complete mark for those kinds of moments, but because it was such a constructed moment (and that's the text of the movie) it didn't really feel earned to me. I just ended up feeling more desperately sorry for Fischer.

I think pity is definitely a part of me being affected by Fischer's catharsis. I was amazed that I had such a reaction to it despite the fact that I knew it was completely manufactured (in more ways than one!). And that potential disconnect actually makes me appreciate it more.

After reading Peter's critiques, I think it is fair to say that I remain unconvinced. I end up on the other side of all the points he brings up. Exposition vs. pacing? The movie didn't lag at all for me. Derivativeness? Read without any metaphors, the film isn't any more derivative than many other films I also love, and, when taken as a statement on the creative process behind moviemaking, has some very interesting, if not completely original, things to bring to the table.

And acting? Psh. Leo, at the very least, acted his ass off. I do think the movie was very dry, but I like that.

The one criticism I could possibly level at the movie is that I've been somewhat reluctant to watch it on home video. I just can't imagine it having the same impact as it did on the huge screen in the theater. I believe this is the first movie I've really felt this way about, too.

Same with me - Mal going and the end with the children - and it not mattering if the top spins or falls, bring tears to my eyes.

Watched this again for the first time in a while. It's still masterful blockbuster filmmaking, and easily one of Nolan's best. Laundry list!:
 

-It's funny how DiCaprio has become one of my absolute favorite working actors. He's always been good, but Titanic's establishment of him as a pretty boy masked that; he seemed to realize this, and almost immediately started choosing more interesting projects. He's so excellent here, all cool and professional one moment, frazzled the next, and he absolutely nails the emotional climax of the film. Also, I love that he's now at an age where he can seem rather fatherly to an actress like Ellen Page.

 

-Speaking of that emotional climax, I love that Nolan has Cobb say, "You're just a shade of my real wife." He could've easily just said "shadow" or something similar, but "shade" is much more evocative and strangely lovely. I think Nolan's gift for imagery in dialogue is often underrated, and this is a great example.

 

-The one somewhat flawed effect in the film is Ken Watanabe's old-man makeup. It works well enough, and it's ultimately not onscreen enough to be completely distracting, but I couldn't help but be reminded of Gene Siskel's old complaint that aging makeup makes actors look like turtles.

 

-Marion Cotillard is scary as hell at points, especially when she suddenly looks at Ariadne in the elevator, complete with the Scare Chord of Doom.

 

-As noted before, this is one of those films that gets better and better as it chugs along. Why can't more blockbusters do this?

 

-Given how I had only seen him as creeps and villains up to this point, I was pleasantly surprised at how likable and sympathetic Cillian Murphy is here. Even in the early scenes, when he's bitter about his father not noticing the picture or his recollection of his father's last words to him, you can still sense the love.

 

-Pete Postlethwaite's sickly appearance hits a little harder now that he's dead.

 

-Finally, regarding the ending. I've read all the theories, all the speculations, and thought about them all as well. What it comes down to is this: For me, the film is more emotionally satisfying if Cobb is back in the real world, and everything in the film "really" happened.

Agree on the ending. I believe that everything we saw really happened (Cobb's kids are older in the end), he spins the top but doesn't stay to see what happens to it, because his kids want to play with him. That's the point, he doesn't need to see whether or not the top falls down. And neither do we.

I always thought that, whether it was shade or shadow, this was something of a harsh thing to say. Necessary within the context of the film, but kind of hurtful, even though he's talking to a memory and not a person. I like your reading as well, though -- it's one of the more interesting moments in the film.