Inception

“Valhalla Rising”: What to see instead of “Inception”

Cult hero Nicolas Winding Refn continues his career as the anti-Chris Nolan with this deranged medieval odyssey

  • more
    • All Share Services

One of the reasons I had this week marked with a gold star on my 2010 movie calendar was of course Christopher Nolan’s “Inception,” no doubt the most newsworthy event of the Hollywood summer. Even more intriguingly, that auteurist labor of love — and whether you like it or not, “Inception” is clearly that — is opening opposite another one, eccentric Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn’s hallucinatory Viking odyssey “Valhalla Rising.”

This makes for an irresistible compare-and-contrast between two extraordinarily talented mid-career cinematic visionaries, starting of course with the fact that Nolan’s movie will have 1,000 times the audience, at a very conservative estimate. (It could be 10,000 times, or 100,000.) “Inception” is largely set inside the world of dreams, which look like conventional Hollywood action movies. “Valhalla Rising” is set in the real world of medieval Britain and North America, at least nominally, but plays from beginning to end like a feverish nightmare.

“Inception” is nothing if not calculated, and while I didn’t like the movie that much I don’t actually mean that as a dig. Nolan is trying to push at the outer edges of blockbuster possibility, while still ensuring he packs the multiplexes deep into next month and makes a profit for his investors (who are in for a reported $200 million or so). Refn has tumbled out of the Viking longboat in the opposite direction; I assume he wants people to watch his movies or he wouldn’t keep making them, but based on his erratic career to date he doesn’t give a crap about commercial considerations and couldn’t make a pop movie — at least not on purpose — to save his life.

Arguably Nolan and Refn are both trying to split the difference between action movies and art-house or independent cinema. But Nolan’s goal is to blend the two to produce smarter-than-average mass entertainment, while Refn erases the distinction in a fashion that seems perversely devoted to driving both constituencies out of the theater. The closest he’s ever gotten to a hit remains his 1996 debut “Pusher,” a sharply observed melodrama set in the grimy criminal underworld of Copenhagen. Eventually he expanded that film into an increasingly dark and grotesque trilogy, but not until after his Hollywood detour with the 2003 John Turturro thriller “Fear X,” one of those debacles that grading-on-a-curve critics like me call an “intriguing failure.”

After the “Pusher” trilogy, Refn made a Miss Marple film for British television — I haven’t seen it, but it’s hard to imagine a weirder combination of director and subject — and then moved on to the dazzling, ultraviolent black comedy “Bronson,” in which he tells the story of a legendary British convict in an arch, frame-breaking style derived (Refn says) from avant-garde filmmaker Kenneth Anger. I thought “Bronson” was terrific, but it’s a movie designed to have almost no audience: Let’s take an amoral, testosterone-drenched prison story and tell it as a campy, super-gay art film. The people who like one side of that equation won’t like the other one — or at least won’t want to admit it.

Over the last four or five years Refn has been plugging along on “Valhalla Rising,” which offers spectacular widescreen images of British and American wilderness (I think it was all shot in Scotland) and a completely silent performance from Refn’s “Pusher II” star, Mads Mikkelsen (also the villain in “Casino Royale”), whose one-eyed, tattooed gladiator is so badass he makes Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name look like a Filipino lady-boy.

In the first and arguably best part of the movie, you wonder whether “Valhalla Rising” is going to have any dialogue at all, or any real story. One-Eye is the battered but undefeated fighting slave of some second-rate tribesmen, somewhere in Britain, who put him up against all comers in competitions for food, booze, women, gold or whatever’s available. Lots of movies about the Middle Ages can do the mud and blood — though we sure see a lot of both here — but in this movie it’s like Refn has ripped you out of time and dropped you there. There’s no story because, well, there was no story: You stayed alive as long as you could, any fucking way you could, and that was it.

After One-Eye seizes the chance to kill his captors and escape, leaving alive only the boy of 9 or 10 (Maarten Stevenson) who’s been feeding him, Refn does launch upon a narrative of sorts, even if I kind of wish he didn’t. This is the movie in which we learn exactly how the Vikings discovered America, circa 1000 A.D.: They did a lot of acid, got all hopped-up on Jesus Christ, and took a wrong-way boat they thought was headed for the Holy Land. No, I don’t think Refn is seriously suggesting this as an alternative to the normal historical version involving Leif Erikson and the Vinland Sagas and all that. He’s partly suggesting wild thought-experiment possibilities — wouldn’t it be cool if they thought the people shooting arrows at them were Arabs? Or demons? –and partly just building a trail of red herrings to support his hallucinations, dream sequences and scenes of madness and violent death.

In an interview with Bilge Ebiri at IFC.com, Refn says that “Valhalla Rising” is partly inspired by Andrei Tarkovsky’s “Stalker,” a notoriously impenetrable film that establishes a science-fiction-flavored premise before settling into a steady state of ambient spiritual mind-fuck. That comparison helped me understand this movie better, at least in the sense that I’m not supposed to understand it, that it’s a fugue-state meditation on the medieval encounter between Europe and America rather than a comprehensible yarn that travels from a beginning to an ending.

Part of me still wishes and hopes that Refn will get the opportunity to make something on the scale of “Inception” — but then, it’s not my $200 million. (Nolan could definitely stand to make something with the modest scale, not to mention the total fearlessness, of “Valhalla Rising.”) It’s not as if he hasn’t been noticed; Refn is supposedly making a vehicle-based action film called “Drive” with Ryan Gosling, a “Thai-boxing western” that may star Mikkelsen, and something called “I Walk With the Dead.” (Oh, and “Pusher” is being remade. In England. As a Bollywood movie.) He’s even been rumored as a possible director for a Hollywood “Wonder Woman” picture, which by any reasonable standard is a terrible idea. When it comes to this ridiculously talented and headstrong filmmaker, I’m happy to chuck reason out the window and hope for the best.

“Valhalla Rising” is now playing at the IFC Center in New York, with more cities to follow. It’s also available on-demand via IFC In Theaters, on many cable-TV systems.

“Inception”: A clunky, overblown disappointment

Christopher Nolan's much-hyped thriller is a joyless, awkwardly constructed mess

  • more
    • All Share Services

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Leonardo DiCaprio in "Inception"

Director Christopher Nolan is such a master movie technician — a combination of engineer, architect, game designer and God — that it’s startling to realize how constricted his vision is and how clumsily he tells stories. “Inception,” Nolan’s first film since his mega-googolplex hit with “The Dark Knight,” and his first as a solo writer-director since the now-legendary puzzler “Memento” in 2000, is supposed to be a dreamscape movie. At one point, in fact, we travel with its central Scooby-gang of characters into a dream within a dream within a dream, and then into some deeper, still more unconscious, psychological limbo-state below that.

Managing all these nested levels of narrative is a marvelously nerdy accomplishment, no doubt — but this is the most tight-assed vision of the innermost human psyche I’ve ever seen. While Nolan’s images are visually impressive and powered by state-of-the-art digital effects and accomplished stunt work, they’re always ordered and organized with anal precision. They don’t look or feel anything like dreams. (Or, at least, not like my dreams.) They look instead like mediocre action films from the ’90s, or in the case of the supremely boring ski-patrol vs. Arctic fortress shootout found on Level Three, like the Alistair MacLean adaptation “Ice Station Zebra” from 1968. (With Rock Hudson! And Ernest Borgnine!) “Inception” may have been directed by Christopher Nolan, but Nolan’s dreams are apparently directed by Michael Bay.

OK, I know — you want me to back off the high-minded analysis and tell you whether “Inception” is a good destination for those summer moviegoing dollars eager to leap out of your wallet. Sure, I guess so. It’s a cool-looking action movie, carefully constructed and edited, that uses all kinds of nifty locations and a lot of portentous-sounding expositional yammering. It inhabits a Philip K. Dick-style universe of psychological warfare that suggests “The Matrix,” “Total Recall” and “Minority Report” — all of them, by the way, better movies — but it’s fairer to call “Inception” a maze movie or a labyrinth movie than a puzzle movie. Because, as the wisecracking fellow critic sitting next to me observed, every time the story gets puzzling the characters call a timeout and explain it.

So, yeah, if you approach “Inception” with lowered expectations it’s a pretty good time. Problem is, there are no lowered expectations around Christopher Nolan, whose adherents have proclaimed him as the heir to Kubrick and Hitchcock and declared “Inception” a masterpiece. I don’t want to get sidetracked here, but let me suggest that the comparisons aren’t entirely misguided. They’re just not helpful. Nolan has inherited some of Kubrick and Hitchcock’s worst tendencies, most notably their defensive, compulsive inclination to work everything out about their stories and characters to the last detail, as if human beings and the world were algebraic or geometrical phenomena requiring a solution.

But the mysterious power of Hitchcock’s “Vertigo” cannot be explained by the ludicrous official story revealed in the final act — indeed, it nearly scotches the whole movie — and the attack of “The Birds” is never explained. As Kubrick’s career progressed he was increasingly drawn to stories that defied or challenged rational analysis, like “2001: A Space Odyssey” or “The Shining.” (I think I’d put “Full Metal Jacket” and “Eyes Wide Shut” in that category too, but let’s discuss some other time.) Nolan seems to have learned exactly the wrong lessons from these mentors. For all the complexity, craftsmanship and color of “Inception,” it’s yet another of his ultra-serious schematic constructions with no soul, no sex and almost no joy, all about some tormented dude struggling with his ill-managed Freudian demons. That same guy sitting next to me cracked that Nolan needs to stop seeing a therapist; there’s not nearly enough sublimation in his movies.

At least Nolan hasn’t cast frequent collaborator Christian Bale on this occasion (they’ll presumably be reunited on the next Batman movie), but he’s only traveled as far as go-to tormented dude Leonardo DiCaprio, last seen as the psychiatry-textbook protagonist of Martin Scorsese’s “Shutter Island.” DiCaprio’s only 35, but he’s become a vastly different actor in his post-pretty-boy phase, and always seems to play guys who have a dead wife, a sweat-gland malfunction and a really urgent need to find the toilet. In “Inception” that would be Cobb, a dream-state spy or “extractor” who earns big bucks by entering and manipulating people’s dreams to drag out their most closely held secrets.

Nolan throws us into the deep water right away, and in many ways the dazzling first quarter-hour of “Inception” is the best part. There are no opening credits. In the first couple of shots, Cobb washes up on a beach, possibly in Japan, and is dragged into a luxurious house for an audience with an aging yakuza gangster. No, wait — now Saito (Ken Watanabe), the gangster, is much younger. Cobb and his sharp-dressed partner, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who seems to have materialized out of nowhere, offer to train him to protect himself from dream raiders. No, wait — this is Saito’s dream, and Cobb and Arthur have set a trap for him. Unless he’s also setting a trap for them! But who’s the sultry foreign bombshell (Marion Cotillard) who aligns herself with Saito against Cobb, and doesn’t really seem to belong here?

 After that setting dissolves into a chaotic shootout, all these people (or most of them) wake up in a modest apartment somewhere in Asia or the Middle East — Iran? Pakistan? the West Bank? — where an angry mob is closing in outside. Saito isn’t pleased; he was auditioning Cobb and Arthur for a difficult espionage job, and they failed. No, wait — maybe they didn’t. How and when can the dreamer be absolutely sure he has woken up?

So the themes, ideas and characters of “Inception” are all introduced with brilliant economy, along with its moral and philosophical universe. And then Nolan proceeds to hammer them relentlessly into the ground with an increasingly clumsy, clunky plot and an allegedly profound mystery that just sort of fizzles out into what-if-this-world-isn’t-real sophomoric musing.

Cobb and Arthur are gray-market or black-market entrepreneurs, and Cobb has warrants hanging over his head that keep him from going home to his kids in the United States. (I’ll say no more about that.) His dead wife, Mal (Cotillard), only visits him in dreams — his own and other people’s, even though that’s not really supposed to happen — and doesn’t act all that friendly. Let’s just say that as obvious names for ominous female characters go, that one pretty nearly takes the cake. You didn’t want to call her Fatale, Chris? Or Eve L. DeMenta B. Yotch?

These guys are experts at extracting stuff from people’s minds, but Saito wants them to do something more difficult: “Inception,” where an idea will be planted in someone’s mind so deeply that he’ll believe he thought of it himself. (This is supposed to be so hard, someone explains, because the brain can always track ideas back to their source. Take that, Joseph Goebbels and Fox News! You only think it’s working!) The subject is a youthful energy tycoon named Fischer (Cillian Murphy), who must be persuaded to break up his dying father’s superpower-scale corporation because that’ll be a good thing for the planet. For once I am not being snarky; that is the stated reason.

So Cobb and Arthur have to round up the team of globetrotting rapscallions always demanded by a movie like this: College-girl genius Ariadne (Ellen Page) as the “architect” who designs the dream worlds; chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao) to administer the designer sedatives; shape-shifter Eames (British actor Tom Hardy, always a delight) to act out key roles inside Fischer’s mind. It’s basically “Mission: Impossible II” minus Tom Cruise and John Woo, plus “Ocean’s Eleven” minus a sense of humor and Las Vegas, plus “A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors,” with Marion Cotillard standing in for Freddy Krueger. Except that I just made it sound a whole lot more fun than it really is.

Nolan is completely uninterested in the plot superstructure involving Saito and Fischer, which never amounts to anything and holds no surprises. He is, of course, supremely invested in the details of the three (or four) levels of dream narrative into which our terrorist heroes drag Fischer. Drugging him in awkward and implausible fashion on a Sydney-to-Los Angeles flight, they first pull him into a noir-ish kidnapping drama in a gray, rain-swept city, before all going to sleep again and waking up in a corporate-espionage yarn set in a luxury hotel, where they snooze down another level to the aforementioned Arctic Circle shootout, which could be in one of the Roger Moore Bond movies or an abandoned Cold War drama with Sylvester Stallone. (“No man’s ever broken out of the Soviet Union’s super-secret Northern Fortress. But one man’s going to break IN.”)

All of this involves a bunch of big-ass guys shooting at each other with automatic weapons, which has to be the most arid and depressing depiction of the dream state I’ve ever encountered. There are no surreal images or nonsense dialogue, no illogical shifts of scene from the first-grade classroom to Mom’s kitchen to a whorehouse. It’s all meticulously, ass-clenchingly worked out: One person has to stay awake at each level to retrieve the others from the mind-melting waters of Lethe, and time passes more slowly as the dreamers go deeper. If there’s one thing that dream-state movies need more of, it’s math, and genderless geek-girl Ariadne is all over it: “That means 10 seconds before the van hits the water! That’s three minutes for Arthur in the hotel — and 16 minutes for us!” (I made up that particular line, but it’s representative.)

Sometimes Nolan’s technical expertise produces its own kind of beauty, as in a startling zero-gravity scene in the hotel corridors when the laws of physics apparently rebel on Level Two. But for the most part “Inception” is a handsome, clever and grindingly self-serious boy-movie, shorn of imagination, libido, spirituality or emotional depth. Nolan establishes a fascinating world, loaded with trapdoors, symbols and hidden secrets, and then squanders the opportunity on an overpriced “Twilight Zone” episode. He casts Cotillard, one of the foxiest actresses alive, as a smoldering temptress who embodies all the female, erotic energy absent from this universe, and then literally locks her in the basement. Mal yearns to escape and get her claws into these constipated, narcoleptic boys (and maybe into Page’s prim androgyne as well), and this movie would be a hell of a lot better if she did. But she’s a girl — no, she’s a woman — and even in dreams it’s too dangerous to let those run around loose. 

Continue Reading Close

Page 3 of 3 in Inception