On "Inception"

I've been itching to write about a movie I watched yesterday in a movie theatre after a very long time. I can't write reviews - and never having written a movie review - so I'll just write a bit about the movie without giving 'anything' away (now that can't be done so that's a lie). And here's a solemn warning: my friends in school and a couple of my cousins were always wary whenever I said that about a movie or a book that I'd greatly enjoyed. In my enthusiasm - I would break my word. I would tell them all about it and finish it off with: 'err..well, I guess you don't need to read that anymore...it's much better though than what I narrated.' This is a habit that I have not gotten out of. I did that a week ago with the film 'About Jane' (and I didn't even enjoy it 'greatly').

The film was Inception (but of course). I didn't know anything about it not having watched any trailers nor having read a word about it. A couple of friends urged Guha and me to come for the show, and so mid-week though it was - we met and watched it. I haven't much cared for the previous Christopher Nolan films. (I did know it was a Christopher Nolan film because my friend told me). I have watched The Following, Memento, and The Dark Knight. I have to admit that I liked that last movie for about two weeks and then 'saw' through it. (I watched it with jaws gaping and then found it ridiculous when I thought about it two weeks later). In fact this happens to me every now and then with movies and sometimes with books, which is why I don't like talking about them unless some time has passed. Memento had one fatal flaw in it which I wish I had jotted down, The Following I barely remember and I remember not thinking too much of it when I watched it, although I did like ...the movie with the magicians (not The Illusionist but the other really good one).

The movie is worth a watch. Not because of the fight sequences and the special effects and not even because of the 'central' plot of getting one man (played by an actor I admire - Cillian Murphy) to break up his father's empire but because it travels through dreams and 'shared-dream-space' and explores the idea of being able to create and control one's dreams, of people sharing and controlling dreams together and of traveling through multiple dreams in layers (the idea of a dream within a dream within a dream...), and of influencing others through dreams. There is one innocuous scene in the movie where di Caprio's character and the diminutive architect roams around in a 'dream sequence', and there's something unnerving about the scene because it comes across as being very real - not the physical bits - but the other part with the people.

Makes one wonder about real life, it does, and about daydreams. Do we "live" them somewhere when we daydream or are they just bits remembered/bits missed or do we "dream" them because they are "happening" somewhere? Do we "choose" the people that we meet in life? Do we decide that we will meet? Do some people barge in without the permission of others? Do some people on seeing a stranger simply remember all of a sudden 'oh, I know that person. Need to go and talk with so-and-so.' Is it because we already know some strangers that we think they are familiar while passing them on the road and exchanging, on cue, a sudden and rather embarrassed smile? Those "dreams" unfolding somewhere - are those that fill us with sudden and unbearable and sometimes lasting longing and yearning? (I have to improvise since my regular dreams are as mundane as my regular life and terribly uninteresting unless they're annoying or frustrating, and I have never quite gotten the hang of "lucid dreaming" - which Nolan was/is capable of - so there's nothing in it for me to ponder over my non-volitional dreams).

To return to the movie: there is the neat bit of 'extracting' an idea/information from another while in a dream but there is the even more intriguing bit of planting an idea into another's mind so that the unsuspecting person wakes up from the dream thinking that it's his own, and also acts upon the idea. Thankfully enough (for me) this was more about planting an idea that wasn't a demonic idea or a purely evil one (although there is one instance of 'planting' an idea which doesn't have a happy conclusion at all), for one of the ideas that Cillian Murphy's character walks away with was, most likely, far more precious to him than the purported idea (which was somewhat weak as the central plot around which the movie revolves but strong in its execution) that was planted into his head. And as a viewer, one can run with that idea somewhat further...was it actually his 'old man' who from the other side 'implants' this idea into the 'heist' organizer's head?....

The film is made along the lines of a 'heist' movie (so I later learnt) but it's much more than that. And for me there was some satisfaction in that the end wasn't left completely unfinished and 'unresolved'. The ending is left somewhat loose but not so loose that one wonders which side is up. There was some resolution and it depends on the viewer which way s/he leans. Some uncertainty is fine - but the Memento like non-resolution just leaves me feeling unfulfilled, and the unresolved circular ending from 12 Monkeys leaves me feeling distressed.

The film reminded me of The Matrix, and like a good sci-fi gets one to question reality itself. It's not particularly bizarre to walk out of the theatre feeling somewhat discombobulated because the film jolts one into thinking of the question that one has been trying to sit on: 'what really is reality'?This dominant theme is there (whether the director intended it or not). Is life but a dream? How does one wake up? Can one wake up? What is the 'kick' that wakes one up in real life? Could it be a lasting kick? And the all too delicious question: what would waking up mean?...and to run along with the idea "implanted" by Nolan - has one received one lasting kick, at least, if a kick can also symbolise 'remembering'/not forgetting?

That theme of the film is wrapped up in the 'cultural' elements of the times. The Matrix was made in the middle of the computer super-world with computer viruses and 'codes' and the theme of 'how far the rabbit hole goes', and the questions regarding reality and 'the illusion' were grounded against the backdrop of computers (replacing the machines of earlier sci-fi stories). The illusion was broken only with the courage to see the truth. There was also the oracle and the notion of 'destiny' and the will to act on what one believed in even though one did not believe that one was 'The One'. (Only the first one from The Matrix trilogy is worth talking about...) Inception, being a film of the 21st century is grounded against the backdrop of a corporate 'empire' that needs to be dismantled (appropriate one may say. This part was somewhat airy-fairy...but that is not too terribly bothersome given the other themes) and it's against this bit that those questions regarding reality and layered dreams (illusion?) are brought in. And films of this sort make me wonder: will one wake up? Is one awake? Are we awake? How many dream layers need to be peeled off?....and how long will it take?

The cast was interesting. There wasn't much acting required from the cast - I don't think - although most of them 'looked' (very) good and 'fit' their roles. I started liking de Caprio (for his acting ability) after watching The Basketball Diaries, and he isn't too bad in his role (even with his extra chin that's come from God-knows-where and his voice which sounds somewhat rusty, which would have been fine, but also a couple of notches too high). Ken Watnabe (who reminds me of Chow Yun Fat) fit his role to perfection, and had a couple of amusing liners (although not many people let out a chuckle because his accent and his inflection need some getting used to). I did grin in delight and let out a happy 'Oh' when I saw Cillian Murphy in the role of Fischer. I was also pleased to see the little boy from 'Third Rock from the Sun' (a TV series I used to watch every now and again while in India), who played the part of Arthur. He's grown up very well (although he still looks like he's stuck in a particular age). Then there was the amusing 'Forger' and of course Michael Caine who plays the part of the understanding father-in-law (de Caprio's). There is one amusing and appropriate line in Ebert's review regarding Michael Caine (normally I don't care too much for Ebert's reviews to be honest, but this liner about Michael Caine got me chuckling). The two women (one looks like a tiny slip of an animated school-girl actually; and the other looks very beautiful, I would think, and does have a major role but she somehow didn't come across as being very real...) I didn't recognise.

I will say that some other American actor of Indian origin (I believe is the correct way of putting things in) may have been taken for the role played by Dileep Rao (and notice he does not appear in the 'cast' pictures - sadly enough) just as the pretty woman may have been replaced by some/anybody else.

If I sound vague about the special effects - it's because I don't know too much about such things. I either like them or think they're over done or badly done. The special effects are all right here, and some are bizarre (but interesting, for instance -a city folding over, a city crumbling against the sea, time slowing down, the Escherian bits with a 'paradox') in their execution and I did gape. They were well-done and were not misplaced. The time-line/dream/reality bits are messed around with furiously but always kept 'clear' (so you do know where you are at some point and at other points you simply have to keep running around with the members to know where you are) and there were indeed more than a couple of places/times where/when I was hanging from the edge of my seat - wondering even before they had traveled through a single dream layer how they would or whether all of them would ever get back to the 'real' world or whether one or more would be trapped in limbo. And that's one thing about the cast....one gets fond of all of them - so one wishes for the whole lot to "get back" to planet Earth.

Where a couple of them end up - as I said - is left to the viewer to an extent. For me, insofar as the film was concerned, there was a certain bit of peaceful resolution and I came out of the theatre blinking rapidly and staring at the milling crowds, feeling disoriented, and quite 'unresolved'.

P.S: And sure enough I've given away every bit of the movie worth giving away!

I've changed my my mind about di Caprio. He was quite, quite bad in this movie but that didn't make a difference.

I still like the movie when it crosses my mind, in brief flashes, as it does. It reminded me too of an interesting book I happened to read a year ago. The title was 'The Years of Rice and Salt' by Kim Stanley Robinson. It wasn't about dreams but it was an (alternative) historical fantasy with reincarnation and the bardos and it captured the intuitively appealing idea of human beings belonging to a group of connected kin-folk who keep meeting over and over again across life-times....towards the end of the book and in some of the parts it got a little tiring as far as I remember but I found it an interesting and unusual read on the whole.