Inception (2010) - Christopher Nolan

Inception is a heist film about Cobb (DiCaprio), who is contracted to extract information from the subconscious of the dreamer. A client, Saito (Ken Watanabe), wants to do more than extract information, he wants to plant an idea in the mind of a business competitor. Planting an idea is called “inception,” which is rarely attempted and has never been executed successfully because ideas forced on the dreamer never hold.

One thing is certain – this concept is fun. And the most fun thing about this science fiction concept is the exploration of how the rules of the dreaming-subconscious differ from the reality we know. This story has the advantage of incorporating universal dream experiences along side the fantastical. We often need a “kick” in our dream to wake up and we move from place to place never knowing how we got there – both common experiences, however, no one has ever entered into the dreams of others. This is great science fiction because it is rooted in one of the most abstract parts of the human experience.

Talking with a friend the other day, he mentioned the lack of abstract imagination in the dreams and I agree. Most of the dreams I experience and hear about are intensely abstract in their construction of the world, and though dreams resemble reality, there are always things completely out of place. Nolan’s dream-worlds, though they twist and go upside down, are not nearly as abstract as our subconscious.

As an action film, there are limitations to significant exchange between the characters. The main characters are strangers or professional acquaintances and go little beyond that. We are driven by the mission, and not by the character exchange. Before I go further on this point, let me say Christopher Nolan has achieved an accomplishment in containing this concept. There are endless possibilities in a concept like this and it would have been easy for a writer to end up with an incoherent story. That being said, the viewer wants every film to be the best it can be, and I longed for a level of intricacy in the characters to cause an intimate response – that did not happen. Nolan, lost in the novelties of the concept, kept this movie on the surface of action, when, I felt, the story wanted to go deeper.

On the spectrum of action films incorporating a “heart,” Inception is certainly not the worst. We have the tragedy of our main character, Cobb, and his desire to see his kids. David Darby of the New Yorker, points out that we do not know his kids at all and he rightfully asks the question “who cares?” which Nolan should have asked himself a few more times, as every writer should ask of their characters, struggling through the process of writing a story that will connect the viewer to the character.

Should we merely categorize this caper movie and not have expectations for significant character exploration? Surely the long action sequences with endless projections of hired guards could have been trimmed down in exchange for more purpose in Cobb and the rest of the characters, who, by the way, had no chance of disclosing their persona. Can anyone think of an action film that is also a compelling drama of human connection and development? Should mystery/detective novels be challenged to develop the inner life of the characters?

Then again, as the human experience is so different at times (tragic, romantic, adventurous, dramatic), why shouldn’t films focus on a specific season? All films cannot be epics, which have the potential to contain so many parts of humanity collectively. However, Inception is close enough to an epic (2 hrs 28 mins) to be expected to contain a fuller spectrum of the inner lives of at least one main character.

Though I felt little response to the characters, I did feel a renewed sense of wonder of the human subconscious. In this film, people explore and manipulate the subconscious dreaming state, which causes me to remember, for one wild moment, that I have an actual subconscious which designs, explores, and manipulates all that I experience (shout out to GK Chesterton).

I always feel a slight embarrassment when the credits roll, especially in the movie theater. The only other experience I can compare it to is the moment when I wake up around people, and am embarrassed that I may have said something in my sleep or snored. The embarrassment I feel at the credits (especially the first time I see a film) is what I feel like when I’m waking up. Cinema is dreamlike. At the movies, as in dreams, I find myself in the middle of a story with the most privileged view of all that is happening. And I ‘wake-up’ at the end of a film (assuming it is a captivating movie) and feel a bit foggy and out of it. It takes time to transition from the dream to reality and I tell my friends I prefer not to talk about the film right afterwards because of this uncomfortable process of transitioning and because I need time to process a film, 24 hours usually does the trick, but sometimes it takes weeks or months. I saw Inception with a group, and as soon as the credits rolled, a good friend scooted over people and through the narrow aisle to bend down close to my face and ask, “What did you think?!” I hope he reads these thoughts, which will answer his question better than the glare of irritation I gave him.

The Apartment (1960) - Billy Wilder

I viewed this film for the first time on July 4^th, 2010. I was going to watch 'a little bit' before bed and stayed up till 3am.

The premise of this film is simple and clever – a man who is stuck lending his apartment to executives in his company for adulterous rendezvous’. Wilder saw another movie that showed this situation, but not the man who lent the apartment. What kind of man would that be, Wilder wondered. So, following that trail of curiosity, Wilder was led to a great idea. A lesson from Billy: cultivate curiosity. I appreciate a clever idea that never has to try hard to draw in the viewer, who follows the peculiar trail of curiosity a few steps behind Wilder and IAL Diamond (screenwriter).

Baxter’s (Lemon) is a bachelor working in a low position at an insurance company. He hasn’t found the right girl and is lonely. Meanwhile his executive friends have higher positions, wives and families, and flings they bring to his apartment. (In NYC during this time, police officers knocked on the doors of hotels suspected of renting hourly, and would bust those who weren’t with their wives, so the friend’s apartment was important for not getting caught.)

Going up, we meet the elevator operator Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine) and her charm is instant. She is friendly with her passengers, maybe partly to keep her job, but mostly because she is comfortable with people. Behind that comfort is some mystery. At first I thought it was confidence, but as the film progresses, her entanglement with an executive and her own insecurities are revealed. With this new insight, I believe her comfort stems from a disillusionment of not expecting too much out of life. She can’t afford to hope too much. So after a series of disappointments in life, she has continued with acceptance in some dark comfort. Her performance is great and tragic, most poignantly communicated after Baxter points out her broken mirror, “Yes, I know,” she says, “I like it that way. Makes me look the way I feel.” This performance is a great relief to a certain other lead star that Wilder worked with, who’s whiny and ditzy characteristics I find unbearable.

Like Fran, our man Baxter accepts his own dark comfort. This is the best role of Jack Lemon I’ve seen. He bring us into his tragedy, but gives us permission to laugh, and I did. I laughed out loud when I saw him drunk-dancing cheek to cheek with a fellow loner, oblivious to the empty bar. Personally, I don’t prefer his over-the-top style like in Some Like It Hot. Here, Lemon still leans towards the theatrical, but it works well in comparison to MacLaine’s subtle performance. It also seems fitting that Baxter is so animated to cover up the discontent he feels with his life. Baxter is constantly trying to keep up the lie that he is a womanizer with his neighbor/doctor.

As someone who is already romantically idealistic, I am wary of what subconscious messages of romance a film might be sending me. But I believe this film portrays more realistic romance than idealistic romance. The cheating men are never fulfilled or rewarded for their infidelity. There is a lot of disillusionment and disappointment - a very real part of pursuing romance. And Fran’s decision to be with Baxter is plausible. The only part that may be argued as too idealistic is how it neatly falls into place at the end. I don’t mind a clear ending and like this one, but the movie could just as well have ended with both Fran and Baxter moving past their disillusionment without ending up together. But we go to the movies to see extraordinary stories, so why not. Drama is life with the boring parts taken out (Hitchcock), so in this romance, the years of disappointment and waiting are taken out for a neat ending. The viewer wants to see these moments of influence that make a difference in the lives of the characters. Like when Baxter confesses, “Ya know, I used to live like Robinson Crusoe; I mean, shipwrecked among 8 million people. And then one day I saw a footprint in the sand, and there you were.”