Sweet Dreams are Made of This

Time to wake up, Mr. Cobb

The other night I dreamt that I was at Madison Square Garden attending a Coldplay (?!) concert. I found myself in line at a concession stand buying a hero. The total came to something like $18.25 (without a drink or fries!) and I gave the cashier a twenty. She told me that she didn’t have any change, so I started to take my order and head off. Then it struck me that on second thought I should just stick around until she served enough customers to get my dollar and change I was still owed. She didn’t take too kindly to this and became progressively more irritated as I kept hanging around. Of course I became more exasperated because I couldn’t understand her aggravation with me. I was owed the money after all. At some point I just decided to cut my losses and walk away before I missed any more of the beatific crooning of Chris Martin. Troubling stuff.

I only mention this to bring up a point about dreams: they can oftentimes be prosaic, comprised of the most banal details. Dreams don't have to be weird (although the more pedestrian the dream, the more perplexed I am by it). An obvious point no doubt, but I raise it because one of the bigger criticisms of Christopher Nolan's new film, Inception, is that he just doesn't get dreams. Sure he can explain concepts like dream-state temporal compression and the logistics of "inception", but he doesn't get that like dreams are strange, man.

Click pic to enlargify

I think the films detractors would have loved to see this material in the hands of say a David Lynch, Terry Gilliam or even David Cronenberg: all directors who embrace the fantastic, illogical and downright creepy aspects of the world both in and out of dreams. Nolan is too much of a structuralist to allow his dreamscapes to get messy. He's not one to color outside the lines. Some have a problem with that and to be fair it's completely understandable.  Yet that strikes me as an argument that refuses to address the film on its own terms.

I don’t think Nolan set out to make a treatise on the metaphysics of dreams or a meditation about the nature of reality. The film lacks enough ambiguous space for that to happen. More likely he endeavored to make a mature high-concept action film with some radical visuals. Nolan, best known for shepherding the triumphant revival of the Batman franchise is one of the most respected commercial directors working. His films are rigorously plotted and demand the viewers full attention. In short, he makes entertainment for grown-ups. Inception, harks back to the days when movies like Total Recall, Robocop and Aliens were standard summer fare. These were all smart action films that didn't pander to the lowest common denominator in order to inflate box office receipts. Sitting in a screening of Transformers 2, I had doubts whether such films would ever exist again in the mainstream.  I'm grateful that Inception even exists to be honest.

At its core, Inception is a heist film with a sci-fi skin graft. To compound the conceit, the object of value isn't being stolen, but implanted deep inside the mark's subconscious. If I were sitting in a bar and someone described Inception's plot, I'd probably be telling them how brilliant they were. As far as high-concepts go, this definitely gets an “A” for effort. I applaud the studio for having the stones to put a couple hundred million dollars behind Nolan's vision. Even with DiCaprio starring, on paper it doesn't exactly scream box office smash.  Nolan's ambition is unassailable.  It’s the execution where one finds room to quibble.

Click pic to embiggen

The film spends an inordinate amount of time setting up the third act. I can't say I was ever bored, but it raises the ante for the resolution of the main subplot, a subplot that doesn't have enough emotional resonance for the audience to be truly invested. That wasn't much of an issue for me, because I enjoyed spending time with Nolan's characters despite their lack of depth.  They reminded me of a more brainy and serious version of the Ocean 11's crew.  One thing I'm starting to notice about Nolan's characters through all his work is that there is a "what you see is what you get"-quality that has started to become problematic.  Ambiguity in a character creates space for tension.  Inception would have been greatly enhanced if the characters were a bit tougher to read.

Another gripe is that Nolan could have employed the soundtrack more judiciously. The score, constantly welling up in the background, doesn’t seem to complement the on-screen action so much as attempt to engineer an emotional response from the audience. Music pretty much always works this way in film, but when it’s as blatant as it is in Inception, it translates to flop sweat. It's as if the director doesn’t trust that his material is strong enough to stand alone. There is one clever little bit with respect to the music which involves Edith Piaf's "Non, je ne regrette rien" and a portentous music cue that wells up occasionally throughout the film.  Nolan is a clever little devil, I'll give him that.

Nolan approaches his material deathly serious. This has been great for the Batman films since they had veered beyond the point of self-parody under Schumacher.  Still, I feel a bit of levity would have gone a long way in Inception.  The few moments we do get make the team feel more realized and less like vessels for Nolan's intricate plot.  Also I wish he’d cast someone else in the lead. DiCaprio is a decent enough actor given the right role (I found him pretty convincing in The Departed). Here he’s supposed to be conveying a man who’s been left debilitated by loss, emotionally compromised, a man who no longer trusts himself but still tries to project confidence and control. I think a Clive Owen or Ralph Fiennes, even Colin Farrell would have been more suited for such a part. DiCaprio is thirty-five, but his face still has a callowness that betrays any attempt at evincing the world-weariness that the story calls for. He just comes across as deeply annoyed or at best aloof most times. That said, he's not shabby in the role; he's just miscast.

The rest of the cast includes a couple of Nolan regulars, Michael Caine and Cilian Murphy. Murphy does great work here as the ambivalent scion of a dying energy magnate. His character's denouement ends up being the most effective in the film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the guy who everybody should be hailing as the next great actor of his generation, does quality work here as DiCaprio's right-hand man.  Tom Hardy finds room to give his character a bit of soul despite being saddled with as much expository dialogue as anyone else.  Nolan knows how to cast a film.  It's just that the film ends up feeling less than the sum of its parts.

I don't want to sound as if I didn't like the film.  I thoroughly enjoyed it actually.  I'd rank it between The Prestige and The Dark Knight.  It's not the mind-f##% the first trailers seemed to promise, but it is a mature action film that takes great pains to respect its audience.  There's no shame in that.

The Dark Knight Returns

I imagine if I ran into Chris Nolan and asked him about a random Batman comic book storyline from the eighties or nineties, he'd be able to converse about it for hours. This man knows Batman about as well as anybody. He expresses his respect and love for the character in practically every frame of his follow-up to 2005's Batman Begins. What Frank Miller did for Batman and comic books, Chris Nolan has done in his medium. The Dark Knight should satiate even the most demanding fan. More than that, it should satisfy even those unfamiliar with the source material. It's not just a damn fine comic book film; it's a great piece of cinema.

Nolan the Director

Nolan doesn't so much expand his vision of Gotham as much as he fills it in. He populates it with a colorful bunch of characters and he gives them room to breathe. You believe in the world of Batman, because the actors sell it. Everybody in this film turns in top-notch work. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are their usual sublime selves. Gary Oldman continues to contribute some of his best work as the doggedly honest cop, Lt. Gordon. Maggie Gyllenhaal brings the needed emotional heft to the role of Rachel Dawes. Many considered Katie Holmes who played Rachel in the first film to be one of that film's weak spots. I don't disagree, but you realize she was miscast; she was too young to play the role. Gyllenhaal is much more believable as the conflicted love interest in this film; she actually seems tough enough to be a resident of Gotham whereas Holmes seemed woefully out of place.

Then there's Aaron Eckhart, an actor whose work I've enjoyed since In the Company of Men. He brings just the right blend of humanity, idealism and cockiness to the role of District Attorney Harvey Dent. He's the films "white knight", but he doesn't come off as one-dimensional. Instead he's the parallel of Batman, except he crusades in the light of day. The film is explicit about such symbolism, but it's not as overbearing as the first film was about the idea of fear.

Though Bale spends a much greater portion of the film behind the mask than in the last, he still manages to show you how distinct Bruce Wayne is from Batman and not just through the usual aloof playboy routine. To be sure, that's in there (usually providing much needed levity in a few spots), but Bale develops layers to the character as he exposes how dependent Wayne has become on the Batman persona, how much it has enveloped him. But I didn't expect any less. Bale is probably my favorite actor right now. He's as eccentric as Depp when it comes to selecting roles (in the last few years he's played a Vietnam P.O.W., an unemployed veteran with a homicidal streak, and a warped magician; he's John Connor in the upcoming Terminator 4 for godsake!).

Oh yeah, Heath Ledger is in this film, too


Man, I don't even know where to begin with The Joker. The first time you see him, there's this sound that I thought was just background noise, but then after a couple more appearances, I realized it was his "theme music". And after that, my response almost became Pavlovian. When I heard it, my guard went up in an instant. You soon realize, this is a character that will literally do anything at anytime. He seems dangerous even when locked in a cell, denuded of weapons. He'll have you laughing for a moment and in the next breath gasping at his brutality. Even the way he taunts his victims becomes this sort of warped joke.

The obvious question: Is it better than Nicholson's? Yes. Why? Because it scared the crap out of me. And that's what the Joker was always supposed to do. If your only experience with the Joker is Cesar Romero on the affable but hokey 1960s television show or Jack Nicholson's iconic performance in the 1989 Burton film, then you're in for a shock/treat. This is the Joker in his purest form, the way Dennis O'Neil, Alan Moore and Frank Miller envisioned him. This is the Joker who murdered Commissioner Gordon's wife and left his daughter a paraplegic in the comic books. This is the Joker who killed the Jason Todd iteration of Robin. He is psychotic and never for a moment do you think he is anything less than real. He's a nightmare made material. The Joker is chaos in the flesh, a counterpoint to Batman's rigid authoritarianism. Yeah, I read a lot of Batman comics. And either Ledger did too or Nolan really drilled this role into him. It's every bit as iconic as Nicholson's; actually it's more so because you don't really "see" Ledger, only The Joker.

The film clocks in at 152 minutes. It never feels indulgent, but it does leave you worn at the end. Nolan takes his time in telling the story and I applaud him for it. In too many films in the genre, the dramatic scenes feel like placeholders for the action sequences. Don't get me wrong, the action sequences in The Dark Knight are nothing less than spectacular (which is saying something considering how many comic book inspired action films have flooded the market as of late). What makes them work even better though is that they work in service of the story and not vice versa. The most impressive aspect of the movie to me was the tension that Nolan creates in the film. There are scenes that literally had me on the edge of my seat. There is a pervasive sense of dread that permeates the entire movie. The film certainly lives up to its moniker. This is the movie that all subsequent comic book films will be measured against.

I don't know where the franchise goes from here. As long as it remains in Nolan's hands, I'm willing to follow.

Mr. Nolan, You give me a reason to wake-up every morning.