Over the weekend, I stood in a line wrapping the block outside the theater, waiting along with everyone else to get in to see Christoper Nolan's new film, Inception. The wait was worth it. The film is entertaining, visually stunning, and for someone who loves thinking about design, it's a must-see.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW:
For starters, the characters have names like Eames and Ariadne (the Greek "Mistress of the Labyrinth"). Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is a thief of subconscious information who hires Ariadne (Ellen Page) to become an architect of dreams, building endless staircases and Brutalist structures that seem to expand as they go further inward. (Look for a well-placed 2001 reference in the third level of the movie's central dream.)
The film is full of witty comments on style and replication. In one of the first scenes, Saito (played by Ken Watanabe) realizes he's dreaming when his face is pushed into the carpet in his mistress' apartment and he notices that the green shag is polyester, not wool. In another scene set in a hotel hallway, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) confronts a subconscious projection in a graceful anti-gravity fight that mimics some of the moves from Fred Aistaire's famous dance on the ceiling in Royal Wedding.
Several critics have noted that there's a lack of satisfactory character development — the New Yorker's David Denby calls the film a "strenuous process" and says a few scenes between Cobb and his dead wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) "are the only humanly involving elements in the movie." I think a review from Architizer frames the film's cool temperature really well: "In a film somewhat devoid of human emotion, the subtle characters let architectural emotions go wild. Maybe Inception’s buildings are mugging for an Oscar or something."
Like 2001 or Blade Runner or The Matrix, Inception relies heavily on sets and visual clues to tell the story and, if you like that kind of thing, it's an engaging movie. The dreamscapes are brilliant, there are plenty of layers to unpeel, and it's the kind of film that opens up space for questioning how and why we design our worlds — both internal and external.
100 DIY Ideas for the 3-Day Weekend
Danielle's Charming, Classic Walk-Up
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
White Enamel Flatwa...
How To Cook Fluffy, Tasty Quinoa
Perfect Summer Cocktail Recipe: Honey Bourbon Lemonade
nothing personal but you just spoiled this movie for me. i had to quit reading at "green shag"
A very intriguing movie, I loved every damn minute of it, and will probably be seeing it in theaters all summer if possible :) Set/Costume design: PURE EYE CANDY. >.<
It might seem minor, but that thing about the rug is actually a significant plot point and this post should carry a spoiler warning
Mmm, Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
Ditto on Kitalita...
Now I can't wait even more to see it! OK, think I've found my plans for tonight!
There were some amazing interiors in the movie. Why aren't they included? They wouldn't be spoilers like the rug.
The bar with the platinum blond woman
The chemist's office with the pretty bottles
The Asian dining room/conference room
Leo's house
Really?
I expected more from the visuals in this film. The interiors and color choices were fairly run-of-the mill, in my opinion. Room of a thousand lanterns...snooze. Snowy Siberian hospital "end-level"...um, Goldeneye for N64, much?
Not to mention that Leo's character goes looking for a precocious architect at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris - a real dinosaur of an institution. I love that the wisened architecture professor is found sitting among stone corbels and rosettes. Way to misinform the public about what architecture is today, media machine.
I'm with Kitalita and lemondrop! He has the best smile!
It's Ellen Page, not Paige.
That movie made me want to go out and buy very expensive, custom-tailored suits.
Looking forward to seeing this on Wednesday and really enjoyed this article...
The ideas of "layers to unpeel" and the concept of "how and why we design our worlds..." will be interesting lenses through which to view and deconstruct the film.
Thanks!
I so disagree. Thought it was a loathsome film.
Hmmm, I dunno. I saw this the other week and I have to say the sets seemed like....well, sets.
I don't personally feel the film lived up to the cinematic hype. And I don't think it lives up to the set design hype, either.
Were the interiors interesting? Oh, definitely. But enough to do a post on them? Ehn.
It was a very ambitious film and a bit long for me.
I did get caught up in the sets, clothing, interiors. The first scene with all the Joseph Hoffman pieces and those screens I knew it would be a great visual ride. I was fixated by the labyrinth, regency pattern everywhere.
I would like to know where the corduroy gray/green jacket is from that Leonardo was wearing at the end.
Personally, I thought this film was incredibly well done. I felt like I had only been in the theatre for 30 minutes, and it was over. Interiors wise though, the only one that really stood out to me was the chemist's shop, all those pharmacy bottles were gorgeous. I feel like anyone who didn't enjoy or "get" this film should just stick with with movies marketed for the masses. I also saw it in IMAX which made for an incredible audial experience.
please, please please remove those spoilers or get a spoiler warning front and center on this post.
It looks a lot of you missed the "POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW:" line.
jschryer, it was not there originally. this post has been up all day.
Agreed surfjack. It was a good movie, but did fall a little short for me with the architecture, design and plot being decent, but certainly not ground-breaking. It did seem to be targeting the "we don't want to give our movies too much thought" masses.
That'swhatshesaid:
Were the interiors interesting? Oh, definitely. But enough to do a post on them? Ehn.
That'swhatIheard:
Were the interiors good enough to spend millions on dollars from the movie budget? Oh, definitely. Enough to write about it to take a tiiiiny part in an ever-changing blog? Ehn.
I found the premise of this movie fascinating. As a psychologist, I had to agree to suspend my disbelief in order to fully embrace the ride it took me on as a viewer. It seems that maybe some designy types weren't willing to do that and it negatively affected their viewing experience.
I admit to being easily swayed by the physical appearance of the actors, though. Hotness in expensive, well tailored clothing? Call me satisfied!
I loved this movie. Very, very beautiful.
still mad that i paid the full imax price for this film. watered down freudian dream theory & too many hallmark moments. stunts were better in james bond films (esp. the snow & skiing scenes). just doesn't live up to memento & dark knight.