A Closer Look at "Inception"

In yesterday's Best Picture Power Rankings, I did something a LITTLE drastic, moving Christopher Nolan's sci-fi mind-bender "Inception" from three to eight.  Don't get me wrong, I have every right to believe "Inception" is a lock for a nomination (I think seven-eight slots are all but decided in the BP race), but in terms of the Oscar race as a whole, I think a film like "True Grit" mas more momentum.

Yet I love "Inception," I think it's one of the best films of the year and a massive, massive achievement. But somewhere I have a feeling something may go horribly wrong in Best Director or Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars when it comes to Christopher Nolan.

Please, allow me to explain.

My thinking stems largely from 2008, where many pundits (myself included) thought Nolan's "The Dark Knight" was the sure thing -- it was about to cross a billion dollars in the worldwide box office, people were still talking about it months after its release, it featured a brilliant performance from a tragically deceased actor... things were in its corner. "The Dark Knight" still received eight Oscar nominations, including an eventual win for Supporting Actor Heath Ledger, but Christopher Nolan didn't turn up anywhere. No Screenplay, no Director, no Picture nomination.

This was a troubling paradox, that a film could be SO well-lauded in the technical categories and NOT end up scoring more than once in the "Big Eight" (picture, director, performances, writing). Some people even claimed (without proof) the baffling exclusion of "The Dark Knight" led to the shift back to 10 Best Picture nominees.

"Inception" is, in some ways, a harder shell to crack than "The Dark Knight." It's science-fiction (a genre the Academy usually rebels against in the major categories), it's a "blockbuster" even despite its artistic merits, it's a bold and brainy concept... yes, I realize these are all praises of the film, but the Academy voting block is more uncertain than ever, their interests cross-sectioned into a group of filmmakers choosing old-school dramas and cutting-edge genre pieces.

I think it's guaranteed for a Best Picture nomination. And yes, it will get MANY other nominations -- Best Art Direction, Cinematography, Film Editing, Original Score, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Visual Effects -- but it lacks a performer to single out. Despite early talk that Marion Cotillard would be fighting for an Oscar nom (and I think she's wholly deserving), she's fallen by the wayside in an Oscar campaign that favors the film's concept, audacity, and technical achievements.

In this regard, it does seem like Nolan will get a Best Director nomination, but look at his competition: David Fincher ("The Social Network"), Tom Hooper ("The King's Speech"), the Coen brothers ("True Grit"), Darren Aronofsky ("Black Swan"), Lee Unkrich ("Toy Story 3"), David O. Russell ("The Fighter"), Debra Granik ("Winter's Bone"), Mike Leight ("Another Year"). Many of these films are smaller, more intimate pieces (even something like "True Grit" is more about the interactions of the characters than the shooting of the guns). So to add Nolan in this mix represents a layer of diversity, choosing a director who staged inventive set-pieces, intense action scenes, and balanced a potentially convoluted story with ease.

The real problem is Original Screenplay. Nolan should be nominated easily (it's a pretty weak year), but what concerns me is that "The King's Speech" has won the majority of Original Screenplay awards from the critics, leaving "Inception" with very few mentions in the major category winners.

Of course, this is all speculation, and if the film churns out 10 Oscar nominations on the 25th I'll simply sit back and say, "well, good!" It deserves those nominations. But for the sake of arguing, the sake of discussion, these are questions we should put on the table and keep in our perspective as we start thinking about what the films that AREN'T "The Social Network" and "The King's Speech" are going to do.