Saturday, 7 August 2010

'Inception' - my own penn'orth.

Yesterday I went to see this film for the second time - and it certainly was money well-spent. I know some say that it tries to be 'too clever by half', but I don't think so.
Thought it might be useful to register a couple of comments.
On first viewing I hadn't quite grasped the significance that in dreams events take place in a world which moves faster than reality. In the film 20 times as fast is stated, though I don't know if that's based on any research. But the basic point is correct. We've all experienced an extended dream which seems to cover hours and then woken up to find that only a few minutes have elapsed since we fell asleep. I wonder if the film might have been helped by having just an occasional split-screen, maybe for just a half-minute or so, to show what was happening simultaneously on the different levels of consciousness. Just a thought. It might have explained to me why, on first viewing, that van was taking so long to fall into the river. (Maybe I was just slow on the uptake?)
Normally C.G.I. effects leave me feeling unmoved and uninvolved ( as in 'Avatar', for example). The physically-arduous old-style of creating spectacular action scenes used to excite me much more. However, 'Inception' is different. I thought the effects were quite awesome, perhaps aided by the fact that although in dreams they appear quite matter-of-fact and 'normal', actually seeing them created so realistically on screen was mind-blowing. The fight in the hotel corridor was particularly brilliant. (How on earth did they do that? Multiple shots in a free-falling airplane at zero G? Surely too intricate just for green-screen and superimposition?)
Btw, although I'm going to get a few raspberries for even mentioning it, I'm not sure that every member of a cinema audience gets the cinematic 'wink' that Chris Nolan gives in choosing a particular song to provide a 'kick' out of the dreams whilst having Marion Cotillard among the main cast, who won the Oscar for her lead role in 'La Vie en Rose' a couple of years ago. (No, I hadn't seen or heard it referred to before I saw the film.)

Right, now should I pay to see the film for a third time? Maybe I ought.

7 comments:

  1. 旁觀自己的悲傷是解脫,主觀自己的悲傷是更加悲傷................................................

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whatever cinematic wink you are referring to, I missed it :-(

    It's funny, but a lot of bloggers wrote that Inception was good because of the lack of CGI. Maybe they were just blind or something. I loved the CGI myself, especially all the zero-G stuff.

    Like you, as I was watching it I wondered if they leased out the "Vomit Comet" for a few days (weeks?) to shoot all the zero-G scenes. I suspect not. I think they did it all with cables then erased the cables with the magic of CGI even though it was super intricate. I wonder if there's a way to find out how it was done?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I still have to see this. It's on my list!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Larry, I find it quite heartening that such an intelligent film is doing so well at the box-office. In my area even though it's been playing on screens for a month now it's being retained for yet a further week in most multi-plexes as well as 'art-house' cinemas.
    Btw as for that 'wink' I referred to, if you still haven't got it, and without giving it completely away, I'll just say that in 'La Vie en Rose' Ms Cotillard played the lead role of, well, 'The Little Sparrow'.

    Michael - do try to see it while you can on the BIG screen. Seeing spectacular films like this on a TV or computer screen invariably reduces its impact. Please let us know your verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 你要保守你的心,勝過保守一切,因為一生的果效是由心發出................................................

    ReplyDelete
  6. I hadn't got the "wink" either!

    Loved the film too - also reviewed over on my blog!

    ReplyDelete