Inception
Inception the film is written, directed and produced by Christopher Nolan the same director and writer for 'Memento' and 'The Prestige'. His technique is always a timely trick emerging from a defined concept which is considered the ultimate theory to be sought during the process of events.
I loved the idea of Inception but not the world created for it. The problem is in the process of events; the presentation of the idea informed us of what will happen, and the doubt of its success wasn't convincing enough to consider.
It is clear that the operation's success depends on the leader's control over a network of visuals, reflections and beliefs produced from his reality/dream/memory. Thus it is a predicted operation in a previously (not instantly) designed context versus defused unpredicted happenings, meaning that we can't even know the unpredicted even if it is mentioned or happened.
The three designed dreams for the operation seemed to be random, it is true that we have to do a puzzle or a trap for the dreamers not to solve and to be under control by the dream but unfortunately the architects ignored the psychological impact of speed in favour of the psychological and technical impact of space and place.
If everything is calculated, then the unpredicted is 'nothingness'. Therefore the director should have hid one element of the equation instead of hiding the original proof of the operation to succeed (the inception of the film). Elements of the equation such as the Labyrinth, the speed, the signal or the dreamer can be played upon to produce doubt instead of nothingness or the threat of the leader's memory. What if the architects have to instantly design the dream?
Because the idea was explained in the beginning of film in an educational fashion (just like he did in The Prestige) the director tried to create a visual knot to evoke confusion and doubt (the fight scenes), but that wasn't convincing to me because the rules were explained from the beginning.
The predicted end makes the director's visual effort to be a continuously failing infection of doubt. However the idea itself was overwhelming enough to invade all my senses.
I loved the idea of Inception but not the world created for it. The problem is in the process of events; the presentation of the idea informed us of what will happen, and the doubt of its success wasn't convincing enough to consider.
It is clear that the operation's success depends on the leader's control over a network of visuals, reflections and beliefs produced from his reality/dream/memory. Thus it is a predicted operation in a previously (not instantly) designed context versus defused unpredicted happenings, meaning that we can't even know the unpredicted even if it is mentioned or happened.
The three designed dreams for the operation seemed to be random, it is true that we have to do a puzzle or a trap for the dreamers not to solve and to be under control by the dream but unfortunately the architects ignored the psychological impact of speed in favour of the psychological and technical impact of space and place.
If everything is calculated, then the unpredicted is 'nothingness'. Therefore the director should have hid one element of the equation instead of hiding the original proof of the operation to succeed (the inception of the film). Elements of the equation such as the Labyrinth, the speed, the signal or the dreamer can be played upon to produce doubt instead of nothingness or the threat of the leader's memory. What if the architects have to instantly design the dream?
Because the idea was explained in the beginning of film in an educational fashion (just like he did in The Prestige) the director tried to create a visual knot to evoke confusion and doubt (the fight scenes), but that wasn't convincing to me because the rules were explained from the beginning.
The predicted end makes the director's visual effort to be a continuously failing infection of doubt. However the idea itself was overwhelming enough to invade all my senses.