![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kamreadsandrecsI've been a fan of the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges since I first read his short story "The Garden of Forking Paths." I don't remember when I first read it, although I'm pretty sure I read it in undergrad, and not in high school. Regardless, reading that story sucked me into the rest of Borges's writing, and I've become thoroughly enamored of the themes he writes - specifically, his focus on the concepts of dreams, dreaming, creation, and of course, the labyrinth.
The Borges quote I've used as the title for this entry relates to what I want to talk about: the movie Inception, directed and written by Christopher Nolan, the same guy in the director's seat for Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
Visually, the movies are quite similar: Nolan's use of the chiaroscuro of fluorescent light on concrete and people to create tension, for instance, appears in both The Dark Knight (that infamous scene with the Joker) and in Inception (a scene between Ariadne and Cobb somewhere in the middle of the movie) as well. Also, unlike some of his other contemporaries (Michael Bay, I'm looking at you), Nolan finds no need to use the "shaky-cam" unless absolutely necessary, and since it was not necessary in Inception, it does not appear at all - or if it does, then I didn't notice it, which means it was perfectly integrated.
Also, I'm very happy that Nolan resisted the temptation of turning this into a 3D movie. The potential for going 3D must have been incredibly high, given the visuals that Nolan included in the movie. However, there are only very few movies that really ought to be seen in 3D (or really, only one, in my opinion, and that would be Avatar), and Nolan pleasantly resists the temptation to use 3D as a gimmick and instead keeps the movie 2D. It seems the only logical choice: after all, how does one showcase Penrose stairs in 3D? You can't, since Penrose stairs require a 2D surface in order for the visual deception to work.
But enough about visuals; I think the trailers tend to speak for themselves on that score. What makes Inception a really good movie and not just another heist flick is that its concepts are, at their core, deeply Borgesian. The idea of dreams and reality, and how one might be interchanged for the other, are classic Borgesian. So is the use of the labyrinth. Really, those two themes are interconnected with each other, because if dreams are manifestations of the subconscious, then do we not, in truth, create labyrinths of our own when we dream, though we are not aware of it?
And speaking of labyrinths, Inception does throw in more than a casual reference to the Minotaur myth, too. The character Ariadne is perhaps the most obvious: aside from the fact that she is named after the Cretan princess in the Theseus myth, in the movie she is the Architect of the labyrinths Cobb's team needs in order to get their job done, taking on the role of Daedalus as well. And while Cobb isn't named after Theseus, he does have a bit of that role, too: he has a labyrinth in his own mind (as we all do), and within that labyrinth resides a most fearsome Minotaur which he must "slay" in order to save not just himself, but the others as well.
While the movie itself is well-told, well-conceptualized, and well-structured, I do think that it could have been a bit thicker on the intellectual side. Don't get me wrong: it's a really good movie, and as I said, I like the fact that it includes Borgesian notions. I just wish that it had explored those notions a bit more, that's all. The way Nolan did it, he only touched upon them briefly, and there was so much more potential there, particularly in his take on the subconscious, and the distinctions we make (or fail to make) between reality and dreams.
On the other hand, though, I think that keeping things the way they were was to make the film more accessible. If Nolan had chosen to delve further into the concepts I mentioned earlier, then maybe the film would have been a lot less accessible, which means less people would watch it - and that would be a tragedy.
And then perhaps there are the limitations of the form of film itself. Nolan's exploration of the subconscious, of dreams and reality, was mostly visual - which can't be helped, really, since film is a primarily visual form of art. Well, literature might also be considered a "visual" form of art, but technically literature's limitations are not as severe as those of film: words do their work upon the limitless boundaries of the human imagination, while film must necessarily put that imagination into visual expression. Until truly immersive virtual realities are created, I think explorations of dreams, reality, and the subconscious will definitely be limited in their scope and subtlety - except, of course, in literature, where Borges and others like him (Mark Z. Danielewski in the novel House of Leaves being a really good example) have and will continue to explore it as they always have: with words.
Oscar predictions? I think this will be nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay - my Grand Trinity for the Oscars. It may get a Best Score nod for Hans Zimmer's work, but I'm not sure. Leonardo diCaprio will certainly get a Best Actor nod for this, but whether he wins or not remains to be seen. Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt will definitely get Best Supporting Actress and Actor nods, respectively, but I really, really want Ken Watanabe to get the Best Supporting Actor nod.
The Borges quote I've used as the title for this entry relates to what I want to talk about: the movie Inception, directed and written by Christopher Nolan, the same guy in the director's seat for Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
Visually, the movies are quite similar: Nolan's use of the chiaroscuro of fluorescent light on concrete and people to create tension, for instance, appears in both The Dark Knight (that infamous scene with the Joker) and in Inception (a scene between Ariadne and Cobb somewhere in the middle of the movie) as well. Also, unlike some of his other contemporaries (Michael Bay, I'm looking at you), Nolan finds no need to use the "shaky-cam" unless absolutely necessary, and since it was not necessary in Inception, it does not appear at all - or if it does, then I didn't notice it, which means it was perfectly integrated.
Also, I'm very happy that Nolan resisted the temptation of turning this into a 3D movie. The potential for going 3D must have been incredibly high, given the visuals that Nolan included in the movie. However, there are only very few movies that really ought to be seen in 3D (or really, only one, in my opinion, and that would be Avatar), and Nolan pleasantly resists the temptation to use 3D as a gimmick and instead keeps the movie 2D. It seems the only logical choice: after all, how does one showcase Penrose stairs in 3D? You can't, since Penrose stairs require a 2D surface in order for the visual deception to work.
But enough about visuals; I think the trailers tend to speak for themselves on that score. What makes Inception a really good movie and not just another heist flick is that its concepts are, at their core, deeply Borgesian. The idea of dreams and reality, and how one might be interchanged for the other, are classic Borgesian. So is the use of the labyrinth. Really, those two themes are interconnected with each other, because if dreams are manifestations of the subconscious, then do we not, in truth, create labyrinths of our own when we dream, though we are not aware of it?
And speaking of labyrinths, Inception does throw in more than a casual reference to the Minotaur myth, too. The character Ariadne is perhaps the most obvious: aside from the fact that she is named after the Cretan princess in the Theseus myth, in the movie she is the Architect of the labyrinths Cobb's team needs in order to get their job done, taking on the role of Daedalus as well. And while Cobb isn't named after Theseus, he does have a bit of that role, too: he has a labyrinth in his own mind (as we all do), and within that labyrinth resides a most fearsome Minotaur which he must "slay" in order to save not just himself, but the others as well.
While the movie itself is well-told, well-conceptualized, and well-structured, I do think that it could have been a bit thicker on the intellectual side. Don't get me wrong: it's a really good movie, and as I said, I like the fact that it includes Borgesian notions. I just wish that it had explored those notions a bit more, that's all. The way Nolan did it, he only touched upon them briefly, and there was so much more potential there, particularly in his take on the subconscious, and the distinctions we make (or fail to make) between reality and dreams.
On the other hand, though, I think that keeping things the way they were was to make the film more accessible. If Nolan had chosen to delve further into the concepts I mentioned earlier, then maybe the film would have been a lot less accessible, which means less people would watch it - and that would be a tragedy.
And then perhaps there are the limitations of the form of film itself. Nolan's exploration of the subconscious, of dreams and reality, was mostly visual - which can't be helped, really, since film is a primarily visual form of art. Well, literature might also be considered a "visual" form of art, but technically literature's limitations are not as severe as those of film: words do their work upon the limitless boundaries of the human imagination, while film must necessarily put that imagination into visual expression. Until truly immersive virtual realities are created, I think explorations of dreams, reality, and the subconscious will definitely be limited in their scope and subtlety - except, of course, in literature, where Borges and others like him (Mark Z. Danielewski in the novel House of Leaves being a really good example) have and will continue to explore it as they always have: with words.
Oscar predictions? I think this will be nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay - my Grand Trinity for the Oscars. It may get a Best Score nod for Hans Zimmer's work, but I'm not sure. Leonardo diCaprio will certainly get a Best Actor nod for this, but whether he wins or not remains to be seen. Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt will definitely get Best Supporting Actress and Actor nods, respectively, but I really, really want Ken Watanabe to get the Best Supporting Actor nod.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-02 06:43 am (UTC)That said, KAM!!!! YOU'RE ALIVE! Call me when you're not busy so we can hang out. :D I have something for you from Espana.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-05 02:41 am (UTC)And yes, I'm alive :D. Just holy-hell-what-is-this-shit busy, that's all :D. And yay for stuff from Espana XD!
no subject
Date: 2010-08-05 03:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-05 12:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-06 05:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-02 05:35 pm (UTC)First, I though that Leo was too..... uhm... well "good"-looking that I just didn't see him as a man with a dark past. His acting as a sad mourner left much to be desired and frankly, I felt his acting was too one-dimensional. Murphy was the better actor. Secondly, Page (if she was really an architect) looks too young to be one. Her character felt so static that I just wish Mal would kill her off. SOON. There was just no connection made between Cobb & Ariadne. I'm not sure if maybe it was a lack of emotions in the way they wrote her as the story went by, but when she first appeared I expected better. Last, Fischer Sr. Uhmm. Yeah.
BUT I will have to agree with Levitt & Hans Zimmer. Those two (plus Hardy, Murphy, and the guy who played the chemist) we're exceptional. It's kind of a downer if you really think about it because I'm impressed more with the supporting cast that the two actual leads :(
no subject
Date: 2010-08-02 05:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-05 02:58 am (UTC)Though when I think about it, I think Cobb could have been a bit rougher around the edges. Maybe Javier Bardem? He's capable of doing that intense, soulful-look thing that might suit Cobb's character. Or maybe Clive Owen? He's not one of those perfectly-handsome types either.
As for Ariadne, I did think Page looked a wee bit too young to be a graduate student in architecture. Maybe Natalie Portman could have been another Ariadne? Or hell, maybe even Carey Mulligan? I think they were looking for someone with an "ingenue" look, so those two might have been a better option.
I don't blame you for being impressed with the supporting cast. As I said, I totally love Watanabe in this movie - but then again, I'm a huge fan of his work so I think I'd love him in any role. Levitt was pretty good, but I have such a crush on Hardy now for his turn as Eames.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-05 03:59 am (UTC)Also, thumbs up! I am glad you're a Tom Hardy fan! I've loved that guy since Star Trek (near awful movie it was etc) but he's been in tons of things I love like Band of Brothers, RocknRolla and he's a silly person in real life so ...I love him. I'm glad he's getting attention xD
no subject
Date: 2010-08-05 12:46 pm (UTC)Tom Hardy is just so cute. I also love the way he drawls his English as Eames. Is that a character thing or is that really how he talks?
no subject
Date: 2010-08-06 05:42 am (UTC)