Capital New York

ixat commented on 'Inception': As eye-catching, and as profound, as an Usher concert

I in turn am starting to understand why you weren't so keen on the movie. The "heal the world" aspect never occurred to me - perhaps because my own tastes lean somewhat toward the cynical and dystopian. I have to say, for a bunch of guys who ain't experts in nothing, we had ourselves a nice and intelligent discussion here. All credit is to you, sir, for writing a critical review that was a solid analysis instead of flame bait, and for replying to us poor schlubs afterwards.

Posted on July 28th, 2010 10:11pm

ixat commented on 'Inception': As eye-catching, and as profound, as an Usher concert

Well, Mr Steven Boone, I have to say that I loved this movie to bits - I couldn't believe I was seeing something so expensive, and at the same time so good. However, my fanboyish ire is defused by the strength and calmness of your arguments (cf. the incoherent rant of one Rex Reed). It seems like your main gripe with the movie is that it's not free-wheeling and imaginative enough in showing what are, purportedly, dreams (by the way, thank you for reminding me of the excellent Paprika, which I need to rewatch). Jordan Hoffman's comment is hilarious and spot-on. Thing is... was this movie ever meant to be an exploration of the real, messy subconscious? Come to think, I don't believe you even once see anyone just simply sleeping in this film - what it presents is a heavily sedated and closely managed semi-conscious state which has about as much in common with regular old dreaming as Olympic gymnastics does with skipping rope. The comparison with Paprika seems unwarranted, since that movie was all about Satoshi Kon's usual id bubbling up uncontrollably and leaving nasty stains on the "real world," and in Inception, the whole point is to create a subconscious state for the "victims" that is as rigidly planned and controlled as possible. Inception is closer kin to clockwork heist pictures than to Paprika or What Dreams May Come or whaddaya got. I happily celebrate the fact that Nolan has found such an interesting twist on the heist - and that instead of money, or diamonds, or a Rembrandt, there seem to be more emotionally engaging things at stake. The final ploy DiCaprio's team uses to get into Cillian Murphy's head and perform inception on him is an astoundingly dishonest and manipulative trick, but at the same time, the fake setup seems to lead to a genuine emotional experience for him. Was it ultimately a good thing for his character? Does the possibly benign result justify such an invasion? Who knows? but there's certainly a lot more to think and talk about here than any of the James Bond movies that you compare Inception to. Perhaps if, instead of "dreaming," they referred to it as I dunno, Structured Nootic Induction, or Applied Phlebotinized Subducted Visualization, you might have had less of a problem with it? As for the "endless exposition"... the Lawrence of Arabia clip was a very impressive example of doing with less, but then, I'm not sure how one can establish a whole science-fiction premise that way. I suppose I'm such a sci-fi nerd that I don't get turned off by explanations of ideas and technology - on the contrary, they tend to put a big ol' grin on my face. Of course, I'm not an expert on film theory - it may very well be that, to the practiced eye, Inception is a giant mess. However, to my unenlightened mind, it was a sheer joy to watch this movie unfold precisely, like a fine puzzle, and every piece fall exactly into place. I didn't feel there was a single wasted frame in the whole thing. We could do a lot worse this summer. P.S. Another interesting fact - Anyone notice that Nolan made a huge summer action movie that has no villain? Yeah!

Posted on July 26th, 2010 10:52pm