Toy Story 3 (U) and Inception (12A)
The summer blockbuster season is tinged with sadness.
By Ryan Gilbey Published 15 July 2010
Toy Story 3 (U)
dir: Lee Unkrich
Inception (12A)
dir: Christopher Nolan
When someone lets you down, it becomes that much easier to say goodbye. This is how admirers of the Toy Story series may wish to rationalise any ambivalence towards Toy Story 3. The film has the unusual distinction of being an appropriate final chapter in the escapades of Woody the cloth cowboy and the bulbous-jawed astronaut Buzz Lightyear, while falling short of the level of invention for which the Pixar animation studio is renowned. You can intellectualise and even defend the reasons why the film is disappointing, but that doesn't stop it being disappointing.
Toy Story 3 has the blues - not just in the area of tone (a Toy Story film devoid of melancholy wouldn't be worthy of the name), but in the resignation expressed through the recycling of themes, plot devices and character types. It's as though the film-makers were trying to convince us that the ride is over, the play box is empty. That interpretation would be in keeping with the picture's message about learning when to move on. What time it spends in the company of Andy - one of the few characters who are neither battery-operated nor made in Japan - addresses the now teenage boy's struggle to put away childish things.
Andy is about to decamp to college, where he will presumably lose his virginity and get into satanism or steroids. His old playmates - Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), Buzz (Tim Allen), Jessie (Joan Cusack) and the rest - are packed off to a nursery, where they receive the overexcitable attentions of the most junior intake. One casualty of the toy's-eye view is that any child not adhering to the manufacturer's instructions is likely to be depicted as a barbarian, rather than a free spirit thinking outside the toy box. In the rough-housing and dismemberments to which the playthings are subjected here, you sense the same prissy disapproval that the first film directed at a child who performed ingenious grafts and transplants on his toys.
There's a long-standing frisson in the series between a toy's duty to serve its master and the caprices of these infant gods, who might abandon their loyal servants on a whim. The credo is reiterated here by Woody, who reminds his compadres that their role is "being there for Andy" even when Andy neglects them. "He can't hurt you any more," one of the nursery toys tells Andy's former favourites, as though addressing a battered wife in a women's shelter. Unable to exert control over their fate, the toys establish a below-stairs hierarchy among themselves. The roost is ruled by Lotso (Ned Beatty), a mangy scarlet teddy who hides his tyranny behind Southern homilies.
We've been here before: Lotso is really Toy Story 2's domineering patriarch Stinky Pete in magenta fur. While it's provocative that a series of films which makes no reference to human paternity - Andy has been raised by his mother - should see fatherhood in such negative terms, a second sequel can look superfluous when it's pounding the same notes rather than adding variations on a theme. Once again, there's a break-out scenario. Once again, Woody must choose between competing sets of family. As an argument for the end of the series, Toy Story 3 is rather persuasive. In the words of Jessie: "Woody, wake up - it's over."
Deviations from the formula are therefore gratefully received. There's breezy comedy in a fashion-happy Ken doll, voiced by Michael Keaton with a funkiness that makes him a fauxmosexual joy rather than a homophobic caricature. More troubling is the physically and emotionally damaged Big Baby, a doll that mews like a mangled cat, strong-arms recalcitrant toys and scrutinises the nursery through his one functioning and extravagantly lashed eye. The film's most indisputably magnificent shot shows him sitting on a swing at dusk, ostensibly acting as lookout, but more likely pondering why he feels so old inside.
In Christopher Nolan's Inception, Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is living the dream - someone else's dream. He's an extractor, which has nothing to do with dentistry, but rather involves entering another person's mind during sleep in order to steal secrets from their subconscious. A Mickey Finn sedates the target, enabling Cobb and his team, wired up to a contraption in a briefcase, to stroll around inside the sleeper's head. If things get nasty, you just shoot yourself and you're back in the waking world. (But it is later revealed that death in a dream can in some cases leave you stranded in eternal limbo. That's what you call moving the bedposts.)
As the film opens, Cobb is hired to plant rather than purloin. A businessman needs the son and heir of a dying competitor to break up the old man's empire. The idea isn't going to simply pop into his head, so Cobb must insinuate it into his dreams. This is both harder than it sounds and, regrettably, less exciting.
For a film set in the rampant subconscious, Inception is a dismayingly tidy work. With his assumption that every shot should resemble the backdrop to a GQ shoot, Nolan (who made Memento and revived the Batman franchise) is the wrong sort of director to meddle in dreams; his film trespasses on territory covered more emphatically in eXistenZ, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Dreamscape and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, none of which shared Inception's squeamishness about the imagination.
You can forgive the dreams being situated largely within the Gothic-futurist cityscapes beloved by Nolan, who directed two Batman films (Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). After all, their location is predetermined by the team's architect, Ariadne (Ellen Page), who has mapped out the topography like a software designer. But if it's the dreamer whose subconscious fills in the details, as the film claims, why the absence of silliness, sex, horror and general abandon? We get spectacular explosions in which debris hangs in the air and refuses to fall, but no one finds themselves conducting the London Philharmonic wearing nothing but a kiss-me-quick hat. There are car chases and shoot-outs, but no one is pursued by a blancmange with rabies.
Ryan Gilbey blogs on film every Tuesday at Cultural Capital.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


8 comments
Inception's probably the best summer blockbuster since, well, Dark Knight.
Tim,
On the subject of pedantry, er, you've misspelt the word arse.
Or is there a censor at work here? I'll soon find out.
On the subject of your comment itself - I've read and re-read it and genuinely have no clue at all what you meant to say or thought you mean to say (and one of my occupations is turning what people have written into what they meant to write; so I have to put you down as a hopeless case, or a bit over-tired when you wrote it).
Concerning Ryan's review, my problem with it is that, although he's entertained me with his wordplay, he hasn't actually provided a conclusion or a recommendation.
Mind you, in my case, both would have come too late.
I saw the film on Thursday (July 22) and walked out after about an hour-and-a-half - I was losing the will to live.
After about 10 minutes, I went back in again - three family members were still inside watching, so I felt duty bound.
More accurately, two were, because I crossed paths with No.1 son coming out - he was worried his snoring would disturb the audience if he remained.
He didn't return at all, choosing instead to get some enjoyment out of a good coffee and watching the folk passing by.
NB – I hope my own insinuations make it quite clear how I feel about Inception.
Just seen it. As an opera-goer, I find suspension of disbelief not too difficult. I agree with Greg that the film's internal consistency is a virtue but American Feel-Good Endings, I can do without. Back to the opera & everyone dying to great music, great music not being a feature of this recommendable but very noisy film.
Never saw Toy Story 1 nor 2, nor many other one penny bubble gum kiddie films from the last couple of decades.
Bring back Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Coyote I say. But forget Walt Disney rubbish - never found Mickey Mouse funny. And what happened to Felix the Cat and Betty Boop, they were all right too.
On the last point about Inception:
I guess because the audience would have found it silly. Although it is silly, when you're dreaming it it doesn't feel silly, the blancmange feels as scary as the gunmen in SUVs, and conducting the LP naked feels normal. In the dream that is. The absence of these sillier aspects means the non-dreaming audience are seeing the real-life things that illicit the desired responses without seeming silly, as they would in real-life.
I rather liked Inception, a more human version of the Matrix (another brilliant film). Good review though.
A few people have made that criticism about the non dream like nature of inception (see the satoshi kon film paprika, an excellent film nolan must have thought about when making this, for real dream like craziness).
I'd argue that although its setting is sort of dreams its much more about reality, memory and the effects of memory than dreams.
I'd argue at its heart it is cyber-punk and is rooted in cyber-punk concerns over memory, perception and experience (hell there is even a note to megacorporations in it) even if it has got a very slick surface and it never plums the depths of dream imagery because it never intends to.
Also it seems to have been missed that the point that in Inception the dreams that they move in are creations of outside agents designed to make them think it is real or to influence them in a particular way.
Inception made me extra pleased because im picky and as long as you pay attention its completely internally consistent (the wake up/limbo thing makes perfect sense in context).
Which is not to say that there aren't many great films and books without them or that use lack of internal consistency to great effect, just that inception managed to do it when so many others should but dont bother.
I'm so old I remember Ned Beatty from Homicide.
I would like to suggest that your head is a bit too far up your own arce to give a decent review of Inception that does not border on the pedantic.