If you've been off-planet for the last few weeks, you haven't heard anything about writer/director Christopher Nolan's INCEPTION. . . .That's not necessarily a bad thing. For those of you who don't know much about Christopher Nolan, a brief history. He burst onto the scene in 2001 with "Memento", an inspired outing that remains one of the best films of the early 21st Century. He followed up with two very good Batman movies, starring Christian Bale - and never lost his fascination with the blurred line between reality and the inner reality of the mind's eye - how we perceive things, memory - often the workings of the sub-conscious or what we experience in dreams.
Nolan's budget for "Memento" was around $5,000,000. His budget for "Inception" was near $200,000,000. I'm not being unkind when I mention that "Memento" remains 50X better than "Inception." It's the simple truth. Here's why.
"Memento", if there is such a thing, was a straight forward mystery wrapped in an enigma. It kept you on the edge of your seat, your mind working hard and your expectations aroused. In the end you were able to figure it out. With no CGI, Green Screen, Blue Screen, multiple cameras, cast of thousands, lavish sets or any of that nifty stuff. 2001. Movies have travelled far in 9 years. Oh so far. Not always for the better.
"Inception" is a state of the art video game, wherein story is not nearly as important as the wow factor. And you will leave the theatre with a "Wow!" But right after "Wow!", comes "HUH!?" Or "WHA . . .!?" Those of you who see it stoned (or who wish you had been stoned) might say, "Man . . . you gotta see it 2 or 3 times to get all the stuff packed in there!" Yeah? Really? Nonsense! "Inception" won't make any more sense after the 3rd viewing than it did after the first. Take two Percocet and call me in the morning.
It's not my intention to review "Inception." You already have a pretty good idea what I think about it. I'm firmly set in the 25% of critics who thought it was shoddy, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that movies like "Inception" and "Avatar" threaten to make the actor irrelevant. Any one of 3 dozen actors could have done "Inception." And DiCaprio's performance was a clone of "Shutter Island" which was a clone of a handful of movies he made in the past 10 years. "Blood Diamond" and "The Departed" are unique in DiCaprio's canon - because they challenged him, brought out a kind of focus through his eyes, an emotional strength I hadn't seen before. No special effects, no CGI - story was the prime thing - thus character became the prime thing as well. In "Inception", the story is a shell game, a two-bit hooker dressed up like Princess Grace.
So where does that leave us. We don't all have the luxury of choosing the stories we want to make - which, of course, is what a nice guy like Michael Caine is doing in a movie like this. He's of a certain age, the movie comes with built in caché and he's getting a pay day. You, dear friend, had better find a way to fill even the dreariest script with a unique voice that makes people in high places sit up and listen. DiCaprio doesn't have to do that any more. Pity.
No comments:
Post a Comment