Why Must You Hate?

As an ever-persistent prophet of Christopher Nolan’s, I rarely find myself in the position of defending his work; generally speaking, the stuff speaks for itself. Still, even (or perhaps especially) a genius is capable of creating something that befuddles at least some part of their audience. There are those who still insist that “Barry Lyndon” is a snooze fest. I don’t know what’s wrong with them, but they do it.

“Inception” is that movie for Chris Nolan. For better or for worse, the thing is divisive. There are certainly people who haven’t liked his previous films, but they’ve been a suffocated minority, and I imagine it’s no fun to play on their team. “Memento” was too brainy for some, but those people tend to see the appeal it might have to someone else. “Insomnia” is not seen often enough, but for those who do, a negative reaction is nearly impossible unless you simply couldn’t get past the original. And look, I’ll just come right out with it: about ninety percent of the people I’ve encountered who didn’t like “The Dark Knight” had stupid reasons. I’m not trying to be mean, I’m stating a fact. Most of them were angry because Nolan “changed” things they had grown accustomed to in Tim Burton’s rendition, unaware that the latter was filled to the brim with blasphemous heresies against the basics of the character (I will always love those films, but it’s still true).

The opposition on “Inception” is a heartier army, and they swing a much heavier axe. I see them in all age groups (although they definitely trend older), sexes (slight trend female), and backgrounds. Some of them were as excited for the film as I was, some had never even given it a second thought.

And so, for that reason, I feel that the movie needs defending in the public forum. It’s strange to do this, because to me “Inception” speaks for itself the way all of Chris’ movies do, but the people have spoken, and now I’d like to reply. Below I will address the most common criticisms I have heard about the movie. If I miss yours, post it in a comment and I’ll get to it ASAP. You know I’m not kidding.

Criticisms of “Inception”

1. It’s Confusing.

Don’t read that title as dismissive on my part; being accused of incoherence is no joke for science fiction, and it’s definitely not for a director for a guy who prides himself on making multiple time-lines, realities, and perspectives intelligible; indeed, he pushes the idea farther in each film, seeing how far down the rabbit hole you can go with him. To say a Chris Nolan film was impenetrable or dense is like telling Houdini you saw him put the key in his mouth. It is the exact opposite of the reaction he’s hoping for.

Now to the heart of the matter: is “Inception” confusing? I must insist that it is not. It is dense, absolutely, and maybe even a bit dizzying, but “confusing” implies that Nolan led you in circles, failed to explain himself properly, or contradicted his own rules. He does none of these things. The film drops a heavy payload of exposition on you, but it does so both clearly and gradually. Everything is spelled out, and usually repeated whenever reapplied. Visual representation is heavily utilized, everything is demonstrated for you. Information is spaced out to give us time to get our bearings. Every possible rule of good conceptualization is heeded.

So why do so many people insist the film is a tangled web? I think it has to do with audience preconceptions. There is a certain threshold of new conceptual data that modern audiences are used to absorbing during a science fiction film, and the vast majority they see go well under that line. “Star Wars” spells out the idea of the Force, “The Terminator” needs you to grasp some needling particulars of time travel, but they’re careful to only give you so much to absorb and comprehend. “The Matrix” danced very close to this limit, but with time the grumbling has ceased as the basics of the story permeated popular culture.

I have no quantitative measurement for where this threshold lies, but I know one thing for certain: “Inception” blows right past it. Comprehending this thing makes “The Matrix” look like “See Spot Run.” Chris and Warner Bros. both knew this going in, and they gambled on it. What happens if you simply demand more, much more? Some people go giddy for it, and others begin to squirm in their seat, their internal gyroscope telling them they’re simply biting off more than can be chewed. And then, at that precise moment, they give up and stop paying attention. They begin missing things the movie is clearly articulating, and of course grow even more confused. By the time the credits roll, they’re completely outside the movie.

And this is the root of my point: if you call “Inception” confusing, I can document proof that disagrees. I can point out lines in the script clearly explaining, then re-explaining, then demonstrating every relevant concept. “Confusing” is simply not the appropriate adjective, in my view. You are welcome to use it anyway, but I am welcome to think you’re wrong. What the movie really is is “dense.” No, scratch that, the perfect term is really “saturated.” It’s brimming with ideas and concepts, all of them clear and consistent, but stuffed to the gills nonetheless.

Now you may choose to not like that, and that’s totally cool. But your disapproval is more akin to putting down “The Pillars of the Earth” because it’s too damned long than a fault in the movie’s construction. You have identified a quality the film willingly adopts, and you find it unappealing. Not everyone enjoys a dizzy spell of high philosophy and existential psychology, nor should they. But let’s be clear about what we’re talking about: that is not “confusing,” that is simply “saturated.”

2. It’s Too Long

A constant complaint about Chris Nolan films. I don’t see how any of it could have been shaved. I don’t have a good retort for this, because I wish all of his movies were six hours long without intermissions. I get so intoxicated on the worlds he creates, the complexity of his characters, and the deftness of his directorial touch, that I never want to leave.

You’re on your own for that one.

3. Ariadne Isn’t A Real Character

Ah…yes. Well. Now you may be onto something. She does have a glaringly functional presence in the story, doesn’t she? Mostly she exists to sucker information out of Cobb, grill him on details, and get kissed by Joseph Gordon Levitt. When she’s first introduced to Cobb by his father-in-law (played by Michael Caine), she appears out of a crowd of graduate students. She doesn’t appear to know any of them, and it’s almost like they don’t even see her. She never discusses any kind of social life, nor does she suggest a deliberate lack of one. She’s too pretty and friendly not to have friends, especially in Paris. There don’t appear to be any relatives or family who need notifying before she joins up with some international fugitives twice her age to make mazes in a billionaire’s brain. She has an obnoxiously cute, inside-joke first name, and absolutely no last or middle name whatsoever. Who the hell is this girl?

If this was a big problem for you during the film, congratulations: you’ve landed on a point I willingly concede. Ariadne is a function character, and has no trace of depth to her in the least. For the life of me, I couldn’t discern a single thing from her behavior about her home life, her family, country of origin, or anything. She’s a genius architect, but aren’t geniuses normally fascinatingly complex people? When has such a talented young woman been such a Jane Doe? True, some interesting angles are explored vis a vis her sexual rivalry with Mal, but they’re sublimated for lack of time. And frankly, had they been pushed farther, it would have been creepy and off-focus.

Yes, I concede that Ariadne is a blank character, and this is an unusual move for Chris. Coming from a heavy noir tradition, he doesn’t do blank; he does anything but blank. I think his motive was simple: someone’s got to get Cobb to explain this crap, and there’s just no time for him to do so in an orderly fashion and also get to, “Yeah, I was raised in Minnesota, my father was a welder, blah blah blah.”

And yet this is one of those flaws I only notice when I’m not watching the film, and those barely count in my mind. While “Inception” runs, I couldn’t care less. I think this speaks volumes about Ariadne’s importance, or lack thereof. If they had gone into her back-story, it would have been dead weight (the way some of Cobb’s actually is). At the end of the day, she just doesn’t matter that bloody much. She has tons of screen time, but her emotional journey is not of consequence. If I didn’t miss its inclusion in the film, it’s hard for me to fault it for not being there.

Still, characters aren’t supposed to be blank slates in theory, so enjoy this one while it lasts, Dear Reader. Grumble grumble.

4. The Dialog

…I mean, yeah. “I can’t imagine you with all your perfection, all your imperfection” is one of the worst lines Chris has ever written. It’s technically quite true, but he couldn’t find a way to express it in a way that a human would talk ever.

Most of the crummy dialog crops up in that damn living room domestic dispute scene at the end. It’s a truly weak scene, and those are quite rare for Nolan. Cobb and Mal sit down for a nice little marital spat, only they babble incoherently about reality and melodramatic conceptions of love, and then one of them “reveals” something to the other that they both knew before the scene began. Then you remember the whole scene is really just a crazy dude talking to his bloody self, and soon enough you’re checking your watch. To boot, it’s visually dry as a bone, shot on an unappealingly cramped set with no blocking, no movement, no energy. Inter-cutting it with an awesome snow fort and a van falling off a bridge and a dude blowing up an elevator just makes it sting more.

That it comes at the climax of the film would be disastrous, except Chris had two superior climaxes waiting in the wings: Robert Fischer’s, and Cobb’s right before the credits roll. The scene is almost completely forgotten, and we move right along to the good stuff. Whew, that was too close. The first time I saw it, I thought it was the movie’s swan song, and I was seriously worried.

Still, that scene aside, I think most of the dialog works very well. And you have to admit, this is not an easy piece to write. These characters have to drop a lot of knowledge on you in a relatively organic fashion, and they do so pretty well. Completely documentary style, ultra-real dialog would be maddening in a film like this, because you need this crap slow and deliberate and not at all like it would really be said. At the same time, it never loses touch with the ground, and that’s probably thanks to the actors fighting hard to keep it emotional and relatable.

(To Be Continued…)