You complete my faith...
So Gabi and I rewatched Ergo Proxy and attempted to make sense out of it. Spoilers: we still fail. But I did pick up on some things I missed before. Gabi helped me find a new appreciation for Raul, and I think I love Vincent more than ever for being so fail.
Kitty is also continuing to show improvement and looks less stricken by bright light.
But that's not what this post is for, this post is for arguing with the critics about Inception's flaws.
Claim 1: Inception lacks heart because it is all based on a dream so nothing matters or feels real.
I would argue that the scene where Leo's character faces the truth that he was the one responsible for his wife's death because he implanted the "false reality" scenario in her mind shows a lot of this movie's emotion. As does Leo's drive to reunite with his children. The same could be said for the relationship between Leo's character and Saitou and their frenemy deal. Now, I know the main claim is based on the interpretation that all of Inception, including the end, is a dream. It's a valid argument. But I would also argue that in its own world, it's just as true. Leo's character still feels pain and still believes he caused his wife to die, regardless whether the entire scenario is a dream. It's real to him. I don't think a story has to be REAL to still have an emotional impact. The relationship between Leo's character and his wife and her pain and confusion definitely struck a chord with me. It was this movie's heart.
The second part of this regarding emotional involvement such as high stakes for the characters also works on this same level. In their world, they honestly believe that if they die in the dream, they will be lost in dreams forever and left in a vegetative state in the "real world." Does this have to be true to still be threatening? Before we realized it was possibly a dream, didn't we still worry that the characters we liked (in my case, Arthur) would get shot and suffer this fate? I was on pins and needles for Arthur through most of this movie because he's the type that usually gets dead. I believed he would end up in limbo. I guess on the rewatch, you know nobody's going to die so the tension is lost, but that's the same for EVERY movie. Knowing it was all a dream should not affect your enjoyment of the movie the first time.
It's also important to remember that whether it was truly a dream was left open, as that top can fall over at any moment after the movie ends. Nolan just enjoys fucking with us.
Claim 2: Inception is too clever for its own good and sacrifices plot for its gimmick.
The plot of Inception is very basic, just like the thought behind the inception itself in this film. Inception's plot is that Leo's character must implant an idea in Fischer's head to return to his children. Simple. It doesn't have to be ground-breaking. The fun is of course in the journey. A lot of the most enjoyable movies have had very simple plots. I admit it's not as complex as Nolan's usual stuff, but it also doesn't have to be.
In this aspect, I love how Inception sticks to its own rules. Pain hurts regardless of dream or reality, even emotional pain. What about the rule that dreamers who die wake up if the entire movie is just a dream? Well, that's simply the rule established for the base "dream" world if it were. It stills works because it's following that world's rules. Another rule is that the dream world has to stay fairly realistic for the subject to believe the dream is a reflection of reality and not a dream. How can they do the scene where Ariadne is folding Paris in half? Simple, the rules for the overall "dream" are that they believe they are dreaming in that scene so of course the impossible should be possible in a dream. It still follows the pattern of acceptance. I also loved the kick concept and how the dreamers had to wake up on each individual level in order to "wake up" fully.
What about why things in the snow world or the uncle's dream? Why weren't they affected when there was no gravity in the hotel world but the car chase world's crash affected the hotel world? This one gets more tricky because the car falling off the bridge is what was fucking up the hotel world? So wouldn't the lack of gravity affect the snow world? I want to think this had something to do with Arthur tying everyone together so they didn't truly move in a way that would unbalance the dream underneath. I admit this is the toughest sell, but I can almost see it.
Claim 3: Too many explosions.
Explosions are cool and I love the idea of the weaponized projections. Very Fantastic Voyage. Also, if you can't have badass weapons in a dream, where can you have them? Notice, Fischer doesn't get his badass weapons until he accepts that he is in a dream. Then, things can get more ridiculous. Also, this movie is clearly inspired by The Matrix and The Cell so explosions are necessary. Screw you, action haters.
Before I end this, I would also like to giggle at the sheer amount of Batman actors that ended up in this movie. It's like Nolan just reconstructed his old cast but was forced to pick a new lead so it wouldn't be too obvious and therefore went with Leo. It is hilarious.
Kitty is also continuing to show improvement and looks less stricken by bright light.
But that's not what this post is for, this post is for arguing with the critics about Inception's flaws.
Claim 1: Inception lacks heart because it is all based on a dream so nothing matters or feels real.
I would argue that the scene where Leo's character faces the truth that he was the one responsible for his wife's death because he implanted the "false reality" scenario in her mind shows a lot of this movie's emotion. As does Leo's drive to reunite with his children. The same could be said for the relationship between Leo's character and Saitou and their frenemy deal. Now, I know the main claim is based on the interpretation that all of Inception, including the end, is a dream. It's a valid argument. But I would also argue that in its own world, it's just as true. Leo's character still feels pain and still believes he caused his wife to die, regardless whether the entire scenario is a dream. It's real to him. I don't think a story has to be REAL to still have an emotional impact. The relationship between Leo's character and his wife and her pain and confusion definitely struck a chord with me. It was this movie's heart.
The second part of this regarding emotional involvement such as high stakes for the characters also works on this same level. In their world, they honestly believe that if they die in the dream, they will be lost in dreams forever and left in a vegetative state in the "real world." Does this have to be true to still be threatening? Before we realized it was possibly a dream, didn't we still worry that the characters we liked (in my case, Arthur) would get shot and suffer this fate? I was on pins and needles for Arthur through most of this movie because he's the type that usually gets dead. I believed he would end up in limbo. I guess on the rewatch, you know nobody's going to die so the tension is lost, but that's the same for EVERY movie. Knowing it was all a dream should not affect your enjoyment of the movie the first time.
It's also important to remember that whether it was truly a dream was left open, as that top can fall over at any moment after the movie ends. Nolan just enjoys fucking with us.
Claim 2: Inception is too clever for its own good and sacrifices plot for its gimmick.
The plot of Inception is very basic, just like the thought behind the inception itself in this film. Inception's plot is that Leo's character must implant an idea in Fischer's head to return to his children. Simple. It doesn't have to be ground-breaking. The fun is of course in the journey. A lot of the most enjoyable movies have had very simple plots. I admit it's not as complex as Nolan's usual stuff, but it also doesn't have to be.
In this aspect, I love how Inception sticks to its own rules. Pain hurts regardless of dream or reality, even emotional pain. What about the rule that dreamers who die wake up if the entire movie is just a dream? Well, that's simply the rule established for the base "dream" world if it were. It stills works because it's following that world's rules. Another rule is that the dream world has to stay fairly realistic for the subject to believe the dream is a reflection of reality and not a dream. How can they do the scene where Ariadne is folding Paris in half? Simple, the rules for the overall "dream" are that they believe they are dreaming in that scene so of course the impossible should be possible in a dream. It still follows the pattern of acceptance. I also loved the kick concept and how the dreamers had to wake up on each individual level in order to "wake up" fully.
What about why things in the snow world or the uncle's dream? Why weren't they affected when there was no gravity in the hotel world but the car chase world's crash affected the hotel world? This one gets more tricky because the car falling off the bridge is what was fucking up the hotel world? So wouldn't the lack of gravity affect the snow world? I want to think this had something to do with Arthur tying everyone together so they didn't truly move in a way that would unbalance the dream underneath. I admit this is the toughest sell, but I can almost see it.
Claim 3: Too many explosions.
Explosions are cool and I love the idea of the weaponized projections. Very Fantastic Voyage. Also, if you can't have badass weapons in a dream, where can you have them? Notice, Fischer doesn't get his badass weapons until he accepts that he is in a dream. Then, things can get more ridiculous. Also, this movie is clearly inspired by The Matrix and The Cell so explosions are necessary. Screw you, action haters.
Before I end this, I would also like to giggle at the sheer amount of Batman actors that ended up in this movie. It's like Nolan just reconstructed his old cast but was forced to pick a new lead so it wouldn't be too obvious and therefore went with Leo. It is hilarious.