Understanding the Dream: An Answer to Owen Gleiberman on "Inception"

SPOILER ALERT: This post contains mild spoilers on "Inception." I won't be hashing out theories (if you want to have that kind of conversation, I'll need to do it in person - I need to be able to talk with my hands), but I will be mentioning some major moments that should not be spoiled. Go see the film, then come back and read. You have been warned!


Owen Gleiberman posted a maddening online editorial (it's a quick read) earlier this week about Inception, where he comments on not understanding the film at all (Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum reviewed Inception for the magazine); he felt that with every passing scene, he was still struggling to understand the scene that had just passed. I try not to carry a film snob attitude when discussing other people's views on specific polarizing films, but I find Gleiberman's words frustrating and slightly idiotic.

Inception is masterful storytelling, and a shining example of Nolan's genius for creating an original, unique story in a Hollywood landscape that has become obsessed with sequels, remakes, and adaptations. Inception works so brilliantly because its storytelling mechanisms are startlingly simple and straightforward; there is nothing extremely convoluted about the film's plot, or the emotional connection to that characters. Nolan's world is explained in clear, precise language. Any attentive film viewer should not have a problem following the film's central tale at all.

That's not to say Inception doesn't demand every second of your attention, or that it's entirely easy to digest. The mind-numbing elements to the film come when Nolan's details and ambiguities are expertly piled on top of the skeletal plot structure. After watching the movie, I'm still puzzled by the purposefully vague understanding of dream "limbo," and how the perfectly-timed four-level kick worked with my understanding of a single kick. The wobbling top finale warrants a second view alone, to relive the film with the ending as a frame of understanding.

However, these moments of confusion are not why Inception demands another trip (or two) to the cinema. I'm excited to see Inception again because being immersed in Nolan's world was an addictive experience that I have never fully felt in a movie theater: invigorating, visceral, wholly engrossing. The special effects are awe-inspiring, and the acting demanded for each role is pitch-perfect. It's not often we get a summer blockbuster that's not only wholly entertaining, but also so entirely thought-provoking. That Inception has started such an intense conversation between moviegoers is a testament to what the film accomplishes.

I called Inception a masterpiece in my review because that film accomplishes inception on the viewer as well. Inception plants an idea inside the brain, an idea that expands and overwhelms as the film is picked apart. It's been eight days since I saw Inception, and I'm still spending moments every single day mulling over elements of this film. Everyone filmmaker wants their film to stay with the viewer long after they've left the cinema, and Nolan has achieved exactly that.

With this understanding, I found Owen Gleiberman's article sophomoric and irresponsible. I can understand the film not being everyone audience member's cup of tea, but I think not even understanding the film is a sad commentary on how moviegoers watch films in 2010. All Inception asks is that you engage your brain, pay close attention, and enjoy the incredible ride. The film opens in a confusing manner, but all is explained in plot by the film's end; I really believe there is not a single plot-hole in Nolan's script. Maybe dealing with six seasons of maddening clues during Lost trained me for something like Inception, but I don't agree with a word of Gleiberman's post. Above all else, Inception demands for the viewer to engage, and that's something like a dream from from a big-budget, studio-produced film.