Inception, the thinking man's burden

Three days after watching Inception, I am still rather unsure as to just what about Inception, or perhaps it's universal popularity makes me feel decidedly uncomfortable. I initially worded it as "I did not like Inception because everyone else liked it." but that came out sounding like I have a bug up my ass. 

I have perhaps the same argument against Chetan Bhagat. I do not like his books because everyone else likes them. I admire the man, I think he is very intelligent, a master marketer. He even writes very good books (considering the target audience), it serves as that awesome niche, and sells at a brilliant 100 rupee price point. My problem however stems from a whole generation of people saying "I read.", who genuinely believe themselves to be "readers" because they read Chetan Bhagat and Paulo Coelho books. I do not have a problem with reading those books. I have a problem with people believing them to be profound.

Inception, in the few days it has been out is already being hailed as one of the all time greats, as well as "Thinking Man's cinema". It is perhaps interesting to note that a large majority saying the latter very rarely calls a film "Thinking Cinema". It is usually the majority that is quick to reject a film because it requires them to think. Usually the people who adore films which are "leave your brains at home", "full paisa vasool".

Inception is not a "thinking man's" film. It is a film that makes you feel smart. There is a difference. And Christopher Nolan, as Chetan Bhagat before, has nailed it.

JK was reading this Shiv Khera book called "YOU CAN SELL", and there was this extract that he read to me, about how people get to offices in the mornings about half an hour late, then spend another half hour getting their coffee, another half hour reading their personal mails, then thinking it is too close to lunch hour to make an appointment, so on and so forth, in the end losing about half their day. This is a great starting point for a self help book. All of us go through this experience, a very high majority feel guilty about such behavior when seen in us, and angry when seen in others. As soon as the book 'identifies' with that part in you, you immediately accept a lot of other stuff that is put forward thinking, "waah waah kya bola hai. Main bhi aisa hi sochta hun"

From this excellent Roger Ebert article on The Myth Of the Perfect Film,

"There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures. The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves. They're looking for support and vindication."

I say that the reverse works very well too. There is a human tendency to be pleased with anyone who is pleased with and is agreeable to our pleasures. 

Inception is a stoned film. It feeds you the lines that all stoners feel at some point or the other. What is real? Why does it feel that the concept of time is different across different experiences? And it also makes the usual pained with life office wife junta identify with the concept precisely for the brilliance of 'This cannot be real'.

From David Edelstein's review of the film (the one which has been subject to all this hullaboo because it was a negative review amongst the spate of orgasmic voices)

Nolan, who wrote the script, thinks like a mechanical engineer, and even when you can’t follow what’s happening, you can admire in theory the multiple, synchronized narrative arcs and cute little rules for jumping around among different flights of consciousness. He has two fresh ideas. In a dream, you can fall asleep and have another dream, in which you can fall asleep and have another dream—except time works differently at different depths. A minute up top might be, say, ten minutes in the dream, an hour in the dream within a dream, and, below that, years.

The other neat touch is the Freudian monster femme who keeps popping up: Cobb’s wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who emerges from his own unconscious (even in other people’s dreams) to sabotage his schemes. Cotillard is clock-stoppingly gorgeous and has a great first scene.

I think Inception is a brilliant film, if you look at it as the genre it is supposed to inhabit, that of the summer blockbuster. It is decidedly more cleverly made than your average summer heist film, but it basically follows the same formula.It is fun to watch, it is cute that Chris Nolan still loves his little thought experiments, "What happens if" scenarios. I get it. 

As Roger Ebert says in his review,

The movies often seem to come from the recycling bin these days: Sequels, remakes, franchises. "Inception" does a difficult thing. It is wholly original, cut from new cloth, and yet structured with action movie basics so it feels like it makes more sense than (quite possibly) it does. 

 But it is not profound. And it is not the greatest thing to happen to cinema. Please. (Neither is Avatar. But that is a different story. That is not even a good film.)

For the record, I adore Christopher Nolan's work. I have two of his films in my all time best top 10 (The Dark Knight, Memento), and I believe The Prestige could have been decidedly better but for Hugh Jackman.

And this article is sheer poetry, about Inception's unanimous "critical praise",

'Inception,' Art, Edelstein, And The Impossibility Of Accounting For Taste