Christopher Nolan's "Inception" (We're giving up on spoiler tags)

[megladon8]

Yep. I don't know what kind of dreams most people have but mine are usually quite boring and deal with real life situations in places I'm usually at. I can't remember the last time I had any sort of "fantastical" dream.


I'm the same way.

I have the occasional flying dream, but even those are usually more or less "realistic", in that they take place in my every day life with the people I normally see and communicate with, except I have the ability to fly.

I think the movie would have been kind of terrible if the dream worlds were all mini acid-trips.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So would this be an accurate "map" of how the ending worked?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/deadandmessedup/InceptionClimax.jpg

[megladon8]

DaMU, I know it's off-topic but I wanted to say I just read your essay "Parsing the Slender Man" and really, really enjoyed it.

Great work!

[Dead & Messed Up]

DaMU, I know it's off-topic but I wanted to say I just read your essay "Parsing the Slender Man" and really, really enjoyed it.

Great work!

Thank you very much! I had a lot of fun writing it.

:)

[megladon8]

Thank you very much! I had a lot of fun writing it.

:)


I, too, found some of the Slender Man images very unsettling. I actually find that the more subtle his presence is in the photographs, the more horrifying they are when you finally notice him.

There is a series of photos out there (I think I have them saved on my HD somewhere) which are all very high-def and feature the Slender Man on a suburban street which is illuminated by a single amber street light. I thought those were actually kind of brilliant in their composition, and the way they hid his figure, sometimes even right out in the open.

[Derek]

SPOLIER WARNING

As Spinal said, it's more similar to actual dreams than certain "dreamlike" films like Paprika. Dreams as remembered are often much freakier or more surreal than they are as they occur, especially since even if they're crystallized, they are entering our consciousness right at the jarring transition out of sleep. I'm not suggesting that our dreams are giant set-pieces either, but I know that many of the dreams I remember clearly take a narrative form with recognizable people and places. Yes, there is often something off (a friend taking the form of someone I've never seen before, a place I know is home but which looks like somewhere else), but I like the fact that the film didn't delve much into the innate symbolic nature of dreams.

If you're unable or unwilling to take the jump that dreams are able to be controlled or can be shaped by outside forces, obviously the film will never work for you, but I don't think it's as outlandish an idea as some people think. Scientists have already been able to map the brain and with scans, isolate the part of the brain which stores traumatic memories. They've done tests and been able to essentially mute the traumatic aspects of these memories, so while they're not forgotten, when they are remembered, there is no longer an unhealthy emotional response to it. Yes, this is memory not the dream state, but I think it's silly to view dreams as simply a series of disconnected, incomprehensible ideas and images that can only be captured through surreal imagery and loosely connected associations. I thought the film did a good job of explaining how and why the dream states could be controlled to the point that it fooled the subconscious into accepting it as real. It's certainly a break from the cinematic representation of dreams as hazy and often incoherent and otherworldly, but I think it's an equally valid approach especially given the speculative set-up of inception.

As for the films emotional pull, I suppose I'm much closer to Spinal than to those who found it cold and clinical. On the one hand, I understand those who felt its emotion was fleeting, but once I was able to adjust to the fact each level is essentially its own self-contained reality as opposed to an increasingly thinned out representation of the “top level” (ie, a copy of a copy of a…), the events carried the same weight no matter which level they were present in. Mal may have been something of a phantom whenever Cobb saw her, but in his perception, she was real and the prospect of his repeatedly having to re-experience the nightmare of accepting that, despite inhabiting her body, voice and personality, she was not in fact the Mal he was searching for is what made it so tragic for me. Even in the one level where they did grow old together, it was still a Mal that was filtered down through his own sub-conscious.

Personally, I find the film more rewarding if the ending is seen as him not being rescued (the children there appearing in the same way, and age, as his earlier visions, Ariadne’s excessive curiosity about his personal background, Michael Caine’s telling him to “come back to reality” along with Cobb’s constant talk of getting back home, etc.) because it fits so perfectly with the tragic nature of Cobb’s story – his inability to get home to a real, stable and sustainable reality, instead left forever trapped in various levels, creating new memories and experiences that in and of themselves are real, yet fade away in ways far more painful than anything time can inflict on one man. It’s truly a terrifying existence to imagine.

[megladon8]

Derek, I really, really, really liked your write-up there.

I wanted to quote sections of it to run off on my own tangents, but I'm honestly a little tired and not particularly motivated to do it right now.

But yeah, I really like everything you wrote, even though our views on the ending are polar opposites.

[Qrazy]

Not only that, but there was one fundamental flaw with the logic of Leo's plight. It was obvious, from the moment inception is mentioned, that he performed it on his wife, but the reasoning is nonsense. Why did he need to go to all that trouble, when all he really needed to do was shove her off a building? Or push her in front of that train? They'd both die and wake up in the real world, and while she may be angry, she'd come to understand that he made the right choice. Inception wasn't necessary, and was just a cheap gimmick to push the plot.

My understanding of limbo is that you can't just die in limbo to wake up. You have to know you're in a dream and then die to wake up.



Also, I wish the film had been a bit less obvious about telling us that Leo was the one undergoing an inception, and that Cillian Murphy was a manifestation of his subconscious to help his own emotional catharsis. I had that feeling for awhile, and liked that it was just a lingering thought, and then they go and show him coming home and his kids aren't any older and the top is about to stop spinning, and they basically beat that idea home just in case no one got it. Disappointing.

I don't agree with your latter theory so I can't say the point was beaten home at all.

[Qrazy]

I think if you looked at the dream's from the perspective of Cillian Murphy's character, they would seem plenty strange. And in all honesty, more like a typical dream experience than the stuff in Paprika.

I dreamt that I was abducted by some men in masks. They interrogated me. They wanted to know the combination to the safe. But I couldn't remember.

I dreamt that I was at a hotel and a security guard approached me. Expect he said that he was trying to protect my subconscious and that men were going to try to attack me within my own mind.

I dreamt that I was an agent working on a mission in the mountains. I walked into a secret room and my father was there in his death bed. I opened a safe and a cherished item from my childhood was there.

This is much more like the dreams that I have than a parade of inanimate objects and animals that play instruments.

And besides that, the film establishes well what dreams mean and how they operate within the context of the film. It is internally consistent.

To further buoy the argument as to why Cillian doesn't remember them well or at all... I would think that just as one does not remember a dream well upon awaking one barely remembers their dream within a dream within a dream. In the initial dream they were wearing masks, thus he does not remember them.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So would this be an accurate "map" of how the ending worked?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/deadandmessedup/InceptionClimax.jpg

Okay, someone on RT pointed out that

although Cobb "constructed" part of Limbo from his earlier time with Mal, Limbo is still a shared construct between everyone in it.

Still, I think Saito should be at a right angle, since he's not in the climax proper, and he's in a different portion of Limbo.

So I adjusted to account for that, and I think it's looking better.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/deadandmessedup/InceptionClimaxRev.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

I wasn't sure what to make of Saito. His character has little to no discernible arc, so I was a bit befuddled by the emphasis on Cobb extracting him from limbo, the lack of emphasis on Cobb's emotional journey in doing so, and particularly the "grow old together" line. Bosco identified it as the key emotional scene for him, but it left me with a quizzically arched eyebrow at best, and that was largely because the scene made a distinct point of cutting away after the gun is introduced, rendered it another esoteric puzzle piece. Oh, I largely agree about Saito. The developed bond and that particular line I felt carried strong evocations, and it brings great resonance to the beached-Leo/Saito-as-old-man scene being used as bookends to the film, but I agree that his non-role in the film's action movie nonsense ultimately makes it unsuccessful.


Cillian Murphy's character is also pretty sympathetic. But if Saito is a hero, is Cillian Murphy a villain? Some review called the movie ambitious for being a summer film "without a villain."

[number8]

I believe I have this movie figured out and is now able to answer all questions. But now I have a plane to catch. Too-da-loo!

[Milky Joe]

I believe I have this movie figured out and is now able to answer all questions. But now I have a plane to catch. Too-da-loo!

This movie is an elaborate joke played on the community that is us all.

[Dukefrukem]

Yep. I don't know what kind of dreams most people have but mine are usually quite boring and deal with real life situations in places I'm usually at. I can't remember the last time I had any sort of "fantastical" dream.

Same here. There maybe something weird within the dream... like two people hanging out in my dream that would never hang out in real life, or people trying to do something that seems weird, but it's never a full blown cell scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eCD5Nuoyi4).

[Dukefrukem]

I believe I have this movie figured out and is now able to answer all questions. But now I have a plane to catch. Too-da-loo!

What the heck! Dont you have an iphone or iPad you can post on? Oh... those still don't work 100% of the time.. nevermind.

[Russ]

Funny comment from another forum regarding the critic we love to hate:


Armond White is my "totem" - if he writes a review that I agree with, then I know I'm in a dream.

Heh.

[Qrazy]

Also, I wish the film had been a bit less obvious about telling us that Leo was the one undergoing an inception, and that Cillian Murphy was a manifestation of his subconscious to help his own emotional catharsis. I had that feeling for awhile, and liked that it was just a lingering thought, and then they go and show him coming home and his kids aren't any older and the top is about to stop spinning, and they basically beat that idea home just in case no one got it. Disappointing.


So here's why I think this is not the case.

Edit: Also some SOLARIS spoilers in the second to last paragraph of this spoiler text.


1) What are they incepting into Leo and why?
2) There is no 'safe' where any other character puts an inception into Leo. And with three other characters in the dreams when either an extraction or inception has occurred, we've witnessed such a safe (Saito film opening, Mal during a reminiscence, and Fischer film end).
3) We have to accept that the totem is genuinely meaningful. That is to say continuously spinning = dream, falling over = reality. If we don't accept this there's no point in analyzing anything in the film. So, we can conclude that at least a certain portion of the film is certainly reality (everytime Leo spins in a scene and the totem falls over). Now at the end the totem may or may not fall over. If it does fall over then we can accept everything in the film as is. So for argument's sake let's say it does not fall over. However it certainly fell over earlier in the film when we already knew Leo was a criminal and preparing to perform the Inception we witness in the film.

So at what point and why are they incepting him? I think we also have to accept that if and when Cobb's dream world begins it begins with a change of scenery and not with a given shot after the last time he spins the totem and it falls over. I'll certainly accept the possibility that at the very end Leo is in a dream (in fact I believe this), but I'd need further evidence and reasoning as to who and why he is being incepted if that were the case. An argument against him being incepted is that the whole dynamic with Saito which takes place after Ariadne makes Cobb deal with Mal doesn't make much sense (to me at least). Also I'd like to completely reject that hypothesis (someone else made) that Mal is trying to help Leo wake up. Mal is certainly a projection as she is telling him that he should stay in (what is clearly) a dream world at the end.

On an unrelated note... I'd just like to point out why I find the final ambiguity so valuable. It calls to mind two lines heard earlier in the film. The first line being the notion that we create a dream as we experience and the second line being that there is no one single reality. In the case of the latter line I feel that employing an ambiguous ending adds support to the notion that there is no one right conclusion as to the end of the film. Some theories are more plausible than others, but whether Cobb is dreaming at the end or not is certainly forever up in the air. There is no right answer just as there is no one reality (in some ways Nolan has made a film about parallel universes... except as an entirely psychological phenomenon). That being said I personally believe there must be an initial reality (in the loose sense of the word, as well as a reality in the film) for all sense experience to come from. There must be a subject/object relationship initially for us to perceive anything at all. After that once we're in a dream and simply drawing on memory then everything can be all subject.

In terms of the notion that we both create and experience the dream world I feel the ambiguous ending has relevance because we (the audience) have been continuously perceiving this film (someone else's dream/creation) but once we reach the end of the film we take over the dream. We must generate the true nature of the ending in our own minds.

I'd also just like to mention that the film is a lot like Solaris. The ending to me calls to mind accepting that final imperfect dream world although in this case whether or not Kelvin/Cobb stays on Solaris/limbo is even more ambiguous.

It's also worth noting the possibility that Cobb is not in limbo at the end. Perhaps the heist is performed successfully but then Cobb is apprehended at the airport and the final two scenes (getting through the airport and going home) are a dream he experiences in prison.

[Qrazy]

My girlfriend also brought up an interesting question. Perhaps this was addressed in the film but if so I missed it. In terms of the mechanics of shared dreaming (the hook up/the chemical) what separates the architect from the subject (who fills the dream with their projections) and the other shared dreamers? How does one person act as the architect, another as the subject and the others as incidentals? Also why does only Cobb's subconscious seem to get involved in missions? There's certainly the guilt issue, but it seems like no one else's projections show up except for his. Also can everyone in the shared dream manipulate the fabric of the dream or only the architect of that layer of the dream? I would guess for the most part they don't manipulate the dream mechanics (they just dream the structure initially and leave as is) so that the projections of the subject don't become suspicious. And finally, for a dream within a dream why does it matter who the new architect is? I guess we can just accept this as a basic law of the film but imo it's really only the architect at the first layer of the dream that matters given that a dream within a dream is simply an extension of the first dream.

[Spinal]

I'm amazed at how well you guys can remember specific details in regards to the plot and dialogue. I'm never very good at that.

[megladon8]

I'm amazed at how well you guys can remember specific details in regards to the plot and dialogue. I'm never very good at that.


"We've had our time together. Now I have to move on...I have to let you go..."

:cry:

[Derek]

My girlfriend also brought up an interesting question. Perhaps this was addressed in the film but if so I missed it. In terms of the mechanics of shared dreaming (the hook up/the chemical) what separates the architect from the subject (who fills the dream with their projections) and the other shared dreamers? How does one person act as the architect, another as the subject and the others as incidentals?

To my knowledge, this wasn't explained in the film. I assumed it was somehow assigned through the chemicals taken to knock themselves out. It can't be a decision made specifically by the dreamer or because of specialized training (since Ariadne is the architect the first time she goes under).


Also why does only Cobb's subconscious seem to get involved in missions? There's certainly the guilt issue, but it seems like no one else's projections show up except for his.

I believe it was because he was the only one who had been to limbo in the past, creating an instability in his dream state. I think it lends weight to the notion that Cobb was being rescued from limbo as his projections appear in every level (except perhaps on the mountain) and they seem to be noticed by everyone else who is present when he sees them.


Also can everyone in the shared dream manipulate the fabric of the dream or only the architect of that layer of the dream? I would guess for the most part they don't manipulate the dream mechanics (they just dream the structure initially and leave as is) so that the projections of the subject don't become suspicious. And finally, for a dream within a dream why does it matter who the new architect is? I guess we can just accept this as a basic law of the film but imo it's really only the architect at the first layer of the dream that matters given that a dream within a dream is simply an extension of the first dream.

I think only the architect has the ability to manipulate and shape the dream world. I'm not sure about once you go into the lower levels, but I essentially agree with your last sentence.

[Raiders]

To the last part of Qrazy's post...

There is only one architect for all the layers of the dream, Ariadne. There is a different dreamer at each stage who dreams her design, but she is the only architect and my understanding is they are designed ahead of time since she is shown working them and they mention that the dreamers of each layer discuss and can add stuff ahead of time.

[Qrazy]

To the last part of Qrazy's post...

There is only one architect for all the layers of the dream, Ariadne. There is a different dreamer at each stage who dreams her design, but she is the only architect and my understanding is they are designed ahead of time since she is shown working them and they mention that the dreamers of each layer discuss and can add stuff ahead of time.

True that she designed them and is the overarching architect, but I also thought they referred to each individual dreamer of any given level as the architect of that level as well (not as the actual conceptualist but as the one creating the dream world), but I suppose they didn't use the term then.

But anyway, good point, although I still wonder does the dreamer solely control the world of any given dream (aside from subject projections and outer layer side effects)... or does a 'non current layer dreamer' team member have some control? It seems like Eames had some control on layers when he wasn't dreaming (changing his appearance... or was that simply planned in Yusuf's dream) and Cobb's sub-conscious definitely makes appearances (but granted that's not conscious control so perhaps we can simply accept that either his time in limbo or his sub-conscious issues allow for some warping of usual dream rules).

[megladon8]

My understanding was similar to Raiders'...

I was under the impression that each dream had to have a different dreamer, but the architect was always Ariadne.

If I'm not mistaken (which I very well may be) the dreamers for each dream were the ones intrinsic to that level - so JGL was the dreamer in the level where he was floating around in zero grav., and Tom Hardy was the dreamer for the snow level.

[Qrazy]

My understanding was similar to Raiders'...

I was under the impression that each dream had to have a different dreamer, but the architect was always Ariadne.

If I'm not mistaken (which I very well may be) the dreamers for each dream were the ones intrinsic to that level - so JGL was the dreamer in the level where he was floating around in zero grav., and Tom Hardy was the dreamer for the snow level.

It's true that I misused the term Architect in my earlier post so I'll exchange the term for dreamer. I also agree with your above statement, but I still wonder how much control peripheral team members have in dreams which are not their dreams. For instance people were asking earlier why if someone can just dream up a bigger gun they didn't do that more often. I'm wondering if perhaps they don't because a) it's not their dream and b) if they did they'd draw too much attention from the subject's sub-conscious. I'm guessing that Eames didn't think up the gun at that moment, but that Yusuf had included such a gun in the blueprint of the dream. And that the line of dialogue was simply a joke rather than a literal statement.

[Qrazy]

To my knowledge, this wasn't explained in the film. I assumed it was somehow assigned through the chemicals taken to knock themselves out. It can't be a decision made specifically by the dreamer or because of specialized training (since Ariadne is the architect the first time she goes under).

I haven't looked at all these diagrams yet (and don't have time right now) but this is a cool advanced description of the 'dream machine' (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/05/is-this-inceptions-dream-stealing-machine/)

[megladon8]

It's true that I misused the term Architect in my earlier post so I'll exchange the term for dreamer. I also agree with your above statement, but I still wonder how much control peripheral team members have in dreams which are not their dreams. For instance people were asking earlier why if someone can just dream up a bigger gun they didn't do that more often. I'm wondering if perhaps they don't because a) it's not their dream and b) if they did they'd draw too much attention from the subject's sub-conscious. I'm guessing that Eames didn't think up the gun at that moment, but that Yusuf had included such a gun in the blueprint of the dream. And that the line of dialogue was simply a joke rather than a literal statement.


Yes, I took that line as a bit of levity.

[Ezee E]

Any of you guys think that Leo's wedding ring might be the true totem for him? Throughout the movie he continued to lie to his team about everything, and he seemed particularly hesitant about teaching the totem to others. Why not have a decoy in case someone manipulated him (which later happened)?

He could keep that in his pocket, along with his fake totem. Throughout the dreamworld, it's already been mentioned that he is always wearing the wedding ring, so if he has it on, he knows he's dreaming, but if it's in his pocket, he knows it's reality.

Hmm?

[Boner M]

Loved this. Was not expecting it beforehand, nor was I expecting to during the first 45 minutes or so, which are rife with Nolan's unfortunate tendency toward expository clunkiness and visual blandness... but damn, there's just so much to chew on, and real emotional ramifications behind the surfeit of intellectual conceits, and it's just kinda bewilderingly compelling once the pieces all fall into place. I don't usually go for puzzle films, but between this and Memento (and The Prestige to a lesser extent, which I wanna give another go) I think Nolan has the monopoly on the genre.

Gonna read through this thread and its many boxes soon, but ironically, I'm getting on a flight out of Sydney real soon...

[B-side]

Glad to have you on the team, Boner.

[Boner M]

Glad to have you on the team, Boner.
A bit overrated but still da best movie of all time.

[Fezzik]

Any of you guys think that Leo's wedding ring might be the true totem for him? Throughout the movie he continued to lie to his team about everything, and he seemed particularly hesitant about teaching the totem to others. Why not have a decoy in case someone manipulated him (which later happened)?

He could keep that in his pocket, along with his fake totem. Throughout the dreamworld, it's already been mentioned that he is always wearing the wedding ring, so if he has it on, he knows he's dreaming, but if it's in his pocket, he knows it's reality.

Hmm?

You beat me to it. This is what I was coming here to post. The more I think about it, the more I think the wedding ring is his totem. The top can't be. It was Mal's. He specifically said that the totems are unique to an individual.

[Fezzik]

Gonna read through this thread and its many boxes soon, but ironically, I'm getting on a flight out of Sydney real soon...

Let us know if someone "finds" your passport and gives it back to you.

[Dukefrukem]

You beat me to it. This is what I was coming here to post. The more I think about it, the more I think the wedding ring is his totem. The top can't be. It was Mal's. He specifically said that the totems are unique to an individual.

Ezee E figured it out. This has to be it. I just want that extended scene at the very end so we can see his hand and I'll be content. It will be on the Blu-ray release.

[Qrazy]

Any of you guys think that Leo's wedding ring might be the true totem for him? Throughout the movie he continued to lie to his team about everything, and he seemed particularly hesitant about teaching the totem to others. Why not have a decoy in case someone manipulated him (which later happened)?

He could keep that in his pocket, along with his fake totem. Throughout the dreamworld, it's already been mentioned that he is always wearing the wedding ring, so if he has it on, he knows he's dreaming, but if it's in his pocket, he knows it's reality.

Hmm?

Ehh... everyone else's totem seems to be something they can drop on a table in front of them to gauge weight and reality (dice, chess piece). It seems too much of a stretch to me that his totem be his wedding ring when he never seems to use it like a totem. Plus if we're to be able to analyze what went on in the film (what's dream and what's not) we have to use the spinning totem as markers. If the wedding ring at the end is his real totem then the spinning totem doesn't mean anything as it's not his totem... and yet a never ending spinning totem certainly does mean something (if in fact it doesn't stop spinning) given that that's impossible in real life.

I think it's fine that it was his wife's totem first given that she's now dead. The point of a totem is that no one can know what it weighs etc in order to replicate and use it against you. Since when his wife had it no one knew, and then when he had it only his wife had known, the nature of the totem is still a secret.

Also the wedding ring being his totem doesn't really match up with Cobb's actions when he spins the totem. If the totem was the ring why spin the other one when he's alone or why try so frantically to spin it that he even drops it?

[[ETM]]

I'm seeing it in two hours, finally. Then it's off to reading... 27 pages now?



Fuckers.

[Spinal]

I agree with Qrazy. At some point, you have to accept what you have been told within the context of the film as true.

[Dukefrukem]

I agree with Qrazy. At some point, you have to accept what you have been told within the context of the film as true.

Okay but in the movie we were told that no one should touch someone else's totemm. If the top was Mals, then Cobb still needs one. Right?

[Qrazy]

Okay but in the movie we were told that no one should touch someone else's totemm. If the top was Mals, then Cobb still needs one. Right?

I spoke about this in my spoiler text above.

[Dukefrukem]

I spoke about this in my spoiler text above.

damn it...

[Dukefrukem]

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5wenf71fK1qzrcl9o1_500 .jpg

[Qrazy]

So do people agree with the theory I proposed earlier?

That in order to wake up from limbo one has to both accept that one is in a dream and then kill yourself.

[Qrazy]

Okay, someone on RT pointed out that

although Cobb "constructed" part of Limbo from his earlier time with Mal, Limbo is still a shared construct between everyone in it.

Still, I think Saito should be at a right angle, since he's not in the climax proper, and he's in a different portion of Limbo.

So I adjusted to account for that, and I think it's looking better.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/deadandmessedup/InceptionClimaxRev.jpg

DamU I think that Fischer is the third level not Eames. They said they were tricking him into breaking into his own sub-conscious.

[Qrazy]

So I think it's clear that I quite liked the film but I do agree with the following criticisms which were voiced earlier in the thread...

1) The music is way overkill at times.
2) Nolan's fight choreography still needs some work at times. He's steadily improving, but the snow level for one really didn't have very interesting choreography.
3) The fighting was overkill in places and became redundant. The script should have sought other ways for the mind to reject the other dreamers aside from machine gun assaults. So we needed either less fighting or more interesting fighting.
4) The script was a bit too expository at the beginning but certainly improved in this regard.

[Raiders]

In this thread and elsewhere, I'm reading defenses of "Inception" to the effect of, "So what if the dreams don't feel like dreams? They're not those kind of dreams. They're artificial constructs meant to convince the dreamer that it's all actually happening." Fair enough, I guess...but doesn't that seem kind of...counterproductive, somehow?

It's set in the world of the subsconscious... a manipulated version of someone's subconscious...where all the weird, scary, magical, amazing, taboo and yes, sexy stuff never appears, except by accident, when it slips through the matrix that these inception guys have created, in which case it's a management error, or a programming error, or something.

Uh...I guess that's valid. It's not my movie, it's Christopher Nolan's. He can do whatever he likes. But that concept strikes me, the humble viewer, as uninteresting. Why devise a film built around dreaming that deliberately and strategically omits all the most exciting, disturbing and beautiful parts of the dream experience?

It's like that series that Joel Stein did for the Trio cable channel a few years back, "Clean Porn," where he took hardcore porn films and cut out all the sex, leaving only the part where the housewife opens the door to let the cable guy in and out of the house.

Or buying a loaf of bread, opening the bag and finding that it consists of nothing but end pieces.

Christopher Long's libido crack, above, captures why I didn't like the movie. I don't really care how elaborately you rationalize the concept of the movie. To me, a 148 minute film set almost entirely within various layers of the subconscious that has no sexual feeling whatsoever -- None! -- is...beyond boring. It's inaccurate and unbelievable, insofar as those adjectives can be applied to a sci-fi film. It's sad. And kind of sick, in its own mathematically, scientifically, eminently explicable way. It's as if the film was written and directed by a guy who seems human but is really an incredibly convincing android like the ones in "A.I."

Yes, I'm criticizing the film for what it's not -- a complaint always directed at a person who disliked a film that you liked. But I think I'm entitled to do that. Anybody's entitled to do that. What's at issue here isn't any specific stylistic choice or even story choice. What's at issue is how Nolan (again, just my opinion, guys) constructed the film in such a way as to close off poetry and turn the subconscious from thrilling, dangerous, sensual place into a big spreadsheet. Why would a filmmaker do that? Why is that a defensible thing to do?

Again, loaf of bread, nothing but ends. And again, the counter-argument: "But what if the person who baked the bread WANTED to put nothing but ends in the bag?"

Fine. It's perfectly within the baker's rights to fill up the bag with ends. But it's my right as a consumer of bread -- hell, a devotee, a fan of bread, a geek for bread -- to stare into that bag and think, "What the fuck?"

This.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Thanks for posting that, Raiders. I don't agree with his conclusion (and, for the record, end pieces of a bread loaf are awesome), but Emerson and Seitz are two of my favorite online critics, and they've been making some very good points about the film.

I still suspect too much dream imagery would've dampened the film's ambitions as a heist flick, and, disregarding that, Nolan's has a specific reason for making the dreams seem mostly logical; he's trying to put the viewer on the same level as the characters.

[Qrazy]

Thanks for posting that, Raiders. I don't agree with his conclusion (and, for the record, end pieces of a bread loaf are awesome), but Emerson and Seitz are two of my favorite online critics, and they've been making some very good points about the film.

I still suspect too much dream imagery would've dampened the film's ambitions as a heist flick, and, disregarding that, Nolan's has a specific reason for making the dreams seem mostly logical; he's trying to put the viewer on the same level as the characters.

Did you see my post above about your graph?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Did you see my post above about your graph?

Yeah, forgot to respond.

If you watch, the group tricks Fischer so he thinks they're journeying into his subconscious, but once they go into the snow level, Cobb immediately turns to Eames and says something like, "Alright, this is your dream."

They want Fischer to think he's going into his own subconscious. That way, the idea they plant will seem more organic to Fischer; he'll be less likely to reject it if he thinks it's his.

If the third level was actually his dream, the whole thing would've fallen apart when Mal stole him into Limbo. Because, technically, a dreamer couldn't go beyond their own dream level without it disappearing.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, forgot to respond.

If you watch, the group tricks Fischer so he thinks they're journeying into his subconscious, but once they go into the snow level, Cobb immediately turns to Eames and says something like, "Alright, this is your dream."

They want Fischer to think he's going into his own subconscious. That way, the idea they plant will seem more organic to Fischer; he'll be less likely to reject it if he thinks it's his.

If the third level was actually his dream, the whole thing would've fallen apart when Mal stole him into Limbo. Because, technically, a dreamer couldn't go beyond their own dream level without it disappearing.

Ah true, good call.

[[ETM]]

So I think it's clear that I quite liked the film but I do agree with the following criticisms which were voiced earlier in the thread...

1) The music is way overkill at times.
2) Nolan's fight choreography still needs some work at times. He's steadily improving, but the snow level for one really didn't have very interesting choreography.
3) The fighting was overkill in places and became redundant. The script should have sought other ways for the mind to reject the other dreamers aside from machine gun assaults. So we needed either less fighting or more interesting fighting.
4) The script was a bit too expository at the beginning but certainly improved in this regard.

After having just seen the film, this would summarize my own gripes with it perfectly.

Now to dig into the thread...

[Fezzik]

I still suspect too much dream imagery would've dampened the film's ambitions as a heist flick, and, disregarding that, Nolan's has a specific reason for making the dreams seem mostly logical; he's trying to put the viewer on the same level as the characters.


I totally agree with this assessment. Too much bizarre dream imagery would have thrown the film off its axis, I think. I understand what people are saying, and it might be interesting to see (hell, what am I talking about, it WOULD be interesting), but I don't think it would serve THIS particular film all that well.

[Raiders]

I totally agree with this assessment. Too much bizarre dream imagery would have thrown the film off its axis, I think. I understand what people are saying, and it might be interesting to see (hell, what am I talking about, it WOULD be interesting), but I don't think it would serve THIS particular film all that well.

Nobody, not me at least (and not MZS), is asking for out-there, unexplainable bizarre imagery. I'm not asking for fish floating down Main street or random ninjas jumping in only to throw ninja stars and leap off screen. But where is the lust, the taboos, the uncontrollable impulses of our subconscious? Cobb's at least seems to break free a bit, but their subject who isn't even a trained dreamer has absolutely no apparent subconscious whatsoever that isn't strictly confined to the architecture of the scene. It's dull, dull, dull. The innermost recesses of his mind, which is specifically where they are going, populate each scene with boring, mediocre action scenes. It's frightfully reductive of how the human mind works. Nolan's creation strikes me as uber-conservative and afraid to venture even a little outside the box. It is a film that could have limitless possibilities and still retain the basic fundamentals of the story and the themes and it chooses the same cliched and rote Hollywood sequences we have seen for decades.

[Qrazy]

Personally I would have found the presentation of some sort of sex-crazed, tabbo pushing id of a sub-conscious much more reductive of how the mind works than what we did get. We got guilt, fear, shame, remorse, redemption, forgiveness, doubt and acceptance.

[Raiders]

Personally I would have found the presentation of some sort of sex-crazed, tabbo pushing id of a sub-conscious much more reductive of how the mind works than what we did get. We got guilt, fear, shame, remorse, redemption, forgiveness, doubt and acceptance.

Eh, I'm not so sure. We get those in most every movie, which is my point. That's fine, and the film is highly successful, hermeneutic I'd say, on its own terms. But I do not like those terms, no sir.

[Qrazy]

Eh, I'm not so sure. We get those in most every movie, which is my point. That's fine, and the film is highly successful, hermeneutic I'd say, on its own terms. But I do not like those terms, no sir.

Fair enough.

[[ETM]]

I'd bet money on a movie on this level costing way more and making way less if it was more about the "crazy" unrestrained side of dreaming.

[Boner M]

Most of my dreams resemble stock-standard action movies, actually. I blame it on working at Blockbuster.

[Rowland]

I've been trying to figure out why this film's myriad of ostensible mysteries have left me so curiously indifferent. I wish my imagination was stimulated enough to engage in this ongoing conversation, but I just don't care. I was intrigued by thoughts from FFC's Alex Jackson essentially grappling with the same idea, in response to someone recommending to him Devin Faraci's essay (http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html) about the film's meanings:


No, fuck that man. Fuck it. I take offense to the idea that I watched the film superficially or I wasn't receptive to it or whatever.

I wrote: I really liked that "white blood cell" idea and how the dreams in the movie are so banal that the line between dream and reality is very naturally and effortlessly blurred. I consider that proof that left-brained Nolan can bring something interesting to the "dream world" genre.

Meaning that I understood that the "banality" of the dreams blurred the line between reality and dream and I understand that it could very well all be a dream and that Nolan's banality was an artistic choice. In short, this essay isn't really getting me to "look deeper".

So dreaming is filmmaking and filmmaking is dreaming. So what? You know, I hated Inland Empire for equating the two. There is a sense in which if you see dreams in filmmaking terms you are neutering the real power of dreams. Inland Empire is the electronic sheep that androids must dream of. Full of signs and signfiers but meaning nothing. The "movieness" of Mulholland Drive at least existed as "movieness" and wasn't self-cannibalism in its self-reference.

Faraci unfortunately references Fellini's 8 1/2 which I find a considerably better
(and more thought provoking) blurring of "dream" and "filmmaking" than Inception. The line it draws between dreams and filmmaking is that they both attempt to order and organize one's personal emotional and cognitive chaos. Dreams and filmmaking are shown to have a necessary function and their own parallels to an even broader spiritual yearning.

Faraci reveals Inception to be a mere parlor trick in comparison. Why is it important for this character to have this dream? Faraci says it's so that he can come to terms for losing his wife, but going through a dream like this to accomplish that seems like trying to kill a termite with a sledgehammer. (And why exactly did he lose her? If she really died then how did she die and under what circumstances? If she left, why did she leave? Are those really irrelevant questions?)

You see, the problem is that I can still buy into all of that and the film still doesn't mean a thing to me. Where is the ethical dimension of The Prestige or The Dark Knight?

So, the wife kills herself because she thinks she knows that she's living in a dream. Cillian Murphy is made to believe, through his created dream, that his father really loved him enough for him to not continue his legacy.

The question we should be asking: Is this thinking nihilistic or merely pragmatic? I then see the film a step up and a step down from The Dark Knight, which argued that the only meaningful heroism is the heroism of martyrdom. By branching this out into the realm of metaphysics, the dillema is abstracted and made less important.

What's reality and what's a dream is, indeed, the kind of smart question that only stupid people ask.
This is what I was grappling with earlier, trying to figure out what the film is about, rather than just trying to decipher it on pure narrative terms. But then I wasn't really inspired enough to muster the energy for that, so I suppose I'm just spinning my wheels here. Just the disappointment that I keep lingering on, since this was one of my few hopes for the summer. I'll watch it again in a few months and see if I feel differently.

[megladon8]

What does a movie necessarily have to be "about" something in particular?

I think that's a restrictive way of looking at filmmaking, and storytelling in general.

[Spinal]

What's reality and what's a dream is, indeed, the kind of smart question that only stupid people ask.

If this were all the film were about, I wouldn't like it either. Indeed, early on, as the film began, I worried this might be the case. But it's about so much more than that. It's about the desire to live forever. It's about marital love. It's about all that you will risk for family. It's about the deep pain that happens in the wake of loss. It's about the anxieties that haunt us throughout our life.

The sentence above is the kind of smart critique that only stupid people write.

If you missed out on the humanistic elements of the narrative -- if you missed out on the tragedy, you missed the film.

[Derek]

If this were all the film were about, I wouldn't like it either. Indeed, early on, as the film began, I worried this might be the case. But it's about so much more than that. It's about the desire to live forever. It's about marital love. It's about all that you will risk for family. It's about the deep pain that happens in the wake of loss. It's about the anxieties that haunt us throughout our life.

The sentence above is the kind of smart critique that only stupid people write.

If you missed out on the humanistic elements of the narrative -- if you missed out on the tragedy, you missed the film.

Yes, yes and yes.

[Milky Joe]

What does a movie necessarily have to be "about" something in particular?

I think that's a restrictive way of looking at filmmaking, and storytelling in general.

Call it restrictive if you want, but a story has to be about something. If it's not about something then it's not really a story, is it? This movie is not really about anything. It's an excuse for spectacle, to make people go 'whoa'. It's bullshit.

Maybe a story has to be about something because story for story's sake is shallow and meaningless, which this movie is. Because what results from that is what most of the discussion that has come out about this movie is: essentially intellectual masturbation, an empty, vapid exercise, an exaggerated game of connect-the-dots.

[Rowland]

I agree that the last line was a meaningless cheap shot.

As for the humanistic elements of the narrative, it's not that I missed them so much as I didn't find them convincingly wrought.

[megladon8]

Call it restrictive if you want, but a story has to be about something. If it's not about something then it's not really a story, is it?

Well it depends what exactly we're talking about when we say "about something". If you're saying that every movie - every story - has to have some underlying moral or political message that can be wrapped up in a sweet little sentence like "fathers, deep down, always love their sons", then I disagree.

Sure, a story has to be about something. But it doesn't need to have a cut-and-dry message or agenda.



This movie is not really about anything. It's an excuse for spectacle, to make people go 'whoa'. It's bullshit.

I think this is totally ridiculous. I'm tempted to say that you refused to even attempt to engage with the film on any level.

Like Spinal just said, if you missed the tragedy and deeply emotional human elements of the film, you must have seen a different movie from what I did.

[Milky Joe]

Sure, a story has to be about something. But it doesn't need to have a cut-and-dry message or agenda.

Certainly, I agree. But what I'm talking about is the in-between space, between superficiality and outright moralizing, where great art finds itself (usually). No preaching, no cut-and-dry message at all, but significant engagement with and exploration of its themes, the idea or ideas behind its creation. What idea or ideas is Inception trying to communicate, ultimately, other than a bunch of generalities about loss and pain?

I'm pretty sure that the actual crux of the film is precisely the idea brought up in Rowland's linked article, about the nature of reality: what is it, what is its relationship to dreams and dreaming, what does that mean for what it is and means to be human? This is actually where the film at its is most compelling, and that last question might even work real well with the generalities that Spinal claims the film is about. But none of this changes the fact that it ends up being mostly a painfully expository and overwrought excuse for stuff to blow up real good, albeit in new and different ways.


As for the humanistic elements of the narrative, it's not that I missed them so much as I didn't find them convincingly wrought.

Exactly. In fact it would be impossible to miss them, as the viewer's beaten over the head with them for the film's entire runtime.

[megladon8]

I thought any "what is reality? Is reality a dream?" type stuff was actually quite minimal, if there at all.

The film looked more at how dreams intertwine with our subconscious. How trauma is something so prevalent in all people (as shown by both Leo and Murphy's characters, as well as Ellen Page's feelings of utter revolt towards Leo's traumas when she sees them first-hand).

It was about the nature and complexity of the mind, both conscious and subconscious, and how they form a symbiotic relationship with each other.

And yes, it was about loss, about family and its importance and power, and eventually the mind's ability (or perhaps inability) to accept change and loss.

If you didn't connect with it or got nothing from these aspects, that's fine. But statements like "it's not really about anything at all" and "any discussion related to the film has been nothing more than intellectual masturbation" are absurd.

[Spinal]

Generalities? What? The central couple in this film has a very specific story. They have a very specific situation.

Is the film about nothing? Or is it about something so obvious you can't miss it? It can't be both.

An excuse to make stuff blow up? Uh ... ok. So, Nolan wrote a screenplay involving five different layers of reality and carefully balanced the film so that it would lead up to an ending so compelling and ambiguous that it literally has made people all over the country gasp and then carefully edited it so that the timeline worked out ... just so we could see some 'splosions?

[B-side]

The aspect of the film that has stuck out for me almost above all others is the moral aspect. The push and pull between thinking the team are heroes and villains and the way that was played was pretty neat. I'm thinking in particular...

The scene where Fischer finally enters the vault and confronts his father. The 2 aspects of this scene that have lodged themselves in my brain are the moment of reconciliation itself, and Eames standing idly by, completely indifferent to the profound emotional drama in front of him, simply waiting for the right time to activate the kick and destroy this guy's catharsis. Even further, the very notion of investigating Fischer and manipulating this dream of his like a videogame world, even going so far as to hide the pinwheel in the vault like a secret "power-up". I found myself simultaneously disturbed by Eames' indifference and touched and sympathetic toward Fischer's reconciliation. It was a very strange dichotomy.

[Raiders]

Has anybody else wondered...

... what the team did after they escaped from the drowning van? Hadn't they only been there for like half a day, and they had a week, right? Did they sit on that shore for six days? It seems strange how quickly they worked given that they insisted upon ten hours dream-time.

[Qrazy]

Has anybody else wondered...

... what the team did after they escaped from the drowning van? Hadn't they only been there for like half a day, and they had a week, right? Did they sit on that shore for six days? It seems strange how quickly they worked given that they insisted upon ten hours dream-time.

I'm guessing they just hid out somewhere and played cards until the sedative wore off and/or the female flight attendant woke them up. Once they're no longer trying to interfere with Fischer or his sub-conscious projections in the dream there's no longer a threat for them.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Would've been an interesting move if their whole operation was ruined by a "kick" from plane turbulence.

[Qrazy]

So to answer the question as to whether or not you can kick yourself out of a dream from within...

In the training session it seems like you have to be kicked from an outer level to wake up from a deeper level. So then...

Van/water kick - Wakes them up from apartment level.
Elevator kick - Wakes them up from snow level.
Snow level kick - Wakes them up from Cobb's world/limbo.

But if that's the case why did Fischer and Ariadne jump/fall off the building in Cobb's world in order to kick them back into the snow level? Or rather were they escaping limbo by killing themselves while being aware they were in a dream, which is what awoke them in the snow level?

Because alternatively, if it works the other way, and we accept you can kick yourself out of a dream from within then...

Ariadne's jump - Kicks her back to snow level.
Fortress explosion - Kicks back to apartment level.
Elevator fall - Kicks back to Van
Van fall - Kicks you out of the whole dream.

Since this last bit didn't happen I'm going to say you can't kick yourself out of a dream from within (with a fall). It doesn't make sense either since they're battling all these other projections, it would be too easy to wake up.

So the only way to get out of a dream from within is to die. However, they couldn't die in any other level or they would have gone to limbo. But once in limbo (Cobb's world) the only way to escape it is to die while accepting your in a dream. So do you guys think this is a plothole or should we just accept that you can die in limbo to get out of it but if you die in any other level you will be sent to limbo?

[Qrazy]

Certainly, I agree. But what I'm talking about is the in-between space, between superficiality and outright moralizing, where great art finds itself (usually). No preaching, no cut-and-dry message at all, but significant engagement with and exploration of its themes, the idea or ideas behind its creation. What idea or ideas is Inception trying to communicate, ultimately, other than a bunch of generalities about loss and pain?

There are plenty of ideas in the film which are communicated through the script and then explored in more depth within the construction of the film. The relationship between mental constructions and perception, the act and effect of planting an idea into someone's head, the far reaching effects of one's own guilt and shame on others... something highly relevant give how high depression rates are in North America these days.

All that being said, when you say great art, of course this film is not a 'Stalker' or '2001'. But it is in my opinion a worthy addition to the sci-fi canon alongside such films as The Matrix, Aliens, Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Children of Men, etc.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm the same way.

I have the occasional flying dream, but even those are usually more or less "realistic", in that they take place in my every day life with the people I normally see and communicate with, except I have the ability to fly.

I think the movie would have been kind of terrible if the dream worlds were all mini acid-trips.

I once dreamed of being in some kind of restaurant and there was a suitcase on a table. I hesitantly opened it and out popped this freaky little guy brandishing some terrifying-looking knives. He charged at me with alarming speed, I tried to run away, but he got me and slashed me a few times. The sensation of being cut was horribly real. I eventually woke up what must have been moments later and came to the realization that I had been asleep in a rather unnatural position with my left arm being sort of twisted underneath my body. It felt numb, really numb and it's precisely where that little fucker cut me, underneath my left arm.

[Morris Schæffer]

For me, the shoot-out in the snow was pretty much devoid of any cinematic quality. Otherwise, I liked it.

I thought it was rather generic, but I wonder if Nolan kept it deliberately vague, non-descript? Probably, but it's to the film's credit that even as we are watching the action unfold, we never forget that we are watching a dream sequence, never forget that our characters are sitting in a van that's just driven off a bridge, that there are bigger things at stake than secret agents mowing down anonymous baddies. Although I admittedly did forget they were in reality still sitting in that 747. :)

I don't feel that DiCaprio's pain here was as pervasive as in Shutter Island, but I also must admit that I don't quite understand what happened between him and Cottilard's wife. So here's how I see it. They were both living a normal life, but not entirely happy so they escaped into a dream universe where they spent many decades building stuff up, a world where they could live in any kind of house and didn't have to choose. Meanwhile the kids are somewhere in the real world, watching cartoons, wondering where the fuck their parents are. Eventually, Cobb wanted out except Mal didn't. So Cobb planted an idea into his wife's head to ensure she would be prepared to return to reality and so they lay down on a railroad track, get killed, wake up in the real world, but Mal can't deal with that world, and throws herself off a building (this scene is real, this is where she really does die). Meanwhile, Cobb is consumed by sorrow, can't quite leave the past be, therefore frequently returns to a dream verse where Mal is still present, trapped, waiting for him etc. What puzzles me is was Mal not right in the head from the start? Did she have mental issues? And why was Cobb no longer welcome in the USA?

[Qrazy]

I don't hold it against the film. But I personally have tons of incredibly abstract and meandering dreams and there's almost always a sense of fluidity. Locations and events in the dream may change but it feels natural. For instance one minute I might be in a restaurant discussing philosophy with someone who looks like one person but is really someone else, and then we'll decide to leave and begin to walk out and they'll turn and say something about another topic, and then I"ll notice we're at the beach and it may still be the same person or not. But there are no distinct shifts in locale, my attention is drawn away from my surroundings and then they'll morph into something or somewhere else. I also enjoy noting perspective during or just after a dream when the memory is fresh. For instance sometimes I'm witnessing myself talking to someone else or witnessing a scene I'm not involved in at all, other times it's first person, other times I am someone else completely (I don't just look different, I am that person). Hell sometimes I'll have camera angles in my dreams and the image will dolly backwards away from the scene I'm witnessing.

[[ETM]]

Meanwhile, Cobb is consumed by sorrow, can't quite leave the past be, therefore frequently returns to a dream verse where Mal is still present, trapped, waiting for him etc.

He returns to the dreams he constructed out of preserved memories, memories of moments he most deeply regrets, like a shrine to his guilt. He could not let her go so he dreamed her up as well as he could.


What puzzles me is was Mal not right in the head from the start? Did she have mental issues?

Cobb planted the idea deep within her mind that the world around her is not real... that'd make anyone go crazy, I think.


And why was Cobb no longer welcome in the USA?

She "burned his bridges" before committing suicide - signed a statement that said he was abusive, roughed up the room so it looked like there was a struggle and that he threw her out of the window.

[Morris Schæffer]

We need a dreams thread! But people will need to post immediately after they have had the dream. That's a prerogative.:)

[Qrazy]

I thought it was rather generic, but I wonder if Nolan kept it deliberately vague, non-descript? Probably, but it's to the film's credit that even as we are watching the action unfold, we never forget that we are watching a dream sequence, never forget that our characters are sitting in a van that's just driven off a bridge, that there are bigger things at stake than secret agents mowing down anonymous baddies. Although I admittedly did forget they were in reality still sitting in that 747. :)

I don't feel that DiCaprio's pain here was as pervasive as in Shutter Island, but I also must admit that I don't quite understand what happened between him and Cottilard's wife. So here's how I see it. They were both living a normal life, but not entirely happy so they escaped into a dream universe where they spent many decades building stuff up, a world where they could live in any kind of house and didn't have to choose. Meanwhile the kids are somewhere in the real world, watching cartoons, wondering where the fuck their parents are. Eventually, Cobb wanted out except Mal didn't. So Cobb planted an idea into his wife's head to ensure she would be prepared to return to reality and so they lay down on a railroad track, get killed, wake up in the real world, but Mal can't deal with that world, and throws herself off a building (this scene is real, this is where she really does die). Meanwhile, Cobb is consumed by sorrow, can't quite leave the past be, therefore frequently returns to a dream verse where Mal is still present, trapped, waiting for him etc. What puzzles me is was Mal not right in the head from the start? Did she have mental issues? And why was Cobb no longer welcome in the USA?

In relation to your last question, Mal essentially framed him for her death. She was hoping it would force him to kill himself and come with her back to the 'real' world. She framed him by having herself declared sane by three people before committing suicide. So the police were after him for her murder (where she jumped). He on the other hand felt all consuming guilt for planting the idea in her head in the first place so his memory of her (the guilt in his own mind) continually plagues him when he goes on missions.

As to whether or not she initially had mental issues. I would argue not really. Initially when they were caught in limbo for 50 years they didn't mean to leave their kids that long. Cobb wanted to probe more deeply into the sub-conscious without realizing they would end up stuck there for so long. I don't think they were trying to escape from their kids per se, they were probably only really asleep for a few hours or a day or something in real life. So they weren't bad parents per se (they cared for their kids) they were just irresponsible, trying out this new product and/or recreational drug. When she was in limbo though she began to forget what was real and what wasn't so she hid her totem from herself so she couldn't tell the difference. In an effort to get her out of limbo this is when Cobb planted the idea in her head that she was in a dream, and this idea carried over to the real world.

[[ETM]]

I don't hold it against the film. But I personally have tons of incredibly abstract and meandering dreams and there's almost always a sense of fluidity. Locations and events in the dream may change but it feels natural. (...)

All of that's also consistent with the rules presented in the film - it's just that the characteristics of dreaming are used against the dreamer to more convincingly fool him/her into thinking they're awake... the tricks used all rely on the world feeling natural to the subject, even though the methods aren't 100% consistent with reality.

[Russ]

;275188']Cobb planted the idea deep within her mind that the world around her is not real... that'd make anyone go crazy, I think.
And why exactly did he intentionally do this? Was it intended as some type of trial during the early stages of inception technology? And, if so, why not incept something potentially less damaging (since, as you say, that would make anyone crazy)?

[Morris Schæffer]

;275188']
Cobb planted the idea deep within her mind that the world around her is not real... that'd make anyone go crazy, I think.

In order to convince her to return to reality? But if she returned to reality, wouldn't she come to understand, and remember that the real world is, ya know, kind of the more plausible one, the one that she had lived in for all her life? But I suppose that madness that she developed in that dream universe carried over into the real world when she returned.


She "burned his bridges" before committing suicide - signed a statement that said he was abusive, roughed up the room so it looked like there was a struggle and that he threw her out of the window.So it was not a happy marriage? Or was her thirst for payback generated by her going mad in the dream universe?
I detected a sweetness, a genuine quality to their relationship that seems at odds by the relationship going so absolutely haywire.

[Morris Schæffer]

Okay, Qrazy that sort of crystallizes it. Thanks!

[soitgoes...]

And why exactly did he intentionally do this? Was it intended as some type of trial during the early stages of inception technology? And, if so, why not incept something potentially less damaging (since, as you say, that would make anyone crazy)?
It was to get her to want to leave their constructed dream finally.

[Morris Schæffer]

It was to get her to want to leave their constructed dream finally.

Why via inception then? Why not by simply devising some kind of kick for her and himself so that they would re-emerge in the real world? He could have just forced her onto those railroad tracks and tie her up. No? One more thing, were they residing into that dreamworld for a prolonged period of time without ever returning to reality? Because being parents and such must have meant that they must have returned back to reality from time to time to, you know, take care of real life. And could Cobb not have persuaded her during those moments to simply not go back to the dreamworld?

[Russ]

It was to get her to want to leave their constructed dream finally.
Huh. So he invaded her dreamstate and planted an idea deep within her mind that the world around her was not real so as to get her to leave their constructed dream? Not meaning to be obtuse, but what reason was given for her being unable to leave this contructed dream in the first place -- the same way Cobb had (ie, either via a "kick" or simply by checking her token)?

[soitgoes...]

Huh. So he invaded her dreamstate and planted an idea deep within her mind that the world around her was not real so as to get her to leave their constructed dream? Not meaning to be obtuse, but what reason was given for her being unable to leave this contructed dream in the first place -- the same way Cobb had (ie, either via a "kick" or simply by checking her token)?
They were in Limbo for 50 years, and they had forgotten that they weren't in reality. Dom figured it out, but couldn't get Mal to realize the truth. She was happy living in Limbo. In order to get her to want to kill herself and escape Limbo, he had to do the inception. It wasn't that she was "unable" to leave. It was because she didn't want to leave.

[soitgoes...]

Why via inception then? Why not by simply devising some kind of kick for her and himself so that they would re-emerge in the real world? He could have just forced her onto those railroad tracks and tie her up. No? One more thing, were they residing into that dreamworld for a prolonged period of time without ever returning to reality? Because being parents and such must have meant that they must have returned back to reality from time to time to, you know, take care of real life. And could Cobb not have persuaded her during those moments to simply not go back to the dreamworld?I think I answered most of this in response to Russ. Dream time and real time are vastly different. It is explained that the deeper down in a dream you go the more compounded time gets. So 50 years in limbo might only be say a day in real time. There was no returning from Limbo until they killed themselves on the train tracks.

[[ETM]]

Why via inception then? Why not by simply devising some kind of kick for her and himself so that they would re-emerge in the real world? He could have just forced her onto those railroad tracks and tie her up. No? One more thing, were they residing into that dreamworld for a prolonged period of time without ever returning to reality? Because being parents and such must have meant that they must have returned back to reality from time to time to, you know, take care of real life. And could Cobb not have persuaded her during those moments to simply not go back to the dreamworld?

You have to be aware that you're in limbo in order to leave. Once he planted the idea in her mind, he managed to convince her it's not real. Nothing else would have worked or else I think it was said that you'd "wake up" with a blank mind. As for length - as it was 50 years they were inside the dream, it must have been just several hours in the real world, as per the rules set within the film. Also, nothing can persuade someone who has an idea, a concept planted so deeply within themselves. She was sure the world wasn't real as she was sure or anything in her life, perhaps more.

[Russ]

They were in Limbo for 50 years, and they had forgotten that they weren't in reality. Dom figured it out, but couldn't get Mal to realize the truth. She was happy living in Limbo. In order to get her to want to kill herself and escape Limbo, he had to do the inception. It wasn't that she was "unable" to leave. It was because she didn't want to leave.
Ok. I think we're making some progress here (btw, thanks for the concise answers..they do help). What happened that put them in Limbo in the first place? My frame of reference being that what we were told in Fischer's dream (if you are "killed" when you are under the influence of a very strong sedative, you go to Limbo); what exactly happened that put Cobb and Mal in Limbo in the first place? And could she not be awakened from her dream by either (a) the sedative wearing off, or (b) throwing her physical body into a bathtub full of water?

EDIT: I think ETM provided part of the answer I was looking for.

[soitgoes...]

Also, I saw this movie two days ago, and I pity anyone who waits to video and has to wade through this thread to catch up on comments. It'll be huge in 3 months.

[Qrazy]

Ok. I think we're making some progress here (btw, thanks for the concise answers..they do help). What happened that put them in Limbo in the first place? My frame of reference being that what we were told in Fischer's dream (if you are "killed" when you are under the influence of a very strong sedative, you go to Limbo); what exactly happened that put Cobb and Mal in Limbo in the first place? And could she not be awakened from her dream by either (a) the sedative wearing off, or (b) throwing her physical body into a bathtub full of water?

They were in limbo because Cobb wanted to experiment with going deeper into the subconscious (dreams within dreams within dreams presumably) but didn't realize how compounded time would become. The sedative wearing off isn't enough, the person seems to need to know their in limbo and die in limbo in order to escape it. Otherwise I don't know, maybe they just become a vegetable in real life or something. He couldn't throw her body into a tub full of water because he was asleep as well.

[[ETM]]

Also, I saw this movie two days ago, and I pity anyone who waits to video and has to wade through this thread to catch up on comments. It'll be huge in 3 months.

Is this the longest almost fully spoilered thread here? I think so.

[Russ]

They were in limbo because Cobb wanted to experiment with going deeper into the subconscious (dreams within dreams within dreams presumably) but didn't realize how compounded time would become. The sedative wearing off isn't enough, the person seems to need to know their in limbo and die in limbo in order to escape it. Otherwise I don't know, maybe they just become a vegetable in real life or something. He couldn't throw her body into a tub full of water because he was asleep as well.
What about when Cobb realized he was in Limbo and escaped it (I guess he killed himself to wake up, I don't remember), but she was still there? When he got back to reality, he would have spun his token, it would have fallen, and he would have seen his still sleeping wife, correct? But like some of you have said, if he had tried to force a "kick" on her, she might have awakened without her full mental capacities. Am I seeing it right?

[Qrazy]

What about when Cobb realized he was in Limbo and escaped it (I guess he killed himself to wake up, I don't remember), but she was still there? When he got back to reality, he would have spun his token, it would have fallen, and he would have seen his still sleeping wife, correct? But like some of you have said, if he had tried to force a "kick" on her, she might have awakened without her full mental capacities. Am I seeing it right?

He didn't escape it prior. He realized he was in limbo and then tried to get her to leave with him and eventually he convinced her to get run over by a train with him. So series of events for them...

1. Both he and his wife take the drug and go into dream state.
2. Go deeper into dream state.
3. Become stuck in limbo.
4. Cobb realizes he's in limbo while his wife decides to forget that she is and hide her totem in a private place.
5. Cobb sees no other way to bring her out of limbo with him except to break into her private place and replace her totem with the inception that she is in a dream.
6. Once the idea takes hold in her he is able to convince her to leave the dream world with him.
7. They get run over by a train in the dream.
8. They both wake up on the floor of their room. It has been 50 years dream time but only a few hours or a day real time.
9. Mal can't let go of the idea that she is still in a dream because of the inception she later actually kills herself.

[Morris Schæffer]

8. They both wake up on the floor of their room. It has been 50 years dream time but only a few hours or a day real time.


But to suggest it has only been an hour or so of realtime uh time, wouldn't that suggest that Mal and Cobb have had plenty of realtime time doing normal things like shopping, feeding the kids when not in the dream state? Where is the wife, what does she do, in all the other hours of realtime available in any given day, in any person's life? They evidently weren't hooked up indefinitely so to speak, so in the real world Cobb must have had ample opportunity to talk his wife out of this dream world nonsense. And thus foregoing the necessity to plant an inception in her mind when in Limbo.

[[ETM]]

Uh... it's a single experience, Morris. In and out.

[Qrazy]

But to suggest it has only been an hour or so of realtime uh time, wouldn't that suggest that Mal and Cobb have had plenty of realtime time doing normal things like shopping, feeding the kids when not in the dream state? Where is the wife, what does she do, in all the other hours of realtime available in any given day, in any person's life? They evidently weren't hooked up indefinitely so to speak, so in the real world Cobb must have had ample opportunity to talk his wife out of this dream world nonsense. And thus foregoing the necessity to plant an inception in her mind when in Limbo.

That few hours in real time that they spent that one time dreaming = the 50 years they spent in limbo. They spent what felt like 50 years in a dream but which was only a few hours to a day in real life.

[Morris Schæffer]

Ah, I got the idea that it was a place they were returning to frequently, like it was an addiction of some kind. And which in turn explained to me why things could have spun tragically out of control, deteriorated. That it was a one-time thingie, makes the outcome, frankly, a bit harder to swallow.

Still a fab movie though.

[number8]

Hans Zimmer, you sly dog you.

UVkQ0C4qDvM

[megladon8]

Holy crap, that's really cool.

It reminds me of something I made back in Radio Broadcasting. I noticed that the theme music from the '95 PC game "Deadly Tide" is exactly, note-for-note, the theme music from Braveheart.


BTW, 8, you need to check your PM's.

[[ETM]]

That's actually incredibly clever, and I hate Zimmer with a burning passion of a thousand suns.

[megladon8]

;275289']That's actually incredibly clever, and I hate Zimmer with a burning passion of a thousand suns.


Zimmer on his own can be intolerable, yes, but he's done some great work with others.

[[ETM]]

Zimmer on his own can be intolerable, yes, but he's done some great work with others.

It's the "with others" bit that I don't tolerate easily. He usually stomps all over someone else's work with his signature "style". I acknowledge that Remote Control has given many young composers a chance at the big time, but I hate what it, along with Zimmer himself, represents.

[megladon8]

;275292']It's the "with others" bit that I don't tolerate easily. He usually stomps all over someone else's work with his signature "style". I acknowledge that Remote Control has given many young composers a chance at the big time, but I hate what it, along with Zimmer himself, represents.


I'm not sure what Remote Control is, so I can't really voice my opinion on this.

Zimmer has done some work I enjoyed.

I thought the work he did with James Newton Howard on Nolan's Batman films was quite good. Particularly The Dark Knight. The track "Like a Dog Chasing Cars" is powerful stuff.

But I definitely recognize James Newton Howard as being the more talented of the duo.

[[ETM]]

I'm not sure what Remote Control is, so I can't really voice my opinion on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Control_Productions


But I definitely recognize James Newton Howard as being the more talented of the duo.

This is totally not the place for this, but I have it on good authority Zimmer can't actually write music. Or at least he didn't use to. He... hummed themes to his minions.

[megladon8]

So what exactly is the problem with Remote Control?

Is it like a "ghost writing" project for musical scores? Gets young composers a job but they have to compromise their artistic integrity?

[[ETM]]

So what exactly is the problem with Remote Control?

Remote Control uses state-of-the-art computers instead of a live orchestra which is why all their scores have the same phony basic sound. I despise it. They get the job done quickly, cheaply, and with minimum artistry. The fact that there are people who actually like the Zimmer sound enough to give him nominations drives me nuts. And kills the "music" part in "film music".

Now, I have no problems with the more electronic scores, those I can tolerate, but... yeesh.

[megladon8]

;275301']Remote Control uses state-of-the-art computers instead of a live orchestra which is why all their scores have the same phony basic sound. I despise it. They get the job done quickly, cheaply, and with minimum artistry. The fact that there are people who actually like the Zimmer sound enough to give him nominations drives me nuts. And kills the "music" part in "film music".

Now, I have no problems with the more electronic scores, those I can tolerate, but... yeesh.


I can understand if it's the fact that they try to cheaply emulate an orchestra sound with a computer that gets you, but I have no problem at all with electronically produced musical scores in principal. If they sound good, they sound good, regardless of whether or not they were digital or orchestrated.

A good composition is a good composition.

It would be like dismissing digitally animated films because they aren't the traditional hand-drawn cels. Which is silly.

[Qrazy]

;275191']All of that's also consistent with the rules presented in the film - it's just that the characteristics of dreaming are used against the dreamer to more convincingly fool him/her into thinking they're awake... the tricks used all rely on the world feeling natural to the subject, even though the methods aren't 100% consistent with reality.

What I'm saying is that in my dreams places and objects flow into one another. In the film everything is much more structural and architectural.

[[ETM]]

I can understand if it's the fact that they try to cheaply emulate an orchestra sound with a computer that gets you, but I have no problem at all with electronically produced musical scores in principal.

I like electronically produced. I hate fake sounding.


A good composition is a good composition.

Which is the main problem because they're not.


It would be like dismissing digitally animated films because they aren't the traditional hand-drawn cels. Which is silly.

No it isn't. It's like blaming the cheap CGI films for killing traditional animation and, with it, most of its imagination and artistry. Which is true.

[Russ]

Hans Zimmer, you sly dog you.
I especially like how that ties in with the whole time manipulation theme. My appreciation/admiration of the film is slowly rising.

[Morris Schæffer]

I felt that the music took on a distinct Vangelis vibe in the film's closing moments. Intentional or not, it rocked! Gosh, I guess I loved the entire score as it played out in the movie. Like in The Dark Knight, it was certainly incessant, omni-present, but I never felt it to be overbearing or intrusive. In fact, I found it rather rhythmic, perfectly complementing the action unfolding on the screen.

[megladon8]

It would be like dismissing digitally animated films because they aren't the traditional hand-drawn cels. Which is silly.


;275356']No it isn't. It's like blaming the cheap CGI films for killing traditional animation and, with it, most of its imagination and artistry. Which is true.


Whaaaaat? That is completely ridiculous.

There were cheap, terrible hand-drawn animated films long before there were cheap CGI animated films.

[[ETM]]

Bah... not the place for this discussion.

[[ETM]]

Prequel comic - The Cobol Job (http://yhoo.it/cIDShF)

[Qrazy]

;275554']Prequel comic - The Cobol Job (http://yhoo.it/cIDShF)

Is this considered canonical? If so it certainly answers some questions.

edit: Yeah it's on the official website so it must be.

Well now all the stuff in the first half of the film when Leo is being hunted by Cobal makes more sense.

[[ETM]]

Yeah, I'm not crazy about the art, but the story fits nicely with the film and adds that little bit of exposition that had no place in the film itself.

[Dukefrukem]

goin to see this again now

[Sven]

This is a perfect film.

Thanks a lot, Mr. Pants-on-Fire.

Pluses, to be sure. Maybe my favorite Nolan film, though that praise is faint and dripping with qualifiers such as "while Tom Hardy rocked, JGL was a complete cipher." Doesn't climaxing three different levels of dreamworld simultaneously defeat the purpose of explaining how time is exponentially slower the further "down" one goes? And the stretches of action that completely obliterate the rhythm, as though the time shifting confusion wasn't enough (ie, we understand that he's rigging the elevator to create a fall in free gravity, so why does the film cut back to him doing that, like, four times? Doesn't help that it is cutting from weak, jumbly fisticuffs.), are classic Nolan. Meaning: big, loud, and despite the lbs. of cash, completely clunky.

The most potent element was legitimately strong: Cillian Murphy's relationship with his father. How tragic is it that the projection of his father ends up satisfying the absence of love that he feels, while our awareness of the situation indicates that the father's cinematic revelation of love was likely just that: a projection. And I did love that the film ended up having little in the way of actual anti-person antagonism. A bit dangerous, a la The Matrix, where NPC's are expendable, but in drawing back, the only real "bad guy" is Watanabe's corporatism and nobody seriously gets hurt. It's nice for a film's conflict to have larger ambitions than good guy/bad guy punching.

Kind of surprised at the ending: the top wobbles. Before, when the top would spin endlessly, it would not wobble. If Nolan wanted genuine ambiguity, the top should either have not wobbled (as it did not in any prior event) or should have wobbled in previous scenes. As it is, it reeks of a brand of literal-mindedness (haunting apparitions of dead wives and absent children are one thing, randomly appearing train and old-school elevator into Leo's consciousness another entirely) with which Nolan too-frequently infuses his films.

[Sven]

I'm not asking for fish floating down Main street or random ninjas jumping in only to throw ninja stars and leap off screen. But where is the lust, the taboos, the uncontrollable impulses of our subconscious?

Yeah. I was waiting for one of the characters to think of sex, the way people supposedly do every 7 seconds or whatever. Didn't happen. I was sad.

I think part of why I think the Cillian bit was so strong was because it DID suggest that dreamlike emotional state, much stronger than anything else.

[Spinal]

Thanks a lot, Mr. Pants-on-Fire.


Nothing wrong with that statement as long as you take it as subjective. Perfect film for me. Nothing brought up in this thread has made me doubt that.

[Sven]

Nothing wrong with that statement as long as you take it as subjective. Perfect film for me. Nothing brought up in this thread has made me doubt that.

I know. Should've done a :)

[Spinal]

Kind of surprised at the ending: the top wobbles. Before, when the top would spin endlessly, it would not wobble. If Nolan wanted genuine ambiguity, the top should either have not wobbled (as it did not in any prior event) or should have wobbled in previous scenes. As it is, it reeks of a brand of literal-mindedness (haunting apparitions of dead wives and absent children are one thing, randomly appearing train and old-school elevator into Leo's consciousness another entirely) with which Nolan too-frequently infuses his films.

If the top did not wobble in the final scene, then there would be a danger that it would be taken as a definitive answer. If the top wobbled in previous scenes, then it would telegraph the ending. It's perfect as it is. Could you explain what your last sentence has to do with the ending? I get where you're coming from, but I don't understand how the ending is evidence of that.

[Sven]

Could you explain what your last sentence has to do with the ending? I get where you're coming from, but I don't understand how the ending is evidence of that.

The pronounced absence of wobble used when demonstrating the eternal spin is very literal. The top is digitized to wobbleless perfection to demonstrate its symbology. With such a literal symbol, the attempted ambiguity at the end doesn't work because it feels unintended because clearly it's not a dream because clearly there's a wobble. For it to be a dream would not be continuous with the established symbolism of the film. To me, it concretely answers the question: he's meeting his kids in the real world. You should be happy for him. :)

[Spinal]

Ah, yes, I see your point. I'll have to think on that one.

[Qrazy]

The pronounced absence of wobble used when demonstrating the eternal spin is very literal. The top is digitized to wobbleless perfection to demonstrate its symbology. With such a literal symbol, the attempted ambiguity at the end doesn't work because it feels unintended because clearly it's not a dream because clearly there's a wobble. For it to be a dream would not be continuous with the established symbolism of the film. To me, it concretely answers the question: he's meeting his kids in the real world. You should be happy for him. :)

Which are the other times where he spins it and it spins endlessly?

[Sven]

Which are the other times where he spins it and it spins endlessly?

All of those other times where the top is being used to demonstrate its eternal spinning capabilities.

[Qrazy]

All of those other times where the top is being used to demonstrate its eternal spinning capabilities.

Which were when? I genuinely don't recall. In fact if someone who has seen the film a few times could make a list of all the times he spins the top and it either falls over or keeps spinning... that would be nice.

[Sven]

Which were when? I genuinely don't recall. In fact if someone who has seen the film a few times could make a list of all the times he spins the top and it either falls over or keeps spinning... that would be nice.

I know God is in the details and all, but context for demonstrations like that in a film like this is not information I readily retain on a first viewing. The two times I can think of specifically are when he is talking about it with Page's character and when he opens his wife's safe to spin it in there. But I know I saw it fluidly spinning at least a couple of other times. I also know it was shown a couple of times not spinning perfectly in order to illustrate that it was not his dream.

[Ezee E]

I think it only spins endlessly when it's Marion's totem. Never as Leo's.

[Dukefrukem]

My dad hated this movie.


After my second viewing, I'm convinced they woke up. It's a much more satisfying viewing the second time around because you're able to concentrate on the specifics of the "rules" towards the beginning and during the planning stages.

However, I still was unable to figure this (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=274366&postcount=698)out. Does anyone know why the kicks can happen in both directions? Was there an explanation for that?

[Raiders]

Thanks a lot, Mr. Pants-on-Fire.

Pluses, to be sure. Maybe my favorite Nolan film, though that praise is faint and dripping with qualifiers such as "while Tom Hardy rocked, JGL was a complete cipher."

Glad we agree on some stuff, but I'll disagree about JGL. Considering the complete lack of material he's given, I thought he pulled it off pretty well. At least I could say he left as much an impression with about a third as much material as DiCaprio. Truthfully though, only Cotillard (maybe Murphy) really came out above the material. Her work in that late scene in limbo is fantastic.

[Sven]

Truthfully though, only Cotillard (maybe Murphy) really came out above the material. Her work in that late scene in limbo is fantastic.

I think Hardy walks away with his role. Completely thankless on paper, but he certainly owns it. JGL had about one angle to his performance, which did not vary. I can only conjure up one expression his face pulls. And the moment he tries to yell down Leo for his careless subconscious was such an embarrassment.

Hardy, Cotillard, and Murphy were all very impressive and my favorite things about the movie.

[Qrazy]

I know God is in the details and all, but context for demonstrations like that in a film like this is not information I readily retain on a first viewing. The two times I can think of specifically are when he is talking about it with Page's character and when he opens his wife's safe to spin it in there. But I know I saw it fluidly spinning at least a couple of other times. I also know it was shown a couple of times not spinning perfectly in order to illustrate that it was not his dream.

Yeah I also remember it not spinning perfectly, but I don't remember the times it spins endlessly at length, although this endless spinning is implied when Saito spins it. I'll have to rewatch soon.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah I also remember it not spinning perfectly, but I don't remember the times it spins endlessly at length, although this endless spinning is implied when Saito spins it. I'll have to rewatch soon.

There's only two times in the movie it spins endlessly. 1. inside the safe 2. when Saito spins it.

The other times we see it spin are 1. when he's in the hotel at the beginning holding the gun. 2. when they exit the training dream with Page's character after his wife stabs her 3. the last shot of the movie

[Qrazy]

There's only two times in the movie it spins endlessly. 1. inside the safe 2. when Saito spins it.

The other times we see it spin are 1. when he's in the hotel at the beginning holding the gun. 2. when they exit the training dream with Page's character after his wife stabs her 3. the last shot of the movie

Thanks, but those two times we don't see it spinning endlessly at length right? In the former case he spins it and then closes the safe and in the latter case it's spun, the camera cuts away and cuts back and it's still spinning. To be clear I totally accept the idea that it did indeed spin endlessly in both of those two cases (I think the implication is strong enough that we should accept it) I just wonder if what we saw in those two cases is strong enough to suggest that simply because the top wobbles at the end that means that it must fall over.

[Qrazy]

My dad hated this movie.


After my second viewing, I'm convinced they woke up. It's a much more satisfying viewing the second time around because you're able to concentrate on the specifics of the "rules" towards the beginning and during the planning stages.

However, I still was unable to figure this (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=274366&postcount=698)out. Does anyone know why the kicks can happen in both directions? Was there an explanation for that?

I posted this earlier. (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=275146&postcount=824)

[Dukefrukem]

Thanks, but those two times we don't see it spinning endlessly at length right? In the former case he spins it and then closes the safe and in the latter case it's spun, the camera cuts away and cuts back and it's still spinning. To be clear I totally accept the idea that it did indeed spin endlessly in both of those two cases (I think the implication is strong enough that we should accept it) I just wonder if what we saw in those two cases is strong enough to suggest that simply because the top wobbles at the end that means that it must fall over.

I agree with you on your points, esp the implication is strong enough to suggest we should accept it spinning endlessly in those two scenes. My opinion about the wobbling is we only see it wobble during the first topple scene (i know this because I saw the movie last night and it's fresh), when Cobb is holding the gun. We don't see it wobble at all for the rest of the movie until the end. That alone is not strong enough to suggest the fact that it did topple in the ending scene... however it is my believe, with other scenes, that it did/would have toppled.

[Dukefrukem]

I posted this earlier. (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=275146&postcount=824)

Well before we break it down, it's understood that in ANY other dream, dying wakes you up. But they could not die in the final mission because of the heavy sedation. So I'm assuming that they all lived in that first dream level for a week (or at least planned to live in that dream for a week) before they woke up on the plane, AFTER the mission was completed. Because once Inception was completed, Fischer's subconscious wouldn't be after them anymore.

BUT falling in water is not dying. (Like the opening dream scene and the van scene). Those kicks were meant to pull them out of the lower level dreams)

There is still some special limbo rules that I don't think were explained in the movie well enough which is why it's confusing people. Dying when you're in limbo should wake you up right? If not, they would just come right back to Limbo... So that part makes a little sense.

What's not explained is how Cobb got from Mal's apartment to the beach where Saito's men found him. If you miss the kick like Cobb did, it erases your memory... and throws you in the water? Remember that's also how Cobb and Mal woke up on the shore when they decided to start building their world together. They planned out the city on the sand. There's only 1 scene in the movie that shows this and it's very quick. As they knock over a building made out of sand, a building behind them in the distance crumbles.

[Qrazy]

Well before we break it down, it's understood that in ANY other dream, dying wakes you up. But they could not die in the final mission because of the heavy sedation. So I'm assuming that they all lived in that first dream level for a week (or at least planned to live in that dream for a week) before they woke up on the plane, AFTER the mission was completed. Because once Inception was completed, Fischer's subconscious wouldn't be after them anymore.

BUT falling in water is not dying. (Like the opening dream scene and the van scene). Those kicks were meant to pull them out of the lower level dreams)

There is still some special limbo rules that I don't think were explained in the movie well enough which is why it's confusing people. Dying when you're in limbo should wake you up right? If not, they would just come right back to Limbo... So that part makes a little sense.

What's not explained is how Cobb got from Mal's apartment to the beach where Saito's men found him. If you miss the kick like Cobb did, it erases your memory... and throws you in the water? Remember that's also how Cobb and Mal woke up on the shore when they decided to start building their world together. They planned out the city on the sand. There's only 1 scene in the movie that shows this and it's very quick. As they knock over a building made out of sand, a building behind them in the distance crumbles.



Okay I agree with those points. Still the original question was can you kick yourself out of a dream from within. I would say no, otherwise they would have woken up on the plane. The only way to leave a dream from within in general is to die. But in this case they couldn't die in any of the first three levels though or they would go to limbo. With all that in mind it's unclear to me how by jumping off the building Ariadne and Fischer were able to wake up in the third level. So yeah I guess we have to accept that dying in limbo (and perhaps you not only have to die but have to die while accepting your in a dream) will bring you up a level (or entirely out of the dream if the other levels have collapsed and you're still in limbo... which I think may have been the case with Cobb and Mal and Cobb and Saito... they didn't have to work their way back up the previous levels because those dreams had finished and/or they were already dead in them).

[Dukefrukem]

Okay I agree with those points. Still the original question was can you kick yourself out of a dream from within. I would say no, otherwise they would have woken up on the plane. The only way to leave a dream from within in general is to die. But in this case they couldn't die in any of the first three levels though or they would go to limbo. With all that in mind it's unclear to me how by jumping off the building Ariadne and Fischer were able to wake up in the third level. So yeah I guess we have to accept that dying in limbo (and perhaps you not only have to die but have to die while accepting your in a dream) will bring you up a level (or entirely out of the dream if the other levels have collapsed and you're still in limbo... which I think may have been the case with Cobb and Mal and Cobb and Saito... they didn't have to work their way back up the previous levels because those dreams had finished and/or they were already dead in them).


Excellent point! That's why Saito and Cobb could have gone from limbo directly to the plane... remember how slow time is in limbo.... The first level dream would have been completed already tenfold. That's it. I'm convinced. They woke up. The end dot com.

[Raiders]

It also seems that if you forget you are in a dream, you begin to age normally and see yourself as aged. Thus why Saito is so old (we can only assume it has been 30 or so limbo years when Cobb finds him) and yet Cobb, who somehow over those 30 years has managed to remember he is in a dream, has stayed young. It is also why the perceptions of Mal and Cobb when the film reflects on them in limbo together change between old and young (I seem to remember that in the first telling of their story there, they are depicted as old at the end of their time there but when Cobb recounts his inception of her, that is seeing it as he saw it when he realized they were in a dream, they are young again.)

[Dukefrukem]

It also seems that if you forget you are in a dream, you begin to age normally and see yourself as aged. Thus why Saito is so old (we can only assume it has been 30 or so limbo years when Cobb finds him) and yet Cobb, who somehow over those 30 years has managed to remember he is in a dream, has stayed young. It is also why the perceptions of Mal and Cobb when the film reflects on them in limbo together change between old and young (I seem to remember that in the first telling of their story there, they are depicted as old at the end of their time there but when Cobb recounts his inception of her, that is seeing it as he saw it when he realized they were in a dream, they are young again.)


No no. The reason why Cobb is so young compared to Saito is because Saito died in the 3rd dream level. So Cobb wasn't in Limbo for nearly as long as Saito has. I do not believe Cobb was in limbo for very long and i also do not believe knowing you're in a dream has anything to do with aging. At least that was the impression I got. Whatever happened to Cobb that caused him to lose his memory, also caused him to wash up on the beach... it was only a few minutes later where he had the conversation with Saito... and together they convinced each other they were dreaming. I'm assuming the memory loss of Cobb happened a few moments later after Page left him.

[Raiders]

No no. The reason why Cobb is so young compared to Saito is because Saito died in the 3rd dream level. So Cobb wasn't in Limbo for nearly as long as Saito has. I do not believe Cobb was in limbo for very long and i also do not believe knowing you're in a dream has anything to do with aging. At least that was the impression I got. Whatever happened to Cobb that caused him to lose his memory, also caused him to wash up on the beach... it was only a few minutes later where he had the conversation with Saito... and together they convinced each other they were dreaming. I'm assuming the memory loss of Cobb happened a few moments later after Page left him.


The factor is only 20. Saito was not dead long enough to have aged 30 years beyond Cobb.

[Dukefrukem]

The factor is only 20. Saito was not dead long enough to have aged 30 years beyond Cobb.

I dont see this. I see this.


Possibility 1: Cobb died in limbo (as the buildings were crumbling), and woke up on the beach in limbo unaware of whether he was dreaming or not - after Mal stabbed him and he died of the wound.

Possibility 2: His body drowned in the van in Level 1 and he actually got SENT to limbo rather than willingly descending into it.

If you descend into limbo, you're aware that you're dreaming and you can leave like Ariadne did. If you die in any of the levels under sedation, you're SENT to limbo against your will.

[Dukefrukem]

The difference in time between when Cobb died and Saito died, is the reason why Saito is in his 80s and Cobb is still young.

[Qrazy]

The difference in time between when Cobb died and Saito died, is the reason why Saito is in his 80s and Cobb is still young.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I don't think Cobb was necessarily searching for decades in the dream world for Saito.

[Raiders]

I guess you're right. I don't know. My mind is tired of thinking about this film.

[Dukefrukem]

Most complex movie ever ya think?

[Henry Gale]

Saw it again last night. It was definitely a much less mystifying or intoxicating experience to watch it with the context of all the rules and events having settled and dissected in my mind for a week between viewings, but the clarity of the film's ideas and structure showed themselves to be hold up as precisely and firmly as I hoped they would have. For me, the only things left to really ponder or pick sides about certain ambiguities presented are the final shot and Cobb waking up on the shore (as discussed above).

I realized seeing it again that despite its complexities (to market or even grasp while watching), the film really is just an amazingly well-crafted crowd pleaser. All the comedic bits, as well as its most intense and vibrant action moments, are the things that majority of the audience members most audibly react to, and may even root their overally enjoyment on. But it's that final moment that makes the rumoured sound of the top hitting the table impossible to really hear over the frustrated (but assumedly thrilled) reaction from most of a sold-out crowd.

It's going to take a truly marvelous movie to bump this as my #1 for the year.

[Sven]

Most complex movie ever ya think?

Nope. Not even close.

[Qrazy]

Nope. Not even close.

I agree with you, but out of curiosity, which would you say is the most complex?

[Dukefrukem]

Saw it again last night. It was definitely a much less mystifying or intoxicating experience to watch it with the context of all the rules and events having settled and dissected in my mind for a week between viewings, but the clarity of the film's ideas and structure showed themselves to be hold up as precisely and firmly as I hoped they would have. For me, the only things left to really ponder or pick sides about certain ambiguities presented are the final shot and Cobb waking up on the shore (as discussed above).

I realized seeing it again that despite its complexities (to market or even grasp while watching), the film really is just an amazingly well-crafted crowd pleaser. All the comedic bits, as well as its most intense and vibrant action moments, are the things that majority of the audience members most audibly react to, and may even root their overally enjoyment on. But it's that final moment that makes the rumoured sound of the top hitting the table impossible to really hear over the frustrated (but assumedly thrilled) reaction from most of a sold-out crowd.

It's going to take a truly marvelous movie to bump this as my #1 for the year.

I tried to listen for it last night too but was unsuccessful.

[Sven]

I agree with you, but out of curiosity, which would you say is the most complex?

I wouldn't even know how to begin to choose, but just in dealing with a similar subject, Mulholland Drive's tackling of dreamlike states of emotion and playful puzzling with reality is much more complex. Inception is paint-by-numbers in comparison.

[[ETM]]

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5yyb0SkqV1qc8bcqo1_400 .jpg

[Ezee E]

What happens to the body in reality when you're in limbo? Coma? Was that talked about?

I may see this again tomorrow.

[baby doll]

I agree with you, but out of curiosity, which would you say is the most complex?In terms of structural complexity, and in particular, films with parallel lines of action (regardless of whether they're on the same level of reality--or in the case of Inception, levels of unreality), one obvious answer is Intolerance, which also has four story lines, the difference being that what happens in one story doesn't have any consequence on the other three. Nashville also comes to mind.

[baby doll]

I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier: I'm Not There.

[Qrazy]

I dl'd a cam of the film to check the wobble theory. The top even wobbles a bit when Leo spins it in his wife's safe. So the top wobbling at the end of the film proves nothing.

[Spinal]

I think I'm going to do something tonight I rarely do which is go see a film for a second time in the theaters. I'll be keeping an eye on those top spins.

[Dukefrukem]

I think I'm going to do something tonight I rarely do which is go see a film for a second time in the theaters. I'll be keeping an eye on those top spins.

Listen at the end as well please.

[Skitch]

Finally saw this and caught up on this thread. Great read. Some of you guys seem to be incredibly perceptive with some of your theories after only one viewing. Others of you asked some questions that made me wonder if you had even seen the film :lol:

At any rate, it was a terrific film and I don't feel qualified to discuss it till I've seen it a couple more times. So much to take in.

[Qrazy]

I'm about 95% sure we don't hear the top fall. What's there is the music peaks and meshes with the tops wobble. Then there's a brief silence and then the music starts again when the title comes up which says Inception.

[[ETM]]

Yeah, the soundtrack has that little zing at the end that makes the difference.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm about 95% sure we don't hear the top fall. What's there is the music peaks and meshes with the tops wobble. Then there's a brief silence and then the music starts again when the title comes up which says Inception.

I think you're right about this.

[Qrazy]

So for anyone wondering here's the exact lines about the nature of limbo...

Ariadne: "Limbo?"
Arthur: "Unconstructed dream space."
Ariadne: "Well, what the hell is down there?"
Arthur: "Just raw, infinite subconscious, nothing is done there. Except what might have been left behind by anyone sharing the dream who's been trapped there before, which in our case is just you (looking at Cobb)."

...

"If we get killed we'll be lost in limbo till our brains turn to scrambled egg."

The suggestion I think being that if you're lost in limbo and not found your real world mind turns into a vegetative state... best case scenario a coma, worst case scenario the kind of coma where the mind is no longer firing."

[Derek]

I think you're right about this.

I saw it again this weekend and listened carefully at the end. There is no sound after the cut-to-black.

I do have some thoughts about the prospect that the upper level of reality in the film

is perhaps still the upper level of the dream he initially entered with Mal.

First, the chase scene after Cobb talks to Tom Hardy. This is in reality, but there are a couple of occurrences make it seem like a dream state:

1) When he goes through the alley to get away, it becomes more and more narrow to the point that he literally has to squeeze himself through to get out. Perhaps this is something more common in Paris, but the way that it's shot (bright white light coming through in a long shot of the alleyway) suggest an undeniable unreality.

2) When he sits in the cafe to hide from the thugs, everyone stares at him
as the owner continually yells at him to leave. The only other times this happens in the film is when the subconscious begins to suspect someone is messing with the dreamer's mind.

Also, the scenes with Michael Caine strike me as odd:

1) When he meets Cobb in the classroom, he seems adamant when asking Cobb to "come back to reality". I forget what else he says specifically, but there was another line or two that sounded as if he were nudging Cobb into recognizing he was in a dream to which Cobb replied that his reality was back home with his kids. Qrazy - if you still have the file, could check out those lines? There's definitely something odd about them.

2) Also, Caine is a professor in Paris, while his wife (or ex-wife) is in the US with the children. I can accept that the wife didn't want to pick Cobb up from the airport, since it seems she suspects he was involved in Mal's death (based on his phone call home), but if that's the case, wouldn't she want to be with the children at all times when Cobb is around? Caine really traveled from France to the U.S. to welcome Cobb home even though Cobb could see him any time he wanted in Paris?

3) Ariadne seems all too interested in discovering more about his past (though there is a reason given for that) and she was recommended by Caine.

There is also the scene in the chemists backroom where he says "They come here to wake up. Who are you to say otherwise?"

Also, there's the fact that he is using Mal's top as his totem. Obviously, while she was still alive, he would have had a different totem. It strikes me as odd he would change his totem after a tragedy like that when he would presumably be more mentally/emotionally unstable.

And of course, at the end, his children are wearing the same exact close and are shown in the same exact shot he sees in his visions. If this shot is a memory he was saving when he had to leave the country, why would it reoccur in exactly the same manner at least months, if not years, after he fled?

I don't think the theory that he's in limbo the whole time holds up, but there are more than a few clues here that suggest something is off in the highest level of reality presented in the film.

Not concrete by any means, but food for thought...

Regardless of all that, my appreciation grows in its representation of modern psychotherapy - Ariadne guiding him through past memories and trauma and helping him to confront and defeat longstanding issues.

Also, at what point can we stop using spoiler tags everywhere? Second weekend is past, so I'd say we have the green light to speak freely and all those who enter do so at their own risk.

[Qrazy]

Also, the scenes with Michael Caine strike me as odd:

1) When he meets Cobb in the classroom, he seems adamant when asking Cobb to "come back to reality". I forget what else he says specifically, but there was another line or two that sounded as if he were nudging Cobb into recognizing he was in a dream to which Cobb replied that his reality was back home with his kids. Qrazy - if you still have the file, could check out those lines? There's definitely something odd about them.



I'm not sure if we can infer that the grandmother blames Cobb for Mal's death from the phone call lines. That may be the case certainly, but it may also just be that she holds him responsible for running away and becoming a thief instead of facing the charges head on.

Cobb: "You never did like your office did you."
Miles: "No space to think in that broom cupboard... is it safe for you to be here?"
Cobb: "Extradition between France and the United States is a bureaucratic nightmare, you know that."
Miles: "I think they might find a way to make it work in your case."
Cobb: "Look I uh, brought these for you to give to the kids when you have a chance."
Miles: "It will take more than the occasional stuffed animal to convince those children that they still have a father."
Cobb: "I'm just doing what I know. I'm doing what you taught me."
Miles: "I never taught you to be a thief."
Cobb: "No, you taught me to navigate peoples minds, but after what happened, there weren't a whole lot of legitimate ways for me to use that skill."
Miles: "What are you doing here Dom?"
Cobb: "I think I found a way home. It's a job for some very, very powerful people. People who I believe can fix my charges permanently... but I need your help."
Miles: "Your here to corrupt one of my brightest and best."
Cobb: "You know what I'm offering, you have to let them decide for themselves."
Miles: "Money."
Cobb: "Not just money, you remember, it's the chance to build cathedrals, entire cities, things that never existed. Things that couldn't exist in the real world."
Miles: "So you, you want me to let someone else follow you into your fantasy."
Cobb: "They don't actually come into the dream, they just design the levels and teach them to the dreamer."
Miles: "Design it yourself."
Cobb: "Mal won't let me."
Miles: "Come back to reality Dom... please."
Cobb: "Reality... those kids, your grandchildren, they're waiting for their father to come back home. That's their reality and this job, this last job, that's how I get there. I would not be standing here if I knew any other way. I need an architect who's as good as I was."
Miles: "I've got somebody better."

---

Personally I see the line from Miles to come back to reality as a commentary on the fact that Cobb is always diving into dreams to the point where the memory of his dead wife won't allow him to design levels in his own dreamworld... because she will sabotage them. When he says Mal won't let me it sounds somewhat insane, this is what Miles is responding to.

[Derek]

Personally I see the line from Miles to come back to reality as a commentary on the fact that Cobb is always diving into dreams to the point where the memory of his dead wife won't allow him to design levels in his own dreamworld... because she will sabotage them. When he says Mal won't let me it sounds somewhat insane, this is what Miles is responding to.


True enough. I think it was also the "It will take more than the occasional stuffed animal to convince those children that they still have a father" line that threw me off. It hints at the possibility of Cobb having the option to come back to his children. As it is, he either stays abroad or goes back to the U.S. to face murder charges and almost assuredly be convicted. Neither option brings him closer to his kids.

What about the other scenes I mentioned?

[Qrazy]

First, the chase scene after Cobb talks to Tom Hardy. This is in reality, but there are a couple of occurrences make it seem like a dream state:

1) When he goes through the alley to get away, it becomes more and more narrow to the point that he literally has to squeeze himself through to get out. Perhaps this is something more common in Paris, but the way that it's shot (bright white light coming through in a long shot of the alleyway) suggest an undeniable unreality.

2) When he sits in the cafe to hide from the thugs, everyone stares at him
as the owner continually yells at him to leave. The only other times this happens in the film is when the subconscious begins to suspect someone is messing with the dreamer's mind.


I agree that Nolan intentionally makes this scene seem dream-like (a third point being the deus ex of having Saito conveniently arrive in the nick of time) but I think the purpose of this is to blur the lines between Cobb's dreams and reality as far as possible. This makes the dialogue from Mal at the end of the film about Cobb's paranoia hit that much harder. This line blurring (making 'reality' more dream-like and the dreams more like 'reality') certainly serves a narrative and tension-building purpose.

And on a side note, it also serves a meta-cinematic purpose... all of these actions films, thrillers genre cinema, or even down a level, any given set piece... it's all a carefully constructed lie to get at emotional truth ('Art is the lie which reveals the truth' - Picasso). I realize this isn't a startling revelation or anything, but it is worth noting how well the construct of the film evokes this perspective I think.

---

I'm going to reiterate and expand on some of the ideas I voiced earlier as to why I feel the supposedly real scenes in the film are in fact real. I wrote the below earlier today Derek so it's not a direct response to your comments above...

First off we have to accept that the spinning top is actually meaningful and acts as Cobb's totem. If we don't accept this anything in the film could be a dream. If everything is a dream we have no idea and no way of knowing which of the characters in the film are shared dreamers or Cobb's projections. All of the memories in the film which Cobb recounts could also be fictional. We also have absolutely no way of knowing the film is Cobb's dream at all. It could well be any major characters dream. And why should we accept that somethings we are told are real and others aren't? That is to say in most of these theories Cobb is trying to escape limbo at some juncture in his life (either his wife is still alive and trying to get him out, or the team is trying to extract him after he falls into limbo, etc). Why should we accept that Fischer is a projection of Cobb's sub-conscious but that the memories of Mal are real and have actual relevance? If everything is a dream we have absolutely no entry point into analyzing the film.

So with all that in mind I think we must accept that the spinning top is his working totem. We therefore know that in the beginning of the film, after a failed extraction has been performed on Saito, Arthur and Cobb are back in reality on the train (this is established by Cobb spinning the top in the hotel room). Then Cobb meets and trains Ariadne. After waking up from one training session (shattered glass) he spins the top and we know they are back in reality once more. So everything up to this point we must accept. Cobal is genuinely after Cobb, Saito has hired him to get into Fischer, and Ariadne has doubts about Cobb's abilities vis-a-vis his lack of sub-conscious control.

So potentially from the moment Cobb meets Eames onward could be a dream since he doesn't spin the totem successfully after this point, but based upon what we already know and have accepted about Cobb's reality, I see no reason to believe this. A minor tangent, why would Cobb be dreaming about Ariadne's training sessions alone with Arthur? This seems a bit far-fetched and arbitrary if we are in Cobb's mind.

I believe the reason there's a scene where Cobb drops the totem before he can spin it successfully is not to tip us off to the fact he's in a dream. The purpose of the scene is three-fold. One it's to show how shook up Cobb is about his wife. Secondly it's for Cobb to try the chemist's drugs. Thirdly it's for Saito's benefit so that he can see the totem and recognize it at the end of the film when he's stuck in limbo.

So in my opinion the film is exactly as it purports to be at the very least until Cobb goes after Saito and the rest of the team goes back to the first level. Everything from here on could be a dream (waking up on the plane, getting into the country, going home). If one of these scenes is a dream I would argue all of them have to be. Because it doesn't make sense that Cobb gets into the country but doesn't get to see his kids, or that he'd actually wake up on the plane and then be dreaming he was checked through security. These moments are too connected, there's a natural progression there. A lack of natural progression is one of the things that is supposed to signal that we are in a dream.

So as I see it there are only two possibilities. Either Cobb actually gets back to his kids or he doesn't wake up again on the plane. All that being said, I don't think we can conclude which of these two possibilities is definitively the case. The ambiguity at the end I believe is very much the point... both for the reason Rowland mentioned (that he walks away from the totem whether or not it falls) and for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post (Mal's quote: "Admit it, you don't believe in one reality anymore.")... if the ending is ambiguous it raises the possibility of the existence of both endings.

And also... 'In terms of the notion that we both create and experience the dream world I feel the ambiguous ending has relevance because we (the audience) have been continuously perceiving this film (someone else's dream/creation) but once we reach the end of the film we take over the dream. We must generate the true nature of the ending in our own minds.' ... There's also that leap of faith line earlier in the film... what do we want to believe versus what seems correct.

I think Nolan has provided evidence on both sides of the equation. If Cobb is awake then the top wobbling and going from saving Saito back to the plane adds credence to this. But the fact that everything occurs in this surreal slo-mo, that we don't actually see the top stop and that his kids are in the same position as before, wearing the same clothes and don't seem to have aged much, this adds support to the dream theory.

[Ezee E]

Agreed on being able to no longer use spoilers. Although it does make skimming the pages quicker I suppose.

[Derek]

And also... 'In terms of the notion that we both create and experience the dream world I feel the ambiguous ending has relevance because we (the audience) have been continuously perceiving this film (someone else's dream/creation) but once we reach the end of the film we take over the dream. We must generate the true nature of the ending in our own minds.' ... There's also that leap of faith line earlier in the film... what do we want to believe versus what seems correct.

I think Nolan has provided evidence on both sides of the equation. If Cobb is awake then the top wobbling and going from saving Saito back to the plane adds credence to this. But the fact that everything occurs in this surreal slo-mo, that we don't actually see the top stop and that his kids are in the same position as before, wearing the same clothes and don't seem to have aged much, this adds support to the dream theory.

I'm with you on this. For all the precision of the rules and the differences between levels, there is a good deal of blurring as well that prevents the film from being clear-cut or didactic.

[[ETM]]

Caine really traveled from France to the U.S. to welcome Cobb home even though Cobb could see him any time he wanted in Paris?

If I recall correctly, when Cobb talked to the children on the phone, he promised to send them something via their grandfather. He was supposed to travel to the US anyway.

[Spinal]

Just saw this for a second time. I have lots of thoughts, but in regards to two pressing issues ...

1. No, you cannot hear the sound of the top falling in the final shot. My Monday afternoon crowd was much quieter and I was listening for it. No sound.

2. When Cobb is in the real world, post-Mol's death, he wears no wedding ring. When he is in the dream world, he wears a wedding ring. He has a line where he says, when I'm in the dream world, we're still together. After Cobb wakes up on the plane, there is no definitive shot of his left hand. When he spins the top, it is with his right hand and he holds his left hand back and away resting on a chair, as if Nolan and DiCaprio are attempting to conceal it. Someone may be able to freeze a shot when this comes out on DVD and check his hand, but I was watching specifically for the ring and I couldn't tell either way. This confirms my initial feeling that we are not intended to know a definitive answer. In response to Sven's claim that the wobble means that the top will eventually fall, I don't know that we can assume that. It is true that the times we see the top in the dream world, it does not wobble, but that does not mean that it can't. In the final shot, it wobbles, but stays up. Could it continue indefinitely? Why not? The film ends before we find out. The final shot is perfectly situated in between. It is perfectly ambiguous.



Other than that, I am convinced that this is not only a superior mainstream film, but a true work of art. I will no longer accept charges that it is an empty piece of craft with no soul. This film is bursting with emotion. It's filled with ideas and those ideas are communicated in an extraordinary manner. The writing, the direction, the editing and the acting are all first rate. This is indeed a perfect film. And anyone who says otherwise can only be a Pixar shill.

[Spinal]

Not that this is important, but I think that this film will receive at least 6 Oscar nominations. Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actress (Cotillard), Best Editing and one of the sound categories. DiCaprio for Best Actor? Eh, maybe. Visual Effects? Possible.

[Bosco B Thug]

I will no longer accept charges that it is an empty piece of craft with no soul. I find it a soulfully intended film with empty craft.

Which brings me to two points I've been meaning to bring up but never find the opportunity:

1. How many miscellaneous angle changes did he need to cut to during the Ariadne/Cobb cafe explosion scene? Took away from the scene.

2. Anyone notice how many continuity errors there are during dream scenes? Despite my naysaying, I actually thought that that was pretty cool - audacious and, again, the avant-garde brought to mainstream theaters.

Christopher Nolan and Rob Zombie, the artists of meh popular filmmaking. :)

[MacGuffin]

I knew someone on Match Cut would go apeshit for this movie, but I don't think I would have guessed it would be Spinal.

[Spinal]

I think the action sequences are superb. Tense and exciting. Watching it a second time, I don't agree with that criticism either.

[Qrazy]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking the film. But I find the claim that there's so much information in each image that Nolan needs to shoot his next film entirely on IMAX is rather dubious--especially since IMAX gives you a much shallower depth of field. If you take the scene at the outdoor café, there's obviously a lot of detail in the stuff blowing up, but for the most part, in each shot there's one thing we're supposed to notice. Nolan's direction doesn't even have the gradation of emphasis you find in classical Hollywood features, where based on the composition, certain elements are given greater emphasis than others (for instance, you have some one talking on the phone in the foreground, and in the background, there's somebody walking towards him to give him a note; because of the staging and the sound, the weight of the image will be on the person speaking in the foreground, especially if they're turned towards the camera and in the centre of the frame).

Not every film has to be a Bela Tarr. Nolan likes to use many cuts to convey tension on his own terms. In Inception it works particularly well since it allows him to cut between many different levels easily and convey a number of visual motifs in rapid succession (train imagery, water/beach). That doesn't detract from the competence of his imagery or camerawork.

Please forgive the poor resolution, best I could do right now...


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7856/vlcsnap2010072623h29m35.png

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4672/vlcsnap2010072623h28m54.png

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7031/vlcsnap2010072623h28m25.png

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7918/vlcsnap2010072623h27m05.png

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8984/vlcsnap2010072623h22m33.png

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4882/vlcsnap2010072623h21m29.png

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/681/vlcsnap2010072623h19m49.png

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/1441/vlcsnap2010072623h18m56.png

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1474/vlcsnap2010072623h18m45.png

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/430/vlcsnap2010072622h56m34.png

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7635/vlcsnap2010072622h56m08.png

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/5686/vlcsnap2010072622h54m20.png

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/4557/vlcsnap2010072622h53m55.png

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/6005/vlcsnap2010072622h53m34.png

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/6176/vlcsnap2010072622h52m31.png

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2262/vlcsnap2010072622h51m22.png

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4968/vlcsnap2010072622h50m50.png

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/7113/vlcsnap2010072622h50m19.png

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/3563/vlcsnap2010072622h46m13.png

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5429/vlcsnap2010072622h45m33.png

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6310/vlcsnap2010072622h42m33.png

[Qrazy]

I think the action sequences are superb. Tense and exciting. Watching it a second time, I don't agree with that criticism either.

A lot are very good I agree, but I found the skiing level one got a big redundant and didn't communicate geography well enough a couple times.

[Spinal]

This FAQ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/faq#.2.1.15) is a fun read, although I've found a point or two that I don't quite agree with.

[[ETM]]

A lot are very good I agree, but I found the skiing level one got a big redundant and didn't communicate geography well enough a couple times.

Indeed. I felt bad for Tom Hardy while he was having his big action moment, because it seemed to drag on while being pretty conventional in every way.

[Bosco B Thug]

Not every film has to be a Bela Tarr. Nolan likes to use many cuts to convey tension on his own terms. And not every accusation of lack of technique has to do with cuts per minute. Baby_doll hardly mentions anything about cutting.

Sorry Qrazy, needless to say I side with b_d. Let's give him props for actually not mentioning Bela Tarr (I admired but didn't fall in love with Werckmeister Harmonies [needs a re-watch], and - not saying Tarr falls into the category - but I'm all for abolishing the phrase "slow cinema" as some art film standard).

[Qrazy]

And not every accusation of lack of technique has to do with cuts per minute. Baby_doll hardly mentions anything about cutting.

Sorry Qrazy, needless to say I side with b_d. Let's give him props for actually not mentioning Bela Tarr (I admired but didn't fall in love with Werckmeister Harmonies [needs a re-watch], and - not saying Tarr falls into the category - but I'm all for abolishing the phrase "slow cinema" as some art film standard).


Okay, what the hell is Pfister talking about when he says that (a) Nolan's films have a lot going on visually, and (b) that IMAX is conducive to cramming more information into the frame? Even if Inception seemed to me less eye-splitting than The Prestige and Batman Begins, more willing to linger on an image for a few seconds (according to Cinemetrics, both had an ASL of roughly three seconds; so far, no one's clocked Inception), the film nevertheless is heavily slanted towards close shots of one or two actors. Also, it's much harder to do deep focus on IMAX than with 35mm, and Nolan isn't exactly Jacques Tati to begin with. What details are we supposed to be picking out from a close-up or medium shot that's only onscreen for three seconds?

Snide retort fail. :P

[Spinal]

Three seconds is enough to communicate information. It works for this film. Jacques Tati would be incapable of making Inception.

[Derek]

And not every accusation of lack of technique has to do with cuts per minute. Baby_doll hardly mentions anything about cutting.

He mentioned the length of the shots in Nolan's films multiple times, which is what Qrazy was responding to. You are right that baby_doll did not mention how wonderfully cut Inception was and instead showed us how it is not Citizen Kane.


Sorry Qrazy, needless to say I side with b_d. Let's give him props for actually not mentioning Bela Tarr (I admired but didn't fall in love with Werckmeister Harmonies [needs a re-watch], and - not saying Tarr falls into the category - but I'm all for abolishing the phrase "slow cinema" as some art film standard).

I'm all for abolishing the phrase, especially since it's most often used in a derogatory manner by people unwilling to meet a film on its own terms. Plus, for every snob complaining about quick-cutting, there are tenfold moviegoers complaining about art films being too slow or being about nothing.

[Derek]

Three seconds is enough to communicate information. It works for this film. Jacques Tati would be incapable of making Inception.

As Nolan is incapable of Playtime. But I see absolutely no purpose to bringing Tati and Welles into a discussion about Nolan.

[Qrazy]

Just to be clear I love all four: Tati, Welles, Nolan and Tarr.

[Spinal]

As Nolan is incapable of Playtime. But I see absolutely no purpose to bringing Tati and Welles into a discussion about Nolan.

I don't either. They are striving for completely different things.

[Spinal]

I'm all for abolishing the phrase, especially since it's most often used in a derogatory manner by people unwilling to meet a film on its own terms. Plus, for every snob complaining about quick-cutting, there are tenfold moviegoers complaining about art films being too slow or being about nothing.

I don't complain about art films being about nothing. I complain about art films in which nothing happens. Big difference. :)

[Derek]

I don't complain about art films being about nothing. I complain about art films in which nothing happens. Big difference. :)

Oh ha, I honestly wasn't even thinking of you when I wrote that. I still think a lot happens in Last Days though - I mean, dude did a LOT of walking, a bit of digging, played a couple songs, did a cross-dressing Elmer Fudd impersonation, listened to a guy from the Yellow Pages and a couple Jehovah's witnesses, had a bowl of cereal and Mac 'n Cheese and still found the time to shoot himself. That's a busy few days, sir, and Van Sant condensed it into a mere 80 minutes! :)

[MacGuffin]

It's definitely probably Van Sant's best movie, even if that likely isn't saying very much.

[Bosco B Thug]

Snide retort fail. :P Fine, but the passage you quoted and responded to gave a very valid example of another aspect of technique that he found lacking in Inception that does have partly, but not everything, to do with cutting. It's hard to communicate all the intricacies of craft he was trying to get across, and just because he chalks it up to shot length in a pithy statement doesn't mean that's all he has to back himself up with.


He mentioned the length of the shots in Nolan's films multiple times, which is what Qrazy was responding to. You are right that baby_doll did not mention how wonderfully cut Inception was and instead showed us how it is not Citizen Kane. Yeah, baby_doll was definitely trying to put forth a comparison of how more masterful the parallel editing in Inception is as compared to Citizen Kane...


I'm all for abolishing the phrase, especially since it's most often used in a derogatory manner by people unwilling to meet a film on its own terms. Plus, for every snob complaining about quick-cutting, there are tenfold moviegoers complaining about art films being too slow or being about nothing. Don't worry, I'll gladly never make the statement that Inception is empty "fast cinema."


As Nolan is incapable of Playtime. But I see absolutely no purpose to bringing Tati and Welles into a discussion about Nolan. I will put up that my backing of baby doll's "Welles Defense" was not entirely without tongue-in-cheek, the speciousness of presenting a whole scene from a canonized "great film" in order to belittle another one definitely being a bit haughty, but I still find a lot to consider in baby doll's passage Qrazy quoted that I initially responded to.

[Spinal]

By the way, I took it as a given that Nolan couldn't make Play Time which is why I didn't mention it. No disrespect intended. Just trying to make the point that different approaches can be valid. I watched You, the Living last night with its longer takes and thought it was just great. But you know, longer can better. And it can also just be longer.

[Derek]

Yeah, baby_doll was definitely trying to put forth a comparison of how more masterful the parallel editing in Inception is as compared to Citizen Kane...

Yeah, that's exactly what I was suggesting. Actually, had baby_doll brought up CK as a superior use of cross-cutting rather than mise-en-scene, I'd find it a bit less laughable. Also, if this weren't the hundredth time baby_doll made an absurd comparison along the lines of all modern comic book movies paling in comparison to Feiullade's Les Vampires, I'd be inclined to actually take it seriously.


By the way, I took it as a given that Nolan couldn't make Play Time which is why I didn't mention it. No disrespect intended. Just trying to make the point that different approaches can be valid. I watched You, the Living last night with its longer takes and thought it was just great. But you know, longer can better. And it can also just be longer.

I knew you did. I mostly wanted to point out how silly these comparisons were becoming.

[Bosco B Thug]

Also, if this weren't the hundredth time baby_doll made an absurd comparison along the lines of all modern comic book movies paling in comparison to Feiullade's Les Vampires, I'd be inclined to actually take it seriously. No argument here... although baby doll, you're the reason I haven't chalked up Les Vampires as just another crappy silent era curiosity we watched 5 minutes of in a film history class. :P

[baby doll]

Not every film has to be a Bela Tarr.I never said it had to be. I was responding very specifically to a statement made by the film's cinematographer that Nolan's images were layered, and I've tried to show that, in fact, they're designed to communicate one thing in a space of roughly three seconds.

[baby doll]

Three seconds is enough to communicate information. It works for this film. Jacques Tati would be incapable of making Inception.Three seconds is enough because there's not that much information to absorb. And it does work for this film, but that's not the point I'm making.

[Spinal]

there's not that much information to absorb.

In an individual shot maybe. But there is in fact a lot of information that is effectively communicated through editing.

[Qrazy]

I never said it had to be. I was responding very specifically to a statement made by the film's cinematographer that Nolan's images were layered, and I've tried to show that, in fact, they're designed to communicate one thing in a space of roughly three seconds.

The number of points of interest in a frame does not necessarily correlate with how layered an image is. Although I did provide plenty of screenshots of moments that have many points of interest. However, a shot which simply pans up from a spinning top to Dicaprio holding a gun in a hotel room can be and is a beautiful and layered image in my eyes.

One example of what you want anyway:

Cobb's head center frame right, sitting next to Mal who is center frame, they're pushing over a sandcastle bottom frame left and a building falls in the background in the top left. So pretty much the entire frame is being used here.

[Sven]

Cobb's head frame right, sitting next to Mal who is center frame, they're pushing over a sandcastle bottom frame left and a building falls in the background in the top left. So pretty much the entire frame is being used here.

This shot is another instance of Nolan's frustrating literal-mindedness, I think. Why are they planning their imaginary city with dirt? Wouldn't they both be pretty decent at imagining big blocks of concrete without the aid of wet sand by that point? Dreamcity planning had been demonstrated to be nearly instantaneous, as in the scene where Page turns the city upside down. If adjustments can be made so instantly, why the elaborate sandcastles? Tying together the two actions reads as a direct cause-effect correlation, and the engineering process had not been shown to work so literally like that before, nor does it ever after.

Confusion: what exactly is it that Caine teaches and what is he teaching Page that makes her such a find? Clearly she didn't know about the dream constructions so...? And do any of us believe that it would have taken Leo a whole minute to solve that circular maze she draws? Sixty seconds?

[B-side]

I gotta say, even though I rather like the film, I'm kinda with baby doll here.

[baby doll]

In an individual shot maybe. But there is in fact a lot of information that is effectively communicated through editing.Perhaps, but in the quote from Pfister, he was going on about how Nolan really needs the larger IMAX frame to accommodate what he's doing visually, but I'm just not seeing the evidence of that.

[Spinal]

If adjustments can be made so instantly, why the elaborate sandcastles? Tying together the two actions reads as a direct cause-effect correlation, and the engineering process had not been shown to work so literally like that before, nor does it ever after.


It's a metaphor.

[baby doll]

The number of points of interest in a frame does not necessarily correlate with how layered an image is. Although I did provide plenty of screenshots of moments that have many points of interest. However, a shot which simply pans up from a spinning top to Dicaprio holding a gun in a hotel room can be and is a beautiful and layered image in my eyes.

One example of what you want anyway:

Cobb's head center frame right, sitting next to Mal who is center frame, they're pushing over a sandcastle bottom frame left and a building falls in the background in the top left. So pretty much the entire frame is being used here.Okay, that's a good example of an image where there's stuff happening in both the foreground and background. I couldn't really make it out in the image you posted above.

[Spinal]

Perhaps, but in the quote from Pfister, he was going on about how Nolan really needs the larger IMAX frame to accommodate what he's doing visually, but I'm just not seeing the evidence of that.

OK, yes, I agree. I don't see why this film requires IMAX.

[baby doll]

I gotta say, even though I rather like the film, I'm kinda with baby doll here.Yeah, I like the film too. It's a lot of fun.

[Qrazy]

This shot is another instance of Nolan's frustrating literal-mindedness, I think. Why are they planning their imaginary city with dirt? Wouldn't they both be pretty decent at imagining big blocks of concrete without the aid of wet sand by that point? Dreamcity planning had been demonstrated to be nearly instantaneous, as in the scene where Page turns the city upside down. If adjustments can be made so instantly, why the elaborate sandcastles? Tying together the two actions reads as a direct cause-effect correlation, and the engineering process had not been shown to work so literally like that before, nor does it ever after.

It can be instantaneous ala Page or they can have a little fun with it and build microcosmic sandcastles which mirror their actual city. They're playing around in their world. Plus if they were planning their city it is much easier to build a small scale model before creating the actual thing. A model allows you to visualize the layout of an entire city before building it. Although in this case they're crafting with their hands which then carries over to the larger city. Adjustments can be made instantly but you still have to think them. No one can conceive of an entire city in all it's fine details and intricacies in an instant. You also have to remember that Ariadne is supposed to be extremely good at this job. Perhaps less skilled architects need to build sandcastles at first in order to unleash their full imagination.

I think it's a superb image personally.

And yes also as Spinal points out the scenes where Cobb talks about the world he built with Mal are primarily metaphors and highly malleable (ex: in some cases they're old, other times they're young again).


Confusion: what exactly is it that Caine teaches and what is he teaching Page that makes her such a find? Clearly she didn't know about the dream constructions so...? And do any of us believe that it would have taken Leo a whole minute to solve that circular maze she draws? Sixty seconds?

He teaches architecture I assume and he and Cobb experimented with the dream stuff (but he doesn't teach it). Yes, that maze looked complicated.

[Spinal]

And yes also as Spinal points out the scenes where Cobb talks about the world he built with Mal are primarily metaphors and highly malleable (ex: in some cases they're old, other times they're young again).


For example, when he talks about her locking a truth inside her, he probably doesn't literally mean that she has a locked safe inside her.

[Qrazy]

I gotta say, even though I rather like the film, I'm kinda with baby doll here.

Well I saw the film in IMAX and it was visually delightful.

[Qrazy]

For example, when he talks about her locking a truth inside her, he probably doesn't literally mean that she has a locked safe inside her.

http://www.amareway.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Sensory-Homunculus.png

There's a homunculus in the safe!

[B-side]

Well I saw the film in IMAX and it was visually delightful.

Your opinion is incorrect.

[soitgoes...]

I don't know if this has been brought up, and I am going on memory from a week ago now, but wasn't the final top spin done on a wooden table? Wouldn't that have led to the wobble (wood grain being not smooth) that say a metal safe would not? Just because the top wobbles does not mean that it has to fall.

[soitgoes...]

And yes, I'm all for a thread title change of "Christopher Nolan's 'Inception' - Now with Spoilers! Enter at Your Own Risk."

[Qrazy]

Your opinion is incorrect.

Go watch another Rohmer film. Now there's visual acuity if I've ever seen it.

[B-side]

Go watch another Rohmer film. Now there's visual acuity if I've ever seen it.

I know you're being sarcastic, but, like, he can be pretty good visually.

[Qrazy]

For example, when he talks about her locking a truth inside her, he probably doesn't literally mean that she has a locked safe inside her.

I also thought of another function for the sandcastle image. It functions to foreshadow the cause/effect dynamic between the various levels of the dream.

[Qrazy]

I know you're being sarcastic, but, like, he can be pretty good visually.

Having just watched A Tale of Winter I can say without a doubt that no, he is really quite boring. Also this is the second film I've seen from him where his characters discuss Pascal's Wager. Enough with this shitty wager already.

[B-side]

Having just watched A Tale of Winter I can say without a doubt that no, he is really quite boring. Also this is the second film I've seen from him where his characters discuss Pascal's Wager. Enough with this shitty wager already.

Your face is quite boring.

[Qrazy]

Your face is quite boring.

So boring that I bore a hole through your mother's pants and then performed cunnilingus on her.

[B-side]

So boring that I bore a hole through your mother's pants and then performed cunnilingus on her.

She fell asleep.

[Qrazy]

She fell asleep.

Afterwards because she was so satisfied.

[B-side]

Afterwards because she was so satisfied.

http://4gifs.com/gallery/d/152897-1/Asian_zooming.gif

[Watashi]

I don't like the direction this thread has turned.

[Qrazy]

So I've been thinking, there are still two major points about the film we haven't discussed much. Some of this may seem a bit far-fetched but I think there are some ideas here worth exploring...

For instance the true relationship between Cobal, Saito and Fischer, what the Inception is really all about and in relation these issues, what are the film's politics. For those of you who haven't read the comic this appears to be the nature of the dynamic...

"Cobol engineering is in the process of bidding on a job to build an oil pipeline up the entire Eastern Coast of Africa. That endeavor is being financed by Fischer Morrow, the energy conglomerate whose major competitor happens to be Mr. Saito. We were hoping to trade the information you extracted from Mr. Kaneda to sway Fischer Morrow in our favor, but now we are empty-handed. Due to your failure."

Saito tells Cobb near the beginning of the film that the reason he let him into his mind at all was to test Cobb's abilities. Did Saito know originally that Cobol had hired Cobb to find out about his expansion plans or did he find out and then decide to test Cobb? I suppose it doesn't really matter, I'm going to assume the latter.

Anyway, what I found interesting about all this talk about energy and oil is the way in which it meshes with the imagery in the film. For starters we have the repeating motif of the train (riding during Saito's extraction at the beginning of the film, in Cobb's personal dream, in the first layer of the shared dream, and in Cobb's memories). What did trains represent? Progress, the industrial revolution, monopolies. Trains opened up the west and paved the way for manifest destiny. Manifest destiny of course being the great American dream, the belief that it was our destiny to expand across the continent and perhaps even further. This all ties in nicely with Saito's plans for expansion and the tug of war between him and Fischer Morrow for a monopoly on energy. By the film's end not only Fischer has been convinced to break up his father's empire but I believe Saito has also been shown the error of his ways. He will now wish to avoid becoming that old man filled with regret.

This brings me to another of the film's motifs, water. We first see water in relation to the bathtub Cobb receives his kick from. This water flows into the second level, bursting into Arthur's collapsing dream. It's worth noting the use of sound as Cobb falls into the tub, the water spilling around him sounds exactly like surf splashing against a seashore. If we move forward to the next dream we have the river/sea water the van plunges into, and there's also of course the ocean surf in Cobb's world. A world which in his memories is idyllic enough but which has actually become a dying city. Water levels seem to have risen drastically to the point where the ocean is destroying buildings along the coast line. So, rising water levels, the ocean, oil and energy? I don't think it's that much of a stretch to start reading a concern for climate change into the film at this point. Something which has certainly become one of the major fears of society's collective unconscious. Speaking of collective fears, this spike in earthquakes has certainly been another cause for general concern and the film certainly has it's fair share of unstable seismic activity as well.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the third level of the dream features a hospital (which should be a place of healing but which has become a place of death) in an icy tundra. There's the obvious narrative purpose (keep the projections at bay), but there's also the political and shared social dream angle. This level meshes with the public's concern for the polar ice caps. It is not surprising that in a dream where energy is the key to everything, an icy tundra is contrasted with a flooding city (which is limbo, the next level, from which there may be no escape... or in relation to climate change, the point of no return). We should also bear in mind the fiery explosion which effectively dissolves this dream or alternatively, melts away the metaphoric ice cap. Personally when I saw the image of buildings crumbling into the sea it made me think of sheets of glaciers breaking off and plunging into the sea.

On another, but related note, how far into the future do you think this film takes place? It seems like the very near future to me which I think adds even more support to all of the speculations I made above.

[transmogrifier]

I haven't seen the film yet, but I think it's a good idea to get rid of the spoiler tags. It is a thread dedicated to a single movie. If you don't want to be spoiled, don't go in. Simple and straight-forward.

A GD thread, sure, but not here.

[Fezzik]

Other than that, I am convinced that this is not only a superior mainstream film, but a true work of art. I will no longer accept charges that it is an empty piece of craft with no soul. This film is bursting with emotion. It's filled with ideas and those ideas are communicated in an extraordinary manner. The writing, the direction, the editing and the acting are all first rate. This is indeed a perfect film. And anyone who says otherwise can only be a Pixar shill.

Can I be both a Pixar shill and agree that this film is damn near perfect? :lol:

My second viewing really cemented it for me. Some of the emotional content didn't strike me on first viewing because I was trying to take in the film itself. That out of the way, I was able to really let the film flow over me the second time and I found the emotional scenes quite stirring.

And I have to add that I love the amount of discussion this film has generated, and not just here - EVERYWHERE. I love when movies like this become minor phenomenons.

I called The Dark Knight's success a "fluke" because of Ledger and morbid curiosity - saying that it wasn't an indication that moviegoers were saying that they wanted smarter blockbusters.

(I also thought The Dark Knight was somewhat overrated.)

Inception, though, flipped my perspective on its ear. Everyone is talking about it. Word of mouth is huge. And it deserves to be. I'm really glad this movie is doing so well.

I'm far from a Nolan fanboy, but this film was just fantastic.

As for your Oscar nominations, Spinal...I see your 6 and raise you...Cinematography, perhaps?

(I agree on Cotillard btw. She needs to be nominated for this. It's been a while since a character unsettled me so much).

[number8]

I am so behind on the discussion.

[Ezee E]

I like the discussion of this, so I hope the Oscar predictions doesn't sway it, but right now here's what I predict:
Picture
Director
Original Screenplay
Editing
Art Direction (a must win here)
Visual Effects

and possibly Cinematography. I doubt it'll get any acting nominations, even though Cotillard is certainly deserving.

[number8]

With 10 nominees, there would need to be a flashflood of Holocaust movies and sassy indies at the end of the year to knock this out of the Best Picture race.

[Raiders]

Other than that, I am convinced that this is not only a superior mainstream film, but a true work of art. I will no longer accept charges that it is an empty piece of craft with no soul. This film is bursting with emotion. It's filled with ideas and those ideas are communicated in an extraordinary manner. The writing, the direction, the editing and the acting are all first rate. This is indeed a perfect film. And anyone who says otherwise can only be a Pixar shill.

I like this change in you; this refusal to believe people can think differently than you on certain films. Spicy.

[number8]

OK, yes, I agree. I don't see why this film requires IMAX.

Well, really, does any movie ever require IMAX? But I can think of one instance in the film where it benefited from it. When Ariadne folded the city upside down, the IMAX screen made it easier to make out the impressive details. You could see people moving in the windows of the buildings, mini-scenes happening on upside-down screen corners, etc.

[Spinal]

I like this change in you; this refusal to believe people can think differently than you on certain films. Spicy.

Armond White reference? Come on now.

[Raiders]

Armond White reference? Come on now.

:|

I was being facetious.

[Spinal]

:|

I was being facetious.

You win. :)

[Dukefrukem]

This shot is another instance of Nolan's frustrating literal-mindedness, I think. Why are they planning their imaginary city with dirt? Wouldn't they both be pretty decent at imagining big blocks of concrete without the aid of wet sand by that point? Dreamcity planning had been demonstrated to be nearly instantaneous, as in the scene where Page turns the city upside down. If adjustments can be made so instantly, why the elaborate sandcastles? Tying together the two actions reads as a direct cause-effect correlation, and the engineering process had not been shown to work so literally like that before, nor does it ever after.

Confusion: what exactly is it that Caine teaches and what is he teaching Page that makes her such a find? Clearly she didn't know about the dream constructions so...? And do any of us believe that it would have taken Leo a whole minute to solve that circular maze she draws? Sixty seconds?

Isn't he an architect?

Also, I can't believe I missed out on three pages of amazing posts.

[number8]

Yeah, he is an architectural professor, and Ariadne a student of architecture. The skills of an architect translates to dreamscape-building skills. What made Ariadne such a good find for Cobb is that she's an expert at mazes, which they needed for that snow level.

[Spinal]

Also, I can't believe I missed out on three pages of amazing posts.

Well, there was a whole page devoted to what Qrazy was doing to Brightside's mother. You can probably skip that one.

[number8]

I've decided I'm not gonna read the pages I missed. Let's just reboot the thread with Andrew Garfield.

[Dukefrukem]

I've decided I'm not gonna read the pages I missed. Let's just reboot the thread with Andrew Garfield.

I'd recommend reading from post 927 and then all of page 32... great stuff.

And I forgot to post my thoughts about the chase sequence after talking to Tom Hardy. When Cobb tries to squeeze through the buildings, that so felt like it was a dream. The kind of dream where you're running away from something, but keep falling down or are getting slowed. But it could also be Nolan fucking with us. :frustrated:

[Spinal]

I'm wondering whether Cobb's left hand is more visible on the IMAX screen. Because the IMDb FAQ seems to think he has no ring on it.

[Dukefrukem]

If anyone wants to watch Inception for free online... go here (http://watch-freemoviesonline.info/watch-inception-online-for-free/?=mjiy). All you have to do is fill out a survey. Needs a legit e-mail though.

[Milky Joe]

Yeah, he is an architectural professor, and Ariadne a student of architecture. The skills of an architect translates to dreamscape-building skills. What made Ariadne such a good find for Cobb is that she's an expert at mazes, which they needed for that snow level.

Sorry, but where are these two facts communicated in the film? I'm almost certain they weren't. Which would explain why I spent the whole film thinking Caine taught some esoteric sort of computer programming and that Page was an especially gifted level designer, a skill which naturally would derive from a proclivity for maze-making.

[Qrazy]

Sorry, but where are these two facts communicated in the film? I'm almost certain they weren't. Which would explain why I spent the whole film thinking Caine taught some esoteric sort of computer programming and that Page was an especially gifted level designer, a skill which naturally would derive from a proclivity for maze-making.

Yes, it is clearly communicated.

[Milky Joe]

When? How?

[Qrazy]

When? How?

I posted the exchange between Cobb and Miles word for word a few pages ago.

[number8]

Yup. Cobb specifically told Miles that "I need an architect that's as good as I was." Now you can argue that "architect" doesn't literally mean architect, it's just a nickname for someone who builds dreamworlds, but I don't think so. Cobb also said that one of Miles' students will be interested in learning about and entering the dreamworld because it's a chance to build cathedrals, cities, etc that they never can in the real world. Who else would that appeal to so strongly besides architecture students?

[Sven]

Yup. Cobb specifically told Miles that "I need an architect that's as good as I was." Now you can argue that "architect" doesn't literally mean architect, it's just a nickname for someone who builds dreamworlds, but I don't think so. Cobb also said that one of Miles' students will be interested in learning about and entering the dreamworld because it's a chance to build cathedrals, cities, etc that they never can in the real world. Who else would that appeal to so strongly besides architecture students?

I would think that city planners and interior designers would be more useful than architects (why should an architecture student have to worry about the carpet?). It's not like the buildings have to be physically sound. It just has to look like a city. And I read the bolded "architect" in your quote as "architect of dreams," because that's the way they used the term before.

[Milky Joe]

OK, that makes sense. I was thinking architect in Matrix-terms I guess. It's kind of funny now to think that when he says 'architect' it he means it literally. Kind of puts a new spin on the stereotype of the 'boring architect.'