Double Feature: Paprika (2006) and Inception (2010)

(Double Feature is a series of “double length” (400-word) posts where I’ll discuss two related pop culture artifacts)

Inception and Paprika

Inception was a critical and commercial success, a cerebral blockbuster nonetheless filled with action. It’s unique in that it’s successful, high budget film from the last decade that’s based on an original idea. The film has even shifted producer expectations somewhat – it’s hard to imagine films like Pacific Rim or Oblivion being produced five years ago with such large budgets.

But how original is Inception? Many have commented on Christopher Nolan’s film’s similarities to Satoshi Kon’s Paprika, a hallucinatory anime which uses dreams as a stage for a convoluted thriller plot. In Inception, dreams provide a way to steal and – ultimately – implant ideas. In Paprika, the “DC mini” allows for dreams to be entered, recorded and modified: initially for psychiatric purposes, but it isn’t long before the device is used for more nefarious means.

But despite significant similarities – how many films use dreams as the canvas for an action-packed adventure film? – the two films are very, very different, with Inception using dreams as a platform for an intelligent but straightforward action film, while Paprika embraces dream logic wholeheartedly.

Nolan’s film may not be conventional per se, but with its substantial budget it doesn’t want to alienate its audience; the first half of the film is mostly exposition, explaining to Ellen Page’s audience proxy the particulars of dream incursions. Inception has a lot of rules: time travels slower in this layer of the dream! If you die in this particular dream, you’re stuck in limbo forever! If you’re falling in one layer of a dream, it’ll wake you up in the layers below! These rules keep Inception interesting and reward rewatching: there’s a lot of intricacies to puzzle out, even if the rules aren’t entirely consistent.

Inception uses dreams as a jumping-off point: it’s really a film about corporate espionage and regret: substitute “virtual reality” for dreams and you could have made an ‘80s movie with a similar plot. Paprika, on the other hand, abandons rules almost entirely for an enthusiastic embrace of dream logic (often at the expense of a coherent narrative). Characters appear in classic movies, or swing out of billboards, or rant about ceiling fans and chrysanthemums. It’s less dense than Inception but substantially harder to follow – and of course, that’s the point! Inception is about dreams but Paprika is a dream, filled with rousing surreal imagery and an exhilarating, childlike energy. After all, whose dream has rules?

Paprika: 122/200

Inception: 169/200

6 thoughts on “Double Feature: Paprika (2006) and Inception (2010)

  1. Great double feature! I found the parade imagery used in Paprika more than a little bit disturbing and that music definitely is a haunting earworm. I agree that Inception is far more structured and easier to follow, if cerebral. Christopher Nolan seems to be all about providing the cathartic “a-ha” moment in his films, and there need to be rules for that to happen effectively.

    • Thanks for the comment! There’s definitely a lot of disturbing imagery in Paprika where you’re not entirely sure why it’s so disturbing – it really taps into the way we dream that way, in that mundane things can be truly unnerving. Agreed on Nolan and his love of catharsis in the last act of his films; he does love very structured films (even Memento, which is much looser than his other work, is very structured in terms of how Leonard’s illness works and how he deals with it, in order to make the twist that much more effective).

  2. This is a great feature and I love both films! I struggled at first with Paprika until I realised that there isn’t a strong sense of structure and sense – then it was much easier to enjoy!

    • Thanks. I need to do more Double Feature posts; hopefully inspiration will strike again soon! Paprika‘s certainly one of those films that works better the second time you see it, once you understand what it’s going for (and an unambiguous, easy-to-follow narrative is definitely not one of the things it’s going for!).

  3. Pingback: Interstellar (2014) | ccpopculture

  4. Pingback: Battles – La Di Da Di | ccpopculture

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s