Dan's Take On The Film "Inception"

It's been a quiet little while since we've updated from Camp De Guerre, due mostly to us taking a bit of time off after tour and going about our real lives. I found I've had more time to do things lately, such as throwing out a third of the contents of my apartment, spending time with my wife while she's not immersed in academia (I am now the proud husband of a Master of Art History), going to shows that I am not playing in (saw The Melvins with Josh and they absolutely blew us away) and in general just enjoying life at a slightly less hectic pace. That and going to work. But you all know how that goes.

I've also had a chance to get to the local cinema this summer. I know what you're thinking: "Dan, summer is full of a bunch of over-budgeted schlock designed simply to drive ticket sales for a week or so, and then be quickly replaced by the next pile of refuse! I thought you had culture!" My answer to this is: "Yes and no! I do enjoy many cultural, high-minded things. I also enjoy eating popcorn in frigid air-conditioning and watching shit blow up! I am well-rounded to a fault."

So I saw "Inception" today, which has been a highly trumpeted film of the summer, is supposed to both be THE film of the season and also maybe plug the oil leak in the Gulf, mend the schism of national politics and reunite the lineup of The Smiths. I don't know if it did any of these things (Morrissey still seems to be a hold-out), but it did do what a movie is supposed to do: make me forget about everything else for its running time.

You've probably read some reviews and heard a whole lot of hype about "Inception". You've heard references to its supposedly convoluted plot-line and hard-to-follow fantasy universe. Let me put these fears to rest. If you were able to watch "The Matrix" and took away from it more than a late-night image of Carrie-Anne Moss in leather, than you should do fine. There is nothing in this film that anyone who slogged through all six seasons of LOST can't wrap their noggin' around. Also, at two and half hours, it is a much smaller time commitment, and contains trace amounts of Michael Caine.

I'm attempting to give you a brief rundown of the plot without ruining anything. If you're one of those people who doesn't like to know anything before watching a film, then click that little "X" in the upper right-hand corner of the browser (or nondescript red dot if you're a Mac).

Basically, it's pretty simple. In this world, people can enter your dreams, where your mental defenses are severely lowered, and take information from you that you would not normally share while awake. There are people who are paid good money to do this, and they are called extractors. Leo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy; these guys are all extractors and are apparently very good at it. And there are all these rules when you're in a dream about how to conduct yourself. You can alter the physical reality of the dream, you can alter your physical appearance in the dream (if you've studied the person that you are going to impersonate, no cheesy tear-off masks a la "Mission: Impossible" here). At it's core, you essentially steal the information you need from the person, usually from a safe (this is the dreaming person's manifestation of keeping their secrets hidden). Then you need to get out, preferably without them knowing you were ever there, and leave them thinking it was (you guessed it) all a dream.

In order to make it an interesting movie, the team is charged with the task not to take but to implant an idea in the heir (Cillian Murphy) to a major energy empire's head via a dream. The idea is the he dissolve his late father's conglomerate so that a rival (Ken Watanabe) does not get pushed out because of a massive monopoly. This is thought impossible in their world (the implanting, not the monopoly), but the team soldiers on to do it anyway (there are motives from Leo's character that I won't get into so as not to give everything away). And there are of course complications in accomplishing this task. And explosions. And shooting. Lots of shooting. This is where the baser, less refined part of my brain gets all smiley and giddy.

But the biggest reason this whacko-brained sci-fi concept works as a coherent film is because it sets rules on its universe and works within those rules. Unlike "The Matrix", where all of a sudden Keanu can bend the very fabric of existence with no consequences, "Inception" sets out its rules and sets out the consequences to the rules. If the dreamer starts to realize that their mind is being invaded, they will try and dismantle the dream, which involves a physical dismantling of the physical surroundings (this is where the cool shit start happening, buildings collapsing and such). If the invaders wish to alter the physical landscape, they can. There is an absolutely dynamite sequence where Ellen Page's character bends a city street at a ninety degree angle, creating an Escher-like skew on perspective. The reel could have broken right after that, and I would have been still pretty satisfied with my movie experience. However, alter the world too much and the dreamer's mind senses something is wrong, and all its sub-conscious imprints (read: extras in the scene) will attack you in defense. Rules. Consequences. Consistency. I love it. This is where the high-minded, story-oriented part of my brain gives an approving nod.

I've boiled this film down to a basic idea for a movie-goer: it is an excellent mix of high-minded plot and story with healthy doses of cool shit happening. You do not get so bogged down in the minutiae of how the dream-invading works on a chemical level (and they do employ a chemist to regulate the sleep) that you lose interest, and on the flip-side, it is not by any means a non-stop thrill ride of explosions and catastrophe. This is how I like my sci-fi: just give me the gist of the technology (I know it's advanced, you fool), show it to me in the context of this world you've created, and then show me it doing incredibly cool things. Substance and 'splosions, that's pretty much my action film criteria.

The film does not take you for a complete idiot, and in granting you that courtesy, proceeds to reveal itself layer by layer in a careful and well-paced manner, giving you the shock-and-awe when necessary, and giving you the explanation when needed as well (Page's character as the newbie to their world acts as an excellent device for explanation, as you are asking the questions she is asking out loud at almost the same time). If you found "Transformers 2" to be your be-all-end-all action movie choice, maybe you should pass on this one. "Inception" has no interest in being a franchise, selling you a lunch box or getting it's own cartoon spin-off. It was not a cult graphic novel with a bastion of die-hard fans to dissect it, nor an obscure novel. It is an idea thought up for and executed in the medium of modern film. It is an original idea, with no history or mythology and no product tie-ins. Honestly, when was the last time you saw an action movie that was all those things.

I could go on for more paragraphs about the acting, the casting choices (it even makes Tom Berenger look good), the location shots and the special effects. But a good movie renders all these things individually useless by calling attention to none of them, and simply letting them exist in the universe that was created for them. And "Inception" is a very good movie.