Inception

Its called Symbolism, look it up

Now, if your at all into movies, you must be aware that this summer, pretty much nothing out, and most of what has come out is utter trash, a seemingly endless list of generic cooperate made films. Yet, one film stood out above them all, this supposed masterpiece “Inception”, made by the director of “Dark Knight” and compared again and again to the Matrix, this film basically was hailed as a cinematic masterpiece, standing out among an endless line of drivel. So of course, I was very hesitant to go watch it, because as a rule when a 3-hour film is touted as the “a brilliantly clever mindscrew” its really nothing more than an overhyped mediocrity. So I was finally convinced to see it and the film instead proved to be a very good looking overhyped mediocrity. Inception is about some time in the future were people can enter other people’s dreams, their they can extract information, or in the case of the film, insert information. A Japanese company is hiring Dicapio to insert an idea into the mind of a cooperate heir, an idea that will ruin his company. The story then tracks the characters adventures into the realm of dreams. OF course there are all of these elaborate rules for dreams that are twisted and exploited by the characters over the course of the film and lots of special effects, but while the film isn’t bad, its just boring. While I didn’t hate it, while watching I just didn’t really feel anything, it just didn’t make a difference to me, I didn’t care, nothing in the film made me invest myself. Spoilers from this point out, because honestly, nothing here has enough emotional impact to really made one way of difference. Throughout Inception, there is always stuff happening, almost every single shot has people moving, people talking, people running, people fighting ect, and yet I’m never able to really make any emotional connections to any of the events, so its really just watching stuff happen. For example, this one college student is needed to be the “dream architect” who can alter the dream world they are in, and is used throughout the film to avoid obstacles they encounter in the dreams. However, for all intents and purposes, this college girl isn’t a character so much as a prop, she exists for the other characters to explain things to her and to help them get out of tricky situations, lacking anything beyond the skeleton of a personality. At no point does she seem really bothered by leaving her school life to go do this beyond some “oh dear” expressions ever so often, she doesn’t really explain how her school experience plays into her ability to shape dreams and we have no real understanding of her likes and dislikes. She basically does what the plot needs her to do, people explain to her how the dreams work and surprise, we know how the dreams work. She gets really into Leonardo DiCaprio’s personal demons, but it doesn’t really explain why, she claims its because she cares about the mission, but if that’s the case why hasn’t anybody else gotten fascinated with his mental problems, people who know him better or know the dangers of dream traveling better. A well written story might have her and DiCaprio have some sort of personal connection, maybe both of them are thrill seekers who can’t really functional properly socially in the “Normal world” and so strive to be in dreams out of some sort of ego trip, maybe they just have really good chemistry through a similar sense of humor, maybe she has a crush on him. Instead through, she just seems interested because the plot needs to her to be, she isn’t so much a character as much as a character prototype, something that might be made in a script room to be fleshed out later. For example, the ethnically mixed assistant’s personal dream token is a loaded dice. Why, what does that symbolize? Is he afraid of letting things get out of his personal control, is he an untrustworthy person, or is he just a gambler? Why a dice? The College girl made her own, a golden chess bishop…why a bishop? I mean, a pawn I could understand somewhat, or even a queen, but why a bishop? Why even a chess piece in the first place, what importance does that hold? DiCaprio’s token was his wedding ring, which is important because the character’s marriage is the most meaningful thing to him, ergo why the wedding ring only appears when he is in a dream. His new token, his wife’s top is important because of his emotional connection to his wife, and his inability to move on. And yet, none of the other characters have these sorts of characterizations. What is the deal with the Middle Eastern drug maker btw, he has a few comical lines, he does some important plot points, and spends the entire rest of the movie driving around in a slow motion scene. The shapeshifter…I don’t even remember his character, who was he? Also there is a scene when dice man and the college girl briefly kiss when guards are looking for them, the girl ask “Was that to suppose to hide us” and the other guy responses “no, I just thought it was worth a shot.” Looking aside the creepiness in age differences, that actually would be a pretty funny romance scene, but instead both characters look totally disinterested, and almost bored, so it doesn’t mean anything to me. Hell, most of the movie is in the dream of Fisher Jr, the rich businessman who’s mind they are screwing with, and yet we know very little about him apart from generic daddy issues. Its his bloody subconscious, it should reveal more about him, instead he is just another plot point to be dragged from location to location. The only character who is really interesting is Saito, the Japanese businessman who is hiring DiCapio andthats because he is morally ambiguous, he is a very good reason to be treacherous, we know he is a ruthless businessman and always seems to be one step ahead of the main characters. Will he keep his end of the deal or will he betray the characters, does he have an hidden motive for going into the dreams, what is his eventual plan? Oh wait, doesn’t matter cause he gets shot the moment we enter the dreams and he just hangs around dying for the rest of the scene. Even DiCapio, the only developed character, doesn’t really mean anything to me, because the character is defined by his relationship with his wife, and that doesn’t mean anything to me, its just another plot point to motivate the characters rather than a true relationship, we don’t really see them interact except when it is needed to move the plot along, the only time it was interesting was when his subconscious manifestation of his love interest was trying to kill him in Saito’s dream.

Now lets give Inception credit here, there is a lot of things it does right, things that I wish almost every other movie would do as well. The editing is great, pay attention to the details of the characters clothes, DiCaprio’s clothes are always the same when he is in a dream but different when he isn’t in one, his kid’s clothes are always the same in a flashback but suddenly different in the last scene, their isn’t a single transition scene in the entire film, IE we never actually see how characters get to new locations until the very end, thus presenting the possibility that the entire realty is a dream. It even plays with some of the Hollywood clichés, like how inept the dream guards are, because of the nature of the dream and various action movie clichés are shown to be possible only because they are in a dream. And yet, again I don’t care. I really just don’t care, because they have no emotional connection. A friend of mine commented of my habit of making sexual comparisons in my reviews, so here is my obligatory metaphor, its like making out with a really good looking girl who you get along with, but don’t know very well, it’s a nice sensation but lacks any feeling beyond that, its just that a sensation. Or to be more professional, this movie is more about the idea rather than any real emotional resonance.

Now I’ve been playing a lot of Silent Hill 2 lately, and I was noting the similarities between the two, both are about characters trapped in a world that is a physical manifestation of their own subconscious, both have dead wives with a deep dark terrible secret behind their death (I refuse to spoiler Silent Hill), both protagonists are emotionally scarred men who seem fairly normal at first glance, but seem to have an unconscious death wish, and both “dream worlds” contain a violent manifestation of self loathing who breaks into otherwise normal situations and terrifies the main characters. And yet Silent hill is far less about the spectacle and really more about the emotional turmoil of the characters, the town alters itself to reflect the protagonists torment, the monsters are very feminine and almost erotically dance as they try to kill him, large holes are always appearing in the ground that he jumps into, he is always in small dark claustrophobic environments where the only way out seems to involve hurting himself in some manner. In contrast, Inception’s world, despite its elaborate set up, seems strangely scientific, not drawing from Freud but instead Jungian, but its weirdly detached from emotions, the characters coldly explain how dreams work and so dreams aren’t subconscious so much as just a series of action locations. I mean, considering these are dreams, wouldn’t they be more you know…icky, more awkward, less clean. In Silent Hill, the main locations include a darkly haunted hospital, a hotel and a historical society, all of which have emotional significance to the protagonist, while in inception we have a hotel, and a winter fortress, what do those symbolize? What deeper meaning do those have, they are just locations for an action scene, their isn’t any emotional connection there. Inception is just too clean, not gritty enough, the dreams are strangely logical and orderly, like the character it doesn’t have any spirit, just acts as a set up for the plot, while Silent Hill is instead is focused more upon the feeling of being totally alone, in an world that seems both out to get you and yet strangely neglecting you. Even for people who haven’t suffered lost their wife, it strikes home because its really about something we all understand, isolation, being misunderstood, and trapped, without any comfort to turn to. Now maybe this is because I have a crippling fear of isolation and abandonment, but honestly Inception didn’t touch anything about me, it was just me sitting watching a film.

Even comparing this scene to the Matrix, the matrix actually has more emotional resonance, despite being a somewhat overrated film. Firstly, we see the real world before the film starts, we get to see Nero’s life as an office drone and therefore sympathize with him before the film really sets in. Secondly, we have something to attach ourselves too. While Reeves is somewhat dull, Lawrence Fishburne is a great actor, and so we care about him when he gets kidnapped. Hugo Weaving is a great actor, but he isn’t just a robot like the other agents, his has some personality, some personal hostility towards the characters. This makes his confrontation with Nero more important, it has more feeling too it. Even with the fight scenes, the fight scenes in the Matrix are about the characters, Nero running away from the agents from building to building is all about the hostile environment and a thoroughly fruitless attempt to escape from the world itself, the fight in the lobby shows Nero’s acceptance of his own powers. The fight scenes in Inceptions are just…guys with guns shooting at other guys with guns, there is a time tension, but because I don’t care if these characters live or die, its somewhat undermined. For that matter, why are dream security inept special agents? Wouldn’t it be much better to have something more supernatural, you know, the actual environment shifting to try to harm the characters opposed to something so mundane as secret agents? Really, can’t do anything better there?

Inception isn’t bad, it has a lot of thought into it, and if your use to watching nothing but mainstream films this must seem like the a Warner Herzog film in terms of quality, but that’s its only real strong point is that it stands out from mainstream films. If you are comparing this to “The Dark Knight” and “Avatar”, then yeah Inception looks really good, unlike Avatar it doesn’t feel like it was made by a soulless team of businessmen hoping to make as much money as possible, but it also feels very amateurish, lacking in real depth or complexity. I mean, as a RPG player, I noticed that PLanescape and White Wolf, even D&D handled dreaming with far more subtly and consistency than this, to the point where I feel like Inception might have ripped it off. Its really just a nifty idea without anything behind it, and while it deserves praise for trying something new, it lacks resonance or really anything to justify being three bloody hours long.

From

EE

DownFall: The Last Days of the Nazi Regime

Hitler......your just a loser

For obvious reasons, the idea of a movie about Adolf Hitler made in Germany is bound to send of warning bells to anybody hearing about the idea, particularly in Germany proper. For the last 50 years, Germany has been trying to make sure that everybody understands that the Nazis were a bunch of evil, ruthless, psychotics and that that was a dark part of their history where they were utterly in the wrong and are trying to move on, unlike some people I could mention (Japan, Russia, Serbia, I’m looking at you). Now, Germany’s attempts to prevent neo-nazism are producing mixed results, but they are certainly trying their best to make sure everybody remembers the Nazis as what they were, genocidal despots. Now, coming from a family of history buffs and having a German Aunt, I’ve read a lot about the Nazis and what they did, how they worked and who they were. So I know that the Nazis not were a bunch of demons who ate babies for breakfast, and were in fact human beings, with families, loved ones and hobbies (Heinrich Himler was apparently a family man), which makes them all the more horrifying for killing millions of people out of some mad mans racist delusions. So I tend to like it when films show the Nazis as people instead of as just mindless villains to be gunned down, as it forces the audience to come to terms with how vile human beings can be. There is a very good reason why Hitler is rarely actually played by an actor in serious films, because people are afraid of making Hitler look either too sympathetic or too cool. Actors can really change how a historical character is viewed, famous anti-Semite (fitting I suppose) Mel Gibson pretty much defines how everybody pictures Scottish revolutionary William Wallace, as a brave hero fighting for freedom, independence, but another actor could easily have shown him as a brutal murdering psychotic who is justly put down by the British, while another could show him as a complex and morally grey figure who does horrible things, but is trying to free his people (the most accurate portrayal I think).
'Downfall' takes place in Berlin as the Soviets are entering and tells the story of the last days of Hitler's he commits suicide. An actor could show Hitler as some sort of brave revolutionary who is fighting against the evil communists for the sake of a greater Germany, which could have some appeal as the Soviets were infamously cruel during their invasion of Germany. In the world of Hollywood, any evil horrible historical figure can still come off as cool as long as their crimes aren't seen on screen, so it isn't a stretch to have Hitler seem like a strong dictator determined to die with his people rather than a delusional despot who destroyed the lives of millions of people, and his own country. It is sort of a custom in Germany to not have an actor play Hitler, but instead show actual film footage of the guy, thus preventing actors from subtly changing the perception of the man. So again, I was kinda worried that an actual actor would be playing Hitler, and showing a more human portrayal, which is much more accurate than the cartoonish evil version of the man we sometimes see (Inglorious Bastards I'm looking at you) but I was afraid of the image of the grandfatherly Fuhrer might catch on unintentionally, making him like the Godfather.

Luckily for everybody, that didn’t happen, the film is awesome.
The film follows Hitler’s personal secretary Traudl Junge, in the last days in the Bunker and right after during all of the insanity. I have to say, it was really interesting when, after all I read about Hitler and how he was a human being, a great public speaker, and all of his more human elements, and yet in the first scene when he came through the door, I simply had a feeling of just vile. Like I had been over come with something that made me sick, just disgusted in seeing the man come to life. And the depiction of him is actually really impressive. Bruno Ganz plays Adolf Hitler, and does a very good job of displaying both the human side of Hitler, the devilish charisma that made men follow him, but makes no effort to try to justify his actions or hide the fact that the man is clearly insane. One of the dangers of showing Hitler during his last days is, at that point the worst of the Nazi atrocities have already ended. The film can’t show the Death Camps, or the ghettos or the massacres, at this point they are victims of the Soviet brutality, and so the Nazis look more sympathetic, as they are fighting, admittedly heroically against the huge army of Soviets, who were a ruthless and brutal enemy in their own right, through still below the Nazis. But Ganz does a great job of showing how nuts Hitler is, and reminding the audience that despite how we might sympathize with these trapped and desperate men, Hitler is still a ruthless sociopath. Again and again we see him ordering his men to their death, murdering men for disobeying orders, even when those orders are insane (charging superior foes for example), killing German civilians in order to make sure Germany goes down with the Nazis, and demanding that Germany fights to the death, happy that he will ruin the country. Gantz also gets the infamous voice and Austrian accent right, chillingly so, to the point where the characters temper tantrums can make a viewer jump. And, even through they show the human side of Hitler, I think it is far more effective in hurting Neo Nazi causes than making him into some sort of evil messiah, a sort of Voldemort super man of evil who is brought down by the powers of good, but instead he comes off as a man, a broken leader whose disoriented and bipolar strategies only squanders Germany’s strength. Because he is a man, you despise and hate him, but also pity him, because quite frankly, he is a pathetic, a lonely, deeply disturbed individual who can’t be happy with anything, and loves nothing. It ruins the mystique of him being some sort of super villain, which would make him almost cool in the way a really dangerous story book villain is kinda cool. By demonstrating Hitler’s real nature, as a mad man who can’t handle his job (commanding units that only exist in his head, refusing any sort of negotiation, not allowing civilian retreat) Hitler loses his ability to be impressive, and just becomes a weak, pathetic, broken old man.

The portrayal the entire Nazi regime was really good. In the Bunker, a sort of microcosm for the entire nation, you see men like Goering and Himiler who are already abandoning their master for the chance to salvage something from the wreckage , you see some like the bald Doctor who are trying to help the civilians as much as possible and get sick with the regime, and then the Air Marshal guy who are loyal to Hitler but not to the cause. And then you have Speer, who is loyal to the man, but don’t obey his orders, and finally Goebbels (and family) who follows him to the bitter end, eventually committing suicide after Hitler's death. The movie is, to say the least, a little hard to take in one sitting. When it comes to historical films, I don’t mind spoiling the ending, but the entire experience of watching the Nazis' confused and chaotic scramble in the regime’s death throes has some really emotional scenes, such as when Frau Goebbels making her self the second most hated character next to Hitler when she poisons her six children because “A world without National Socialism is not worth living in”, not to mention the scene where various Nazi members shoot themselves. There is one scene where an officer is trying to get some men to assist him, and one of them says “I’m sorry sir, I can’t” before eating his own gun. Or the scene where one general, not allowed to retreat from Berlin, and knowing the Russians are coming, blows himself up while he is eating dinner with his family. Not to mention the panicked and paranoid shooting of “deserters”, throughout the film. The movie is makes the point that the Nazi inner circle was a nut house, And in real life, the Nazi party was a chaotic, ineffective, disorganized den of madness and infighting, with blind loyalty being contrasted with unimaginative back biting, with a total lack of compassion for other human beings. In general, it is a great way of showing the dysfunctional and chaotic nature of Nazi regime and those within it.

Just general notes about the film, I like how they showed the details of the Nazi party. From the really complicated inner politics, to the fanatical loyalty, to the infighting, it really felt like you were looking into the heart of darkness, into this bizarre and alien world, where the protagonist is trapped. Just a general side note, I loved the uniforms. And I don’t just mean the costumes, cause those were based after the real ones, but the actual uniforms. I’m not a Nazi sympathizer in any sense of the word, but, evil as they are, the Nazis uniforms are cool. I mean, even in all the chaos, you can’t help but noticed how awesome the guys look walking around in these fancy outfits with those large boots clicking everywhere, even the SS with those absurdly cliché skull and crossbones look pretty epic with there intimidating outfits. I mean, it helps you understand the appeal of the military complex in Germany, because pretty much anybody can look badass in one of those uniform, especially when they are contrasted with the ill-fitting and awkward looking appeal of the Soviets. Through it does help me appreciate our own military (US), for how utilitarian our suits are, its kinda avoiding that sort of romanticized militarism.

Also, there is pretty much no background music in this film, which is really good. If there was music added to this film, the Battle of Berlin would seem dramatic, a heroic last stand against the Soviet menace against the brave and fearless Germans, who are determined to not go quietly into that good night. You could have Hitler’s body being burned with a sense of glory and accomplishment, you could have Goebbels suicide being tragic and remorseful, you could have the coming of the Soviets seem like the approach of some sort of evil army (which you could argue they were, the Soviets were horrible, but far less worst than the Nazis). The movie would be what the Nazi’s wanted their final days to be remembered as, a sort of Spartan like last stand against the Asian hoards, despite all dying in the end in a Wanger like sacrifice, a bit like 300, and by that I mean that film is something that would come out of the Nazi film industry (Frank Riefenstahl Miller) . Instead through, the lack of back ground music maeks the last days seem not herotic, but pathetic. The burning of Hitler’s body doesn’t seem like a dramatic Wagner Viking style ending for a great hero, but simply a body being dumped in a whole and having brainwashed men burn it before being driven away by gun fire. The meetings with Hitler doesn’t feel like a frustrated man who is being forced to have his people fight to the last, but instead an uncomfortable talk with a maniac who is running everything. The scene feels more human, more real, and helps the audience sympathize with the protagonist as she is trapped in a world that she only just realizes has been crazy from the start, and wants to get out…but doesn’t know how. The Nazi’s last days, like Hitler himself, seem a pathetic and impotent force that is only waiting for a stronger power to finish it off.

The film in my mind has two faults. First off, they don’t introduce many characters. I recognized a lot of the more famous ones, but a lot of minor characters are hard to keep track of, and as they don’t’ all look like their historical counterparts, it’s a little hard. The real Goebbels for example, was very short and had a limp, while this one walks fine and is very towering. And finally, the only major historical inaccuracy, is that the film doesn’t show the brutalities of Soviets. Now I know that wether Traudl Junge escaped or was captured and raped is disputed, but the Soviets were brutal in their conquest of Germany, as Germany was brutal in their invasion of Russia. Mass rapes, torture, massacre of innocent German civilians, the Soviets were horrible. If it wasn’t for the far worst crimes of the Germans and Japanese, the Soviets would seem like the most inhuman monsters in the war (but seriously, how do you compare with Death Camps and Nanking). Now I am not denying that the Nazi were even worst to the Russians when they invaded the Soviet Union, but as it is, that doesn’t justify the Soviet brutalities (or the American ones for that matter, though ours are mostly against the Japanese), and as it is, the nature of the Allies brutalities are kept in the dark. I mean, the Axis were the most evil force produced by human nature, but I think its wrong to paint the conflict as black and white, it was more grey vs. black, as the allies did horrible things, and which should be noted. Denying it, just makes us abject hypocrites. That being said, I understand why this film didn’t do it, because by showing the Soviet atrocities, it makes the Germans seem more justified and heroic, and the film would want to avoid that. But in the end, this movie is a chilling and fascinating look into the Nazis when all of there delusions of grandeur were stripped away.

From

EE