Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Chris Nolan and "Inception"

Tim Whitcomb said:
INCEPTION: "An intellectual film for Dummies"
Click to expand...

Quote of the thread. Nailed it.

Subhadip Sen said:
[snip] I would even say there is a new "Plugging In" genre forming. It started with eXistenZ, which I still feel is the best film, popularized by The Matrix, then, several films like The Cell, Paprika, moving on to big blockbusters - Avatar and Inception. Clearly, they are inspired by the internet and our digital beings. [snip]
Click to expand...

Bruce Allen said:
Goes way further back than that - Tron, for example. That animation scene from Mary Poppins, the holodeck in Star Treck, Pleasantville and Being John Malkovich etc... [snip]
Click to expand...

This idea of a "pluggin in" genre developing is interesting to me. We can look even further back still - I can think of the Narnia books (1950-1956), where children can enter an alternate reality through a wardrobe.

So perhaps it is not something unique to the digital age.
 
Charles Angus said:
Quote of the thread. Nailed it.

This idea of a "pluggin in" genre developing is interesting to me. We can look even further back still - I can think of the Narnia books (1950-1956), where children can enter an alternate reality through a wardrobe.

So perhaps it is not something unique to the digital age.
Click to expand...

Well, there are several "alternative reality" / "dream world" works in literature over the centuries as well. Films like The Matrix or Inception have a specific influence in the digital age, though. You can look for very valid connections.

Bruce has got it spot on with Tron - that is probably where it first started. But it is The Matrix and eXistenZ that had subtext about our relationship with the internet. Anything before was fiction and speculation - but by the late 90s, everyone could see a new force, for real.

On a slightly related note, http://www.businesspundit.com/modern-life/. It is a bit like Inception's limbo isn't it? Time slows down, you lose sense of reality, and you have no idea how vulnerable your data - which is increasingly becoming your life - on the internet is.
 
"INCEPTION: "An intellectual film for Dummies"

Intellectual is "rational rather than emotional". Doesn't sound like what a movie is supposed to be.

I remember "V" as in your face, on the nose and basically dumb. And I kept bumping into people that thought it was brilliant. THAT was "An intellectual film for Dummies" to ME.

Lions for Lambs... there's another one.

What movie would be an Intellectual film for Intellectuals? And wouldn't two intellectuals have 4 differing opinions on the same movie.
 
Thor Melsted said:
Well, this was a fun thread until it turned into a circle-jerk of condescension.
I really don't understand why some people feel the need to suggest others are dumb for having a taste that doesn't match their own.

I think it takes a certain kind of genius to write a complex script that is still simple enough for most people to understand. That doesn't mean it's dumbed down. It means the writer/director can convey a complex scenario in a way most people understand - and that takes skill.
Having only 4 other people on earth being able to follow your plot doesn't mean you're an artist, it just means you're a lousy storyteller - and as it wouldn't make buck fifty, who's gonna pay for your next project?
Being able to reach a wide audience shouldn't be held against Nolan. On the contrary, he should be applauded for bringing smarter movies to the masses.
Think about it this way: Which would you rather see, more movies like this or another GI Joe?
Click to expand...

This post hits the nail on the head. If you like the film, great, if not, oh well. It is impossible to deny that this film is a significant step up from the usual Hollywood junk. Did Nolan create another Memento? No, that was not his intent. With a budget this large, you need to bring in an audience. You need to produce a film that appeals to numerous individuals. If you think about it, this film has everything going for it and its performance in the box office reflects this. Talented cast...check. Smart(er) writing...check. Action and top of the line FX....check. Unique storyline...check. Great cinematography...check.

This is by no means a masterpiece but lets get real, you will be hard pressed to find a higher quality main stream film released this year. This has without a doubt been a bad year for movies and Inception is certainly one of the brighter spots.
 
Andrew Rieger said:
This post hits the nail on the head. If you like the film, great, if not, oh well. It is impossible to deny that this film is a significant step up from the usual Hollywood junk. Did Nolan create another Memento? No, that was not his intent. With a budget this large, you need to bring in an audience. You need to produce a film that appeals to numerous individuals. If you think about it, this film has everything going for it and its performance in the box office reflects this. Talented cast...check. Smart(er) writing...check. Action and top of the line FX....check. Unique storyline...check. Great cinematography...check.

This is by no means a masterpiece but lets get real, you will be hard pressed to find a higher quality main stream film released this year. This has without a doubt been a bad year for movies and Inception is certainly one of the brighter spots.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree completely. For a Hollywood popcorn blockbuster designed for the masses, it is an exceptional film.

Few people seem to get ticked off by hyperbole used by others, but perhaps they are just comparing it to other blockbusters? It is a hard comparison, but certainly it pales in comparison to, let's say (going by your sig) a Kubrick or Tarkovsky film. But that's not its intent. It is simply going to provide a fun time at the theater, and perhaps leaves some puzzles to solve at the end. Not deep insights into the human condition, but something fun, like a Sudoku puzzle maybe. For what it is, a big dumb Hollywood blockbuster, Inception is one of the best.

That said, I don't think the writing is very good, and apart from the levels, the happenings within each level is very cliched. There are characters created simply for exposition. In fact, the whole film is extremely cliched at the core, apart from the single twist brought in by the different levels of dreams. The "rules" of the dreams ask a lot in terms of suspending disbelief, but it sets up the film well enough. I would have to say that the action is pretty poor for the most part, barring the amazing Zero-G part. Compared to the editing rhythm, precise composition and tension built up by the likes of Spielberg, Nolan's action has always seemed haphazard. I understand he might want to make you feel like you would in a hectic fight, but as an audience, it is hard to care if you don't really know what the hell is going on. I think it is a step down from The Dark Knight, which had a couple of incredible action sequences. Batman Begins had some terrible action. It is still no worse than the likes of Transformers & Co., importantly, and I have a feeling you were comparing to such films as well.

Would I say all of these detract from Inception? I don't think so. While personally, I would have loved the film to cut down on blatant exposition, be a lot more imaginative visually, especially while portraying dreams, cut down on ADD tricks such as overediting, explosions, contrived twists, melodrama etc., but at the same time, I realize that such a film is likely to leave the mass audience puzzled. No one in today's world would give Tarkovsky $150 million to make The Mirror, which is a film alternating between different dreams, memories, fantasies and realities too. So, I try my best to ignore these Hollywood formulae/cliche/trappings and like the film for what it is. No point comparing Inception to the greats of cinema. Instead, compare it to popcorn blockbusters, and you will realize we would be a lot better off with Inception than Transformers 3.
 
Sen you summed it up.

And on that note, this thread needs more Megan Fox.

megan-fox-transformers.jpg
 
Interesting read.

I can't help but feel if this exact film had been made independently on say 10 million dollars by a bunch of relative unknowns but with very much the same story and people had discovered it rather than having to listen to a durge of hype and fanboyism before it's release, far more people would've described it as an exceptional film and quite possibly a masterpiece.

Seems to me that succesful viral marketting of a high budget movie actually has a negative impact on the reception of a film by anyone who considers themselves to have a certain degree of intellectualism.

I see more discussions online around Inception as to whether it's a classic or just a good blockbuster than any other movie to date. Perhaps we as an audience find it difficult to give a film the classic mantre if it is studio based, funded by hundreds of millions of dollars and has popular cast and crew at the helm?

For me personally the film hit many of the right spots. There are bits I would do differently personally but nevertheless I really enjoyed the level of intellectualism in the film. To finish it with such an ambiguous ending is very unhollywood these days and I applaud that completely. If I could change the film I would have more of the surreal and less gunfighting. The one thing I wouldn't change is Hans Zimmer's soundtrack, track 12 'Time' is something else completely. Absolutlely sublime.

Paul
 
I just remembered Fassbinder's World on Wires. It's probably the origin of this "plugging in" subgenre. Too bad it's his worst.
 
There may be more mainstream films, but the first really masterful rendering of "plugging in" (I really like the conceptualization of this form as an emerging genre...that's probably the most interesting thought to emerge from this thread) which I can think of -- is Chris Marker's 1963 short film "La Jetee" - also one of the great mind-bending films of all time...and, undoubtedly, since Nolan knows his film history, a strong influence.
 
La Jetee did come to mind, but it is stretching things a bit, as you don't transfer to an alternative world. So, that separates it from time travel, in which case there are several films from the early 1900s where you "plug in" to something and travel. Or teleport. "Plugging in" is perhaps not the best of phrases. What I meant was, transferring through to an alternate, artificial world, inspired by the internet/digital age. This world must co-exist with the physical world, from where you control your existence in the artificial world. You can see early concepts in World on Wires or Tron and perhaps some other films (there's even a simulated reality called "Matrix" in the 1970's Doctor Who), but the real influence of the internet hits home in 1999 with eXistenZ and The Matrix. It seems to be a popular idea, and there will be more films to come, I am sure.

Interestingly, the reaction to Inception resembles the reaction to The Matrix in so many ways.
 
Ace said:
And on that note, this thread needs more Megan Fox.
Click to expand...

...or more cowbell.

Anyway, I've stayed clear of this thread, having not seen Inception until now. Not much more to say that hasn't been said. I don't feel that it's the super-intellectual masterpiece that some are making it out to be. But for a mainstream Hollywood release, it requires more sentient thought than most. All in all, I thought it was a pretty darn good movie.

As for the "plugging in" genre, I didn't see anyone mention "The Lawnmower Man". Not the greatest film by any means, but definitely fits the bill.
 
Subhadip Sen said:
La Jetee did come to mind, but it is stretching things a bit, as you don't transfer to an alternative world. So, that separates it from time travel, in which case there are several films from the early 1900s where you "plug in" to something and travel. Or teleport. "Plugging in" is perhaps not the best of phrases. What I meant was, transferring through to an alternate, artificial world, inspired by the internet/digital age. This world must co-exist with the physical world, from where you control your existence in the artificial world.
Click to expand...

But then, I'm a little puzzled as to why Inception would fit this definition and La Jetee would not. the dream world portrayed in Inception is not an artificial or separate reality - it is a series of layers of controlled dream manifestation...ostensibly "real" dreaming.

La Jetee is, in some ways, more "plugged in," to invoke this term, because it is about a technologically-mediated reality...whereas Cobb & Co. are considered "exceptionally skilled" but don't appear to be invoking a particular technology, except for perhaps the requisite pharmacologicals. They're hooked up to a sleep monitoring machine, but it doesn't appear to magnify access to the dream world, which are considered their "natural" gifts, requiring only special training (such as Ariadne received from Cobb)...

The sleeping machine only seems to allow them to share this reality...the machine itself doesn't create or magnify the alternate reality...the human brain does - the architect.

but these powers are skills, not by-products of artificial intelligence or technological mediation...whereas in La Jetee, the time travel is clearly technologically induced - the protagonist is wired to a technology, an invention, and is under the supervision of its inventors. Cobb is portrayed as a specialist, not necessarily an inventor.

kind of an academic point, but since this is the grounds for excluding La Jetee from the definition you're putting forth, I'm wondering why Inception would be included - seems by virtue of its context and not necessarily its content.
 
PaulClements said:
Perhaps we as an audience find it difficult to give a film the classic mantre if it is studio based, funded by hundreds of millions of dollars and has popular cast and crew at the helm?
Click to expand...

Now there's a thought. Intellectual/Classic is by it's very definition not mainstream? Avatar and Titanic etc... can't be truly great?

I read a ton of indie scripts and they blow far worse than 9 of 10 things Hollywood makes. I have a lot more respect for Hollywood now than I did when I started this whole moviemaking thing with the thought "I can do better than that".

Well... good luck to everyone bringing a vision to screen and beating out the likes of Nolan. Or Michael Bay for that matter. This stuff isn't easy.
 
Subhadip Sen said:
Interestingly, the reaction to Inception resembles the reaction to The Matrix in so many ways.
Click to expand...



Draws the same question. Very old question.



picture23e.png




John Carpenter's "The Fog"
 
Just saw it last night. Amazing filmmaking. But more of a fable than a conventional story genre like drama or scifi thriller. So strange to see so few characters experiencing such epic events in such exotic settings. Though of course they're all dreams. The whole thing plays like a dream, with the dreamer (audience) viewing from a distance. We don't really care about the characters - as has been said - but the story is intriguing nonetheless. To make it a more conventional narrative would require it to be twice as long. Loved the non-CGI effects (when I could tell) . LOVED the soundtrack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top