Thursday24 August 2017

Film review: Inception

Inception’s high-minded plot is offset by a small-minded notion of architectural ambition.
  • Email
  • Comments (23)
  • Save

Directed by Christopher Nolan
Cert 12A - on general release
3/5 stars

Christopher Nolan’s latest film offers a depressingly unrealistic idea of the architect mentality.

There have been many architects in modern cinema: Tom Selleck in Three Men and a Baby; Tom Hanks in Sleepless in Seattle; and the recently widowed Liam Neeson in Love Actually, for example.

With the possible exception of Charles Bronson’s architect-turned-vigilante in Death Wish, to be an architect in a Hollywood film is to inform the audience of certain characteristics: sensitivity, vulnerability and an innate romanticism.

Female architects are rare in mainstream cinema, because to be both an architect and a woman is cinematically tautological. In Hollywood, architects exist only in romantic comedies, and romantic comedies are only produced for female audiences.

We can now welcome a new cinematic portrayal of the architect. In Christopher Nolan’s latest, Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, who makes a living breaking into people’s dreams. In order for him to pull off the greatest job of his career, he needs a talented architect to design some vast imaginary cities.

Luckily, his father-in-law (Michael Caine) is an architectural academic. We know this because, like all architectural academics, we find him in front of blackboard doodles of Brunelleschi’s Santa Maria del Fiore.

Ellen Page rose to fame in Juno, in which she played an accidentally pregnant teenager. In Inception, she plays Ariadne, an architecture student (evidently well served by Caine’s comprehensive primer in Renaissance architecture), whom Cobb recruits to design three imaginary mental landscapes.

If you’re stranded for eternity with limitless resources, why live in an empty metropolis?

In the dreamspace, anything may be constructed. It’s something of a disappointment, therefore, to discover that for her first assignment, Ariadne has to lovingly recreate the anaemic concrete and glass cityscape of downtown Los Angeles.

She goes on to design an entire skyscraper complex for a second universe nested within the first, demonstrating with ease her capability to produce thousands of square miles of comprehensively planned buildings in the same amount of time it takes most students to draw a sun-path diagram.

Whereas to be a successful part II student generally involves straying furthest from the actual design of buildings, Ariadne is a dependable square, seen with dozens of carefully produced sections, elevations and models in the workshop. We can be certain that her imaginary damp-proof courses are correctly detailed.

Cobb himself is not unfamiliar with architectural design either. During an extended sojourn in the dreamspace, we learn that he and his partner lived in a monstrous city of identical skyscrapers, a filmic hybrid of Brasilia and Manhattan. Neglected for decades, by the time we visit it, its loveless towers have begun to collapse into a plot hole. Namely, if you’re stranded for eternity with your lover, with the limitless resources of your imagination to work with, why would you live in an empty modernist metropolis?

Inception does not offer a step change in the cinematic exploitation of the architect. As a narrative tool, the profession has long been manipulated in bizarre ways. Instead, Inception exploits the role to create the ideal landscape for the movie camera. Cobb and his wife always lived in a skyscraper city not because their characters believably wanted to, but because it was the most visually arresting landscape for the CGI artists to render as a ruin later in the film.

It’s no wonder that architects in cinema are so emotionally vulnerable. When we do get to judge their work on screen, it’s pure fantasy.


Readers' comments (23)

  • Nice intelligent review... Finally I see a text that connects Inception with architecture. In my view it's so obvious. Few days ago I published my bizarre essay about this bizarre flick. It's so clear that the main role is played not by Leo (Cobb) but by... Architecture. I'm also surprised that no one thinks of great blind man J.L.Borges watching those labyrinths & mirrors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's a metaphor. The 'architect' in the film is not a literal portrayal of an architect. Ariadne's job is to do with creating illusions to fool people not building things that actually serve a purpose. It is meant to be a metaphor for the role of film director not a cinematic portrayal of the architect. Maybe you should stick to the architecture and leave the film crit to someone else.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Chris Seger

    Two hours of an architect poring over a door schedule would make gripping viewing?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I buy J.Kelly's comment that this film is not specifically about Architects but this is an Architectural publication not another glossy rag about film.

    I think film critics cleary cannot determine the space their words inhabit. Clearly do not like wider ideas clouding there tritely summed up simplifications.

    Perhaps the above critics are illustrating that film is not the open medium it often presents itself to be; an open medium used in the justification of its high minded cultural position. A cultural position often raised inorder to add a modicum of morality to a business that perhaps cares more about cheeky girls and money.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • zecks_marquise

    blah blah he was asleep ok, stop being angry and remember that all big budget american cinema is as contrived as this movie

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "The more the citizen is trained in the consumption of packaged goods and services, the less effective he seems to become in shaping his environment."

    Quoted from Ivan D. Illich

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I saw this at the w/e and in my view was so bad that it's not even worth discussing... so here I go!

    It had nothing interesting to say about architecture, especially not the architectural process, and had practically no philosophical take at all on dreaming/consciousness. Even the action bits were totally denuded of any sense of tension because they relied on a fabricated and unbelievably strict depiction of the relativity of timespans within dreams...

    It didn't know what it was. Where Memeneto was original and cleverly written, this was flabby and trite. Dire.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'In the dreamspace, anything may be constructed. It’s something of a disappointment, therefore, to discover that for her first assignment, Ariadne has to lovingly recreate the anaemic concrete and glass cityscape of downtown Los Angeles.'

    Did the reviewer not watch the film? her job was to create envionments that did not alert the dreamers subconscious, this was explained when Paris was turned upside down.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Its a blockbuster movie, its meant to be entertaining. A sign of individuals being overly sensitive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • rcr

    ..and of course, don't forget 'the architect' in the Matrix.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register
  • Email
  • Comments (23)
  • Save
Sign in

Email Newsletters

Sign out to login as another user

Desktop Site | Mobile Site