The Emotional Unavailability Of “Inception”
It took a year but I finally got around to my second viewing of Christopher Nolan’s dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream-etc. opus Inception, a film that garnered much discussion and many opinions and a whole lotta box office cash last summer. I admired the movie’s intent but it left me feeling a bit distant, and as I re-watched it I found myself admiring its intent even more but being moved by its content and execution even less.
Obligatory background: Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a specialist in extraction, a process whereby he and a few trusted associates enter someone’s subconscious and/or “dream state” and extract a piece of information. But the mysterious mega-millionaire Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers a job of inception, entering someone’s subconscious and planting an idea. This, of course, can’t be done. Except, of course, that it can, or so says Cobb, perhaps simply because Saito wields the offer of allowing Cobb to return home to his kids, his motherless kids because of the tragedy that long ago befell his wife Mal (Marion Cottilard).
As with my first viewing, the Mal relationship is where the movie begins to step wrong. Christopher Nolan is not a great purveyor of emotion. At least, not yet. The man knows his craft, I grant you. Sure. Vocationally, he does an awful lot right in this film. Dom’s relationship with his deceased wife is the sort of stuff of classic noir films and had the potential to be a passionately skewered version of The Wizard Of Oz. (“I need to get home. That’s all I care about right now.”) But when Nolan is required to show us Mal’s grisly fate he gets us to the moment by employing the ancient trope of voice-over stacked on top of flashbacks, which is to say that Nolan is unable to get us there visually. And because the whole thing is done via talking-heads speaking primarily in clarifying sentences, there isn’t a significant build-up and release and what should be overwhelmingly powerful is shockingly stagnant.
Throughout the film Nolan sufficiently elevates the stakes from scene to scene, just as he should, yet I caught myself thinking in that moment when Cobb and his team have entered the subconscious of Cillian Murphy’s character to incept the idea and the curtain is pulled back and they learn that in this dream state, unlike the others, if they die they may be caught in “limbo” and never wake up that this is an awesomely dramatic and colossal crisis that somehow on the screen does not feel as dramatic nor as colossal a crisis as it should. This happens again and again during Inception. It’s like a pop song where the hooks arrive right on schedule except they don’t move your booty.
Which brings me to my main point. In my original review, I lamented the fact Ellen Page’s character – “the architect” of the dreamworld – was nothing more than a delivery device for exposition, a way for the whole process of extraction/inception to be explained to the audience and, as the movie progressed, for her to continually describe the worsening Cobb/Mal situation so the audience knows exactly what’s going on. Of course in Black Swan, my #1 film of last year, the film about which I ranted and raved and raved and ranted, the Vincent Cassel character (the ballet’s artistic director) is, more or less, a delivery device for exposition. “The only person standing in your way is you.” And it is there, right there, that the river divides Christopher Nolan and the director of Black Swan, Darren Aronofsky.
There’s that line in Inception where Leo says to Page: “Dreams feel real while we’re in them, right? Its only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange.” In a sense, that describes the moviemaking process. So long as the movie works while you’re watching it, so long as it feels real during those two hours, you’re good, you’re gone. When it’s over, that’s another matter. It’s like that quote of the esteemed Roger Ebert several years back when he was taken to task by a reader who had ascertained all a movie’s “plot holes” after the movie had ended. Ebert replied: “If you also want it to all be plausible in hindsight, you’re probably disappointed when a magician doesn’t saw a real person in half and leave the severed corpse on the stage.”
Aronofsky is a black belt magician. You watch him work and you see the saw and the severed legs and the lady is screaming and the blood is flying and, oh, does it look real! You cower in terror from the authenticity. Vincent Cassel may be saying things for the audience’s benefit (even though, really, the audience didn’t need them and could have gleaned everything on its own) but Aronofsky whisks it away with all the tension and dread that coats every single moment. His movie expertly builds on its is-she-nuts-or-isn’t-she? narrative, ratcheting things up just a little more and then a little more and then a little more until it finally unleashes holy hell at the end and crescendos with the closing shot and it does all this with the fewest words possible. Except for the final lines, of course, which count for something because so little was said leading up to them.
Nolan, on the other hand, is like the magician who makes the Grand Canyon disappear but is simultaneously filming a how-I-did-it documentary. He presents you a play-by-play of everything while it’s happening so you don’t really ever have a chance to feel any of it for yourself. It’s a dream and you know you’re inside of it, and you might argue that quite often we find ourselves realizing we’re in a dream while we’re in it, those dreams still feel immediate. Inception, for all that goes on, and that’s a lot, never feels immediate, never feels life or death, never feels entirely emotionally available. There’s a shot near the end where they’ve entered the fourth or fifth or sixth or seventh or whatever dream level and Ellen Page leaps out a window to “die” and wake herself up and I don’t know about you but I’ve definitely fallen and “died” in dreams and it’s terrifying. But Nolan can’t wring any magic from moments like this one. He can’t make us feel it the way we feel in dreams.
Aronofsky is an auteur. Nolan is just one hell of an idea man.
SO, HAVE I STIRRED UP THE HORNET’S NEST? ANYONE HAVE A REBUTTAL? I CAN TAKE IT. LET ME HAVE IT. I WAS JUST BEING HONEST!
31 Comments
I started looking at this two weeks ago for what should have been an article, but I couldn’t get past the first twenty minutes for a multitude of reasons – the most significant being the same lack of ability to become emotionally invested (even if I think Marion effaces the potential for lack of emotion by being quite excellent). I’ve got a number of issues with the movie, but the most significant remains Leo who (you know) I love but still comes off as impossibly dull to me here. I think it’ll be facetious of me to blame Nolan, but Leo who is usually such a purveyor of emotion never manages to invoke that emotional tension which the movie SHOULD rest on. All the machinations of the dreamscape and what not depend on some emotional resonance, and it just doesn’t land.
Great article, but then I’ve never loved Nolan (other than The Prestige), I’m weird like that.
The only Nolan movie I’ve ever truly loved is “Batman Begins.” I’m not sure that one is as “mind blowing” but it certainly has more of an emotional depth.
I’m with you Nick. I get flak for saying I love BB more than TDK but I think it’s the most emotionally-satisfying for me. I haven’t seen enough of Aronofsky’s work to compare w/ Nolan, so I can’t really comment on that. I do feel that I expect to be more emotionally involved in the love story of Inception, but I wasn’t. It’s there… just not enough. I think Cillian’s character crying by his father’s bed is the most emotional scene for me out of the entire film.
Yes! Always happy to hear of another on the same side as me in the BB vs. TDK Wars.
Ah yes, Cillian. He and Marion gave my two favourite performances of the film. Both overflowing with emotion.
It’s sure to stir up the hornet’s nest, as you say, but I agree with a lot of this. I like Chris Nolan a ton but there’s no denying one thing- he’s not economical, he’s not efficient. There’s not an ounce of economy to his stories. That’s really my only beef with him.
I like that Grand Canyon/magician analogy a lot.
No, he’s not. Certainly not in this one, anyway. If there had been so much less explaining and if they’d tightened up the editing then maybe what was meant to be so big and swooping wouldn’t have registered so flat.
This is a magnificent review, and I agree with a lot of it. The sub-plot with Dom’s relationship with his wife had the potential to be emotionally compelling, and it wasn’t. As a result, the revelations about his wife’s fate didn’t move me much. This was part of why this highly lauded film fell flat for me.
That’s why I think Nolan should work with another writer on ideas like this one. He can worry about the fancy stuff and maybe the other writer can bring a little somethin’-somethin’ to the personal relationships.
I enjoyed Inception a lot, especially on the first viewing. Watching it again at home, it still works for the most part. However, you’re correct that certain parts, especially the Mal relationship, aren’t as strong. Also, I think Page does a good job, but her role is pretty wasted in the second half of the movie. She’s used to introduce us to the dream world, and I kept expecting her character to really develop, but it doesn’t happen. It’s still a strong film, but I can’t push back too hard on what you’re saying here.
I understand people enjoying it. We all want different things from movies. I want an emotional connection most of all and in my view it just doesn’t have it.
Agreed for the most part, I just find it hilarious that you use the magician analogy, and Nolan is the one who has delivered arguably the best “magician movie” that I’ve ever watched.
I think Nolan just needs to scale things down a bit. That way he’s allowed more time to go through things with more depth. As much as I love The Dark Knight, the film eventually got too big for him, leaving you with questions every five minutes by the time you’ve seen the movie a few times.
All that said, I still think he’s a bloody brilliant director and easily one of the top 5 working today. That list also includes von Trier, so take it for what it’s worth.
Wow. That never even crossed my mind. I always forget about “The Prestige.” And you know what? Honestly, I didn’t care for that one either. It looked pretty and David Bowie was fairly cool but, again, like “Inception”, I felt so detached.
Why does everyone suddenly agree? I remember reviewing the movie when it came out and saying the exact same thing and everyone was piling on me and raving mad about how awesome it was.
Passage of time, perhaps? I don’t know. I was honestly expecting to fend off all sorts of angry comments. Maybe they’re just collecting their thoughts and getting ready.
People like the new guy better.
Seriously though, it doesn’t really surprise me that people have calmed down about it. It happened with The Dark Knight as well. When TDK came out, you couldn’t swing a bat without hitting 20 people that fell in love with it. By the next summer, (most) people had calmed down about it.
I still really enjoy the movie. I would still include it in a top 10 list for last year. But at the same time, the flaws are still there, and become more and more recognizable with each viewing. What Nolan tries to do with this film, and Marion of course, keeps bringing me back though.
Sorry, I’d have agree if I had been here Castor.
Meanwhile, awesome essay, excellent points. As soon as I saw the title (today at lunch when Unfortunately I couldn’t devote to the article) I was like YES!!
I’ve felt that this film is just missing that emotional component ever since I saw it. I still think its crazy awesome, but if he could have made the audience FEEL for DiCaprio and the whole wife thing more… this movie would have been all time classic great.
I dont think it helped that I had just seen Shutter Island for the first time on Blu. So, THERE, Scorsese has Leo melting down. I mean, a complete emotional wreck. And as I was watching this movie for the first time I couldn’t shake the thought… “If they were only getting HALF of what he did in Shutter Island”…
Alas. Its not to be.
Maybe in 20 years when Nolan goes back to it like Ridley Scott with Blade Runner.
*SIGH*
Hmmmmmmm. The “Inception” prequel: “Extraction”. Dom Cobb’s FIRST job.
I actually think I’m the only person on Earth who still thinks (after 15 watches…give or take) Inception is still freaking amazing.
Anyway, good post. One of the days I’ll start liking Inception less and less…
No, no, no, no! You don’t have to like “Inception” less and less! If you love it, you love it, ya know? I still love “Million Dollar Baby” like nobody’s business no matter what anyone says.
Inception is still an awesome film. A story as grand and in your face as this is bound to have some plot holes. BUt to be honest, who cares?
In the words of Gladiator?
‘Are you not entertained?’
A very thought provoking piece and really well written matey. I liked the bit about the fact that they all seemed to take it so well that they could very easily die in this dream…..!
Thanks for sharing, you brave man you
Plot holes really don’t interest me too much as a viewer. If a movie makes me feel transcendent I’m usually more than willing to forgive a few plot holes. I’m sure “Inception” had plot holes but that wasn’t what concerned me. A film that enormous should have felt transcendent, and it didn’t. At least, not to me.
Interesting article…I put Inception as my number1 movie of 2010 and I still think the same even after I saw Black Swan. The thing is, I love unusual sci-fi (another example is Matrix).
As much as I love Inception, I agree with you in emotion part. In fact, whenever the matter turn into mal and cob’s problem…I get bored easily.
I haven’t bought the DVD yet, I have seen it twice at the same week when it was released. I might change my opinion after I buy theDVD…but maybe not…who knows.
You know, in some ways I wish I hadn’t re-watched it. So take that under advisement.
Well…unfortunately Nick…Not rewatching Inception is impossible. There is Cillian Murphy there and I have watched ALL his movies over and over again.
Just because the emotional angle didn’t work for you doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
Oh, the angle was there. It was definitely there. I don’t dispute that, I just personally thought Nolan’s execution of that angle left it surprisingly un-emotional.
I agree with this sentiment. Nolan is great at crafting a film, but it doesn’t have those magic moments where I’m completely invested in the story.
Inception is a film I find more and more not to like about as I see it. I still admire it and I still enjoy large parts of it, but the heavy reliance on exposition and stakes that somehow don’t feel real leave me disinterested through various moments in the film.
However, I think Aronofsky doesn’t alleviate these problems. If anything, he suffers a different symptom of being too blatant and aggressive about what he’s doing in Black Swan, not so much in the exposition, but in the style and in the way he captures certain ideas and moments.
I would concur with that sentiment about Aronofsky and “Black Swan.” But I actually like that he goes for that over the top, aggressive feel. I thought that tone matched the story he was telling. But, like you said, it is blatant. That’s going to turn people off. And I guess it did turn people off.
Where I really disagree is with the last paragraph. Inception plays, from start to finish, with its cards close to its chest, by which I mean to say that any interpretation which hinges on what the film outright tells us is kind of flimsy. Nolan doesn’t hand-hold the audience by identifying, loudly and clearly, which scenes explicitly occur in the dream world and which take place in reality; obviously something like the snowy mountain chase doesn’t unfold in the real world, but Mal’s death could just as well take place in a dream as in reality. (The geography of that scene makes little real-world sense but makes plenty of dream sense, for example.) It’s an ambiguous movie.
I understand the point about the build-up in that aforementioned scene, but the film does spend an awful lot of time throwing Mal in our faces in one way or another and making it clear that Mal is incredibly emotionally important to Dom. If the moment of her death feels cold, then I’d imagine it’s because Dom’s relaying it to Ariadne rather emotionlessly; like the film itself, Dom tends to give away very little, and apart from that we’re not present for the actual moment when it occurs. We’re just being told about it after the fact. But there’s something inherently emotional about how the scene plays out nonetheless because Mal, quite literally, haunts Dom in his thoughts and dreams, which for me makes the unveiling of the “why” quite powerful.
Well reasoned argument, man. And that’s a good point, it IS ambiguous in the sense of dream/reality. And I tend to love ambiguity in movies. And I respect that Nolan went for that feel here. But that comes back to where I admired his intentions but not the execution of all those intentions.
Dom does relay the particulars of Mal’s death in an emotionless tone, that’s true, but then Scrap in “Million Dollar Baby” also relayed the particulars of Maggie’s death in the letter he was writing in an emotionless tone but that death scene still packed a serious wallop. At least, for me.
Trackbacks