The American Spectator : Inception

Text Size

Inception

By James Bowman on 8.2.10 @ 6:02AM

The story is that there's no story.

Movie reviewing isn't what it used to be, I'm sorry to have to tell you. Criticism has ceased to be an aesthetic exercise and is now an essay in mass psychology -- or perhaps the sort of practical anthropology known as marketing. Thus, the New Republic online recently ran an article by the estimable David Thomson under the headline: "Why Is Everyone So Obsessed With 'Inception'? A Theory." Not, in other words, "Is Inception Any Good?" or "Should You Go See Inception?" That people want to see it and even should see it can apparently be taken for granted. Though perfectly capable of reviewing movies -- I can particularly recommend his Have You Seen…? a collection of brief reviews of a thousand of his favorite pictures – Mr. Thomson rightly concludes that Christopher Nolan's movie, soaring atop the box office charts, is more a subject for an alienist than a critic.

Anyway, I mean to emulate this new, po-mo style of criticism here. Just as the movie itself consists mainly of allusions to other movies -- as A.O. Scott remarks in the New York Times, it is "as packed with allusions and citations as a film studies term paper" -- so will my review consist mainly of reviews of other reviewers, beginning with David Thomson. As I read his theory -- and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong -- the real (or, rather, unreal) appeal of Inception lies in a new kind of artistry, namely that of pure cinema utterly unconnected to anything outside itself in the world formerly known as "real." What it has to offer is not a picture of something -- that is, something else -- but a sort of Kantian ding an sich, the thing in itself, plus a degree of wit and grace (these are his words) that has the power to make us forget any lingering soul-hunger we may have for the old-fashioned kind of movie, namely one which presupposed a connection to reality.

Sure it's the equivalent of a video game, Mr. Thomson cheerfully admits, but what's so bad about that?

As I go back to it, and we all will, I think this truth will emerge, that amid its stunning visions of Paris folding up like a clever box and cliffs crumbling like abandoned tenements, it has the panache of a comedy. Leonardo [DiCaprio] and his gang do a great job with their inane task, but it could have been Laurel and Hardy getting a piano up those steps.

Of course, the difference is that both pianos and steps are recognizable phenomena of our common life. Put them together for comic effect and you have one thing; put a bunch of imaginary somnionauts, led by Mr. DiCaprio's Dom Cobb, into an inverted and metaphysical heist-caper in a computer-generated landscape full of nothing but artful allusions to other artificial images and you have, well, quite another. But this truth doesn't really affect Mr. Thomson's basic point that, when you've got a video game as pretty and as cleverly designed as Inception, it gives you a kind of permission (as the psychoanalyst might say) to abandon our out-dated and unnecessary expectations of plausibility and verisimilitude: in short, of "reality" -- a word which can thus henceforth never again be used without its bodyguard of quotation marks.

Well, maybe so, but I can help thinking of the revealing comment from Ann Hornaday's review in the Washington Post: "Indeed, Inception often plays like the coolest Ocean's Eleven installment ever made, albeit with fewer wisecracks and a much trippier caper." That Ocean's Eleven takes place, ostensibly, in the real world is an irrelevancy here, since we know how unreal, how purely cinematic it is, just like Inception. Once having swallowed the somewhat more timorous fantasy of Ocean's Eleven, what is to stop us from swallowing the completely fantastical Inception? Fantasy can now be taken for granted as the only vehicle for originality and intelligence in movie-making. See, for instance, Ms Hornaday's further compliment:

Nolan exemplifies the best kind of filmmaking, unchained from the laws of time, space and even gravity, but never from the most basic rules of narrative. Even at its most tangled and paradoxical, Inception keeps circling back to the motivation that has driven films from The Wizard of Oz to E.T.: Cobb, finally, just wants to go home.

There is an important mistake here. "The most basic rules of narrative," like narrative itself, must refer to action. Narrative means that something happens, which then causes something else to happen. Wanting to go home isn't an action but a feeling, and in this movie, as in so many others these days, there is only feeling and no action. Or rather, what actions there are can hardly be disentangled from what are only the illusions of actions. Why? Because the conversion of action into illusion is what people are demanding of movies these days instead of demanding, as they used to do, the conversion of illusion into action.

That's why the editorial (again, not a review) in the Guardian that claims "Nolan is emerging as a master storyteller" has it exactly wrong. This is just what he's not, since "story" (a.k.a. "narrative") must take action seriously enough to acknowledge that it has consequences. One action, therefore, leads to another. They used to call it plot. The whole point of dealing in dreams is so that you can dispense with plot, since in dreams there are no actions in the sense of things-with-consequences. Anything can happen, and that's the way this non-story-teller likes it. It's also how audiences increasing numbers of whose members spend their lives in front of computer screens seem to like it.

Or, as Tom Shone wrote in the London Daily Telegraph, "For all its originality, the movie offers startling confirmation of a theme that first emerged in James Cameron's Avatar: audiences have had it with reality." I'm afraid that's true, except that the theme did not first emerge in Avatar but decades ago in Star Wars and the Indiana Jones sagas: fantasies that no longer bothered even masquerading as reality. Christopher Nolan has done as much as anyone to advance this anti-reality style of film-making, not least in The Dark Knight which proved, even before Avatar, that phantasmagoria could take the place of plot and no one would even notice or, if they did notice, care about it. In case I haven't mentioned it before, I do care. I'm sure someone else must have said so too; I just can't think of who at the moment.

About the Author

James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (30) | Leave a comment

Kitty| 8.2.10 @ 6:30AM

Ever since "Titanic," I've made it a point to NEVER watch anything which features Leo DiCaprio.

John Navratil| 8.2.10 @ 8:34AM

I felt like you after "Titanic", which I also disliked. However, I found some redemption for DiCaprio in "The Aviator".

grant1863| 8.2.10 @ 11:43AM

"Catch me if you can" was good too

Eisenhower| 8.2.10 @ 10:49PM

"Gangs of New York" was another good one.

Justin| 8.3.10 @ 6:55PM

Departed?

He's got plenty of worthwhile movies now, oddly enough. You just have to ignore the early stuff.

Joe| 8.2.10 @ 6:38AM

You are certainly on to something. In my reading of history, I have noticed that people caught in civilizations in decline often turn to magic and magic thinking. You can see it it corporations on the verge of bankruptcy. From Hitler's wonder weapons to the Native American belief in magic vests and the ghost dance at the time of Wounded Knee, it seems that as people confront an unhappy future, it is a great temptation to imagine an improbable and magic Happy Ending. Looking down the road we are madly paving with good intentions, a little magic would be a comfort. I am waiting to see my first "Reality Sucks" tee shirt.

Toolbag| 8.2.10 @ 11:59AM

Like the Roman Empire did when it fell...

JP| 8.2.10 @ 12:53PM

Actually during the Great Depression there were plenty of "fantasy" movies. They were set in reality, but thier plots were utter fantasy (poor girl marries and reforms wealthy tycoon, or 4 Cowboys fight and defeat an entire Apache tribe; or the improbable Danny Kaye comedies, et..). These movies plots were engineered to get people to forget thier troubles for a few hours. After WWII the majority of these flicks were forgotten. What is ironic is that today's audience is way too cynical to enjoy 99% of the movies made during Hollywood's Golden Age. But then again, the audiences of the 1930s were way to mature to enjoy something as childish as Avatar or Star Wars.

P. Aaron| 8.2.10 @ 7:38AM

I'm just lookin' for a good story. From what I gather here, there ain't ; "nothing to see here folks. Move along."

Ed| 8.2.10 @ 7:57AM

The idea that one can enter and manipulate another person's dreams is an interesting sci-fi premise. But, the idea that you can stack 3-4 layers of dreams, with each level running 10 times faster than the previous one, is pure balderdash. If you want to see this movie, wait for the DVD.

davelnaf| 8.2.10 @ 8:11AM

While certainly interesting to look at “Inception” becomes near its end a not very interesting film. It has everything a movie needs these days to be critically successful except, as the author notes, a story. Watching the film, one waits for a genuinely intriguing idea to emerge that gives the film real substance. And the film is clever enough that it sustains itself well throughout its length, giving the viewer reason to believe that this cinematic insight is about to occur at any moment. But it never happens. “Inception” keeps going on and on until it ends with some loose ends tied up decently enough and that’s about it. The film is memorable for its interesting concept, special effects, and a what-could-have-been potential.

John Navratil| 8.2.10 @ 8:37AM

Have to agree! It's entertaining enough to watch but it's really an action/sci-fi which is too long. There isn't enough of substance to keep one thinking about it afterwards.

Bill| 8.2.10 @ 9:03AM

Not only have movies forsaken storyline for fantasy, the fantasy is invariably teenage fantasy.

The closest I've gotten to adult reality in a movie plotline in the past decade is It's Complicated, which might be characterized as a high-school graduate's LATE teen fantasy.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.2.10 @ 9:54AM

I read books.

R| 8.2.10 @ 11:11AM

Y'all missed it. The entire movie is a dream.

http://chud.com/articles/artic.....Page1.html

WJ| 8.2.10 @ 11:38AM

I have never liked dream sequences. Nothing has to make sense and the director can show mindless visual images (no matter how pretty).

This whole movie is like that.

Memento was a good movie.

Albert| 8.2.10 @ 12:09PM

I saw "Inception" and came away, well, frankly, bored. I was yawning through the last 40 minutes or so, checking my watch and looking forward to the rolling credits. Leonardo DiCaprio, like his contemporaries, are all competent professionals, and he can be appealing if given a good role ("Catch Me if You Can" comes to mind, and I did enjoy "Titanic".) But "Inception" fails for many reasons, not the least of which is exactly what Mr. Bowman describes, the producers' steering into unreality as an end unto itself, where nothing matters except sight and sound. No story is needed, just busy-ness on screen for 2 hours or so. I did see some semblance of a story in "Inception", but it was rather weak, poorly developed, and uninspiring. But then I guess that's one "real" test of a story: can it stand on its own, stripped of the digital pseudo-environment within which it takes place? Like so many movies these days, for "Inception" the answer is no.

Chris| 8.2.10 @ 1:56PM

All style and no substance- that's the 'progressive' way. Hollywood has no idea how to make a good movie anymore. Moral relativism and liberal propaganda do not a good film make. That leaves incoherent fantasy- that's all they have.

Sam Reck| 8.2.10 @ 2:49PM

The desire so many Americans have for illusion over reality has given us - yep - Obama!

Anommynous| 8.2.10 @ 4:14PM

My gosh, I think y'all are insane!

The movie does have consequences. The movie thoroughly explains the rules, and it adheres to them. For example, if you are killed during a dream, you wake up. Therefore a CONSEQUENCE of being killed in a dream before accomplishing your task is that you fail to accomplish your task. Coordinating the chains of kicks to wake the characters from their layers of dreams was very clever and, I thought, exciting. At each level, there were actions that the characters in the movie MUST carry out, or else the consequence is that the attempt at inception will fail. The movie is consistent with the rules it defined. If you felt that the rules made the film too complicated, then I can understand (but disagree with) that criticism, but I think it's just incorrect to claim that this film has no consequences or plot since the action takes place in the world of dreams.

Chris, you say this movie resembles the "progressive" way? I don't know Christopher Nolan's political inclinations, but I remember when The Dark Knight came out, there were people who opined that it was an allegory for George W. Bush. http://online.wsj.com/article_.....DUyWj.html And actually, I agree. But whereas I believe The Dark Knight did indeed convey a moral, I don't believe Christopher Nolan intended any messages in Inception. I think he just wanted to create a thrilling, enjoyable movie, and in that respect I think he succeeded.

Anommynous| 8.2.10 @ 4:38PM

Anommynous is right. The movie does have a plot, there are consequences, there is consistency, etc. I liked it. It was too long and dragged a little, but I still liked it. Concerning Bowman, the movie provides him with another opportunity to condemn fantasy. Okay, I get it. What a grouch.

Roughcoat| 8.2.10 @ 4:40PM

The preceding post (4:38) is mine.

winterkorn| 8.2.10 @ 5:04PM

This movie was summer fun. Lighten up. Movies do not need to be filled with touchyfeely Eurocrap with long, dull pans on philosophically immersed faces to be worthwhile.

Anommynous is right. The movie had clever rules and pretty well stuck with them to allow rationality of movement through the multi-level dreaming. There was plenty of action, not too much boring back story, no gratuitous sex (unfortunately), and good eye candy without the horrid anti-human screed that was Avatar.

Archer| 8.3.10 @ 3:52AM

I can't stand Bowman as a film critic. All he does is harp on with his tiresome presumption that all "fantasy" (which apparently started with Star Wars) is bad. He's entitled to his pigheadedly dogmatic aesthetic judgments about the fantasy and science fiction genres, but I don't agree with them. I enjoy well-made fantasy and science fiction films, just as I like well-made "realistic" films. But then I'm not a dogmatist.

As far as this film goes, like all Nolan films it is actually plot heavy. A great amount of concentration is necessary to follow the overlapping narratives. Nolan films like Memento, Prestige and Inception are all concerned with the nature of reality. But, honestly, this film never stood a chance with Bowman.

Anastasia Mather| 8.3.10 @ 9:20AM

Thank goodness! I was beginning to think all my family and friends who saw this and LOVED and enjoyed this were crazy. Apparently not. Mr. Bowman seems to forget that sometimes a movie is entertainment, and if it's engrossing enough, the job is done.

Archer| 8.4.10 @ 2:10AM

Every Bowman review for years and years running now seems basically the same: "I hate film X because it's unrealistic escapism." Then there's time taken to denounce this as a symptom of our degraded modern culture.

Of course there were plenty of unrealistic, escapist films (screwball, anyone) before Star Wars, but that would conflict with Bowman's cultural thesis, so never mind. He waded into a big morass over the Lord of the Rings novels earlier this year, and managed to alienate more than a few conservatives.

Many conservatives do enjoy genre films, whatever Mr. Bowman may tell them them.

astorian| 8.3.10 @ 10:11AM

For the sake of readers who may not have seen the movie yet, I won't be a spoilsport. I won't tell you what the ending is.

But I WILL tell you that I saw EXACTLY how the movie would end about 15-20 minutes after it started. I kept hoping I was wrong. I kept hoping that Nolan wouldn't use the obvious, cliched ending I could see coming.

But he did.

fred | 8.3.10 @ 11:10AM

I saw it on an afternoon that was at least 103 degrees out, and recommend it as a good caper movie, complete with a plot and a lot of interesting visuals. It was long, but it was a perfect way to spend a hot afternoon. I would not recommend waiting for the DVD. It will lose something when it comes off the really big movie screen. The reviewer and the critics here are correct in saying you can't take it seriously.

James Kabala| 8.9.10 @ 7:50PM

Like many of the above, I'm bewildered by the claim that the movie did not have a coherent plot or storyline or that actions did not have consequences. If you don't like a fantasy plot, that's your prerogative, but the plot of the movie follows well-defined rules.

nike jordan packages| 1.6.11 @ 2:46AM

I must say that it's a very interesting article. I get a lot of knowledge from here. Beside that, your blog is so popular among the searchers from search engines. It means yours is great!