I’m poor. About once a week, I go to Mom’s place to do laundry and watch
blu-ray movies on her 54″ big screen LCD television. I save The Good Movies for
my visits to Mom’s place: the Hollywood extravaganzas, the color-popping animated
movies, the lotsa-’splosion action films.

I don’t go to the movie theaters, so I sat back and watched as the hype for
Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” came and went. For a time, the Internet seemed
convinced that “Inception” was this decade’s “Schindler’s List.” I witheld
judgment: all I know is that I love Nolan movies. I waited until it came out
on Blu-ray, then went to Mom’s house.

We shut Inception off halfway through–not out of boredom, but out of fatigue. I
had to wake up early the next day. That said, though, I wasn’t digging it.
The film had, in fact, given me a headache. I couldn’t tell if the whole story
was a dream or not. My girlfriend and I kept trying to guess “the twist.”
It appeared that many of the cool images used in the trailer were indeed not
much more than trailer candy–cool images layered on a baklava–thick plot
layered on saran-wrap-thin characters. Whatever. We’d finish the film tomorrow,
and hopefully by then we’d know what the big deal was.

Througout the next day, I thought about why I hadn’t been so into “Inception”
thus far.

For the most part, I don’t like Mousetrap Movies. You’re focused on the
MECHANICS of the plot, not the EMOTION. Emotion is the most important tool
in the storyteller’s toolbox, and it irritates me when a storyteller
focuses on The Twist.

STOP HERE. Before I go any further, we need to talk Hitchcock.

When I first started getting into film, I read a couple of seminal books about
Alfred Hitchcock. The first was “Hitchcock,” a book-length interview between
The Man and The Man Junior: Francois Truffaut. It’s the King James Bible of
film books–an absolute essential. I also read a book on the making of Hitchcock’s
“Vertigo.” The latter book in particular demonstrated what Hitchcock did to
make his movies work: he didn’t make mystery films. He made melodramas.

If you haven’t seen “Vertigo,” check out this trailer and you’ll get a sense
of what this flick’s about:

To summarize: A Private Detective, played by Jimmy Stewart, is asked to tail
A Blonde, played by Kim Novak. Jimmy Stewart, in classic detective movie
fashion, becomes obsessed with The Blonde. He falls in love with her. She
is a spectre, a ghost, completely unattainable… and yet Jimmy Stewart must
have her, must protect her, must save her from… her husband.

And then, halfway through the movie, Kim Novak falls to her death, ending the
first chapter of our story… she’s been murdered.

Later on, Jimmy Stewart meets her at random on the street… this time a brunette.
Is this the same woman? Is it the ghostly reincarnation of the character
stewart fell so hard for earlier in the film? He becomes obsessed.

At this point, we know there’s a twist coming in down the line. We anticipate
waiting the rest of the film to figure out what’s going on…

…and that never happens. The Twist is revealed in the following scene:
Kim Novak writes a letter to a friend in which she reveals she was hired by
the bad guy to become a fake murder victim. Jimmy Stewart’s character spotted
her at random on the street, and the relationship continues until the film’s
final tragic accident.

“Vertigo” is the greatest Mousetrap Movie ever made. Why? Because “Vertigo”
has one of the best twists in Hollywood history up its sleeve… and plays it
halfway through the film. It is the greatest use of Hitchcock’s “Surprise vs.
Suspense” mantra.

Here’s the trick. If the audience knows there’s a twist coming, the audience
asks, “What’s going on?” If the audience knows there ISN’T a twist coming,
they ask, “What happens next?” I think the latter is a better way to handle
a story.

That said, let’s go back to Inception.

I was watching Inception expecting a twist. In lieu of a twist, I was expecting
maybe to at least connect with the characters, which were not very deep.

When we restarted the film, started on the scene that finally
connected me to the film: Leonardo DiCaprio’s twisted family history is
revealed. This was not a twist… so much. It was a scene that gave some
depth to Leo’s story. I finally connected with the character. It
didn’t matter what happened after that: I was invested. It helped me to
sort through the endless layers of plot.

What happens after that scene is a not-quite-comprehensible-on-the-first-viewing
series of action scenes. But I don’t care: the film maintains a level of
gleeful mayhem that reminded me of the best Hong Kong action films… and it’s
just crazy. Inception really took off in the second half, and its nearly
dialogue-less ending was an “action bro moment” that really put a flower in the storytellers’
caps.

There’s a twist at the end… I don’t think of it as a twist so much as a fun
little cheat. I’d read so many “SPOILERS AHEAD” reviews that I was expecting
some huge reversal. I suppose it was… but really it was just a spinning top,
and had the same effect that the last “booga booga” shots of a cheap horror
film generate.

“Inception” is the Big Poppa of plotty films. Half the fun comes from trying
to decipher the darn story. The other half is saying “forget it” and
enjoying some crazy Matrix-meets-James-Bond action scenes. But it’s a great
film to start with as we continue our series on the value of plot mechanics vs.
the value of characters making emotional decisions. I think it’s clear that what drives us
to enjoy “Inception” is that the few decisions made in the film are driven by
characters who are bottoming out emotionally… and it shows the value of making
sure audiences are connected to a film’s character.

Next, we’ll look at a bad example of an over-plotted film: Angelina Jolie’s
wish-it-was-the-Cold-War-again action thriller “Salt.” It may be an
imperfect film, but it has its merits, and there’s a lot to learn as we
desire to learn how to craft a fascinating story.