Taking Inception For Another Spin

Inception isn't a masterpiece.


But it is a great, great film and a reminder of the difference between the films we watch passively and films that ask something more.

Having rewatched it recently I can say it's much more enjoyable the second time.

There are themes, motifs and clues spread throughout the film I missed (the first time) because frankly, I was struggling to keep up.

Inception is certainly an elegantly constructed movie. Director Christopher Nolan has carefully thought out the rules for this universe of dreams. The exposition littered throughout the film does a decent enough job of explaining it. But if you, like me, still have some lingering questions, here are some great links to explore.

The Ultimate Inception Guide. Over at Salon, Sam Adams begins with a very detailed recap of the film and goes on the explore the various levels and the rules.

Interview with Dileep Rao. On the always entertaining Vulture blog Dileep Rao answers some of the questions surrounding the rules of the Inception world. Dileep would know because he plays Yusuf, the chemist on the team. Read the interview and you'll see he doesn't look too kindly on the "it's all a dream" interpretation.

A Chart! If you're still confused the pretty colours provided by the fine folks at Cinemablend might help.

Interview With Chris Nolan On the always excellent The Treatment show, host Elvis Mitchell puts Christopher Nolan under the microscope in an extended interview.

Multi-layered Muisc. Hans Zimmer talks about how the Édith Piaf song was altered to suit the
fractal nature of the film. Sooooooo cool.

*

*

*

*

*
*
*

*

*

ALL ABOUT WOBBLE

(Spoiler Spoiler, Good God Man for the love of Mary go see it first, SPOILER)

So, is Cobb dreaming in the final scene?

On my first viewing of Inception I was convinced the entire final scene, Cobb returning home, seeing his children, was an extended dream. The evidence: the top/totem was still spinning, the kids looked identical to the previous flashbacks, even the way the scene was lit seemed to suggest a dream-like state.

Now, having watched it again, I have to say I was wrong. But in my defence Nolan has put a lot of red herrings into Inception, ammunition for the "it's all a dream" team. (For example the dream-like chase sequence with the closing walls in Mombasa.) Why did I change my mind? Well, in the end it's all about the wobble.

Cobb returns home. He looks around. He's agitated. He takes out his totem and begins to spin it. Just then he sees his children. Their clothes are similar but slightly different. (Confirmed here.) They turn, we see their faces and he's finally reunited.
Then we cut back to the top, still spinning, spinning. Then just seconds before we fade to black, the top begins to wobble.

It's not much of a wobble. But it's certainly the beginnings of a top that is going to give in to gravity. Ergo, top falls = real life.

However, as Sam Adams and others have suggested in a way it doesn't matter. The ambiguity is part of the larger theme Nolan is playing with as he explores the reliability of perception and the power of memory. Listen to the interview from The Treatment and you'll hear these are themes that have followed Nolan throughout his career.

In the end that's what makes Inception so satisfying. It takes a universal theme (is this real?) or perhaps the oldest of film cliches (it was all a dream?) and builds an entire movie on that quandary. And his way of exploring these concepts? Using the cinematic language of action films. In fact my single biggest critique with Inception is how it abandons the surreal landscape of the dream and instead serves up something like an extended G.I. Joe action sequence featuring an army of Snow Jobs.

That said, what makes Inception so engaging is the way Nolan embraces the basic language of film, and reminds us the difference editing, music and motion can make. Time stretches and compresses. We flash back and forth between levels. The van falls and falls. It's a beautiful ballet of space and time, a dance of booms and buildings falling and in the centre, a haunted man trying to escape his past, but refusing to let go.

Pity the Fool (A-Team and MacGruber)

I've been thinking a lot, far too much about the new A-Team film. Now let's be clear. This is a film based on a show that was about as realistic as the GI JOE cartoons of the same time. And the new A-Team continues the legacy of lunacy.

There is a memorable scene (SPOILER) where the guys attempt to slow a plummeting tank by firing at the rapidly approaching ground. Now I'm no Mr.Wizard, but I don't think that's the way the law of physics work. And then again, who cares? Because instead you get Jessica Beil muttering "They're trying to fly that tank." And it's funny. But ridiculous. Which is the essence of my A-Team conundrum.

There is a lot of fun stuff in the A-Team. Bradley Cooper as "Face" has the kind of charisma that could grow into Clooney-esque proportions. The same cock-sure attitude, the man who smirks in the face of fireballs. Another high point is Sharlto Copley. This is his first big role after playing Wickus in District 9. No Afrikaner accent here. Sharlto is playing "Murdock," the court jester of the bunch. His energy is manic and like Bradley it's infectious.

These guys make the A-Team fun. The team clicks, the back and forth, the cross talk make being in the middle of the crew a fun place to be. But the action is insane. The set pieces feel like they were hatched by the bastard love child of Michael Bay and the demented geniuses behind the Crank series.

Which is what frustrates me. The A-Team looks like an action pic. They're using the same vocabulary (car chases, fireballs, firefights) but there's no tension. It's a Noel Coward play drenched in Redbull and topped with gunpowder.

But then last night, I figured it out. The A-Team is a remake, but what they've created isn't an action drama....it's a sitcom. An incredible expensive (& loud) sitcom. Call it Four's Company.

Once I made that mental adjustment, all my issues; the lightness of tone, the unbelievable finale...they all melted away.

Really in a way the A-Team is the kind of movie MacGruber wished it could have been. Look at the similarities. The both start in the desert. Both feature heroes who excel at making elaborate devices out of

scraps. Both use familiar action cliches to amuse the audience. It's just that the A-Team is actually funny.

How I learned to Love Liza (Sex and the City 2)

So I've been on CBC TV and Radio for the past couple days cataloguing all the things that are wrong with Sex and the City 2. The never-ending tide of brand-name goods. The guileless zeal the fab four display for their divalicious lifestyle. The colour-blind avalanche of designer disasters.

But....there are a couple things I liked about the sequel.

So in the name of positivity here is (semi spoiler warning...)

A SHORT LIST OF SOME GOOD THINGS IN SATC2:

It's funny. Occasionally. I will say the writer/director Michael Patrick King has a knack for staging the outrageous. Two scenes stick in my mind. First, Carrie and Mr. Big in bed listening to a screaming baby in one room, and Samantha's wild animal sex in the other. Watch the trailer if you want to see the punchline.

Speaking of Samantha, my other favourite moment comes as Sam has just finished proselytizing about the power of vitamins for fighting menopause. Then she sees Charlotte's new nanny, (played by Alice Eve) a voluptuous vision, bounding bra-less towards them. Samantha's mouth hanging wide open crammed with vitamins is classic.

Carrie. I hate to say it but Carrie is still the best character Sarah Jessica Parker has played. When SATC works it's like the best of Woody Allen crossed with Nora Ephron. But I think part of the problem with the sequel is that Carrie's got it all. In the TV series she was still a scrapper. Sure she had the shoes, but only one apartment and hadn't hit it big as a writer. (At least not at the beginning.) Now Carrie has her man, the swanky NYC digs, she's a best selling author with presumably an unlimited credit card. Hard to feel her pain when it's whether to wear Dior or Dolce to dinner.

Liza. Yup, Liza Minnelli. The queen of Carbaret shows up at the ultimate and I mean ultimate gay wedding to officiate. (There are swans!)

Now when she first appeared and spoke, well to be honest, I felt a little sorry for her. But then Liza performed a cover of Beyonce's "All the Single Ladies." Now I'm not a fan, or at least I wasn't. But I gotta say Liza owned that song. She rocked it. Great performance from a real woman that almost, almost made Sex and the City 2 worth seeing.

Revisiting Up in the Air

There's no doubt Jason Reitman's Up in the Air is a contender for Oscar glory this year.

Sure it probably wont win best picture, but best adapted screenplay is a safe best.

And already the Great Recession love story has appeared on dozens of “best of” lists (mine included.)

But not everyone, it seems, agrees about what happens to the main character: the modern man in grey, Ryan Bingham as played by George Clooney.

***Fasten Your Seatbelts, plenty of SPOILERS below***

For me, one of the great pleasures of Up in the Air is how it grows from a slick and smarmy love story to a tragedy. In the beginning, George Clooney's character is the master of his domain. He's not only comfortable in the alien artificiality of an airport, he revels in it. Perhaps it’s because the cold comforts of air travel mirror his life.

But by the third act the frequent flyer has been cruelly grounded. He made the ultimate sacrifice, taking a direct flight to his lady love only to find himself stuck in the snow; the door quickly closed in his crumpling face.

To me, this is the point of no return.

Like a bubble boy stepping outside for the first time, the character Ryan has lost his ability to enjoy the freshly sanitized pleasures of air travel. When his boss tells him they're sending him back on the road indefinitely (“send us a postcard when you get there”) there's a weary look in Ryan's eyes.

And so here's the question: Near the end of the film, (George Clooney's character) Ryan arrives back at the airport. We see him staring up at the departure board; carry-on luggage at his side. There's a close-up of his face. His hair is less than perfect. His eyes are wide. And he lets go. Lets go of his perfect-traveller’s suitcase as he stares up at the sea of destinations.

What is he thinking? For me, there's a sense of resignation there.

He doesn't want to be there. Having felt some real warmth in his life, going back In The Air is the last place Ryan wants to be.

Yet he does – which is the beauty of the film. And then there's the final line:

"Tonight, millions of people will come home to screaming children, barking dogs. Their spouses will hug them and ask them how their day was. The stars will wheel forth from their daytime hiding places; and one of those lights, slightly brighter than the rest, will be my wingtip passing over".

Now to me, those are the words of a man in exile. Sure it's artful but there's a sense of sadness there. Of course, not everyone sees it that way.

A friend of mine had a very different interpretation of that moment in the airport. When Ryan is looking at the departure sign, my friend felt he was happy. Ryan was returning to a place where he felt safe. After giving a real relationship a try and getting burned, he's running back to his refuge in the sky.

And there’s one more interpretation to stoke those fires. Another friend believes Ryan is looking at the departure board and planning to use all of his remaining frequent flyer miles (he should still have about 9 million or so) to plan his very own trip around the world.

Of course I believe it's option A. Sure the final shot is a heaven of sorts… with it beautiful sun-kissed clouds. But again, it's a false paradise. Outside, the air is freezing and the wind howls.

What do you think?

*UPDATE*

Watch this deleted bonus scene from the DVD.

More fuel for the fire!

Ghost World

SPOILERS ABOUND, BEWARE

I’ve haunted by Hollywood lately.

Or to be specific, hack Hollywood writers.

This week marks the third film I’ve seen this year where ghostly daughters visit their grieving fathers.

First there was Creation where the adorable Annie Darwin caused her Papa (Charles Darwin) to be reduced to tears, chasing a phantom across his estate.

Then there was Mad Mel Gibson playing a bereaved father on mission of revenge in Edge of Darkness. As Thomas Craven, he can shed blood with the best of them, but he’s not above calling out for Emma, his recently dispatched daughter. And while the movie is aiming for Dirty Harry status, the Hallmark Card ending with father and daughter arm in arm would make the hard-boiled hero want to swallow his Magnum.
(Spoilers, remember?)

Which bring us to today and Martin Scorsese’s pretzel-plotted thriller Shutter Island.
Here we see US Federal Marshall Teddy Daniels visited by not just his daughter, but also his dead wife. As Teddy, Leonardo DiCarprio copes as best as he can with these chalk-coloured phantoms, but there’s a fine line between ghoulish visions and The Ghost Whisper.

So Hollywood hear my plea. Enough with the ghost writing already. Surely you can find another way to show the father’s grief. I know “Show Don’t Tell” is screenwriting 101. But some things are better implied than described.

The New Cat & The International

This week's review/podcast will certainly be The International because I just saw it and there's lots to talk about.

More later but I will say, it's not the movie you think it is (or the way they're marketing it) but I'm quite confident it's better than you expect.

*minor spoiler*



There's a lot of nice, old school touches displaying a smart approach to spycraft and police work.

I'll just point out one amusing moment. In horror movies, audiences are often given a jolt, a fake scare when a cat jumps out of some room where the killer is expected.

There are no cats here, but there's a great bit around gunfight where a cellphone is the source of surprise. It's frightening and funny at the same time quite believable. A nice little grace note and one of many. Could cellphones replace cats as the new scare cliche? I wonder.

Dim Twilight

So as you can read here Twilight the movie is a historic first for female directors.

Director Catherine Hardwicke helped the teen fang film pull in over 70 million dollars last weekend. Yay for women right?

Not quite. As i mentioned on air. There are good things to Twilight. Kristen Stewart the actress who plays Bella with a simmering intensity is probably the best. But lets pull back for a moment and look at the role she plays.

Bella falls hard for Edward, the dreamy vampire with the messy hair. In the course of their courtship Edward tells Bella's he's been visiting her room while she's sleeping. Watching her in her room, for THREE MONTHS. Awww how sweet, your very own stalker.

Then (SPOILER) near the end, Bella basically throws her life away for her man. She leaves her father, lies to his face and heads out cross country. After the climatic battle Ed and her go to the prom and she again pledges herself to Edward, body and soul.

On the one level it's romantic. What young girl wouldn't like to dream of being so totally, completed enthralled with an all-consuming obsession with such a striking fellow. But given Bella comes across as a smart girl, I did find it disturbing how completely she gave herself to Edwards. That kinds of obsessive love, it that the message we want to see?

Some others have talked about Twilight being anti-female. I wouldn't go that far. But i'm not sure it's the type of role model I want young ladies aspiring to. The movie starts with Bella talking about sacrificing herself in the name of love. But should true love really come at that price? I'll stick with Hermione thanks.