It's funny, as has been discussed many other times in many other places, Hollywood has weird ideas about how certain things work. Electronics and technology are simultaneouslymore complex and more simple than they are in real life and guns might as well be in an alternate universe, among other things. Therefore I thought it was interesting that the first article I read about Inception (which unfortunately I don't have the link for) was talking about Inception's complexity.
Yes, although I apparently missed it while in Austria, apparently the "complexity" of Inception was a big marketing point, in that it was supposed to be unlike other Hollywood films and challenge you to think (I'm looking at you, every summer blockbuster ever). However, the article I read took the position that the American audience is actually smarter than Hollywood would like to believe, as evidenced by the number of "slow burn" complex movies that were only moderate successes at the box office but grew in popularity as time went on (I believe the Shawshank Redemption was one example). Article-man hoped Inception would do well, thus encouraging more complex movies, and hoped also that Inception actually would be complex.
Well, the first part seems to be true. And the second... maybe?
I liked Inception a lot. I enjoyed the film, it had good pacing and excellent cinematography. The actors all did their parts well, and taken aside from any expectations, I don't think I really had a single problem with the movie (aside from a car tumbling over a hill not counting as a "fall"). However, there was one point, and one point only, where I was at all confused by the movie. And that was during the first five minutes, and that was because I couldn't understand Ken Watanabe's Asian accent.
I read this post earlier today, and I agree, I can think of a handful of movies off the top of my head that confused me a lot more than this film did. Primer and Donnie Darko are my favorite two from the list, since the former I still don't understand and the latter I almost understood but it wasn't until I did some internet research that I got it all the way through, and once I did it was very satisifying. Both may be better films overall, since neither relies on fancy cinematics at all. Not that cinematics make a bad film, but I suspect that a movie like Avatar, though while enjoyable, doesn't have staying power, much like video game graphics are only important for a couple years till they're eventually outdated.
Of course, this is only my opinion, and if my Facebook feed is any indication, a lot of my friends loved it and though it was "mindblowing" or other similar adjectives. Am I in a minority who understood the film without any help at all? I mean, someone took the trouble to make this chart, but I feel like it's completely unnecessary, and want to ask "were you actually watching the movie and paying attention?" I even wish they hadn't done so much exposition in the beginning and made me work a bit more to understand what was going on. They set up something intriguing that I didn't quite understand, then spent a half hour explaining every last detail extremely clearly to Ellen Page.
In conclusion, I suppose it's good it was so popular. Perhaps more films like it will be created, and maybe some of them won't guide the viewer along every little step. And it's not that I don't Inception: as stated, I enjoyed the film a whole lot. But if that's what Hollywood thinks "complex" means, I'm more than a little disappointed.
-HTMC
I really enjoyed Inception, and I agree with you that it wasn't extremely complex, per se. It wasn't Memento complex (tricky, but understandable), nor was it Primer complex (I still have no f*cking clue what happened in Primer, after multiple viewings), and it certainly wasn't End of Evangelion complex (What is this I don't even...)
ReplyDeleteHowever, I actually really appreciated that it managed to be thought provoking without excessive layers of complexity. I was expecting much more of a mind-screw as they delved deeper and deeper into their own (and each other's) psyches, but, although we did learn more and more about the characters, it never tried to be incomprehensible.
[Aside: This might warrant some discussion of the difference between complexity and incomprehensibility - and whether or not (or to what degree) the two are actually distinguishable. Also, to what degree are these two things separable from intellectualism? I may write a blog post about this in the future.]
In any case, I agree with your assessment that Inception was 'Hollywood Complex,' but I'm not sure this actually detracted from its quality as a film. It may have failed to confuse me, but it did make me think quite a bit. As an exploration of characters in an environment of their own making, it was a really good piece.
Ya, as I said, I really enjoyed the film as well and I also don't think the lack of complexity detracted at all. Rather what I'm worried about is that Hollywood will believe this is that we as an audience can't handle anything more complex. Inception did take a cool idea and explore it well, but I would have been interested to see if they'd cut down on the exposition a bit and done more exploration in the dream world, and let the events that happened there do what the exposition did. More moments where instead of Leonardo talking to Ellen Page we get things like a train running through a busy street.
ReplyDeleteThe complexity vs. incomprehensibility question is a good one. I would say Primer leans towards the latter while Donnie Darko is definitely the former. I doubt many directors, if any, aim for incomprehensibility, but rather have ideas that don't quite come across in the film. For instance, I know that when Kingdom of Heaven came out it got universally poor reviews, but the Director's Cut was amazing, and the difference wasn't between the ideas behind the film, but rather the editing process. Another famous example is Blade Runner, where the theatrical release has a whole different message and is overall less complex than the Director's Cut.
I'm actually not sure whether Primer was truly incomprehensible, or just obscenely compolex. I guess my definition for one or the other would be that if something is 'complex,' you *can* reasonably untangle the events that occurred without having to make huge interpretive jumps. 'Incomprehensible,' on the other hand, would consist almost entirely of these jumps.
ReplyDeleteNote that I'm not really passing down value judgements where. I don't really see 'complexity' or 'incomprehsibility' as good or bad things in and of themselves.
As to Hollywood thinking Inception is 'complicated' - by Hollywood standards, I'd say it is. So I wouldn't worry *too* much about a distopia where Hollywood dumbs everything down because 'it' doesn't think the masses want or can handle difficult works. We're already there.