Inter-Inception

It appears as if my wife and I are the only two people on the face of the planet who hated Inception.  She walked out about an hour and change into it—immediately before the tedious exposition that made the rest of the film thuddingly predictable—and I followed shortly thereafter.  Spoilers follow under the fold.

As soon as the ersatz Ra's Al Ghul from Batman Begins got shot the film screamed its circularity.  Once the rules about dying in one dream level were explained, the mechanism of that circularity became obvious, as did the fact that the "cliffhanger" would consist of whether or not Cobb was really in the really real world or just in another dream.  Which is pot-logic; by which I mean, the sort of thing you say when you're listening to Floyd in your dorm and everyone has their own bowl and is abusing it.

"Man, but what if this was all, like, a dream?"

"I know, dude, but what if it's not even a person's?  What if we're all, like, in a dog's dream?"

"And the moment it wakes up to lick its balls?  We like cease to exist?"

"That is deep, dude."

"Totally."

It's an infuriatingly stupid conceit, and asking the audience to accept it in order to make a film work is insulting.*  I'll admit that film was finely composed: the plot circled back perfectly, i.e. the timing of the van versus the timing at the hotel versus the timing at the fortress and then Limbo.  Limbo.  What to say about that? 

The less more likely the better. 

Instead, I'll just note that psychological complexity in this film was figured like a wedding cake: "depth" literally entailed layers stacked one atop the other, such that the "deeper" one went, the "deeper" one was.  Which is deep, dude.  But the perfect circularity of the plot had another unintended consequence: the film felt like an exercise in empty formalism. 

I'm sorry, I misspoke: the film "felt" like nothing, because it generated sympathy for neither the characters nor the corporation at whose behest they toiled.  When Nolan did attempt to make viewers care about the characters, he did so in the most grossly manipulative of manners: he killed a wife and quasi-orphaned some children.  Only who cared?  They weren't people so much as necessary elements of his orderly plotting, without whom he couldn't have knocked over that first domino.  

"Dominoes" aren't the operative metaphor here, though.  Inception was the equivalent of watching a grandmaster play an uninspired game against the village idiot.  There's brilliance there, certainly, but it's pointless and wasted.

*My personal theory is that no one had the gumption to tell Nolan this because The Dark Knight was the highest grossing film of all time. 

Comments

[P.T. Smith]

Mikhail,

You're being disingenuous and you probably know it. When you made you first post, I did ask if you were joking, you then went on to reword your original statement in a less jokey fashion, implying that you were not joking at all. Then in response to Anon, you decided to claim you were indeed joking.

As for your rhetorical questioning of what other way is there to teach besides handing over your opinions and beliefs in order to make yourself feel better? How about actually fostering discussion, helping students to learn how to think through their opinions, reformulate against arguments, bring about clarity and deeper coherence of their opinions...oh, all sorts of things to do.

Now here is where you claim that I was making assumptions, that you do actually do this, that if I read your later posts you make claims to doing this...but that doesn't change that your initial statement, and your only clear, straightforward, and unchallenged expression of your belief in teaching is that you are there to straighten out the idiots who think differently than you.

[Mikhail Emelianov]

Well, surely you know more about my intentions, I should just leave it at this, clearly I know not what I was trying to say, but how is this not "arrogant and condescending" on your part to be so sure about what I was intending to communicate (against my own testimony)?

"...your only clear, straightforward, and unchallenged expression of your belief in teaching is that you are there to straighten out the idiots who think differently than you."

Now this is just outrageous bullshit and I don't care to call it that. If you are stupid enough to read this into my comments (not posts, mind you), then you need some help (or a hug, depending on the level of your misery). If you really mean it, if you really think that I have this model of teaching in mind (and you are able to perceive it in my comments), then I am not sure I can persuade you otherwise - may I request that you just let me be then, okay?

[P.T. Smith]

I haven't said a word about what you intended to communicate, but what you communicated. Your testimony of your intended meaning came only after dismissing myself and Anon; you only went back to claim you were kidding around after commentator pointed out the same issue we each raised.

Since then, you've just found ways to continue to dismiss opinions other than yours, and call people idiots, stupid, and miserable. Since you seem (see, there, I am responding to what you communicated, not what you intended, let's keep those clear, right?) more interested in insulting me than anything else (yes, I insulted your teaching, but only when you answered my question of whether you were joking or not, with a "not," and I kept the insult limited to the subject at hand rather than an ad hom attack on a grander scale) I'm fine with leaving you be as a lovely reminder why I'm so very happy with the professors I had in college, and why I'm never steering towards grad school (feel free to insult me here with some comment about how that's for the best because I couldn't cut it in grad school -- that would only further prove my point).

Cheers (see, I can end politely after being an ass too)

[SEK]

I don't think anyone here is an idiot, but I've been preparing for a dinner party all day and haven't had time to jump in. Needless to say, my comment about my initial reaction to the film wasn't what I went with; I chose, instead, to write a post expressing my profound disappointment in a film by a director I've got quite an investment in. Anyhow, more tomorrow, after I throw a successful dinner party.

[Mikhail Emelianov]

P.T., whatever your offense with me is, you're wrong about graduate school - you possess just the correct attitude one needs to do very well there.

[P.T. Smith]

There you go with the meritless insults again. No, dude, I don't. And if you're the one who wanted to get riled and accusatory about people making assumptions...

[Adam Roberts]

Hey, Scott! Turns out I'm the anti-you! Who knew?

[J.S. Nelson]

I think Primer is the sort of film, about which it would be very difficult to argue that there is a plot hole. The plot of Primer is a hole, in that the central events upon which the film turns aren't pictured and the main characters don't know what they are.

[Rachel]

Those who hated Inception are, without doubt, more intelligent, intellectual and interesting than those who enjoyed it. They're also better in bed, excellent cooks, and have better personal hygiene.

Anyone who enjoyed the film is both stupid and wrong.

That's pretty much what I've gained from this review.

[Drone Module]

Also absolutely hated it.