Amph INCEPTION- Christopher (BWONNNNG) Nolan's (BWONNNNG) new (BWONNG) film (SPOILERS)

I enjoyed the film.

 

Me, too. I couldn't care less about the feminist lens, post-modernist lens, neo-modernist lens, Marxist lens, etc., etc. I'll save that stuff for real world issues, like hiring practices, positive role models who are real people, etc.

EDIT:

And, for the record, the movie has no strong handicapable character, no strong Hispanic character, no strong African-American character, no strong Native American character, no strong gay character, no strong albino character, no strong Little Person character, etc., etc., and yet, somehow, it manages to raise an interesting question that applies across all of these "subaltern groups" and tell an interesting story. Go figure.

 

None of those groups represent 52% of the world's population, so it's not quite the same, is it? This view that women are a minority in this sense is actually pretty insulting.

That being said, I didn't have a problem with Ariadne's character. In truth, I don't think any of the secondary characters in the film are particularly faceted. They just don't spend a ton of time on it. It's not only her. She's probably more well developed than, say, Arthur. I don't think it has to do with her being a woman. And I think her portrayal hints at her being a strong woman so that's nice. But I wouldn't necessarily expect a hardcore team of robbers to realistically have 52% women, anyway.

I agree, though, that this is just kind of an example of how women are presented in general in films. There are almost no good roles for women, because when writers write films they always start with, "okay, so there's this guy..." and just presume that's the default. The only time it's a female main character is if it's a "woman's film". There are a few exceptions (Alien, Terminator) but not many. That's just what happens when 80% of people in an industry's creative positions are male. It becomes a default. I wouldn't particularly fault Nolan for that, and it didn't take away from the film for me. It's just an unfortunate reality at this time.

 

Marion Cotillard as Mal was good too.... reminds me, need to see Love me if You Dare.

I think she was also in Big Fish...anyways, she was cool.

 

Good movie.

I also found it amusing that the "synching" music used in the dreams was Non, je ne regrette rien by Edith Piaf, whom Marion Cotillard portrayed in La vie en rose (and won an Oscar for it).

 

I enjoyed the film too--it's probably the best film of '10 for me so far--but looking at films with a critical eye doesn't reduce your enjoyment of them. Not if you're doing it right, anyway.

You're right, when a film does something right we should ignore anything it might do wrong! I just don't get the reasoning that because a film is great, it's wrong to bring up potential points of criticism. Especially in that film's discussion topic.
_jOBO

 

I'm not entirely sure how it plays into things, but I thought Ariadne was the most relatable character.

 

I would assume that's by design since she is the audience's proxy into the film for the most part. Cobb does carry some of that weight early on before her arrival, but she seems to do the heavy lifting.

 

Please tell me you aren't actually proposing that movies need to work on quota systems to avoid critique.

The point of what I was saying is that when we are talking about something that really has impact (e.g., hiring practices, positions of sociopolitical power, etc.), gender inequality isn't justified - there isn't justification for systemic biases against (and subsequent absence of) women and other subalterned populations. But when we're talking about a movie, it strikes me as being too forced - it's trying to introduce a problem where it might not be appropriate. I think that introducing lens issues (feminist lens, Marxist lens, etc.) into *every* area of life is a little unnecessary; there are absolutely inequalities present, but I'd just like to see them combatted in an arena that matters a bit more. It just seems to me like it's missing a bit of perspective.

 

Holy cow, why are you being crazy defensive about this? Your reaction is outta nowhere. In case you didn't notice, everyone who is talking about the feminist perspective ALSO really enjoyed the movie and agrees with your point that in spite of the lack of female characters it was still good. In fact, that's what the whole second half of the discussion about feminism is ABOUT. Remember when I said:

Have you considered that maybe that's because you're speaking from a place of male privilege? I'm really happy for you that you've never had to deal with your gender being fairly and realistically represented in media all the time, but for women who enjoy media it can be frustrating to be constantly confronted with female characters who are shallow, flat, or otherwise unrealistic and unrelatable. The fact that there are arenas that "matter more" doesn't automatically invalidate this discussion, surely you should recognize that?
BESIDES, I didn't force this issue into the topic, jOBO mentioned that Inception had everything the Matrix had, and I mentioned one major omission - a heroine like Trinity. I didn't come in with my first post and start needlessly dicussing the gender issues in the movie because I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT MOVIE.

Now can you unbunch your boxers?

 

I provided a list of all the "absent" subalterns precisely because they could also legitimately claim to be victimized by lack of representation. Of course, as sj has reminded us, they aren't 52% of the population, so apparently they don't get to count as real victims, and it would be inappropriate to extend feminist theory to other subalterned populations (which, by the way, sj, some feminist thinkers argue we should, and I'm happy to give you some names). For the record, I teach feminist theory in my philosophy classes, I raise the objections they do to historical analysis, political issues, socioeconomic inequality, and I think they have very compelling arguments.

Seriously, ASO, think about what you've just said. I "don't get it" because I'd rather focus on real world issues in society, instead of talking about the lack of strong female roles in a movie. And I'm the one who needs to unclench my undies? This is why I raise the issue of a lack of perspective on gender inequality - it's concentrating on a single fern while the entire forest burns. It's great that we all like the film, really it is, but is it possible to like the film and not try to force it into a personal -ism? Is it possible to save the campaigning for issues when it really matters, or are we still going to have a Facebook rally for Darfur?

EDIT:

I'll try to clarify why I'm irritated by this and why I think it's wasted effort and hot air. On campus, we have student groups that are absolutely convinced that they are striking a blow for cause X by having their little rallies. Of course, they aren't actually reaching the people who make decisions, who potentially influence policies, etc., but they feel good about themselves and believe that they are marvelous icons of social change. Meanwhile, the people who actually make changes are completely unaware of the rally and maintain the status quo. So all of the activism ends up being for nothing, but HOW DARE I CRITIQUE THEIR CHOSEN METHOD OF PROTEST. Call me jaded, cynical, or say that "I just don't get it" - maybe it's because I've been part of those groups, but the time I spent working for an advocacy group in DC made me realize just how ineffective these little -ism rallies and causes are. There's nothing quite like seeing a project one has worked hard on get sent to the round file because the administrative assistant knew you weren't part of the advocacy group that ultimately writes the campaign checks, so the letters and studies get chucked and the Senator or Rep remains blissfully unaware.

The point is that when we are looking to correct social injustice, it makes much more sense to focus on arenas that matter, rather than arenas that don't, and it doesn't make sense to jump on someone for disagreeing with HOW IMPORTANT THIS CAUSE IS or suggest that THIS PERSON IS PRIVELEGED AND DOESN'T GET IT because he thinks a different venue would, you know, be more appropriate and actually produce the change desired. Call me crazy. I'm just not a fan of making Holy Mountains out of molehills, when Everest is right next door.

 

Someone shared this on my Google Reader feed:

[image=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/4812371209_e817b12985_b.jpg]

It's clearly wrong, but it highlights one of the weird continuity gaps in the movie. How did Ariadne and Cobb deliberately going into a dream drop them into Limbo? Can you induce a Limbo dream? Is Limbo automatically beyond the 3rd level?

 

Setting your strawmen about what Rachel said aside for a second...

Yeah, but it's also possible to like the film and let the people who want to discuss the -ism discuss the -ism without coming in and trampling all over them with some kind of bizarro defensive kneejerk response to the introduction of the -ism. If you don't want to discuss the -ism why didn't you respond to my discussion of the top, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's hipster charm, the special effects, or any of the other half-dozen OTHER things I mentioned instead of PERPETUATING the discussion you seem to hate so much? Damn.

 

Go for it. Have your "Feel Good I'm Changing the World" moment.

 

This is why women shouldn't be Dream Architects.

 

the cast also needed more fat people

 

That's what I took away from the film.

EDIT: There is a shot at the beginning of the film where a wine glass passes in front of the camera--going in front of everything else for a moment....something about that shot has been tugging at me--did anyone else notice it?

Also, I find it beautiful that at the end, he doesn't wait to see if the top falls or not. Whereas before, he held a gun to the side of his head and cocked it, waiting for the top to fall or not. And again, you see him spinning a top when he is experimenting--preparing to perform the inception on Fischer--he watches the top. But, in the end, when he witnesses the faces of his children, he goes to them and doesn't look back--doesn't wait for the top. I think he chooses to believe in something in that moment--in his children and to have faith in something. Maybe he gives up "knowing" after seeing how reality can be so like that infinite regression of mirrors Ariadne shows him--just pick one, and believe in it, because it may be impossible to "know" in the end and you could waste your life trying to find an "exit." Or maybe he escapes the maze, and he knows he escaped--no faith required (but he's so confident in it, that he still doesn't look at the top.) I dunno...but he didn't look at it for the first time...maybe he didn't escape.

 

Okay, I was going to let this go in the interest of - you know - actually discussing the movie, but I only just saw this since you decided to go back and edit this earlier post. All I really have to say in response to this is that if you for some reason believe that I (or Jobo or Jello or anyone defending the feminist critique in this thread) ACTUALLY BELIEVES we are "making a difference" by discussing this on a Star Wars Message Board, that's your problem, not ours. I don't think that Christopher Nolan is going to read my posts and decide to suddenly start putting strong females into his movies, I was just mentioning one flaw I found with this movie in comparison to the Matrix. I was sharing my thoughts on the movie not for the effort of effecting social change, but for the purposes of discussing stuff on the JC like I've been doing for the last 10 years. No one was making a mountain out of anything and your response was, as I've said, disproportionate and not a little crazysauce.

Wow, I totally missed this. I figured out in retrospect that he had been spinning it to make sure he was awake, but I had totally forgotten he had the gun cocked and ready. Now I really do want to see it again.

 

Be careful about allegations of "defensiveness" and "crazy sauce", Chuckles, m'kay? In less civilized societies, that might be considered flaming or baiting. All I did was agree with a poster who said (and who I quoted) "I liked the movie". I edited in the additional bit about subalterned populations precisely because the discussion had turned to the underrepresentation of women, and I just pointed out that there were a lot of populations that could claim to have been underrepresented (or inappropriately represented). This then served as a touchstone for some posters, who proceded to suggest that my comments didn't meet their personal standard for -ism film criticism. So my response (and subsequent paragraphs of argument) were responding to criticism and clarifying my position, not "getting defensive" or employing "crazy sauce", which was just your perception of the matter.

And speaking of perceptual issues, the entire Matrix comparison --> lack of a strong female character is also a matter of perception. -Ism thinking tends to be perceptual, rather than reflective of objective truth. The fact that the characters don't meet your expectations is not, in and of itself, indicative of an objective flaw in the movie. If there were an essential element of story structure, plot holes, poor characterization (e.g., cookie cutter characters), then we can discuss the justification of objective criticism. Suggesting a movie has a flaw because it doesn't fit your particular -ism is subjective critique, not objective flaw.

But hey, ASO, we both enjoyed it, and we both want to see it again, so good on Nolan. Personally, I'm looking at it as a vehicle to teach Cartesian skepticism - if the only data we have to "know" the world around us is sense data, and there is no real way to be sure if we are experiencing reality or just a vivid dream, then there is no way for us to be sure of anything but our own existence, which is the foundational aspect of skepticism. It'll be nice to be able to show a different movie to my classes, since I'm getting tired of showing them The Matrix again and again and again.

 

I don't think this is what anyone was saying.

For one, I disagree with the notion that it's only worth discussing objective flaws, especially because I would say story structure, plot holes, and poor characterization are all subjective topics. I don't understand why you're reacting so negatively to the idea of discussing the film within this particular context. If you're not interested in it, then okay, respond to Dani's post about plot holes, or Asterix's thing about the spinning. I don't see any reason to get worked up over what had been a pretty reasonable and respectful discussion (on both sides) of women's issues with regard to Inception.

I feel like there's more I wanna say, but I leave it here for now.
_jOBO

 

Feel free if you want to write more, but I'm done. I have 30+ final papers to grade and other fish to fry.

 

Oh, I didn't realize you were busy; I'm so sorry we dragged you into this and forced you to reply.

 

So I saw this movie this weekend...it was really cool. I think it was called Inception. Anyone else see it?