Did You Like Inception?

<a href="http://inceptionmovie.warnerbros.com/"><em>Inception</em> movie still.</a>

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Do I really have to put a post about Inception below the fold even though it’s been out for over a week? I guess so. So it’s below the fold.

So then: Scott Eric Kaufman didn’t like Inception:

Once the rules about dying in one dream level were explained, the mechanism of that circularity became obvious, as did the fact that the “cliffhanger” would consist of whether or not Cobb was really in the really real world or just in another dream. Which is pot-logic; by which I mean, the sort of thing you say when you’re listening to Floyd in your dorm and everyone has their own bowl and is abusing it.

I agree except for one thing: was the question of whether the film took place in the real world really not obvious until the rules were explained? It seemed to me that it was obvious about five minutes in.

And to agree further: yes, it’s an annoying and hackneyed premise. Also yes: Inception is an astringent kind of film, more interested in showing off a visual style and exploring a puzzle than it is in packing an emotional punch. But that’s true of most Christopher Nolan films, isn’t it?

For all that, I still liked it OK. Not every film has to rely on making us identify with the characters. Sometimes a humanistic austerity is OK. And the visuals were arresting and the story was clever. At least, I think it was clever. I can’t say for sure since Nolan sort of lost me toward the end.

As for the key question that Scott asks: of course the whole film was a dream. Do you actually believe there’s a real world in which Saito could buy an entire airline within a matter of days when the time arrives to perform the inception? Sheesh. Batman and Ra’s Al Ghul are easy to believe in compared to that. Gotta be a dream.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest