Inception is one the most fantastic, complicated, and surrealistic movies that I have seen in quite some time. Inception follows a team of corporate espionage spies who possess the technology to enter into the dreams of top business executives and extracting their trade secrets, which can then be used by the competition. Extraction is considered a relatively simple procedure but becomes much more complicated when one is asked to insert an idea, a procedure known as Inception.
Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the best extractor there is. He's asked by an energy tycoon (Ken Watanabe) to implant an idea in his competitor's (Cillian Murphy) mind that will cause him to split up his empire making competition easier. Of course, Cobb is up to the task, even though his teammates tell him it's nearly impossible. But, you see, Cobb has done this before... This job holds much more meaning than his team is aware of, and quite possibly, a chance for redemption.
The dream sequences are simply mind-blowing and surreal as elements in the environment transform and reorganize themselves creating unstable situations that the characters must navigate. Floors become ceilings, trains barrel through a cityscape, and zero gravity are just some of the things with which the team must contend. The movie can be a little complex at times, as one dream flows to the next. The viewer has to pay close attention to what's going, and any trips to the bathroom or to refill your popcorn or soda, may leave one wondering, "what the hell just happened while I was gone?"
The acting from all parties involved are excellent. Leonardo Di Caprio continues to show the maturity and range that he's recently shown in movies such as The Departed, Shutter Island, and Revolutionary Road. His partner, Arthur, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt turns an equally impressive performance. And...let's not forget the venerable Ellen Page, who plays the team's dream architect and who is excellent, even though she's given limited material to develop her character. Ken Watanabe and Cillian Murphy do respectable jobs as the two competing energy tycoons. Look for a cameo by Michael Caine who plays Cobb's father in-law.
Bottom Line: This is a must see movie in the theater.
4 out of 4 stars
Spoiler Alert! The following description which explores some of the psychological underpinnings dealt with in the movie touches on key plot points and reveals.
Inception works really well within the world of Ego psychology, which extends Freudian drive theory by expounding on the ego within the tripartite of id, ego, and superego. The main conflict explored concerns Cobb. You see, Cobb and his wife used to spend inordinate amounts of time in the dream world, a paradise of their own creation. When Cobb learns that his wife begins to have difficulty differentiating between what's real and what's not, he decides that it would be best if they leave their imaginary dream world behind. The dream world, in large part, represents the dreamer's unconscious. Cobb implants the idea in her subconscious that this world is not real, and that the only escape is death. They then kill themselves in the dream world and come back to reality. What Cobb doesn't anticipate, though, is that the idea in her unconscious begins to dominate her entire experience. She now begins to believe that her current world (the real world) is also not real, and that the only escape is death. He tries to convince her but is unable to prevent her from ultimately killing herself.
In the dream world, other people exist as projection's of the dreamer's unconscious. When Cobb infiltrates other people's dreams, his wife often appears, and when she does she is usually possessed with a murderous rage and attempts to sabotage his missions. Images of his wife actually represent projections of Cobb's own guilt and anger toward himself for the death of his wife, for which he feels responsible. Cobb initially doesn't quite understand why she keeps appearing to disrupt his work. In addition, he tries to holds on to the positive memories he has of her, while using the defense mechanism of denial to keep the negative outside his awareness. This is illustrated quite poignantly with the metaphor of an elevator. The positive memories are more readily available to his conscious, but the actual death of his wife is buried in the basement, the deepest part of his unconscious and a floor he never travels. He is eventually forced into the basement and to confront his own guilt and anger toward himself for what happened. His projection of her reflects his unconscious and unstated idea that "If I mess with people's minds, it could have far reaching implications, including those of life and death." His unconscious guilt, thus protects him from doing further damage to others by sabotaging his missions. It isn't until he confronts his guilt, that he is able to see the projection for exactly what it is - an illusion, an aspect of his own psyche.
This touches on how the unconscious plays in our own lives. We all have unconscious wishes, dreams, fantasies, etc. that motivate our behavior outside of our awareness. In some cases, those thoughts and feelings are unacceptable in light of how we view ourselves, and so we create defenses to keep those things from surfacing into conscious awareness. Most of the time, this works well. However, when defenses are fragile, become overwhelmed, or are not working properly, the unconscious seeps into consciousness in ways in which we may not even be aware and that can act to disrupt our lives in undesirable ways. This is usually seen when someone exclaims, "I don't understand WHY I keep doing this!!" as they describe a pattern of behavior that seems to imprison them and sabotages their conscious goals of success. By confronting those aspects (thoughts, feelings, fantasies, memories, etc.) of the unconscious, it exposes our true motivations and frees us to choose the direction of our lives we want to lead.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Predators - movie review
Overall, Predators was a good attempt at matching the atmosphere of the original 1987 Predator starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. The movie begins solidly enough by following a mixed group of individuals who specialize in killing, in one form or another. The only person who does not seem to fit in with this group is a young physician. His reasons for being included are revealed later in the movie. Apparently, these individuals were deposited (along with some other particularly nasty creatures) on an alien planet designed to be hunting preserve for the Predators. The movie starts off well, introducing us to the characters, providing us with just enough information to know who they are and where they come from, without becoming bogged down by spending too much time on character exposition. The atmosphere is similarly set up to mimic the original in 1987, with the group being stalked by some unknown creature. Action sequences are fairly well done but fight scenes could have been a little longer. Regarding acting, Adrian Brody, who seems to usually play softer, more conventional roles, does a fantastic job making his role as a cold-hearted but experienced mercenary believable.
Like the predators, the soldiers and killers deposited on the planet also hunt people, and we also see Predators hunting other predators for dominance. From a psychological standpoint, the movie asks the audience what the difference is between those who are being hunted and the predators. Where does the line become drawn between predator and prey?
My one criticism of this movie is that in the film industry's attempts to make things bigger, better, and louder, something seems to be lost in the process. There was something that the original 1987 Predator had that really made it stand out and endure the test of time. This movie, while it includes those memorable characters, misses some of that magic. Bottom line: Predators is worth checking out, but if you are a sci-fi/horror aficionado, like myself, then this is a "must see." The casual movie goer can probably wait for the "rental".
3 out of 4 stars
Like the predators, the soldiers and killers deposited on the planet also hunt people, and we also see Predators hunting other predators for dominance. From a psychological standpoint, the movie asks the audience what the difference is between those who are being hunted and the predators. Where does the line become drawn between predator and prey?
My one criticism of this movie is that in the film industry's attempts to make things bigger, better, and louder, something seems to be lost in the process. There was something that the original 1987 Predator had that really made it stand out and endure the test of time. This movie, while it includes those memorable characters, misses some of that magic. Bottom line: Predators is worth checking out, but if you are a sci-fi/horror aficionado, like myself, then this is a "must see." The casual movie goer can probably wait for the "rental".
3 out of 4 stars
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Stephen King's Misery
Review of Stephen King’s Misery – movie to book comparison with special emphasis on a psychological profile of Annie Wilkes. (spoiler alert! – major plot points are discussed in the review below)
In brief the book was better than the movie (as seems to be the case with most of Stephen King’s works). The movie does change and modify certain aspects of the story, which seem to work well within the medium of a movie. Following Paul Sheldon’s car accident, the book takes place almost entirely in Annie Wilkes’ home, creating a particularly claustrophobic and confining atmosphere, while the movie had included additional characters and exposition to broaden the setting and to introduce some tension relief. For example, the characters of Buster and his wife Virginia, who are the town’s only sheriff and deputy, respectively, appear in the movie but are never mentioned in the book. Additionally, the movie really only touches on the psychological dysfunction that Annie Wilkes, the story’s primary antagonist, displays. The range in affective expression, her thought processes, and the means and methods of violence with which Annie is willing to employ are much more expounded upon and severe in the book.
Annie Wilkes describes herself as Paul’s “number one fan” and is obsessed with everything the author has produced. She rescues him after he crashes his car during a violent snow storm. Annie, who is trained as nurse, is able to provide emergency medical care and believes that it is divine intervention that she and Paul had found each other. This divine assignment is carried further when she reads Paul’s newest novel, Fast Cars, and becomes offended with the use of profane language in the book. She takes it on as her responsibility to help Paul live up to his truest potential by writing novels with “nobility”. In order to purge Paul of the profanities in the book, she has him burn his only draft. It isn’t until she reads Paul’s latest Misery novel, in which the main protagonist dies, does she become truly vindictive. She uses a variety of violently persuasive means to force him to write a new novel just for her, entitled Misery’s Return, which will bring her favorite heroine back to life. However, she’s interested in more than just this book and harbors a fantasy that she and Paul will form a romantic relationship, and in a sense, live happily ever after.
Annie Wilkes is a particularly disturbing and volatile individual. Paul learns during his captivity by reading a scrapbook of newspaper clippings Annie has collected that those connected with Annie have a way of dying from unfortunate accidents, including classmates and sick infants at the hospital where she worked as a nurse. From a psychodynamic viewpoint, Annie is an individual that operates from a borderline psychotic state. In other words, her thought processes and perceptions have a tendency to deviate from reality under stress, but at the same time, she has moments of lucidity and a self-reflective capacity that are not often observed in psychotic states. Her ability to slip into fantasy is a double-edge sword though. She maintains an active fantasy that Paul will eventually fall in love with and want to stay with her, which is consistent with what is termed as an erotomanic delusion, but ironically, it is also this very ability that makes the Misery novels so important to her. The book makes it apparent that she attempts to “keep up appearances,” in order to appear normal to the rest of the world. In this sense, she has some recognition that she has emotional problems, and she struggles to keep her more bizarre thoughts and feelings contained, which she does through several defenses. Indeed, there are glimpses where she recognizes that her imagined relationship with Paul Sheldon is only fantasy and that he will never really love her the way she desires. It is during these times, when her fantasies become threatened, we see vacillations in her affective displays that range from violent rage to despondent depression. For example, when Paul leaves his room while Annie is away in town, she takes measures (i.e., using an axe to cut off his foot) to ensure that he will not leave again or her rage when she finds out that he has “killed” Misery off in his last book. She goes to great lengths to preserve this fantasy, even to the point of killing police officers who come to investigate Paul’s disappearance. As investigators get closer to learning about what happens to Paul and as Annie struggles to maintain a façade that is slowly collapsing around her, she tells Paul that she has two bullets, one for him and one for her. This withdrawal into fantasy allows her to derive a feeling of specialness through her association with Paul and to ward off feelings of unworthiness and unlovability, which become activated when the fantasies are threatened. She responds with rage (attempts to control) or depression (feeling helpless). An extension of this is her use of self-idealization and other-devaluation. She preserves her self-esteem with the perception that her ideals and her way of doing things are the only correct way of thinking and behaving, which is reflected in her anger towards Paul for the profanity in his newest novel and her rationalization for the murders of numerous infants who were ill. She also frequently chastises and judges those who think and act differently than she does. Naturally, her behaviors are often met with judgment from others who don’t seem to understand why Annie would, for example, want to kill sick infants at the hospital where she was working in order to alleviate their suffering. Annie’s interactions with others have caused her to develop a certain degree of paranoia, which is not really fleshed out in the movie, but it’s illustrated in the book quite well with multiple locks on all the doors in the house, Annie’s extreme isolation from others, her not keeping phones in the house, and her perception that others are out to judge and persecute her.
The book and movie were both really well done. Kathy Bates’ portrayal of Annie Wilkes is spot on and fits the description provided in the book. It’s easy to see why Kathy Bates earned an academy award for her portrayal. James Caan, likewise, had the difficult job of conveying much by remaining bed bound throughout most of the film and using subtle facial expressions to convey how he was feeling. Each worked well within the medium with which they exist and both deserve your attention.
Book: 4 out of 4 stars
Movie: 3 out of 4 stars
In brief the book was better than the movie (as seems to be the case with most of Stephen King’s works). The movie does change and modify certain aspects of the story, which seem to work well within the medium of a movie. Following Paul Sheldon’s car accident, the book takes place almost entirely in Annie Wilkes’ home, creating a particularly claustrophobic and confining atmosphere, while the movie had included additional characters and exposition to broaden the setting and to introduce some tension relief. For example, the characters of Buster and his wife Virginia, who are the town’s only sheriff and deputy, respectively, appear in the movie but are never mentioned in the book. Additionally, the movie really only touches on the psychological dysfunction that Annie Wilkes, the story’s primary antagonist, displays. The range in affective expression, her thought processes, and the means and methods of violence with which Annie is willing to employ are much more expounded upon and severe in the book.
Annie Wilkes describes herself as Paul’s “number one fan” and is obsessed with everything the author has produced. She rescues him after he crashes his car during a violent snow storm. Annie, who is trained as nurse, is able to provide emergency medical care and believes that it is divine intervention that she and Paul had found each other. This divine assignment is carried further when she reads Paul’s newest novel, Fast Cars, and becomes offended with the use of profane language in the book. She takes it on as her responsibility to help Paul live up to his truest potential by writing novels with “nobility”. In order to purge Paul of the profanities in the book, she has him burn his only draft. It isn’t until she reads Paul’s latest Misery novel, in which the main protagonist dies, does she become truly vindictive. She uses a variety of violently persuasive means to force him to write a new novel just for her, entitled Misery’s Return, which will bring her favorite heroine back to life. However, she’s interested in more than just this book and harbors a fantasy that she and Paul will form a romantic relationship, and in a sense, live happily ever after.
Annie Wilkes is a particularly disturbing and volatile individual. Paul learns during his captivity by reading a scrapbook of newspaper clippings Annie has collected that those connected with Annie have a way of dying from unfortunate accidents, including classmates and sick infants at the hospital where she worked as a nurse. From a psychodynamic viewpoint, Annie is an individual that operates from a borderline psychotic state. In other words, her thought processes and perceptions have a tendency to deviate from reality under stress, but at the same time, she has moments of lucidity and a self-reflective capacity that are not often observed in psychotic states. Her ability to slip into fantasy is a double-edge sword though. She maintains an active fantasy that Paul will eventually fall in love with and want to stay with her, which is consistent with what is termed as an erotomanic delusion, but ironically, it is also this very ability that makes the Misery novels so important to her. The book makes it apparent that she attempts to “keep up appearances,” in order to appear normal to the rest of the world. In this sense, she has some recognition that she has emotional problems, and she struggles to keep her more bizarre thoughts and feelings contained, which she does through several defenses. Indeed, there are glimpses where she recognizes that her imagined relationship with Paul Sheldon is only fantasy and that he will never really love her the way she desires. It is during these times, when her fantasies become threatened, we see vacillations in her affective displays that range from violent rage to despondent depression. For example, when Paul leaves his room while Annie is away in town, she takes measures (i.e., using an axe to cut off his foot) to ensure that he will not leave again or her rage when she finds out that he has “killed” Misery off in his last book. She goes to great lengths to preserve this fantasy, even to the point of killing police officers who come to investigate Paul’s disappearance. As investigators get closer to learning about what happens to Paul and as Annie struggles to maintain a façade that is slowly collapsing around her, she tells Paul that she has two bullets, one for him and one for her. This withdrawal into fantasy allows her to derive a feeling of specialness through her association with Paul and to ward off feelings of unworthiness and unlovability, which become activated when the fantasies are threatened. She responds with rage (attempts to control) or depression (feeling helpless). An extension of this is her use of self-idealization and other-devaluation. She preserves her self-esteem with the perception that her ideals and her way of doing things are the only correct way of thinking and behaving, which is reflected in her anger towards Paul for the profanity in his newest novel and her rationalization for the murders of numerous infants who were ill. She also frequently chastises and judges those who think and act differently than she does. Naturally, her behaviors are often met with judgment from others who don’t seem to understand why Annie would, for example, want to kill sick infants at the hospital where she was working in order to alleviate their suffering. Annie’s interactions with others have caused her to develop a certain degree of paranoia, which is not really fleshed out in the movie, but it’s illustrated in the book quite well with multiple locks on all the doors in the house, Annie’s extreme isolation from others, her not keeping phones in the house, and her perception that others are out to judge and persecute her.
The book and movie were both really well done. Kathy Bates’ portrayal of Annie Wilkes is spot on and fits the description provided in the book. It’s easy to see why Kathy Bates earned an academy award for her portrayal. James Caan, likewise, had the difficult job of conveying much by remaining bed bound throughout most of the film and using subtle facial expressions to convey how he was feeling. Each worked well within the medium with which they exist and both deserve your attention.
Book: 4 out of 4 stars
Movie: 3 out of 4 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)