Inception

Sad Max said:
If someone is going after an education in cinema, you would likewise expect them to view some films, and there is a collection of films considered 'canonical' in the body of film making because they established and developed the still-evolving language of cinema.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that there were specific films that people crucify me if I haven't seen. Typically, if that happens, I try to find it on Netflix by the following weekend.

I said it's more like some people expect you to have seen every movie or to see 3-5 a week, etc, and they take pride in rattling off obscure indies from the 70's that of course I have never heard of or seen.

That's what annoys me. People want to test your trivial knowledge before your practical. IMO, you balance the time spent watching movies with the time spent making them...
 
Sad Max said:
There's a formidable character in one of my screenplays named Briar, a man who killed his father at the direction of his mother, a crime boss who has 'eyes and ears everywhere -' that's a more-or-less direct lift from Greek mythology in terms of the character's background and name, but frankly I'd be pleasantly surprised if anyone here can name the mythical figure by whom Briar is inspired...
Click to expand...

Oedipus?

Edit: Or Briareus...?
 
Last edited:
CinematographyPics said:
Where is the best/REAL IMAX theater in LA?

One I went to was all digital. Would like to see if there is a 35/70 film screening
Click to expand...
This blog (http://coveroutofnowhere.blogspot.com/2009/05/there-are-only-2-real-imax-in-la.html) says that the AMC at Universal Citywalk and The Bridge near LAX are the only 2 real IMAX theaters in Los Angeles that show feature films.

I have been to the Citywalk IMAX, and I am positive that it has an IMAX film projector, because of an unfortunate event involving a fire alarm that occurred while I was watching The Dark Knight there on opening weekend. They had to cancel the screening, because they couldn't start the film projectors back up from where they had left off with the sound in-sync. The sound runs separately from the picture on IMAX.
 
J Davis said:
As a hard core Nolan fan I've been dreading seeing Inception but I'm glad to say
it was not as bad as the trailers led me to believe.

It's a shame that Nolan 'the writer' has taken over to the detriment of the characters.
The convolutions of the plot left no space for the characters to breath and come to life. I miss
the Nolan of the old days that made Memento and The Prestige.
Click to expand...


I don't understand this sentiment. The writing of the characters is pretty consistant with how the characters are in Memento or Prestige. And even to Following and back to his short film Doodlebug. All his characters are foils for the mystery element.

In fact, there's less character development in Memento and Prestige. At least in Inception, Cobb lets go of his guilt.

Whereas... (SPOILERS FOR PRESTIGE/MEMENTO)

All the characters are EXACTLY the same at the end as they are in the beginning. Or middle of the film, wherever Nolan likes to re-structure mysteries. It accumulates to the point that they are consumed by themselves.

Actually you can argue Inception follows the same way if you think it's all a dream.

Prestige: Freddie is a prick, dies a prick, Cordlow is a prick, dies a a prick. Although Alfred gets a nice ending, but he was always the nice one to start with.

In Memento: Leonard is a prick, forgets he is a prick, he is a prick.
 
Lammy said:
I don't understand this sentiment. The writing of the characters is pretty consistant with how the characters are in Memento or Prestige. And even to Following and back to his short film Doodlebug. All his characters are foils for the mystery element.

In fact, there's less character development in Memento and Prestige. At least in Inception, Cobb lets go of his guilt.

Whereas... (SPOILERS FOR PRESTIGE/MEMENTO)

All the characters are EXACTLY the same at the end as they are in the beginning. Or middle of the film, wherever Nolan likes to re-structure mysteries. It accumulates to the point that they are consumed by themselves.

Actually you can argue Inception follows the same way if you think it's all a dream.

Prestige: Freddie is a prick, dies a prick, Cordlow is a prick, dies a a prick. Although Alfred gets a nice ending, but he was always the nice one to start with.

In Memento: Leonard is a prick, forgets he is a prick, he is a prick.
Click to expand...


It's not the start/end states of the characters, its the amount of time spent with the characters. Take Memento for example, so little screen time on action sequences yet so much time spent getting to know Leonard and how he is coping.

edit:
In re-reading my original post I noticed something I should have explained better

J Davis said:
As a hard core Nolan fan I've been dreading seeing Inception but I'm glad to say
it was not as bad as the trailers led me to believe.
Click to expand...
In this I was thinking about the use of CGI. I've always loved the fact that Nolan was not a fan of CGI and has said so in interviews. His take
was to 'do it for real' then use CGI to touch up afterwards. The ads I saw for Inception all focused on exploding store fronts done in CGI and
that is what had me turned off a bit. Once I was the movie I saw that CGI was not what the trailers made out.
 
Last edited:
I actually thought this movie is well above the likes of, for example, "The Prestige". In that film I couldn't care less about the chbaracters and could see the "prestige" coming a mile away from the climax scene, while in Inception, the film felt much stronger as a narrative piece.

One of the problems I have with Nolan films is the lack of that "magic" that certain directors have to create a bond with the audience through its characters. His movies feel, most of the time, too well structured to the point of losing some charm in the process.
 
J Davis said:
It's not the start/end states of the characters, its the amount of time spent with the characters. Take Memento for example, so little screen time on action sequences yet so much time spent getting to know Leonard and how he is coping
Click to expand...

I know whatcha mean. Although I'm thankful that Leo's character didn't get the same treatment in Inception... it would have dangered on boring and indulgent for me. Inception isn't a mystery film, unlike Memento. Especially seeing as Inception hinges on planting a family photo in a safe lol.

J Davis said:
Once I was the movie I saw that CGI was not what the trailers made out.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm glad it had alot of practical effects - that hall way sequence had me gasping AWESOME.

The only time I felt the CGI was horribly distracting and bad was when Cobb and Adriane walked up the wall... it just looked really jumpy, staggered, and forced.
 
Lammy said:
The only time I felt the CGI was horribly distracting and bad was when Cobb and Adriane walked up the wall... it just looked really jumpy, staggered, and forced.
Click to expand...

Yes !
Agree with you and very unlike Nolan. Almost a cliche choice of shot too. Maybe 2nd unit?
Only natural I suppose since he moved to mega-block buster budgets.
 
I know I'm several months behind, but I JUST got to see Inception last night (Hey! I've got a two-year old).

Of course, this is an incredible film...blah blah blah.

I still think The Matrix is better. Memento is no doubt better than Inception, IMHO.

Let me say this...I would have LOVED Inception if it were, say, an independent Spanish film. Something that had NOTHING to do with Hollywood. Actors that I don't recognize (everytime I saw him, I saw Leo DiCaprio), a score that was maybe a little less intrusive, and a story where the rules of the premise aren't thrown at me as a reminder throughout the entire movie.

Nolan is no doubt a fantastic storyteller. But the thing that kept me from falling in love with Inception is that it felt a little bit dumbed-down so that Mr. and Mrs. Mainstreamfilmgoer would go buy a ticket to see it.

Again, just my opinion.
 
From my understanding, when he has his wedding ring on, it's a dream. When he doesn't have it on, it's real. Unless I'm mistaken, he did NOT have it on in the final scene. Ergo, reality.
 
WildTrackDave said:
From my understanding, when he has his wedding ring on, it's a dream. When he doesn't have it on, it's real. Unless I'm mistaken, he did NOT have it on in the final scene. Ergo, reality.
Click to expand...
Unless he was dreaming he was in reality!

Look. Stories like this are ambiguous for a reason: if they weren't, they wouldn't be ambiguous. That's why it's written to end the way it does, without giving us a definitive answer.

I'm very sure Christopher Nolan has an internal logic and 'the' answer to the story. There has to be, otherwise the story won't work.

I just spent the past 18 months writing and shooting a film based around dream logic as a major theme and an ambiguous answer to "the truth". It doesn't make me all knowing about Inception, but dramaturgically Marianne works according to a similar logic.

What I think, IMHO, is that the truth Nolan worked according to probably is the "right" one; but if it doesn't work in the other way too then the whole concept fails. So just because Michael Caine says this is what happens the story is still written to be interpreted the other way.
 
One might go so far as to suggest that it's a relatively poor work of literature or film that is not open to multiple interpretations.
 
Sad Max said:
One might go so far as to suggest that it's a relatively poor work of literature or film that is not open to multiple interpretations.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I don't know about that.

Not all types of stories are best that way.
Some things can't be said straight out, so some stories can't be told that way. They have to be told indirectly. One way is to make the audience ask the questions and find the answers for themselves. Donnie Darko and Inception work that way. Another way is to disguise the story and put it in a science fiction or fantasy setting.
It's hard telling a story about for example pedophiles or nazis, because it brings a lot of emotional bagage with it from the audience that will filter their viewing experience. So you make a movie about space nazis instead, like Star Wars.
Rod Serling made a career out of telling political sci-fi because doing it directly got him in trouble.

But some stories are definetly best left simple. I wouldn't wanna see Dumb & Dumber with a deeper meaning about friendship and loyalty. It's not an 80's sitcom.
 
What I don't understand is how does a director who is able to envision such an elegant action choreography(hotel hallway) follows up with one of the cheesiest action scene(snow fighting) for a supposedly intelligent movie? It almost reduces the flick into a 3rd class Schwarzenegger movie (Commando anyone, single handedly taking down an entire army?)
Otherwise ending isn't that complicated; the answer lies in this nursery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row,_Row,_Row_Your_Boat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top