DE-ception!

When the trailer for Christopher Nolan's 'Inception' hit the televisions of the world we all saw it and got the same impressions. Some guy that looks like Jack from Titanic can go into dreams and take things. Maybe this time he can plant something, and this all revolves around his family. Now a few months after the deeply rooted hype, i have seen it. So after 148 minutes of undistracted viewing i realize that i got nothing more than that. Fake Jack can go into dreams. This time around he plants an idea, and it has something to do with his kids. A close and trusted friend suggested i may have bought the hype and expected more. In actuality i was hoping for more. I find myself wishing that Leo could enter my dream within a dream, within a dream and plant the notion that i liked it.

I will begin with what i liked and by extension get through the shorter list. It had an amazing script. As convoluted as i thought the final film was, there was a great deal of character and dialog driven exposition that took some serious skill. The film won Oscars for cinematography and visual effects and they were well deserved. There was an incredible scale to this film and it required a consistent look that only strict execution could pull off. As far as the visual effects go, when you see streets fold over on themselves and zero-G combat you realize there is not much you can do to top that.

Now on to the "disappointed" to quote Fisher Sr. I will cover the typical film conventions and what i disliked. First was the standard action thriller convention, gun play. When i go to see a Bond film i expect that Bond will dodge a thousand bullets in the typical romanticized spy way. But in a film as hefty as this i expect more. Some military training was alluded to, but there is no way Cobb was skilled enough to evade that much gun play Matrix style. I would suspend disbelief if it were not in such high volume.

Second i call out the narrative structure of the film. It has been suggested that the film was too complex to understand in one viewing and that only 'smart' film goers would get it. I did not agree. The fact that i do not agree is not my problem with the narrative. The fact that i found the film to be in fact so straight forward is also not my problem. My problem is that the basic forward motion of the plot unfolding in a clear A to B to C format rendered the dream navigation exposition convoluted and useless. It was so clear to me where the film was going i found the Ellen Paige 'everyman' character annoying and extraneous. Her lessons in shared dreaming and her insipid 'but why', 'but why' begging for explanation felt stupid. Let me take this time to complain about what the story seemed to be missing. In a film about navigating dreams it is a wasted opportunity to neglect the metaphor and psychological element. I stated the script was good but it seemed like there was a great chance there that was lost. I will risk the chance i will be called nit picky but i would be remiss if i did not mention the story pieces conveniently left out. Most notably the fact that we all tend to remember parts of our dreams. So i would question waking up on a plane with the 6 people that were just guest stars in one of mine. Also the fact that Cobb did actually kill his wife. He toyed with her mind, broke it, and she killed herself. He didn't push her, it may have been indirect but he caused it. That being the case, does he really deserve a happy ending? These are independently small issues but wrapped into one film make for a real pitfall.

Finally i close with the observation while this was a unique film, it is made up of lesser unique ideas. When you apply this to an actual equation it makes sense. Matrix + Oceans 11 + James Bond = DE-ception. This is not so much a complaint in the microcosm of my analysis, but in the macrocosm of Holly Wood and their bankrupt creativity i see more recycled ideas.