seven quintillion five quadrillion ([info]andalus) wrote,
Relatedly: I'd been meaning to mention I finally saw Inception a few weeks ago, months after everyone else did, and I was entirely underwhelmed. The action scenes were dull and overlong (except the hallway one), DiCaprio's put his faith in his acting ability entirely into his frowny forehead and all the secrets he was trying desperately to convince us he was keeping were all obvious from the start.

And I thought the ending was much simpler than people seemed to try to convince themselves of. What's important about the top was not that it stopped spinning but that he stopped watching it --- the top is Mal's totem, not his, his totem has become something different: he know that in a dream he can't see his children's faces. He gives up Mal's idea of reality/unreality and decides, no, this is what reality is. Which is not to say that there is no possibility that he could dream up his children's faces, but that he has accepted the word "reality" to mean this: the world in which I can see my children's faces. He's decided reality means a sort of togetherness, a reconciliation, which is ultimately the same for cilian murphy or watanabe. There will always be the nagging question of whether any world is real (hence the camera cutting away before it could be proven one way or another), but he's decided to hold on to this reconciliation as truth. And as the credits roll we're supposed to take that with us as we wake up from the dream of the movie.

(of course there's no proof that dicaprio hasn't been sleeping for the whole movie. but as there's no proof for or against this, it's just not an interesting theory. Any movie could be a dream, what does that add to our understanding of it?)

(Just as we're supposed to believe in The Usual Suspects, Stephen, that Verbal isn't making up the entire narrative, but only changing names as he sees fit. What we see is an objective recounting of the narrative — If it had been a subjective account then we'd more easily believe what he was trying to get Palminteri to believe, that Gabriel Byrne is Kaiser Soze. No one believed that Gabriel Byrne was Kaiser Soze, it just didn't fit with the story as presented on-screen. Though it might fit with a verbal recounting of it (which was the point). So we see that Soze is just arrogant enough to give a 100% factual recounting of events, only changing small things like the name of his lawyer (just in case), secure in his knowledge that it will be misinterpreted.)

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 14 comments

[info]nightspore

September 25 2010, 22:48:04 UTC 1 year ago

Agree on everything. It's also like in Turn of the Screw: all the dialogue has to be accurate for the ambiguities to be interesting. It just can't be the case (for any interesting engagement with the book) that the governess is hallucinating dialogue.

[info]wolodymyr

September 26 2010, 02:36:14 UTC 1 year ago

I am grateful this movie was made, because reading people write about it has been one of the highlights of my summer.

(I'm such a naive reader, such a naive payer-of attention; it took you to note that the important thing is not what the lead stops watching but THAT the lead stops watching)

I haven't seen it, and don't know that I will. Certainly if I do, the hallway sequence, probably all the Gordon-Levitt of it, will be what-for.

[info]nightspore

September 26 2010, 04:22:11 UTC 1 year ago

I love this. Don't see it. How could it compete with what you've imagined?

[info]andalus

September 26 2010, 09:00:26 UTC 1 year ago

Brick waltzes through the movie like he's having the time of his life. He plays a character whose only character trait is competence. It's brillo.

Him and Juno were so out of place they were frequently more interesting than the place.

[info]toctoc

September 26 2010, 02:52:51 UTC 1 year ago

Also underwhelmed for many of the same reasons. Reality/unreality no longer means anything by the end (if it ever did) in part because the film's notion of reality is exposition. Its theory of dreams is actually a theory of plot but only in the most pedestrian sense: all effects have discernible causes, all causes discernible effects. Dream logic has been standardized so that it's only recognizable as the logic of waking. (Cillian Murphy's tiresome Oedipal complex, the lost wife motif. Freud too is a theory of plot, though on occasion a much more interesting one.)

[info]nightspore

September 26 2010, 04:21:51 UTC 1 year ago

Well, there the dream of the burning child, the Denis-Johnsonian dream at the end of "Car Crash While Hitch-Hiking," -- those are what one would want.

[info]andalus

September 27 2010, 12:04:09 UTC 1 year ago

dreams. I'm not a very good dreamer, and am envious of those who dream well ([info]ololo writes about such vivid and meaningful dreams for example). my dreams are frequently cinematic though. and there have been a number of memorable action movie dreams (memorable in that I remembered I had them not that I remember them). so that, in a way, makes sense. dream-plots mimic day plots, dreams do have plots but they are plots with no beginnings and no ends, every moment is a middle... but there is something distinctly dreamlike about dreams, I feel it more as an indistinctness. I thought to myself, looking at the scenes, that there are too many details. dreams move from meaningful image to meaningful image, meaning is what is held onto, not detail. The feeling is distinct and, at least with me, the image isn't. A labyrinth is the fact of a labyrinth. Not a series of walls. what would be dream logic? that things move from one to the other by metonymy instead of cause/effect? what do you dream?

are dreams about thought or about perception

[info]toctoc

September 27 2010, 23:05:37 UTC 1 year ago Edited:  September 27 2010, 23:06:19 UTC

I love and hate, at the moment, the science that says dreams are a kind of hypnic twitchery--a series of diagnostic tests for waking life. It makes sense but it doesn't adhere to my experience of what I do while I'm asleep. You're right, I think, when you say the plots of dreams are all middle--and the progression surely can be metonymic. But not all dreams have plots. What matters to me, I suppose--what allows the impressions, the feelings of a dream, to mean anything is that in dreams causality means next to nothing. The maze is so fiercely itself because it too is all middle. Insist on an architect and suddenly there is history. History's for when you're awake.

I mean only that in dream logic time is undone but meaning remains stubbornly, inexplicably intact. If it were a really a movie about dreams, I think it would have had better ways of dealing with time than mere measurement. But then, I've never dreamed a clock that wasn't broken.

I don't know if my dreams matter to anyone when my eyes are open. I'll post one sometime if you like.


[info]andalus

October 2 2010, 22:05:13 UTC 1 year ago

I woke up in a side room at a museum, I think it was the metropolitan museum, and I woke disoriented, not quite knowing where I was but then certain that it was somewhere I shouldn't be, and as I walked down a white gallery I realized that if I kept it up I'd probably be setting off alarms. Thankfully it was about dawn and the place had begun to open and soon I was able to hide among middle aged women (always in pairs, them) and sneak back outside. It was bright, gray morning. I walked across the street and found a staid-looking federal building and for no reason tried to open the giant brass doors. to my surprise the door opened, and as it swung heavy I realized this was also probably illegal, so I quickly made my way over to the side alley as it swung wide and banged against the wall. There were other ways in, I knew. But I don't know why I wanted to get in.

Two weeks ago I dreamed that I was watching a young boy, probably ten, identified as the son of a friend of my mother's that I haven't seen in maybe fifteen years, but in the dream he was ten or so and still looked up to me. It was one of those run-down two-story houses you see in west orange nj, the kind with random rickety fire escapes, houses that look like no one has owned in decades but maybe squatters or drug dealers. Well the boy was on a walkway coming back to the window of the fire escape and I was watching from the window. And I thought, he's going to fall. And so he did, and banged against the rungs of the ladder about halfway down then hit the ground. And I went down to him and I called the ambulance and sat with him and took him back upstairs. He seemed to be fine though I encouraged him not to move, thought he might have cracked a rib or something broken inside. It was some time and no ambulance and when I did hear something pull up outside it was a van for the downstairs neighbors and they set up a family party on the lawn, trays of nice spanish food in lines, people everywhere. When the boy's mother came home she asked me why I called the ambulance, who has money to pay for an ambulance. she told me to go down and get some food.

[info]proximoception

September 26 2010, 16:55:01 UTC 1 year ago

I can't remember what the giveaways were about the story Spacey was telling. I do remember that the writer and director of the film disagreed about how much was being made up - the writer (I think) saying possibly everything, the director just some cosmetic details. What with all the work he put in, right? But either way the implicit contract about flashbacks was broken, is my memory.

Anyway, rewatch the movie sometime thinking in terms of auto-inception: DiCaprio was able to convince his wife of something, though there was blowback, but to heal the damage he attempted to incept himself. Listen closely to all dialogue about how inception works - e.g. having the same things repeated on different levels. He didn't just choose beauty over truth in a state of uncertainty, he chose beauty over truth by calculation, but realizing that the choice could only count if he systematically eliminated all uncertainty. He performed brain surgery on himself using a semi-lucid dream. And even if I'm wrong that's a much more interesting movie. Just like I should be paid to remake The Time Traveler's Wife.

[info]andalus

September 26 2010, 20:46:42 UTC 1 year ago

again, what do writers know? he was probably just saying that for effect.

But an important plot point is that inception is difficult to perform because you're performing it on another person. auto-inception would be, like, having an idea.

not saying it wouldn't be more interesting.

start making plots again.

[info]proximoception

September 27 2010, 06:03:02 UTC 1 year ago

But how convince yourself of something you've thought of but know is wrong? The world would have to change your mind, or other people. So make a world that will, people who will. And find a way to forget you made them.

[info]andalus

September 27 2010, 06:47:26 UTC 1 year ago

you also can't make people in Inception-world. the people are already there.

just sayin'

[info]proximoception

September 27 2010, 16:26:13 UTC 1 year ago

No, that's what I was just saying. I'm describing the actual movie still. And I've hired some dream people to wedgie you.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…