Monday, 14 October 2013

#15 - Inception

 
A reel dream.

Before watching Inception it had never stuck me before how much a dream and a film have in common with each other. They are both formed through an idea, an idea which may have formed itself within the sub-conscious, they are both a form of alternate reality and escape from the real world, they are constructed and they can both be destabilised and have multiple meanings drawn out of them by the self and others.

For many people both dreams and cinema is a profound means of escape from a life that may seem dull, monotonous or unsatisfactory and are looking for a new existence. Look at James Cameron’s 3D spectacle Avatar, which with it’s ground-breaking 3D environments and lush, attractive scenery drew many, many people to immerse themselves in the world of Pandora and watch the film repeatedly, wishing to once more experience a world unlike their own.  For over 100 years cinema has created worlds that are both fantastical and familiar and which, when one is completely immersed, are not questioned but simply experienced.

“Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realise something was actually strange.”

This passive viewing of a film or dream engages with the immediate “feeling” of the inhabited world; in a nightmare you would feel just as afraid as if you were watching Jack Nicholson terrorising Shelly Duvall in The Shining or you may be as emotionally involved in a dream featuring loved ones as you may be whilst watching It’s a Wonderful Life. When you are immediately engaged with the created world you don’t question what created this world or why it exists, you just exist with it and become a part of it. It is as soon as you begin to question the world and realise that it is a construction that you begin to destabilise it. In a film you could become suddenly aware that you are watching actors assisted leaping around a bright green stage, and not a seasoned cop dodging a violent explosion by mere centimetres.
When Ariadne first realises that she is not actually sat in a quaint Café in central Paris but actually within a shared dream, the world around her begins to collapse, with shops, streets and buildings destabilising and breaking apart. It was only when she realised that the world was not real that it began to fall apart. This carries over to film where there whole areas of criticism devoted to highlighting and destabilising the constructedness of a film and understanding how it creates it’s convincing world within the viewers mind. When the artifice of film and dreams is understood it can be manipulated to great extent, with both film-makers and Cobb’s team creating great impossible worlds that feel real to the viewer. It is not only in the visual or the palpable that films and dreams exist; they also exist on a deeper level, with vast under-currents of meanings, desires and ideas flowing below the surface.

“You mind telling your subconscious to take it easy?”

Dreams, and the study of dreams, have been around for as long as humanity has walked the planet. They were seen as messages from the gods, revelations of secrets and sources of divine inspiration, but in recent centuries they have been seen as they key to the human psyche, with many psychoanalysts peering in and deconstructing dreams to reveal the hidden forces that drive the self. This approach to the hidden meanings within the dream has been carried over to almost every form of human communication and has become a staple in the analysis of films. We search for the hidden meanings, not only in people, but also in films. It is in the highlighting of this deconstruction and expansion that we find the ideological core of Inception; the notion of “The idea”.

“Your world is not real!”

Ideas are what have shaped humanity. They have given us the ability to create vast structures, complex machinery and advances that have brought us to where we are today but where do they come from and is it possible to put an idea in someone’s mind? The plot of Inception revolves around the task of implanting a fully convincing idea within the mind of a business rival. To do this they create worlds, replicate and repeat a specific set of numbers and employ a plethora of trickery and façades in order to plant the single idea that he is not his father. This process is strikingly similar to the construction of the film itself. Firstly, There is the idea that is created by the screenwriter (Saito), which is then passed on to the Director (Cobb) who then assembles of team to work with, including; a producer (Arthur), a production designer (Ariadne), an actor (Eames) and an audience (Fischer).
Taking this approach then, that every film is capable of performing inception, what influence has film held over our lives? Is it possible to say there wouldn’t be as many scientists if it wasn’t for films like 2001:A Space Odyssey?
There is, though, an inherit danger in taking this approach to films as it does put films in the position of being used (by either film-makers or active viewers) as a tool or weapon to justify a particular ideological stand point. You can visit almost any news page and see claims of violence in games or films being to blame for real life acts of aggression, but this is not interpretation, but rather, manipulation. Every film will invariable have it’s own moral, social, ideological or political compass and in examining and highlighting how that compass is constructed we can actively see, and explore, the value and integrity of the film’s (or dream’s) idea.

For Cobb, the artificially crated dreams in Inception have become the only way he can dream and I think that may also apply to me. For whatever reason, I very rarely remember my dreams and when I do they are half forgotten fragments. The only way I can dream is by willingly, and actively, immersing myself in another’s dream, and through these I can not only understand how their dream is made but also in seeing what I take away from each film I can better understand who I am and how I work.

“I just want to understand.”
Ariadne




Thursday, 5 September 2013

#94 - 2001:A Space Odyssey


There are many remarkable paradoxes in, and around, 2001:A Space Odyssey, but the central paradox is simply the question "How is it I have never seen a film like this, and yet, seen so many references to it that  it feels incredibly familiar?".
The Simpsons, Wall-E, Moon, Close Encounters of a Third Kind and many many other films/books/T.V.shows have repeated, or parodied, the film's uber-iconic imagery and themes. Despite this being my first time watching 2001 it felt all strangely familiar. I have no idea how I would have viewed the film if I was watching it for the first time in 1968, with it's (still) awe-inspiring effects, it's complex ideologies and questions of life, God, the universe and everything else. I would like to think the film inspired me to become a science fiction film-maker, probing questions of what it means to be human. Honestly though, I would have probably have scratched my head, let out and baffled "Huh?" and continued with my day. 
I realised that the only way I have come to understand the film is by today's standards. A whole ocean of pop and sci-fi culture is swarming in my mind as I watch the film. Questions of human identity and the film Blade Runner will be arising and one point of the film, the origin of the universe and The Tree of Life will surface at another point and even man's relationship with technology and Iron Man 3 rears it head during the film as well. No matter how hard I try I will never be able to watch the film in a supposedly "pure" or "virginal" fashion because there is almost no area of modern science fiction that has been untouched, or uninfluenced, by Kubrick's film. All I can do is reflect on what the film says and how it has become the cinematic cornerstone of modern science fiction.*

What stood out mostly for me was the large amount of ambiguity in the film. Usually it's novels and poetry that equip ambiguity, with films relying it's ability to show all and answer all.But this does not seem to be that case with 2001 as there seems to be multiple instances of ambiguities, secrets, merging and blurred lines (great, just when I finally got that song out of my head, damn it!) In the Discovery sections of 2001 there are many shots where it is difficult to tell is different sections of the station revolving or if the camera, or astronauts, are the ones moving. Emotionally, the ship's computer HAL displays more emotion than the ship's human passengers (most of whom are, very literally, cold). Man's progress, and reliance on tools, has almost de-centred what make us human. Machines have evolved in the exact same way as the apes in the film's beginning, and have become a threat to mankind. Perhaps the next engineered evolution of man was placed at such a specific point in man's progress because any further in our advancement and our tools will overtake us and become the new dominant power on earth. 

If technology poses such a threat, and rises to such a level that it can autonomously kill people, what is humanities next needed evolution beyond the threat of our own tools? The apes of the film could never have dream of spaceships moving with balletic grace across the cosmos and maybe that is why, during the films final 20 minutes, we can't immediately comprehend the vast tunnel of colours, the inverted landscapes, the simultaneously advanced and anachronistic room and the "star-child". We can't see beyond our present technology into our future identity. 

Whatever my constantly shifting views and opinions are, or what the film means, there is definitely one certainty and that certainty is that 2001:A Space Odyssey will never be out of  mind when looking at humanity as a whole in cinema. This film has, for these and many more reasons, become as intertwined with modern culture as technology had with humanity within the film itself.


HAL: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?






*Don't worry, I'm not going to ramble about all the ideologies, imagery and influence of the film. That would take up far more time, and space, than is depicted within thee film itself. 

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

The Goal...


Of the top 250 films on the IMDB's website I have seen less than half.

In fact I have only seen 109, which is still a lot, but seeing as films like Se7en, Rear Window and other such cinematic hallmarks have escaped me I'm not feeling particularly proud.

There are 141 films out there that have intellectually, spiritually and profoundly moved people all over the world to watch, re-watch, re-re-watch and have significantly altered cinematic history.

The Goal is not only to watch each of the top 250 films but to engage with them, to open myself up to them and to write about the experience of each one during this challenge.

The List:


The Rules:
1. Do not talk about fight club.
1. No stars, thumbs up, tomatoes, percentages or any other forms of rating.
2. The films will not be in any order (just because it's really impractical otherwise)
3. If I ever say "The book was better", punch me. Really, I mean it. Punch Me.


Wish me luck!




*I am well aware that the list will most likely change and will adjust accordingly.