Daily Archives: Monday, November 9, 2015

  • Inception

    Christopher Nolan (2010)

    Inception is a mind-altering cinematic experience which gets you asking questions about the reality of your existence.  I kept wondering how I could be devoting 148 minutes of what’s left of my life to watching it.   My feelings about the film don’t approach dislike or hostility because the experience of watching it is mostly stupefying:  the point came when I was thinking, as I tried to find something to think about, that my idea of loving cinema was only a dream.    Of course I didn’t understand a lot of what was going on although, after reading the plot synopsis in Sight and Sound when I got home, I don’t see that I missed much.   Because everything is so monotonously unreal, Inception is weightless:  in spite of the crunching power of the digital sound, often used to score moments of lethal mayhem, I found the violence inoffensive.  And however dire or threatening the outlook got, I was never fearful of what might happen – even when Marion Cotillard, high up in a skyscraper, prepared to throw herself from a window ledge – because anything that happened would bring Inception closer to its end.

    What I’ll remember more than the picture was the interview with Leonardo DiCaprio in the ‘On the red carpet’ commercial that’s currently a standard item on the Odeon’s menu of adverts.   Asked if he was excited by the script for Inception when it was offered to him, DiCaprio says (something like):

    ‘Yeah … when I saw Chris Nolan’s script – when I saw he wanted to do something spectacular and cerebral and existential, and about travelling to four levels of the sub-conscious, I thought I wanna be a part of that …’

    You have to hand it to DiCaprio – he’s good at remembering his lines.  What’s so  dispiriting about Inception is that many people will come out of the cinema not only having been entertained (incredible to me, but fair enough) but pleased with themselves that they’ve been communicating with their cerebral, existential etc side.

    Inception is a massive commercial hit and a major critical one – a relief to find David Edelstein and Stephanie Zacharek among the dissenters.    This is because it thinks – and is clearly able to persuade others that – it looks like a masterpiece and talks like one too.  The movie takes itself very seriously indeed:  I’m no expert on the genre but I would bet there’s less playfulness here than in your average technically ground-breaking masterpiece.  Zacharek rightly points out that the film carries a load of script and that it has to because Nolan’s visuals, for all the technical brilliance of their construction and execution (Inception, like Nolan’s The Dark Knight, is photographed by Wally Pfister and edited by Lee Smith), do nothing to impart themes or information.   People keep explaining to each other that X isn’t real but only a projection of Y’s mind and drone on about their respective ‘realities’.   Yet however far or deep into the unconscious the team of dream extractors and/or inceptors go, they always seem to exist (or be represented) in the same world – and this is why Inception is not only numbing but alarming.  The idea that every conceivable type of mental experience might be situated in the realm of expensive, technological, soul-destroying Hollywood film-making is the subject for a horror classic.

    Nolan’s casting of the team of dream-weavers is remarkable.  He’s assembled around Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays someone called Dom Cobb, a group of actors most of whose performances are as dull as the main man’s.  The obvious exception is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who, while occasionally suggesting a cutout of Heath Ledger, has a sly charm that the boringness of his role as Cobb’s sidekick Arthur can’t obscure.  Tom Hardy is Eames (Nolan has a gift for uninteresting surnames):  according to the Wikipedia synopsis, he is ‘a forger who can change his appearance inside dreams’ but Hardy, although at first he has the disquieting substance of a real person, can’t find any variety in his character (which isn’t really the word for what he’s asked to play).  I hoped Ken Watanabe might be a bit more colourful than he is as Cobb’s boss Saito, who wants to protect his business interests by getting the team to plant in the mind of a dying corporate rival’s son and heir (although he never got on with his dad and there’s some stuff about changing wills) the idea of breaking up the father’s empire.  Cillian Murphy plays the inceptee Robert Fischer with such obvious, calculated emotionality that he’s almost (but not quite) fascinating:  he’s certainly utterly unappealing, especially in his reconciliation scene with Fischer père (Pete Postlethwaite, who keeps his dignity in a bedridden cameo).  Tom Berenger, who hasn’t been seen much in recent years, won’t be making a comeback on the strength of his wooden effort as Robert Fischer’s uncle.   Dileep Rao was a scientist in Avatar and a chemist here, which is probably enough said.  Michael Caine takes things easy as Cobb’s father (or father-in-law?):  given what’s going on around him, this is, for a change, a relief.

    As in Shutter Island, Leonardo DiCaprio plays a troubled mind with a guilty secret about his wife and children.   (The latter’s faces are hidden from us until the final scene – for some reason, I kept imagining that, when they turned to the camera, they would both have the faces of Brad Pitt as the geriatric Benjamin Button.  In the event, the beatific grins of the little girl and boy make them spookily unreal – I wasn’t sure if this was intended or not.)    In spite of his formidable seriousness on the red carpet, DiCaprio actually seems relatively relaxed in this role, perhaps because the pressure of being a convincing human being has been removed.  I’ll leave it at that.  I’ve only been doing these notes for a couple of years and I’m already tired not just of watching Leonardo DiCaprio but even of slagging him off.

    There are only two women to speak of:  Cobb’s wife Mal (French for evil – and she’s played by a French actress); and Ariadne, a tyro ‘dream world’ architect – the sci-fi equivalent of her classical Greek namesake.  (Nolan also favours obvious forenames.)    This is the third big, bad picture running in which Marion Cotillard, according to many reviewers, gives the best performance:  I didn’t stay around for enough of Public Enemies to know and it was just about true of Nine but this hat-trick suggests that Cotillard is being damned with faint praise routinely (although that’s a change from too much praise, which she got for La vie en rose).  As Cobb’s doomed wife, who (I think) is supposed to have been made by her husband to deny the reality of their lives together and to think death preferable, Cotillard is certainly more successful than Ellen Page, who, as Ariadne, looks miserable and incredulous, as well she might.   To say her heart isn’t in the lines she’s required to speak is to put it mildly; without the possibility of characterisation, Page seems zombified and, although she’s been given the majority of gags, that is doing her no favours – except for the fact that the gags are so few.

    Christopher Nolan’s approach in The Dark Knight was also short on laughs but the vibrancy of some of the performers – Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal and, especially, Heath Ledger – eluded his grim control:  that doesn’t happen in the monumentally humourless Inception.  People (or, in the case of Wall-E, animated objects) hearing fragments of familiar refrains when they’re feeling a long way from home seems de rigueur in pretentious science fiction and Nolan’s idea of a joke seems to be to choose ‘Je ne regrette rien’ for this slot because he has Edith Piaf in the cast.    Most of the music is provided by Hans Zimmer:  it arrives on cue every time something especially major is about to happen so I suppose its pounding self-importance is appropriate.  Just as The Lovely Bones was a surprise in Peter Jackson’s not giving special effects priority to heaven, so Christopher Nolan is evidently uninterested in making dreams dreamlike.  Dreams may seem essential to this movie but in the end they are functional – the requirements of a structurally ingenious plot.  Nolan was probably shrewd not to try and create oneiric textures and thus fail to emulate the artistry of Wild Strawberries or The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie or Twin Peaks.  In Inception, the widely-held view that dreams are fascinating to the dreamer but dead boring to those on the receiving end of an account of them takes on a whole new meaning.

    3 August 2010

  • Burnt

    John Wells (2015)

    A screenplay by Steven Knight (Locke); Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller again, soon after their success together in American Sniper:  there are good reasons for seeing Burnt – until you see it.  This is the story of a chef, Adam Jones (Cooper) – brilliant, temperamental, thoroughly screwed up.  He was the rising star of a Michelin-starred Paris kitchen until drinks, drugs and a relationship with the daughter of the restaurant’s legendary head chef brought about Adam’s downfall.  Since then, he’s been in weird, self-imposed purdah – working in an oyster bar, where he resolved to shuck one million bivalves.  Job done, Adam moves to London, intent on getting three Michelin stars under his own steam.  He becomes head chef at the Langham Hotel:  Tony (Daniel Brühl), the maître d’hôtel, is an old acquaintance.  Since the Paris cataclysm, Adam has given up alchohol, narcotics and sex but he’s not improved by abstinence, as evidenced by his loco megalomaniac behaviour in the Langham kitchen.

    The received idea of the genius chef is now a man (it must be a man) who demands of himself and his staff nothing less than perfection, a short-fused stickler for kitchen discipline, a borderline tyrant.   The image derives as much from the endless parade of formidable culinary maestros on Masterchef-like TV shows as from fictional screen chefs.  It’s taken hold, though, to the extent that the characterisation of Adam Jones, his rivalry with Reece (Matthews Rhys), another star chef in the London gourmet firmament, and the presentation of their line of work as a virtual blood sport are entirely unsurprising.   Adam’s journey to personal redemption is similarly and dismally predictable.  Burnt is the latest instance of film-makers relying on a tired formula but appearing to assume that, if the protagonist is exceedingly unpleasant and there’s plenty of violently abusive language (and a pinch or two of physical violence), the material will thereby be given new meaning.  All it means, in effect, is that sitting waiting for the formula to be worked out isn’t in the least enjoyable.  (Manglehorn was another recent example.)  People in the Richmond Odeon laughed during Burnt but the laughter sounded like a desperate attempt to prove to themselves they were being entertained.  The laughter had a kind of can-you-believe-this-guy edge at moments when Adam was being especially obnoxious.  You can’t believe this guy:  and viewers’ understandable reluctance to take him seriously exposes the pointlessness of how Adam is presented by John Wells and Steven Knight (whose screenplay is from a story by Michael Kalesniko).   It’s necessary, of course, that Adam discovers, through the love of a good woman, there’s more to life than three Michelin stars but, to be on the feelgood safe side, the film ends up with his getting the girl and the three stars (and they are not because Adam’s cooking improves when he does).

    Bradley Cooper appears to have been persuaded there’s depth to find in the character of Adam:  he spends the film on a morose wild good chase.   (His voice is more sensitive when Adam speaks, as he occasionally does, in French but I wondered if Cooper felt the sensitivity just went with the language.)  As his salvation, the feisty, long-suffering Helene (she’s also a talented chef), Sienna Miller delivers a respectable performance in a poor role.  Ditto Daniel Brühl in a role that’s worse than poor.  (Tony fancies Adam:  his feelings aren’t reciprocated but, late on in the film, the alpha-male protagonist plants a ‘comical’ smacker on Tony’s lips – the punchline to the film’s smirking at his pitiableness.)  Alicia Vikander makes a brief but, thanks to her extraordinary beauty, memorable appearance as Anne Marie, the French restaurateur’s daughter with whom Adam once shared a bed and a drugs habit.  In London, she pays the drugs debts he still owes and thus prevents his getting done over more than once by a couple of heavies.  (It would have been a better joke than any there actually are in the film if this pair hanging round the Langham had turned out to be the Michelin assessors.)  Anne Marie’s father, now dead, has bequeathed his kitchen knives to his former protégé although, when she offers these to Adam, Bradley Cooper looks as if he might use them to slice up something other than food.  Omar Sy is Michel, a former colleague who wants to work again with Adam in spite of the latter’s disgraceful treatment of him in their Paris days.  Michel’s motive turns out to be revenge:  the revelation of how he takes this revenge drew audible gasps from behind me in the Odeon but I wasn’t sure if these were expressions of sarcasm.  It will be clear that John Wells has managed to involve a high-powered international cast.  It also includes Riccardo Scamarcio (in a negligible part), Uma Thurman and Emma Thompson.  I missed Thurman:  I must have been drowsing during her time on screen.   I wish I’d been unconscious during Thompson’s smug, annoying appearance as Adam’s doctor-cum-therapist.

    Burnt has been badly received by critics and has a bit to go to recoup its $20m budget but there were plenty of people at the show I saw.  I wondered if this had as much to do with the popularity of cookery programmes on television as of Bradley Cooper et al.  In any case, I’m sure the audience was better informed than some of the characters:  one of Adam’s team at the Langham requires an explanation of the Michelin star system; Adam himself is accused early on by Helene of being out-of-date, a charge that’s proved when he seems never to have heard of sous vide.  (Later on, he uses a plastic bag from the water bath paraphernalia to try and self-asphyxiate …)  John Wells, whose direction is remarkably unimaginative, pads things out with repeated montages of high-pressure kitchen action:  these are pure cliché – no more than a big-budget version of what you see in Masterchef.  The often great-looking dishes are designed by real-life top chef Marcus Wareing (his Michelin star count is currently one less than Adam Jones’s).  Wareing is now well advanced on his own journey from kitchen martinet towards becoming a more genial and popular small-screen personality.  His continuing insistence on high standards may, however, cause him to regret having his name on the credits of a movie as lousy as Burnt.

    8 November 2015

Posts navigation