As a number of people have pointed by asking, my review of Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” doesn’t offer much perspective on the performances in the film. The reason is probably a combination of a few things.
For starters, I wanted to be as careful as possible to write a spoiler-free review that could be enjoyed by those who haven’t seen the film, and whenever I would find myself considering this or that performance, I felt detailed commentary on plot seeping in. So I pulled back. But more importantly, and this is no swipe at the talent on screen, the real star of the film is Nolan and his imagination.
That sounds like a cop out, but it’s not. I really and truly didn’t get a whole lot out of the performances. My favorite is perhaps the least emotional turn of the piece, a steely, confident, at times physically demanding piece of work from an actor I admit rarely does it for me: Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He lays claim to the character you’d probably trust sooner than the rest if you found yourself in these mind-bending circumstances and does it without histrionic swagger. I dug that.
Leonardo DiCaprio is as good as he needs to be in the lead, but despite my recent toast to his ambition, I’ve always considered him an actor whose inflections and mannerisms announce him as “acting,” and those peculiarities rise up plenty in “Inception.” But the thing about a DiCaprio performance, for me, is that criticisms of how he executes his craft rarely — if ever — get in the way of the ride he provides as a charismatic performer.
Marion Cotillard is a favorite in a few of the reviews I’ve read. This is an instance where it’s difficult to talk about her work without dipping into spoilers, so let me tread lightly. Cotillard has a tenderness about her that is always slightly heartbreaking. I can’t quite describe it, but she knows how to play frailty as an emotion and balance it expertly with strength and even defiance in an effective way. All of that is on display here.
Ellen Page seems a bit out of place, I have to admit. The student thing works to a point but once she becomes quite involved with the emotional struggle of DiCaprio’s character, she begins to register as a plot device and exposition pawn. That’s less the performance’s fault than the writing, but even still, I thought Page failed to give her character much personality.
Tom Hardy is a wonderful supporting player here and Nolan gets a lot of bang for his buck in casting the “Bronson” star. He’s going places and we all know it but his work here will remind unfamiliar audiences of something like Daniel Craig’s early work in “Road to Perdition”: a new actor with charisma to spare and an attractive self-assurance.
Ken Watanabe has a focus here that has become a trademark, while Cillian Murphy is serviceable as a man having the wool pulled over his eyes.
And finally, Dileep Rao and Tom Berenger have brief, perfectly fine performances to give. It’s nice to see the latter in a big production, much like it was wonderful to see Eric Roberts sounding off in “The Dark Knight.” Michael Caine’s role is so small it honestly doesn’t need mentioning, but it’s a nice little cameo and Caine knows how to act. So, there.
And that’s where I come down on the acting in “Inception.” None of it distracts, but none if it ultimately plays into what I believe to be the wizardry and at times expert execution of the piece. Hopefully that clears up everyone’s questions. Along with the review and extended thoughts on Oscar prospects, I think I’ve probably said all I have to say on “Inception” for the time being.
And truth be told, I don’t think anyone could nail this film down after one viewing. I’ll be saddling up to another tomorrow night and hope to pierce the mystery further. Perhaps the performances will register more profoundly on a second glance.
Comments
101 responses to “On the performances of ‘Inception’”
@Starr Nolan is certainly an interesting director but I wouldn’t place him in the Top 20 directors woking today.
All this Nolan talk made me realize I hadn’t seen Insomnia. So I just finished watching it. It was nice seeing a Nolan film that was pretty straightforward for a change. I enjoyed it.
If I had to rank his films, I’d go:
1) TDK
2) Memento
3) Batman Begins
4) The Prestige
5) Insomnia
I still haven’t seen “Following” so I’ll have to correct that. My reasons for why TDK tops it for me may sound corny, but they are true to my heart. TDK is the movie that made me fall in love with movies. After being utterly blown away by that movie, an experience I hadn’t ever felt in a movie theater in my lifetime, I knew that my experience couldn’t end just as I walked out the door. I inhaled everything there was to know about the movie. I so desperately wanted to know if others felt the same way about me. I learned for the first time about things that we all take for granted now: Rotten Tomatoes scores, Oscar blogs, precursors. I sat down and watched amazing movies I’d never seen before: One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, A Cry in the Dark, Hotel Rwanda, 2001. I rewatched old favorites with an incredibly new and exciting perspective: Alice in Wonderland, Willy Wonka.
Sorry, I think I got carried away. Anyway, I know all of this has nothing to do with the qualities and merits of TDK, but, for me, it was just so much more. Kris wrote up an article once about a similar experience he had with a particular movie growin up, and I can’t for the life of me remember what it was. But I knew where he was coming from.
Now I feel really silly for posting this, but, hey, the Internet ain’t running out of room soon…
@KT – The Dark Knight is a better film than Inception, in my estimation.
If this is true then it will be a big disappointment because I didn’t find anything special about TDK……
I agree with the general chorus here that the first hour of Begins is terrific stuff and really, I don’t even mind the MacGuffin in the climax.
But man, there’s one other thing that The Dark Knight has over BB, and that is…less cringe inducing extra-line readings.
Sure, nothing is quite on the level of awfulness as Spider-man’s “I kid you not” guy…but phew..that kid in the narrows, “I see Harrassment!!”, “nice coat”, “time to play”…only the kind of stuff that would come out of a David Goyer script. I’m sure there’s probably something I’m forgetting too…
red_wine: Promise I’m not trying to pick a fight, but who would you list in your top 5 or 10 directors working today? I’m genuinely curious…I hope PTA is in there at least if Nolan can’t be, and if you say Burton or Cameron, I got a knuckle-sandwich for ya ;-)
Hans
eh, Following is definitely a “first-film”…it’s okay…I got it on the cheap at a Blockbuster going out of business sale, it ain’t Taxi Driver or anything.
Thanks, Kyle, I figured as much from the synopsis or whatever that I read. Nothing really popped out at me and I’ll probbly just watch it for completeness’ sake (in the same manner that Shyamalan fns watch that random movie he did with Rosie O’Donnell I guess?)
Following is underrated. It has a ton of atmosphere just like all of Nolan’s films and an unconventional plot structure that foreshadows his work in Memento and The Prestige. The only weak aspect of it is the acting, but that’s because there is only one professional actor in it (Nolan’s uncle, who plays a small part). The rest of them were just friends and other relatives with little acting experience.
Nolan said they shot the film literally for the cost of the film stock ($6,000) because they had no budget to pay anyone. He used his parents’ and friends’ homes in London to shoot it. The writing is excellent and Nolan is a damn good cinematographer in his own right, although he did upgrade when he got Wally Pfister for Memento. haha
@Kyle The absolutely unchallenged best director working today according to me is Haneke. He is literally miles ahead of his contemporaries.
Others that I like are Weerasethakul, Assayas, Leigh, Kar-Wai, Lynch, Desplechin, PTA, Almodovar, Stanton, von Trier, Reichardt, Bird, Audiard, Denis, Haynes, Van Sant, Joon-ho Bong & Eastwood.
There are some others whose work I would like to sample more before I put them on the list of best working today namely Bigelow, Mungiu, Porumboiu, Greengrass, Sokurov, Arnold and some others.
the thing that i love about TDK is that you can take it at face value as an action/crime drama, but you can also dig deeper and find some really interesting shit going on. i’m a lifelong batman fan and i’ve always been fascinated with the joker and TDK has, IMO, the best interpretation of him ever.
for a movie that is supposedly heavy on exposition, there’s a lot that people miss and they miss it because the movie doesn’t spell it out for them. (and btw, most of the grand speeches come from dent, but that’s because that’s who dent is–a politician and a hardcore idealist.) for example, everyone complains about the ferry sequence, but few are aware that it’s based on real experiments on game theory. john nash used to think the exact same thing that the joker does about humanity: that we’re not moral agents, but base animals who will fuck each other over to save our own asses/get ahead. so nash invented variations on the prisoner’s dilemma, where two people would be in a scenario where they would have to decide to cooperate with each other or defect. nash posited that defection was the only *logical* response in a situation where you could a., save your own ass and b. profit at the other person’s expense. in other words, altruism is a myth. this is what the joker represents and what he continually proves throughout the movie: he’s able to manipulate the other clowns into picking each other off one by one during the bank heist, he’s able to manipulate and trick the mob by appealing to their sense of impotence in the face of batman, he’s even able to get gotham citizens to attempt to kill reese by threatening to blow up a hospital. batman, of course, represents altruism–everything that nash says is fantasy. the thing with john nash, though, is that he’s a genius, but he’s also a paranoid schizophrenic. it isn’t so easy to dismiss what he says because people *do* fuck each other over all the time to get ahead. and TDK doesn’t refute the joker or dismiss what he says, which would’ve been the easiest thing in the world to do. in fact, at the end of the movie, batman and gordon have to collude to deceive gotham and why? because “the joker was right.” now, how many movies do THAT? batman can’t admit it, but the fact that he has to cover up what dent did speaks much louder than words.
batman may be a valid response to a corrupt society, but validating batman doesn’t invalidate the joker and that’s one of the many things i love about TDK.
Very nice, Aaron G.
Interesting stuff, Aaron. What happened with the experiments? Did the people do what Nash expected or did they actually cooperate with each other?
How can David Lynch be on a list of best directors working today? He doesn’t even work.
But I agree I don’t think I would put Nolan in my top 15-20 either.
I think that may be one of the most intelligently written comments I’ve seen on a comment-driven website, Aaron. Fascinating.
That’s great stuff, Aaron.
Nolan is without question one of best directors working, but perhaps the more important observation is that he is the most important studio director at a time when studios are dictating content. They trust him enough to allow him to write, direct, and shape his story at a time when Scorsese’s Shutter Island is being pushed back because the studio lacked confidence in its award potential.
For me, “Batman Begins” was a respectable movie, but too insular to dazzle as a blockbuster. I’m not saying it was ONLY a blockbuster; obviously it had things working underneath it. But as a thought-provoking summer movie, it got only have of that phrase right. Simply put, I didn’t find the film as exciting as others did.
“The Dark Knight” was leagues superior, not only because it dealt with headier themes, but because it dazzled where the first film didn’t: in grandiose, spectacular action sequences. That, and Heath Ledger’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever seen. It was basically a perfect film, in my estimation, and I rarely say that.
Good list red_wine, not familiar with everyone on it
Though I’ve been fortunate enough to see most of the works of Bird, Lynch (when he puts out something), Stanton, Almodovar, Hanneke, Von Trier, and Van Sant. Amazing stuff for the most part, though I found Last Days to be particularly dull…there was probably something there to enjoy that I missed in my one viewing of it.
20 years ago, I might be able to give you Eastwood, but now…ehh….he’s very Ron Howard-middle of the road it feels like.
Mark Katrina –
Being recognized as the driving force in a billion dollar franchise will do that for you.
That’s the difference (as far as the studios go) between him and say…the directors of Twilight or Michael Bay.
@ Kyle:
……. which is why any discussion on Nolan not being amongst the best and most important directors working is silly.
By the way, interesting how a polite discussion on Inception’s performances turns into a referendum on the merits of Nolan’s Batman films. : )
@mark kratina: i agreed with you!! it’s very strange!
Mark-
point taken and agreed with.
I hear what Aaron says. No one ever said Nolan was dealing with intelligent and interesting themes in TDK. My problem with the third act is not the themes being covered but the manner in how they are presented. The film making was simply not as compelling as the first 2/3.
I meant wasn’t** dealing with obviously.
Oh man I’ve felt that way about Leo for a long time now. His performances rarely feel organic and I feel as though his performance in Shutter Island works, because the character is designed around a style of performance he can do with his eyes closed. It always comes across as acting with Leo. I was hopeful that this would change that, but not TOO hopeful.
I knew JGL and Hardy would steal the show. JGL has made some fantastic acting decisions in the last 6 years and Hardy is on the rise. Both are extremely charismatic fellows.
I’m quite shocked by the Ellen Page thing though I have to admit. I always enjoy the tiny Canadian, but your point does make a little sense considering that’s what Nolan designed her character for.
As great a Director Nolan is, he still hasn’t quite perfected the art of character design. His best character film and (overall to me, though I haven’t seen INCEPTION yet) is Memento. Great plot, but it’s not so focused on that as much as it is the character of Lenard and Guy Pearce was phenomenal.
Great write up as well!
Matthew Starr –
I have problems with the third act as well of TDK, mainly the plotholes though, just because I’m one of those guys that likes to have things spelled out for me I guess.
How many cops died exactly?…that sort of thing…I could have gone for about 20 more minutes of movie.
This movie will be epic
There’s been a lot of discussion on whether Batman Begins or The Dark Knight is better.
Speaking as someone who more or less despises superhero / comic book adaptation films, I have to rank TDK better simply because it feels more like an action-adventure crime thriller that just happens to have Batman and the Joker, whereas BB feels like a superhero movie that takes itself a little too seriously.
That’s certainly not intended to be an opinion that sways anyone else’s reaction, but BB is nearly unwatchable for me at this point because I frankly don’t actually care about the Batcave, or Wayne Manor, or the trite family background about Bruce’s parents, or any of the other superhero-isms that have their parallels in Spiderman, Superman, Xmen, etc.
TDK almost feels more like “Witness” or “The Silence of the Lambs” than a comic book adaptation, which ranks it way, way higher in my book.
Just my two cents.
Also, Maggie Gyllenhaal is infinitely more watchable than Katie Holmes in the role of Rachel Dawes.
@ SJG:
Can’t blame you for disliking superhero flicks and their many cliches.
However, to say “or any of the other super-hero isms that have their parallels in Spiderman, Superman, X-Men, etc.” is to miss the very reason Batman is so unique and popular.
There is nothing “super” or “alien” about Batman. He is just a guy who is wealthy, disturbed, and determined. Or, as Nolan put it, “makes himself extraordinary through force of will.”
In that way, then, I think it is inaccurate to compare the superhero cliches of extra-terrestrials and super beings with that of Batman. This is precisely why his story is different, more human, and more believable.
I loved that Nolan took Batman and his surroundings seriously- it’s what had been missing from previous installments of the character; it’s why the quote, “Superman is the American Dream, Batman is the American Reality’ exists.
Admittedly, though, these are also the same reasons why you probably found BB to take itself too seriously.
While both are good movies I prefer Begins over Dark Knight for two reasons
1. I felt the pacing was much better in Begins with its running time flying by, and there were no wasted scenes. I thought TDK could lose ten minutes or so (particularly some of the stuff with Lau or the fake Batmen) and there were too many plot points in the first half; once we got to the Joker interrogation and the film started to focus on the Batman/Two-Face/Joker triangle it really got going
2. While I appricate how Nolan made the series more realistic, there is still an element of fantasy and being taken to another place which I enjoy in comic book films. I really liked the version of Gotham City presented in Begins and enjoyed seeing classic locations like Arkham and Wayne Manor reintrepreted in the film, as well as newer locations such as the Narrows and the Monorail system. Dark Knight just looked like it was shot on the streets of Chicago and that took some of the visual fun of Begins away IMO.
Has Nolan or anyone on the production design team commented on the radical shift in look for Gotham City between the two films? The first film reminds me quite a bit of Blade Runner in it’s city scape…
As much as I would like to see any of these actors get a nod, Nolan’s film haven’t been very Academy-friendly for acting nominations (w/ the exception of Ledger) even though there are several examples top notch performances.
Jackman & Bale in The Prestige
Pacino in Insomnia
Eckhart in TDK
@ Fitz:
And Gary Oldman.
Sorry, have to disagree with you about DiCaprio. He’s been brillant in “The Departed,” “Blood Diamond” and “Shutter Island.” His acting isn’t the outward intensity of Penn or Day-Lewis, it’s the opposite. The last 40 years, we’ve been treated to the method acting thing, and Leo’s not that. He’s more in the vein of actors from 50 or 60 years ago. A slow, internal intensity. Frankly, I find a lot of “method” actors get a bit annoying after a while and come across as campy. (DeNiro in “Cape Fear.”) I’ll take Mitchem any day over that.
I’ve always felt TDK was a far more flawed film than Begins was, but I never knew this many people felt the same way. Both have their issues, but I prefer Begins for several reasons.
As an origin story, Begins is among the best the superhero genre has to offer. While it still suffers from the same problems that many other origin films have (i.e. the villain as an afterthought), that’s only because the film is Bale’s entirely, and his character development is handled wonderfully.
TDK pretty much throws all character development out the window, period. Bale is sidelined in his own movie, the Joker is labeled immediately as an “agent of chaos”, but he’s never meant to be a complex character. The bulk of the character development in the film is focused on Dent, but it’s written in such away that his transformation just isn’t that believable, precisely because it isn’t given enough time in the script.
Which brings me to my biggest problem with the film: the third act. The first 2/3 of the film to a brilliant job of building chaos and tension in the city, escalating things until we finally think Batman and Gordon have the upper hand, only to learn that the exact opposite is true, leading to not only one of Batman’s biggest failures as a hero, but to one of the most profound personal losses of Wayne’s life. Just when the film finally has the opportunity to bring the narrative focus back on Batman, it makes it’s biggest mistake, focusing instead on Dent, and in the process adding one thing the film clearly never needed: another villain. Dent’s transformation doesn’t work for me for a few reasons:
1. The romance between Harvey and Rachel, which is supposedly the main motivator for Dent’s insanity, was barely given five minutes of screen time in the entire film. It wasn’t a believable relationship in the slightest, and doesn’t work as the impetus for such a complete (and immediate) transformation.
2. The scene where the Joker speaks to Dent in the hospital room is probably my least favorite part of the movie, because if Dent really were insane and blinded by grief, he wouldn’t have given the Joker a chance to speak, let alone allowed himself to be so completely manipulated by him.
3. As good as Eckhart is at playing Dent, he’s just as bad at playing Two-Face.
Not only does the character shift just not work in the first place, it also completely overwhelms the third act of the film. It creates a third act that is far too busy and mutes the presence of the Joker as a villain. Add a few parts that I just plain couldn’t stand (the boats, the sonar thing, which could probably be considered a deus ex machine), and then it just comes to a screeching halt, without a satisfying conclusion to either of the villains character arcs. Begins has its own problems, but to me has always felt like the more complete of the two, with none of its flaws being as glaring as those in TDK.
Jane: You’ve named the only three exceptions to the point I make about Leo (in my humble opinion). He is, indeed, fantastic in each.
Kris: I’ll add some of his younger films too, “Gilbert Grape” (people thought he was retarded after seeing that one), “This Boy’s Life” “Basketball Diaries” (although the film sucked) and “Marvin’s Room.” I loved him also in “Catch Me If You Can.” I don’t understand why people knock Leo so much. Even when he’s not that good (“The Beach”) he’s better than most actors out there.
Kris: Are you saying Leo sucks in his other performances (aside from these three) or does just good enough?
I don’t know. I always though Laurence Olivier looked like he was “acting.” Same with Jodie Foster and Sean Penn.
Jane: You’re grossly reducing my comment to an extreme viewpoint. I’m saying those are the performances that most showed a knack for becoming the character.
And I’m not “knocking Leo,” so don’t get defensive. I’m offering an opinion on why I think his performances tend to keep me from fully investing.
Anyway, wanted to note that, after a second viewing, each performance takes a firmer hold (save for, I’m sorry to say, Ms. Page). And even though none is a stand-out sort of performance, I do think the ensemble works so well and organically as a whole that it ought to be considered the best of the year…so far.
Go figure.
Geez, Kris, with every post of yours I get jealouser and jealouser. Next weekend cannot come fast enough.
In other news, Predators seems to be decent reviews. The trailer caught me, so perhaps it’s worth a checking out? Not for Oscar, of course.
@Aaron G, that’s just to much speculation about a comic book based movie….but to each their own I guess.
I share Kris’s thoughts on DiCaprio’s acting, but he does look good here, more subtle. Im in the minority that didnt really like his performance in Shutter Island, but I think he will deliver just fine in this one
I think we’re all waiting for Leo to a) do a comedy, and b) seem completely, utterly relaxed in a role. He is intense. And he is very “actory”. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t.
For me, one of his better performances was in ‘Blood Diamond’ because he had the intensity, he did very well with the accent, and I bought all his calmer, cheekier scenes with Connelly. I thought the performance was one of his more multi-faceted ones.
I agree whole heartedly with you JJ. He needs to shake things up. He plays everything too safe and I originally figured INCEPTION would be a nice departure, but the character isn’t too far away from the stuff he normally does. I think the Academy has legitimately developed a little fatigue with the DiCaprio performance. Hence why he hasn’t won. I’m sure he’ll get one eventually, he’s gonna suffer it seems just like his favorite director had to.
Why do people act like DiCaprio is overdue for an Oscar? He isn’t. He’s had 3 Oscar nominations while actors of equal or greater talent much older than him have none. He’s gotten more than his due in terms of award recognition.
Jenn, I love DiCaprio mostly. I’m not convinced he’s had the absolute iconic role that would win him any oscars, but I don’t actually care about those things anymore. I just think he’s a great all ’round actor. If he seems mannered to some people, that’s their problem in my book. Everyone has their faves and you can’t argue with that. I thought he was brilliant in Shutter Island and that his last bit of physical acting in that — just getting up and walking away — was extraordinary. It’s a small thing to most people, but it really registered and seemed absolutely natural and subtly remarkable, a statement of sorts for the character. Everytime I see him in a film and then rewatch his performances, I’m more impressed, especially now that he’s getting older. That other actors who work with him often mention how generous he is, is a sign of a consummate actor. If you resent that he’s gotten more than his due of awards recognition, that’s your problem, not his. I just hope he gets to do something lighter in the near future. I don’t doubt that will bring out the praise like gangbusters. Kind of like Johnny Depp in the first Pirates movie, even though I wasn’t as appreciative of that as some.
I’m not sure how DiCaprio plays things too safe when he practically has an entire movie on his shoulders, as in Shutter Island or Inception. The other actors with smaller roles aren’t ever going to stand out that much if they really fail — so in a sense they can relax and just do their thing — if they stand out nicely, they ultimately get credit and things said about them — like they stole the show, etc. Ultimately it’s the star who gets the real blame if he or the show doesn’t succeed, though.
Jenn: When people like Sandra Bullock win Oscars and Hilary Swank has two, then DiCaprio is overdue for an Oscar.
Murphy and Hardy were best in show for me.
For me it was Murphy and Cotillard. And I am completely in the camp that the latter deserves an Oscar nomination for her haunting work (I caught shades of Cameron Diaz in “Vanilla Sky” which is never a bad thing).