Is INCEPTION Backlash-proof?

 Just had a thought this morning after a week of processing my own personal thoughts on INCEPTION. And I know, this has gone on for several posts now, but it still stands to trouble me that the current wave of backlash against the positive reviews of the film have been characterizing the film under expectations that are unbecoming of what the finished product seems intended.

The larger concerns over the film's flaws (upon certain restrictions do exist, just so there is no illusion implied on my part) as undermining hyperbolic views of the film as "too-intellectual", or "perfectly constructed" are more that these positive reviews are overlooking elements of a work that took nearly ten years to write, from a filmmaker who has been famous for meticulous, borderline obsessive in his storytelling technique. As if looking desperately to find a weakness in the armor like so many eternal malcontents, is more evidence of a viewing community out to head another Shymalan at the pass, as to avoid some kind of imagined betrayal that has yet to happen. In order to be spared the pain of another Phantom Menace? Are we still smarting from that one?

Never again, the connected public seems to want to say.

That said, I can see where some views see the film as less heady as Nolan's previous works. The film seems a lot less interested in following through on its own rules than MEMENTO, or even The Prestige. But as films that explore the fragility of rules, they are only pieces of a larger creative whole. To see INCEPTION on the same exact field of reason is (for me anyway) to miss out on what is Nolan's big moment to have a little fun with his craft thus far, to not play by the same elaborate design schemes he's so relied on before. While many "totems" of his past films are in full-force here (the dead love interest, guilt-ridden leads who make matters worse for themselves and others, etc), the films thrust is to blast through all prior concepts in a Greatest Hits fashion, whilst offering a conversation piece that is more introspective than many folks are considering.

From an authorship perspective, the piece is less a puzzle to be solved, and more a look into the process of filmmaking from the mind of someone enraptured by the possibilities inherent in audience participation. It's something that came to mind hours after viewing it, that Nolan's films seem by design to be interactive pieces.

To be led, invested, misdirected, and enthralled are his hopes with these works. Just as the participants in Cobb's group are meant to spin a fiction for us to inhabit for a brief time in order to inspire change within a single man, we are the larger fish filmmakers are after. They may not always attain the intended results, but it is in the collaborative attempt that these "jobs" fuel their fire. All one needs to do is to look at the cast, and recalibrate them as writers , art directors, stars, and executive producers, the film's intentions become alarmingly clear. And as Nolan had said once before, the heist film is that rare genre trope that allows for consistent exposition. It makes a perfect analog for the film creation, let alone any major creative endeavor.


Using this "through the looking glass" approach may seem overtly reductive (and for some, may even cheapen the end product), but it just stands to reason that after a short run of highly commercial successes with the Batman series, it felt time to do something personal. The only reason we see so much talk of summer blockbuster is merely because the year itself has proven itself to be a pretty bleak one for film. And when your only heavy hitter is a 200 million dollar art-house piece, you know things aren't well for the industry. That said, it is exciting to think of such a  film as commercially viable in an age where studios are tightening what is left of their belts, and are inches short of breaking out the barrels.


 To consider that they'd allow a labyrinth-minded explorer of the human condition the ability to run wild with his personal obsessions and inspirations, it's a surprise the film wasn't an unmitigated disaster.Thoughts not meant as a pass of immunity, but rather a reminder of intent over expectation. Had this been a film that was truly about a heist, then it'd be a different outcome for sure.


 On its own terms the film is more a means of entertaining what would otherwise come off as esoteric ideas, unfit for film. But for me, this is a massive part of what makes it so entertaining. To see these wild ideas through such a logic-leaning mind makes for an interesting paradox of art versus the literate. But the sum is larger than the whole, not too unlike works of auteurs of the past. It is a paean to the wonder & curiosity of storytelling, and a love letter to film in general.

Armond White And The Nature Of The Troll

Listening to Armond White's rare appearance on the Slashfilmcast earlier today, and was caught in feeling that not only was the man's intense disdain for the films of directors like Christopher Nolan unreasonably old-fashioned, but is telling about his entire reputation as an internet troll with a soapbox. The New York Press-based writer has become notorrious in his often contrarian for their own sake reviews of often critically praised works, including Nolan's previous film, The Dark Knight, and yet heaps praise for directors such as Michael Bay.(now there's no accounting for taste, as the old saying loops)Perhaps on text, it all does seem as if this educated writer could in fact sum up the acumen necessary to back up his views, but upon listening to this week's appearance, it comes off the way many of us had feared, that it may either be the elaborate work of a would-be troll, or simply the fearful words of an outdated model of film criticism.

And therein lies the issue with not only film critics, but also with anyone in a position of influence who takes offense toward evolving methods of communication. If you have a strong position that is counter to popular acceptance, you'd better bring not only your intellectual A-game, but you must also come armed with  open context based upon new data. An understanding of the modern audience is an important element. Even when I personally find a film remote from my liking, despite mass appeal, it is important for me to attempt to understand why. What Mr. White seems to rally for, is a return to an era of film that has not only long past, but will never be returning.(even going so far as to claiming that Roger Ebert was responsible for the downfall of film criticism) And perhaps it is this that he feels threatened, in a needy position to justify why he feels lost with current , and ever warping storytelling methods, even if they are attempting something ambitiously new. Without the reservoir ready in hand, it is natural to see the world as a naturally occurring spiral of negatives, but the explanation is a massive part of what makes journalism so vital. But when asked about certain direct questions via slashfilmcast host, David Chen, many of his answers were of the "no comment" ilk. This method of explanation does little to continue the discourse of film, and art in general.

His comments regarding INCEPTION couldn't be more naive & one-sided. Again, sharing words more akin to short-attention-spanned viewers than an actual historian of the filmic arts. And this is about a mainstream piece that attempts to utilize a more literate approach to the proceedings. To reduce the themes and ideas of the film to merely video game fodder,..feels like he didn't really watch the film after all.

Which reminds me of many a time where I have been wondering if I myself could come from a similar cloth, to perhaps being a contrarian myself. Upon which at the end, I would resoundingly conclude with a simple, no. For me, it is more an exploration into finding what makes a work connect or not, while seeking out the jewels that must speak to certain folks. It isn't always easy, but the needs for an empathic link with the audience and for an observant eye for intention are crucial. These elements are perhaps tenets of certain critics not Mr. White, but I will state that for one, I prefer to read from, or listen to. To merely shut off, and not clarify what isn't coming across is dangerous in any field of communication. After all, the internet itself can be seen as an eternally intricate series of meta-conversations, and trolling is not unlike contextual pornography.

It serves a segment of an audience who wishes to hear it at the cost of actually communicating, or even creating.

As much as I admire the gall with which he speaks, it would have been nice to have seen a more even-ended glimpse toward understanding what makes such a mind tick. But the problems multiply throughout the recording, making it clear that this is merely conjecture, blasting out in order to get a rise out of film fans, and offering little for us to really chew on. To be true, there is a history of film to be appreciated, and much to be learned, but to merely raise a nose up in disapproval without any will toward clarity does little to bridge gaps, and serves to create more.

And to this, may we never mention him here again. Save the attention for someone who can both talk the talk, and walk the walk. Anything less, I can get from a random visit to a Chan site.