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

[Sven]

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

You'll always have Amadeus.

[Qrazy]

Checked IMDb to see if Hardy was actually gay (he's not, he's engaged to a woman) and I found this:

His favorite films include Amadeus, Amelie, Big Lebowski, Bringing Out The Dead, Dog Day Afternoon, Dracula flicks, Full Metal Jacket, Irreversible, La Haine, Man Bites Dog, Meet Joe Black, Mr. Holland's Opus, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Platoon, Princess Bride, Silence Of The Lambs, The Piano, and Time Bandits.

Not bad, but Meet Joe Black? Dude.

Hey, at least he likes The Piano. amirite? :P

[Spinal]

Hold up. Now this is interesting:

[When asked by a "Daily Mail" interviewer if he's ever had sex with another man] "Of course I have. I'm an actor, for fuck's sake. I've played with everything and everyone. I love the form and the physicality, but now that I'm in my thirties, it doesn't do it for me. I'm done experimenting but there's plenty of stuff in a relationship with another man, especially gay men, that I need in my life."

[B-side]

My friend told me about that not too long ago. Doesn't really say anything about the character, though.

[Spinal]

My friend told me about that not too long ago. Doesn't really say anything about the character, though.

Well no, but it certainly says a lot about how Hardy might approach a character. I'm starting to think Bosco might be onto something.

[B-side]

Well no, but it certainly says a lot about how Hardy might approach a character. I'm starting to think Bosco might be onto something.

Meh.

I'd totally do Tom Hardy, btw.

[Qrazy]

[When asked by a "Daily Mail" interviewer if he's ever had sex with another man] "Of course I have. I'm a priest, for fuck's sake.

[When asked by a "Daily Mail" interviewer if he's ever had sex with another man] "Of course I have. I'm an astronaut, for fuck's sake.

[When asked by a "Daily Mail" interviewer if he's ever had sex with another man] "Of course I have. I'm a clown, for fuck's sake.

[When asked by a "Daily Mail" interviewer if he's ever had sex with another man] "Of course I have. I'm a proctologist, for fuck's sake.

[When asked by a "Daily Mail" interviewer if he's ever had sex with another man] "Of course I have. I'm a shopping cart wrangler, for fuck's sake.

[Bosco B Thug]

Hold up. Now this is interesting:

[When asked by a "Daily Mail" interviewer if he's ever had sex with another man] "Of course I have. I'm an actor, for fuck's sake. I've played with everything and everyone. I love the form and the physicality, but now that I'm in my thirties, it doesn't do it for me. I'm done experimenting but there's plenty of stuff in a relationship with another man, especially gay men, that I need in my life." Hahahaha. Inception: Secrets Revealed.

Now let's all admire JLG for deciding to play his character straight and into petite, pre-pubescent-boy-looking girls as-long-as-there's-some-breasts.

Seriously, though, amberlita's suggestion is ideal, that maybe Hardy chose to add this angle to the character and Nolan was spontaneous and creatively inspired enough to play with it a bit.


Obviously we both took something different away from the ending, but I don't see where Nolan suggests that Cobb thinking he is safe is the same as it actually happening or expects us to think that. I too shudder at the thought of Cobb potentially resigned to yet another false reality simply as a means to experience a few more years of a fraudulent life, but the fact that Nolan merely hints at it, planting that seed of doubt while also showing that Cobb has accepted this as his happy ending. How you feel about that is entirely up to you, IMO. Although I'm partly in Raiders' side, there's also the idea that the film overall, thematically, is about the spiritual value of the inception of positive feelings and emotions, even if they are based upon falsity. The film suggests it's how the world works most of the time - that "an idea is the most powerful thing" etc etc, "it builds nations" etc. It gives the ending (and the ambiguity) a subversive sweetness, in its giving this amoral dream thief personal catharsis without sanctioning him a conventional hero, or the film a conventional hero's journey to achieving happiness in the real (moral) world.

Would everyone say we're supposed to find Cobb and Mal's (and the whole future world's) playing with dreams completely kosher, or is this one of those "messing with things that should not be messed with" stories?

[Derek]

Although I'm partly in Raiders' side, there's also the idea that the film overall, thematically, is about the spiritual value of the inception of positive feelings and emotions, even if they are based upon falsity. The film suggests it's how the world works most of the time - that "an idea is the most powerful thing" etc etc, "it builds nations" etc. It gives the ending (and the ambiguity) a subversive sweetness, in its giving this amoral dream thief personal catharsis without sanctioning him a conventional hero, or the film a conventional hero's journey to achieving happiness in the real (moral) world.

I think it's also part of Jungian psychology where one tries to heal the narcissistic wounds, meet the needs of the inner child, etc. It's wonderfully incorporated in Fischer's storyline in a way that's simultaneously heartwarming and gut-wrenching.


Would everyone say we're supposed to find Cobb and Mal's (and the whole future world's) playing with dreams completely kosher, or is this one of those "messing with things that should not be messed with" stories?

I guess it could be taken either way, but I'd say it's even less a cautionary tale than something like Eternal Sunshine..., which itself isn't much of one in the first place.

[Watashi]

A threesome with Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt would make any straight man walk on the wild side.

Yes, please.

[B-side]

A threesome with Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt would make any straight man walk on the wild side.

Yes, please.

That's what I like to hear.:D

[Barty]

Stick in the mud. Think about it.

[B-side]

Stick in the mud. Think about it.

I don't know what this means, but it sounds racist.

[Dukefrukem]

Gross. Take it outside boys.

[number8]

Are you guys that unfamiliar with the concept of fanshipping?

[Raiders]

Are you guys that unfamiliar with the concept of fanshipping?

I hadn't heard of it. Thanks wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_(fandom)).

[number8]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/The_More_You_Know.jpg

[BuffaloWilder]

When I was a younger man I used to ship Professor Frink and Bumblebee Man. Nobody could top me, there.

[[ETM]]

Not bad, but Meet Joe Black? Dude.

Maybe he has a thing for Claire Forlani too.

[Bosco B Thug]

I think it's also part of Jungian psychology where one tries to heal the narcissistic wounds, meet the needs of the inner child, etc. It's wonderfully incorporated in Fischer's storyline in a way that's simultaneously heartwarming and gut-wrenching. Yeah, that's great.

The whole movie has a real narcissistic bent. Dreams are being devoted to wish fulfillment and group self-help for moguls and a guy who gets paid to sleep all day, and the world (or worlds) come to revolve around their little emotional problems. Fischer's storyline really does bring it all together.

[megladon8]

I don't see the logic in an actor being gay meaning that a character they play is gay. Or has a higher chance of being gay. Or gives the lines they speak and the report they share with another character an added level of gay-osity.

It just doesn't make sense.

[Raiders]

I don't see the logic in an actor being gay meaning that a character they play is gay. Or has a higher chance of being gay. Or gives the lines they speak and the report they share with another character an added level of gay-osity.

It just doesn't make sense.

I believe all Spinal's quote of Hardy is suggesting is since the character of Eames really doesn't appear to have any sexual leaning, it is worth mentioning the way Hardy himself views his own sexuality and how it informs his life and personality. The original mention of the homosexual undertones to the relationship between Eames and Arthur was not based on Hardy's real-life sexual orientation at all. Spinal was just giving evidence that though the film seems to not really support it, the idea is not necessarily unfounded at all.

[Spinal]

I don't see the logic in an actor being gay meaning that a character they play is gay. Or has a higher chance of being gay. Or gives the lines they speak and the report they share with another character an added level of gay-osity.

It just doesn't make sense.

Of course it does. Hardy has stated that he is open to exploring sexuality as a part of his relationships with men. It's only natural that this would be a part of his mindset when he prepares a character and how he interacts with those around him. It doesn't make Eames gay necessarily. It just means that Hardy has probably factored in male-to-male attraction when creating his role. I don't think it's an overt part of the performance. Just a little shading, like others were suggesting. Something that gives the world more depth. I don't think it's a critical aspect of the film, so if you don't see it, then no big deal, I imagine.

[Spinal]

I believe all Spinal's quote of Hardy is suggesting is since the character of Eames really doesn't appear to have any sexual leaning, it is worth mentioning the way Hardy himself views his own sexuality and how it informs his life and personality. The original mention of the homosexual undertones to the relationship between Eames and Arthur was not based on Hardy's real-life sexual orientation at all. Spinal was just giving evidence that though the film seems to not really support it, the idea is not necessarily unfounded at all.

Exactly. It's not that Hardy is or isn't gay. Or Eames is or isn't gay. But that as a person, he would likely be open to exploring the relationships in that manner.

And I'm convinced Hardy is someone who does a lot of prep. Man is nails.

[megladon8]

Of course it does. Hardy has stated that he is open to exploring sexuality as a part of his relationships with men. It's only natural that this would be a part of his mindset when he prepares a character and how he interacts with those around him. It doesn't make Eames gay necessarily. It just means that Hardy has probably factored in male-to-male attraction when creating his role. I don't think it's an overt part of the performance. Just a little shading, like others were suggesting. Something that gives the world more depth. I don't think it's a critical aspect of the film, so if you don't see it, then no big deal, I imagine.


I can understand a touch of it, a subtle shade, but the conversation earlier was starting to make me think there was speculation about Eames and Arthur being past lovers or something.

And that, I'm sorry, is ridiculous.

[number8]

Why?


Are you guys that unfamiliar with the concept of fanshipping?

[Spinal]

I can understand a touch of it, a subtle shade, but the conversation earlier was starting to make me think there was speculation about Eames and Arthur being past lovers or something.

And that, I'm sorry, is ridiculous.

Yeah, I don't think there's much to support that.

[megladon8]

Yeah, I don't think there's much to support that.


Love the new avatar, by the way :)

[Qrazy]

On a side note I'd say the majority of the team members are severely underwritten characters. Nolan should have cut a bit of the action to make more room for more character development there.

[megladon8]

On a side note I'd say the majority of the team members are severely underwritten characters. Nolan should have cut a bit of the action to make more room for more character development there.


I wanted more of everything in this movie.

I would love to see a 4 hour cut.

[Spinal]

Love the new avatar, by the way :)

Now if you tell me you don't see the undertones in that, I'll be worried. :lol:

[megladon8]

Now if you tell me you don't see the undertones in that, I'll be worried. :lol:


Yeah, clearly Yogi Bear - whose fur is ever-so-slightly darker than Boo-Boo's - is placed above Boo-Boo in the picture, thus showing how blacks are slowly rising in societal ladders to be above whites.

Right?

[Spinal]

Yeah, clearly Yogi Bear - whose fur is ever-so-slightly darker than Boo-Boo's - is placed above Boo-Boo in the picture, thus showing how blacks are slowly rising in societal ladders to be above whites.

Right?

Close enough.

[BuffaloWilder]

Okay, I'll say it. For the life of me, I can't understand the complaint that Nolan's dreams weren't surreal enough - I mean, you know what I dreamed about last night? I was on the run for something - the whole dream was about that, and everything sprung out from there. My stuff was lost, I was hiding in some kind of underground sewer thing - and, Sherlock Holmes and the X-Men were as well, for some reason - but, there weren't these huge, obvious shifts in the reality of the dream or anything.

What kind of dreams do the people who make those kind of complaints have, anyway?

[megladon8]

Believe me, Buffalo, I agree.

Some of the dreams were very surreal. Particularly the flashbacks to the dream which Cobb and Mal lived in for 50 years.

If it had been 5 levels of The Cell-like dreams, it would have been next to impossible to follow.

And yes, I rarely - if ever - have dreams that are balls-to-the-wall nutso. They're always familiar places, familiar people, familiar situations.

[Spinal]

What kind of dreams do the people who make those kind of complaints have, anyway?

Right, and there's also the issue that within the movie they talk about how it is dangerous to call attention to the fact that the dreamer is dreaming.

[[ETM]]

If it had been 5 levels of The Cell-like dreams, it would have been next to impossible to follow.

Also, there's a very practical reason for this - if you want to create a multi-level dream, you have to fall asleep within a dream, complete with the dream-machine and sedatives, the works... so the dream has to be realistic in order to work at all. At the very least it has to follow certain laws of the real, physical world. That's why Limbo is all out - unstructured dream, wasteland to be filled out with anything that occurs to your subconscious. Like the X-Men. Or medieval torture devices.

[Russ]

Well, actually, it's very simple isn't it? You either buy into the dream-within a dream-within a dream-within a dream logic...or you don't.

I'm probably not one of those. Doesn't make me wrong, just makes me unlike most here (apparently).

[Dead & Messed Up]

Believe me, Buffalo, I agree.

Some of the dreams were very surreal. Particularly the flashbacks to the dream which Cobb and Mal lived in for 50 years.

If it had been 5 levels of The Cell-like dreams, it would have been next to impossible to follow.

And yes, I rarely - if ever - have dreams that are balls-to-the-wall nutso. They're always familiar places, familiar people, familiar situations.

I've had at least two non-consecutive dreams in the past week that involve me chasing raptors. Once on foot, once by hang-glider.

[megladon8]

I've had at least two non-consecutive dreams in the past week that involve me chasing raptors. Once on foot, once by hang-glider.


But were they incredibly surreal, anything-could-happen-at-any-time dreams?

Even dreams I have with nonsensical elements (like having superpowers or something like that) are easy for me to follow and do not involve total randomness.

[Bosco B Thug]

I have little desire to defend the film, but I pretty definitively agree that criticizing the dreams for not being surreal doesn't have much basis. I mean, it's a film about dreams, which are built by the dreamer and the dreamer alone. It's only logical that we're not allowed to question it, as it's working within the auspices of director-dreamer, not to mention the dream architects and dreamer of the story.

I mean, criticizers of that might as well be undermining the very hypothetical science of the movie. Then it's no wonder they don't like it.

[Raiders]

I'm not sure who this has been directed at, but I feel I've been pretty clear that I understand why the dreams are the way they are in the film. I just find them a terribly uninteresting interpretation of our subconscious.

[number8]

My last dream, as I recalled, involve me shacking up with some girl I forget and watching TRANSFORMERS 3 IMAX on the monitor of a military control room with a bunch of soldiers and wishing I was at an actual IMAX theater instead. I remember being particularly impressed by an Oldboy continuous shot of a downtown street where Optimus is just destroying Decepticons left and right, transforms into a truck, drives down, turns into a robot and fighting again, repeat. It was amazingly cool.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm not sure who this has been directed at, but I feel I've been pretty clear that I understand why the dreams are the way they are in the film. I just find them a terribly uninteresting interpretation of our subconscious. I've no doubt you've got very good reasons for being dissatisfied with the film's dream environment, and my response was more directed at the ubiquity of the phrase "not surreal enough" in blog reviews...

But, if you don't mind, I'll take issue with your quote above... I think looking at Inception's dreams as being an "interpretation of our subconscious" at all is a somewhat (not totally) unfair discredit to the film. Nolan's less trying to explore the reality of dreams and the subconscious as he is just pursuing his story of buried emotions using the premise of dreams to justify his themes of reality-bending, idea-implanting, and the "wasteland and/or defense system of the mind." It's why dreams aren't just dreams in his films, but architectural ventures. Asking for Freud is kind of altering his story and vision, which, as I've mentioned, I think is at least sincere.

You can definitely find it boring, though. I agree.

[Dead & Messed Up]

But were they incredibly surreal, anything-could-happen-at-any-time dreams?

I'd say so. For one thing, I was hang-glider-chasing a velociraptor.

[Raiders]

I've no doubt you've got very good reasons for being dissatisfied with the film's dream environment, and my response was more directed at the ubiquity of the phrase "not surreal enough" in blog reviews...

But, if you don't mind, I'll take issue with your quote above... I think looking at Inception's dreams as being an "interpretation of our subconscious" at all is a somewhat (not totally) unfair discredit to the film. Nolan's less trying to explore the reality of dreams and the subconscious as he is just pursuing his story of buried emotions using the premise of dreams to justify his themes of reality-bending, idea-implanting, and the "wasteland and/or defense system of the mind." It's why dreams aren't just dreams in his films, but architectural ventures. Asking for Freud is kind of altering his story and vision, which, as I've mentioned, I think is at least sincere.

You can definitely find it boring, though. I agree.

I don't think it is unfair at all. The architecture is empty until populated, supposedly almost entirely, by the subconscious of the subject. I'm just saying that Nolan's film by using such a monstrous control over the structure of our minds is literalizing and vanilla-ing our subconscious to a degree I find very uninteresting and unappealing.

[Mysterious Dude]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is not about dreams, but it is about a group of people who are trying to control and manipulate a person's mind, and I thought the way it depicted that was very dreamlike and strange. Like Inception, the victim was resisting the manipulation of his mind, but the way that resistance is depicted in Inception seems a lot less dreamlike to me: henchmen with guns. I think, since they're in a dream, it would have been interesting if this "resistance" had been more dreamlike. Fischer's subconcious could have done something to confuse the intruders, instead of just shooting at them. Arthur is able to defeat one of the henchmen with a trick staircase, but Fischer doesn't seem to be able to do anything like that himself.

[[ETM]]

Fischer's subconcious could have done something to confuse the intruders, instead of just shooting at them. Arthur is able to defeat one of the henchmen with a trick staircase, but Fischer doesn't seem to be able to do anything like that himself.

- Fischer is asleep, dreaming someone else's dream designed to make him believe he's actually awake.

- He's had training for his mind enabling him to "recognize" an extraction and try to fight it. He's not doing it consciously, it's almost automatic.

[Mysterious Dude]

;279585']- Fischer is asleep, dreaming someone else's dream designed to make him believe he's actually awake.

- He's had training for his mind enabling him to "recognize" an extraction and try to fight it. He's not doing it consciously, it's almost automatic.
I know all that. I think the "resistance" would have been more interesting if it had been more dreamlike than guys-with-guns.

[[ETM]]

I know all that. I think the "resistance" would have been more interesting if it had been more dreamlike than guys-with-guns.

Possibly. I can't see how it would have been possible within the movie's universe, which was my point - he "populates" the dream world, the world is like reality, and since he's not consciously sending resistance, the resistance has to be "realistic". I suppose if they put him in a space shuttle his subconscious could have whipped up the Enterprise... or at least some Vipers.

[megladon8]

I know all that. I think the "resistance" would have been more interesting if it had been more dreamlike than guys-with-guns.


Dreamlike how?

They should have arrived on unicorns and shot laser beams out of their foreheads?

[Russ]

Dreamlike how?

They should have arrived on unicorns and shot laser beams out of their foreheads?
Don't be silly. How 'bout a typical Freudian dream, where he attempts to combat his enemies with a battalion of comely wenches wearing those frilly French maid uniforms?

/half-joking, but mostly serious

[megladon8]

Don't be silly. How 'bout a typical Freudian dream, where he attempts to combat his enemies with a battalion of comely wenches wearing those frilly French maid uniforms?

/half-joking, but mostly serious


How about if it took a page from Monty Python's Meaning of Life?

(Pic in spoiler tags is NSFW)

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7982/schulerpython.jpg

[number8]

Someone did ask Nolan why the film is so devoid of sex. He said he doesn't want to make it funny, with is a strange answer, really.

[megladon8]

Well, sex is kind of hilarious when you think about it.

[Russ]

Well, sex is kind of hilarious when you think about it.
I'd rather spend time with someone's humorous sex dreams than their collection of Michael Bay's Greatest Hits.

[megladon8]

I'd rather spend time with someone's humorous sex dreams than their collection of Michael Bay's Greatest Hits.


I find it kind of hilarious how you see this film.

[Russ]

I find it kind of hilarious how you see this film.
I wish I was there with you.

[megladon8]

I wish I was there with you.


It's just so over-the-top and cartoonish in its negativity (your opinion on the film) it almost rivals Barty's hate of the US government.

I really didn't see anything in Inception even remotely as soulless and benign as Michael Bay.

[Spinal]

Sexuality just opens up a whole new area that was not important to the film. It would be fun in another film, but he had enough on his plate already without introducing this. He was right to leave it out.

[megladon8]

Sexuality just opens up a whole new area that was not important to the film. It would be fun in another film, but he had enough on his plate already without introducing this. He was right to leave it out.


You mean you're glad he left out this?

(Pic in spoiler tags is NSFW)

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7982/schulerpython.jpg

[Spinal]

I thought the action scenes were closer to Greengrass than to Bay.

[Mysterious Dude]

;279593']Possibly. I can't see how it would have been possible within the movie's universe,Then the movie's universe should be different. It is too structured. That's my problem.


which was my point - he "populates" the dream world, the world is like reality, and since he's not consciously sending resistance, the resistance has to be "realistic".Why does it have to be realistic?


Dreamlike how?

They should have arrived on unicorns and shot laser beams out of their foreheads?
I have never dreamed about a unicorn, meg. A kind of dream that I have is one in which I'm attempting to accomplish something, but I'm never able to. My destination gets farther away, even as I am walking towards it, or new obstacles are put in my way as I travel. Rarely, when I am trying to accomplish something, have I been shot at by a group of henchmen.

[Russ]

It's just so over-the-top and cartoonish in its negativity (your opinion on the film) it almost rivals Barty's hate of the US government.
I find it kind of hilarious how you see my criticism of this film.


I really didn't see anything in Inception even remotely as soulless and benign as Michael Bay.
Then I'm quite sure I'm going to be unable to convince you otherwise. We'll just leave it here..

[Spinal]

You mean you're glad he left out this?


Yeah, I mean, you're already trying to balance several different worlds in a heist-type scenario and also explore the tragedy of a central husband-wife relationship. Delving into all the character's inner sexualities is just too much to ask. It might be fun, but it doesn't really serve the story. You may not think a random train in the middle of a city is enough, but it's there because it serves the story and tells us something critical about our protagonist.

[megladon8]

The movie could have used more boobs, though.

On that we can all agree, right?

[Spinal]

We've gone over this before, but one of the main points of the movie is that the central character has difficultly distinguising dream from reality. That is a critical aspect of the core tragedy. If there were laser-shooting unicorns in his dreams or even a French maid battalion, then he really wouldn't have to spin a top, now, would he?

[megladon8]

We've gone over this before, but one of the main points of the movie is that the central character has difficultly distinguising dream from reality. That is a critical aspect of the core tragedy. If there were laser-shooting unicorns in his dreams, then he really wouldn't have to spin a top, now, would he?


Unless there were laser-shooting unicorns in the real world, too.

Amirite?

[Spinal]

Unless there were laser-shooting unicorns in the real world, too.

Amirite?

Yes. Then, and only then, would the laser-shooting unicorns be artistically justified.

[megladon8]

Yes. Then, and only then, would the laser-shooting unicorns be artistically justified.


Or they could have the bodies of beautiful, naked women...and the heads of laser-shooting unicorns!

Their only spoken dialogue will be a repeating mantra, "Charging lay-zors!"

Then at the end, Cobb wakes up on the beach and sees the Statue of Liberty up to its armpits in sand and rock.

IT WAS EARTH ALL ALONG!!!

[Spinal]

Or they could have the bodies of beautiful, naked women...and the heads of laser-shooting unicorns!

Their only spoken dialogue will be a repeating mantra, "Charging lay-zors!"



Now we're in some sort of bizarre Heavy Metal 2010 territory.

[megladon8]

Now we're in some sort of bizarre Heavy Metal 2010 territory.


CHARGING LAY-ZORS!

CHARGING LAY-ZORS!

PREPARE TO BE ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.......IMILATE D!

[number8]

http://static02.mediaite.com/geekosystem/uploads/2010/07/fresh-prince.jpeg

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't think it is unfair at all. The architecture is empty until populated, supposedly almost entirely, by the subconscious of the subject. I'm just saying that Nolan's film by using such a monstrous control over the structure of our minds is literalizing and vanilla-ing our subconscious to a degree I find very uninteresting and unappealing. Fair and largely true. But to just push my Devil's Advocate position here, I'm just pointing out the film's whole premise is that thieves can build your dreams in attempt to fool you and "mind-control" you, and the science of the film apparently claims the subconscious of the dreamer has little effect or defense besides what we see (goons and Matrix-people giving you the Evil Eye) - no risk of unicorns or sexy women. So the criticism is essentially with the whole premise of the film itself, and that it's kind of an imposition on Nolan, his vision, and the fantasy he's put onto film. The criticism about Inception's literalness teeters near the realm of people who just can't stretch their belief about a film's science.

Then again, yes...


but the way that resistance is depicted in Inception seems a lot less dreamlike to me: henchmen with guns. ... there's this. That bit after the initial ambush, when all the characters are freaking out as well as explaining to us the Magical henchmen, I rolled my eyes a bit.

[D_Davis]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/walker66/inception-1.jpg

[monolith94]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is not about dreams, but it is about a group of people who are trying to control and manipulate a person's mind, and I thought the way it depicted that was very dreamlike and strange. Like Inception, the victim was resisting the manipulation of his mind, but the way that resistance is depicted in Inception seems a lot less dreamlike to me: henchmen with guns. I think, since they're in a dream, it would have been interesting if this "resistance" had been more dreamlike. Fischer's subconcious could have done something to confuse the intruders, instead of just shooting at them. Arthur is able to defeat one of the henchmen with a trick staircase, but Fischer doesn't seem to be able to do anything like that himself.

But we know that the henchmen with guns were implanted by a previous extractor who had been training Fischer's subconscious to battle intruders. All we have to do is presume that this extractor was not a very imaginative person. If Fischer's subconscious hadn't been deliberately trained, they'd have had a lot more time to do their business, as we clearly see in previous dreams that the subconscious only gradually wakes up to the presence of intruders. And in these instances, I'd say that the subconscious behaves fairly dream-like. People on the street randomly grabbing at you and then stabbing you sounds like a dream to me.

Also, I've had dreams where I've "died" in the dream, and haven't woken up— simply gone on to another dream. Hmmmmm.


Good movie.

[number8]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2phSh0N6UWs/TGEYzAE7xjI/AAAAAAAAACU/ze-4Zp-xwnc/s1600/bytenshinofushigi.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sRHWyQn67uQ/TFJGk7GUvII/AAAAAAAABF8/v8z-5QziGqI/s1600/interuptception.png

[D_Davis]

When you dream, do you see yourself, in 3rd person? If so, than who are you - who is doing the watching? If you see yourself, have you ever looked in a mirror to see who you are?

I always see myself in my dreams, but I've never been able to look in a mirror to see who I am as the watcher.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh I see myself in third person a lot. But you're right, I never think to look in a mirror.

[Ezee E]

Can't even think if I've seen a mirror in dreams. hmmmmmm

[MadMan]

Weeks have passed, and all I can say is that the movie was really freakin' mind blowing and great. Not much else to add, either, except that I think this film might have had Nolan's best cast ever. Plus the fight in the ever changing hallway was badass, really.

[megladon8]

I shared this in the Random Thoughts thread a couple of weeks ago, but I will repeat it here since it's on topic.

I experienced my very first lucid dream about half a month ago - shortly after seeing this, in fact.

It was a very short experience. I came to the realization that I was dreaming when I was walking down a street in my neighbourhood and noticed that every house had the same address. Then I noticed that every house was actually the same house, cookie-cutter repeated along the street.

I realized I was dreaming, and immediately took off flying. Show's how much influence all this Superman love has had on my subconscious - flying is still my ultimate dream :)

However, it was only a few minutes before I forgot that I was dreaming, and the dream progressed as any normal dream would.

Just thought I'd share that experience. I have yet to repeat it, or experience anything close to it.

[Chac Mool]

Having quickly skimmed through this thread, I'd simply like to say (in favor of the movie and as a criticism of the "the-dreams-are-too-literal" argument):

First, none of the dreams in Inception are real dreams -- rather, they're lucid dreams for all but the person from which information is being extracted (or incepted). That explains much of the crispness and detail.

Second, even the person being raided is not really dreaming, since the dream state is chemically induced and the stage is set by someone else (the architect). To compare this situation with dreams as we know them (fuzzy, sometimes incoherent, often nightmarish, sexy or wacky) is akin to comparing apples and motor oil.

In fact, in retrospect, I wouldn't even call Inception's dreams dreams. They're really a chemically induced sharing of the subconscious, with one participant doing so unwillingly.

[Russ]

So, it seems as if the only thing the victim has any control over in his dream (or shared subconscious state) is his defense mechanisms? Sorry, but IMO, that's a convenience that smacks of plot contrivance.

[Raiders]

Yeah, I feel it's been made pretty clear that myself and Russ and anyone else with the same complaint, we all understand why the dreams are the way they are. I get it. I think it's a boring and reductive and silly concept that treats the mind as some literal video game with concrete rules. I just can't get on board with the very concept of the film and I also don't find the handling to be particularly interesting either.

[number8]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6ntjibe3e1qa40wco1_400 .jpg

[Dukefrukem]

Bwhahahahaha

[MadMan]

I wasted a good couple of hours laughing at those. My favorite is still the one that Davis posted-the expression on the kids' face is priceless.

[[ETM]]

Yeah, I feel it's been made pretty clear that myself and Russ and anyone else with the same complaint, we all understand why the dreams are the way they are. I get it. I think it's a boring and reductive and silly concept that treats the mind as some literal video game with concrete rules. I just can't get on board with the very concept of the film and I also don't find the handling to be particularly interesting either.

It's one of the silliest complaints I've heard about any film, ever, I think.

[Russ]

;281004']It's one of the silliest complaints I've heard about any film, ever, I think.
:pritch:

[MadMan]

HYPERBOLE! :pritch: :P

[[ETM]]

Qué?:confused:

[Sycophant]

This thread is kinda hard to read.

[Chac Mool]

Yeah, I feel it's been made pretty clear that myself and Russ and anyone else with the same complaint, we all understand why the dreams are the way they are. I get it. I think it's a boring and reductive and silly concept that treats the mind as some literal video game with concrete rules. I just can't get on board with the very concept of the film and I also don't find the handling to be particularly interesting either.

I don't think it's a question of concrete rules. I see the laws of the dream-state as stand-ins for very real psychological elements. The entire point of the Dreamshare technique is to provide an interface by which one human can access another's subconscious. What could this interface be except archetypes: crowds; locales familiar to anyone such as hotels, warehouses and rainy streets (notice how generic they seem in retrospect); guarded facilities and safes that house secrets; bodyguards, soldiers and gunfights? Getting killed is waking up. Going to sleep is burrowing deeper.

The only real laws I can discern are those grounded in the real world (of the movie) and based on science: the time dilation; the need to wake "dreamers" up using external stimuli. There are so-called laws in the dream state, but they are certainly not set in stone (the existence of limbo, a state beyond well-defined constraints and almost impossible to explain, is a case in point).

I think the key to appreciating Inception is to realize/emphasize that the dream-state is not "a dream" or "the mind" as we understand it, but rather an interface that allows the extraction or inception of information, a set of archetypes understood by all those sharing the state and designed to elicit a certain psychological change or response in the target.

On a different note -- there are interesting parallels between the film and a terrific short story by Stephen King called "The Jaunt" (spoilers ahead). In a near far-future, instantaneous travel from Earth to Mars (I think) is possible through gate-type devices. One goes through the gate and, instantaneously, one appears on the other side. The only constraint is that the traveller be sleeping; when the technology was developed, the mice that passed through awake came out alive but brain-dead on the other side. A family is travelling to Mars, and is given sleeping pills before they pass through the Earth gate. The son, however, secretly spits his out. As they come through the other side, the parents are horrified to find that their son has gone insane: he has spent an eternity -- an infinity of time -- conscious and awake in an empty, intangible limbo, in the infinitesimal space between the two gates.

[MadMan]

;281004']It's one of the silliest complaints I've heard about any film, ever, I think.That's not hyperbole? Is it really that silly of a complaint? :P

[[ETM]]

That's not hyperbole? Is it really that silly of a complaint? :P

"I don't like this movie because it is what it is and not a different movie altogether"

I'd say that's quite silly.

[MadMan]

;281112']"I don't like this movie because it is what it is and not a different movie altogether"

I'd say that's quite silly.Okay. But in the end it doesn't affect my opinion of the movie.

I want to see this again, but there are other movies to view that I haven't seen. So it'll have to wait.

[Raiders]

;281004']It's one of the silliest complaints I've heard about any film, ever, I think.

Shut up. Seriously.

[Raiders]

;281112']"I don't like this movie because it is what it is and not a different movie altogether"

I'd say that's quite silly.

That isn't what I said at all. Everything I have said is specifically about what this movie is, which I don't like. If you can't grasp that, then feel free to ignore my posts in this thread.

[D_Davis]

That isn't what I said at all. Everything I have said is specifically about what this movie is, which I don't like. If you can't grasp that, then feel free to ignore my posts in this thread.

I ignore your posts in every thread except for this one.

[Raiders]

I ignore your posts in every thread except for this one.

Probably for the best. I talk shit about you all the time.

[D_Davis]

Probably for the best. I talk shit about you all the time.

That's what I heard from all the other jerky a-holes that post here.

[[ETM]]

That isn't what I said at all. Everything I have said is specifically about what this movie is, which I don't like.

You don't like the very basic ideas of the film, upon which its entire fabric is constructed. I'd say that pretty much boils down to what I paraphrased up there. But yeah, it's not really solving anything here, it's just my acceptance of your view without any further need for explanation.




Having said that - I just came back from my second viewing and I like the film so much more now. I have picked up on so many important things which I missed the first time, some of which haven't been discussed here, and I have a new interpretation of the ending which I believe to be simple, elegant and, in my mind, brings my understanding of the entire film full circle. I now believe it is almost perfect in its form and execution.

[[ETM]]

Shut up. Seriously.

I didn't deserve this, btw.

[MadMan]

I ignore everyone's posts. Especially mine.

[Raiders]

;281283']I didn't deserve this, btw.

No, probably not, but I don't believe after probably fifteen posts explaining my perspective I really deserved your post either.

[number8]

I think we've all experienced ballet in this thread. A ballet of feelings, and emotions.

[MadMan]

I think we've all experienced ballet in this thread. A ballet of feelings, and emotions.I don't care for ballet :P

[DavidSeven]

Also just saw this a second time. Definitely Nolan's most emotional film, and it's not even close.

I would still consider The Dark Knight a more impressive filmmaking feat -- that film has incredible rhythm and it's his most thematically layered and visually interesting -- but this is his most affecting piece. Stunned that he has no less than three really distinguishing, masterful works in the canon because I had all but written him off as an average gun-for-hire a few years ago.

[[ETM]]

No, probably not, but I don't believe after probably fifteen posts explaining my perspective I really deserved your post either.

I am sorry if I offended you, it was precisely the length of the discussion that lead me to comment that way, because it didn't seem to me from your earlier posts that you dismissed the film so fundamentally. I consider the things you didn't care for the basis, foundation of what the film is, and everything else just building blocks on that frame... even all of the film craft involved.

[Qrazy]

;281279']
Having said that - I just came back from my second viewing and I like the film so much more now. I have picked up on so many important things which I missed the first time, some of which haven't been discussed here, and I have a new interpretation of the ending which I believe to be simple, elegant and, in my mind, brings my understanding of the entire film full circle. I now believe it is almost perfect in its form and execution.

Thanks for sharing the intricacies of your revelation with us... ass.
:P

[[ETM]]

Thanks for sharing the intricacies of your revelation with us... ass.
:P

Dude, I came back home at 1AM. I was still mulling over the details with my girlfriend an hour or so later. I will write some stuff up later today, I promise.:P

[Chac Mool]

;281279']Having said that - I just came back from my second viewing and I like the film so much more now. I have picked up on so many important things which I missed the first time, some of which haven't been discussed here, and I have a new interpretation of the ending which I believe to be simple, elegant and, in my mind, brings my understanding of the entire film full circle. I now believe it is almost perfect in its form and execution.

I'm curious about this too.

Having mulled the ending for a few days now, I think it's wonderfully simple. Sometimes, getting what you want after waiting for so long is so joyful, so surreal that it almost seems ... dream-like. Getting back to home, to long-lost family, would certainly feel like that. Most of the movie is spent in life-like dreams -- the ending is the first instance of almost dream-like life.

[Spinal]

Most of the movie is spent in life-like dreams -- the ending is the first instance of almost dream-like life.

Not the first instance. Remember Cobb's escape from the meeting with Eames where he squeezes between the walls. It is so dreamlike that he spins the top to determine where he is.

[Chac Mool]

Not the first instance. Remember Cobb's escape from the meeting with Eames where he squeezes between the walls. It is so dreamlike that he spins the top to determine where he is.

That's a fair point, although I would argue that the entire chase scene is too gritty and tactile to really qualify as dream-like.

(I'll pay closer attention to that moment when I see the movie again.)

[[ETM]]

Remember Cobb's escape from the meeting with Eames where he squeezes between the walls.

I watched for that moment last night... it's a fairly ordinary gap between two houses on a busy Mombasa street, it's pretty common in that kind of city, I've seen it many times on the Mediterranean coast, for example. I take it as one of the moments Nolan throws at us to make us question the film's reality, which is part of my reading of the ending.

[DavidSeven]

After my second viewing, I'm pretty comfortable with my feeling that, while the whole thing being a dream is a debatable, many of the elements of what we understand to be the "real world" are either dreamed up or exaggerated by Cobb. It really hits home when Mal makes a brief comment near the end of the film about how Cobb feels so persecuted in the real world, as dreamers often feel in dreams.

And then you think about the absurdity of an Engineering corporation chasing Cobb, or any individual, around the globe and it becomes pretty clear. Perhaps the company is tailing him. But if that's really the case, it's more realistically because they just want answers (i.e. what exactly happened in the Saito job?), and not because they're planning to capture him and do harm to him. The aforementioned narrow alley might also be a figment of Cobb's exaggerated sense of persecution. They're might be criminal charges out there for Cobb, but again, the notion that the CEO of an energy corporation could get murder charges waived with a phone call is absurd. More realistically, there might be lesser charges out there for Cobb that would be more easily dismissed by person of influence. Cobb is just inflating the seriousness of these charges in his own head -- probably because of the guilt he feels over his wife's death and the abandonment of his children (I think Qrazy hinted at this point earlier in the thread). Like Mal before him, Cobb has lost his grip on the division between reality and dream. The resolution of the story, as many have mentioned, is not in knowing whether Cobb is finally in "reality" but in knowing that Cobb has come to terms with his guilt and is able to face his children once again -- something he is unable to do at several moments throughout the film. The cathartic "inception" is not what happens Fischer, but what happens to Cobb in Limbo when he plants the idea that he will let go of his guilt by letting go of Mal and reassuring her that they did indeed get to grow old together.

[Qrazy]

Ehhh... no.

[megladon8]

It wasn't the company who was after him, it was the government. Because he was suspected of murder.

And the narrow alleyway is something that's not exactly uncommon. I've seen them myself. There are a few here in Ottawa, actually.

[DavidSeven]

He's running from the corporation that hired him for the Saito job. "The people that hired us... won't accept failure." Mal later says he's being "chased around the globe by corporations." Early on, he tells Saito that he doesn't need his help because he can deal with the corporation on his own. It isn't until Saito promises him a way home that he begins to listen. It is clearly implied that the tail in the scene with Eames is an agent of the corporation that originally hired Cobb.

[megladon8]

He's running from the corporation that hired him for the Saito job. "The people that hired us... won't accept failure." Mal later says he's being "chased around the globe by corporations." Early on, he tells Saito that he doesn't need his help because he can deal with the corporation on his own. It isn't until Saito promises him a way home that he begins to listen.


I was under the impression the people chasing him were the authorities, trying to bring him back to the US to prosecute him. Hens why he couldn't return to the US and see his children.

[DavidSeven]

I was under the impression the people chasing him were the authorities, trying to bring him back to the US to prosecute him. Hens why he couldn't return to the US and see his children.

Implausible. US government agents don't have jurisdiction to make arrests in foreign territories. That's what extradition is all about. They were people who worked at the engineering firm that hired Cobb to perform extraction on Saito.

[Qrazy]

I was under the impression the people chasing him were the authorities, trying to bring him back to the US to prosecute him. Hens why he couldn't return to the US and see his children.

DavidSeven is right. In Mombasa he's running from Cobol, the corporation that hired him to get at Saito. But he can't go back to America because there he will be arrested by the authorities.

[Henry Gale]

http://i.imgur.com/JiPqw.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

posting to say DavidSeven is indeed correct. The government IS after him, but only if he sets foot on American soil. This is also explained a bit more with Cobb's first interaction with his father, he says something to the effect of;

"Aren't you worried you;ll be seen here?"

"They don't have jurisdiction here".

"I think with your case they'd make an exception".

[[ETM]]

Cobb's first interaction with his father

He's Cobb's teacher and Mal's father, actually.

And he says that "extradition to the US is a bureaucratic nightmare" or something like that.

As to why he can't see his children outside the US - I don't think they'd let them leave, not without being closely followed.

[[ETM]]

It really hits home when Mal makes a brief comment near the end of the film about how Cobb feels so persecuted in the real world, as dreamers often feel in dreams.

It's... not Mal. It's Cobb fighting with the idea himself. He's become highly paranoid and is losing his grip on what's real - of course that doubt manifests in his subconscious through the ghost of his wife.

[megladon8]

I stand corrected.

[Dukefrukem]

;281472']

And he says that "extradition to the US is a bureaucratic nightmare" or something like that.


Good memory.

[number8]

Uh, wait. Even if the murder charges are dropped, wouldn't he still be chased around? And put his kids in danger?

[Dukefrukem]

Uh, wait. Even if the murder charges are dropped, wouldn't he still be chased around? And put his kids in danger?

Haha from Cobal Engineering? I guess so. Loop hole.

[DavidSeven]

;281476']It's... not Mal. It's Cobb fighting with the idea himself. He's become highly paranoid and is losing his grip on what's real - of course that doubt manifests in his subconscious through the ghost of his wife.

Oh, I understand that it's Cobb telling himself this through his own subconscious. Just pointing out what triggered my thoughts re: Cobb's disconnect with what's real and what's perception.

[DavidSeven]

Uh, wait. Even if the murder charges are dropped, wouldn't he still be chased around? And put his kids in danger?

Not if the threat from the big, bad engineering corporation is imagined (or exaggerated). He's come to terms with these issues by the end of the film, which is why the corporation is no longer a threat.

[Dukefrukem]

Not if the threat from the big, bad engineering corporation is imagined (or exaggerated). He's come to terms with these issues by the end of the film, which is why the corporation is no longer a threat.

Or if it's only an international threat.

[Spinal]

Haha from Cobal Engineering? I guess so. Loop hole.

Not really a loop hole. Just a further circumstance.

[number8]

Not really a loop hole. Just a further circumstance.

Sequel!

[Spinal]

Sequel!

I N C E P 2 I O N

[Dukefrukem]

I N C E P 2 I O N

http://www.nd.edu/~druccio/images/DrDoomChap.gif

[number8]

Inception 2: Mal's Revenge

Inception 3: Dream Warriors

Inception 4: The Dream Master

Inception 5: The Dream Child

Mal's Dead: The Final Inception

Christopher Nolan's New Inception

Mal vs Elijah Wood and Mark Ruffalo

Some Music Video Director's Inception

[Qrazy]

It's not a loophole or a further circumstance. He's under Saito's protection now. Saito can handle Cobol.

[[ETM]]

It's not a loophole or a further circumstance. He's under Saito's protection now. Saito can handle Cobol.

Exactly. Cobol is a pretty minor player compared to the big companies like Saito's. It's all in the comic.

[KK2.0]

I can finally get into this thread.. phew!

Nolan said anything about sequels? the rules are set, Cobb´s story is pretty much over but there´s plenty more to explore. Maybe a tv series?

[Ezee E]

I can finally get into this thread.. phew!

Nolan said anything about sequels? the rules are set, Cobb´s story is pretty much over but there´s plenty more to explore. Maybe a tv series?
He seemed to be pushing that there was no chance at a sequel. I prefer that.

[KK2.0]

it's making lots of money, so, if it's inevitable i rather have him doing it than some director for hire.

[Spinal]

A sequel would suck. Nolan or not.

[[ETM]]

Sequel would be a lousy idea in any form. But I'd love to see the universe explored - it's seems unlikely that the dream-share technology is limited to what's shown in the movie. Perhaps it can be used in a story (a miniseries on HBO, etc.) in a way that would satisfy even Raiders.

[KK2.0]

;281583']Sequel would be a lousy idea in any form. But I'd love to see the universe explored - it's seems unlikely that the dream-share technology is limited to what's shown in the movie. Perhaps it can be used in a story (a miniseries on HBO, etc.) in a way that would satisfy even Raiders.

exactly my point, the universe detailed in the film could be expanded and tell more stories, feature film or series.

[number8]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/4829169558_6044b039a5.jpg

[Sycophant]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/4829169558_6044b039a5.jpg

Zero-G(ynecologist)

[MadMan]

That pic is just further proof of the power of Legos.

[transmogrifier]

Perhaps I'm getting old, but I just don't really appreciate the Lego recreations anymore. It's pretty tired at this point, and another example of our culture settling for easy pop culture referencing to maintain interest, rather than anything actually creative and clever.

[Dukefrukem]

Perhaps I'm getting old, but I just don't really appreciate the Lego recreations anymore. It's pretty tired at this point, and another example of our culture settling for easy pop culture referencing to maintain interest, rather than anything actually creative and clever.

If you can't get past the Legos, at least try to appreciate the photography.

[Spinal]

Perhaps I'm getting old, but I just don't really appreciate the Lego recreations anymore. It's pretty tired at this point, and another example of our culture settling for easy pop culture referencing to maintain interest, rather than anything actually creative and clever.

Crankiest opinion evah!

[Sycophant]

Agreeing with trans a couple times today.

[Rowland]

Perhaps I'm getting old, but I just don't really appreciate the Lego recreations anymore. It's pretty tired at this point, and another example of our culture settling for easy pop culture referencing to maintain interest, rather than anything actually creative and clever.Even worse are those Lego-themed videogames based on popular Hollywood franchises.

[Spinal]

Or maybe, you know, they're innocuous toys and games for children and not at all representative of the fall of Western civilization.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Or maybe, you know, they're innocuous toys and games for children and not at all representative of the fall of Western civilization.

Thank you. My kids love the LEGO games and LEGO toys in general, the same way I did when I was their age. Maybe the problem isn't with LEGO or our culture here, but with twenty and thirty-somethings dissecting them.

[Spinal]

Thank you. My kids love the LEGO games and LEGO toys in general, the same way I did when I was their age. Maybe the problem isn't with LEGO or our culture here, but with twenty and thirty-somethings dissecting them.

Agreed. Though you will surely concede that Lincoln Logs are the devil's handiwork.

[Watashi]

Or maybe, you know, they're innocuous toys and games for children and not at all representative of the fall of Western civilization.
Silence heathen! These Legos will bring out the Apocalypse! Lego Jesus Christ will condemn us all!

[Kurosawa Fan]

Agreed. Though you will surely concede that Lincoln Logs are the devil's handiwork.

Erector Sets are what helped develop my ever-growing bald spot, but Lincoln Logs can rot as well.

[Watashi]

K'Nex ruled the shit.

http://gmbisogno.com/wp-content/gallery/knex-space-explorers/1-space_explorers_building_set.j pg

[Kurosawa Fan]

I can get on board with K'Nex.

[number8]

When Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc start making video games as fun as the LEGO versions, I'll join in on the criticism. Until then? Bitch, please.

[transmogrifier]

Maybe the problem isn't with LEGO or our culture here, but with twenty and thirty-somethings dissecting them.

This is kind of my point. It IS all about twenty and thirty somethings being satisfied enough to simply mimic things through an "ironic" pop culture lens and thinking that it automatically has worth (and the consumers who then give it that worth)

The only thing you have wrong in the above sentence is that it is absolutely a problem with culture.

[transmogrifier]

Bitch, please.

Can't you see that's what I'm trying to do?

[transmogrifier]

Agreeing with trans a couple times today.

Look deep within your heart, and you'll find you agree with me about everything. EVERYTHING.

[number8]

Can't you see that's what I'm trying to do?

I was addressing Rowland's complaint, not yours. If you don't like LEGO diorama art, then whatever. Some people don't like matchstick replicas of famous landmarks, either.

[transmogrifier]

I was addressing Rowland's complaint, not yours. If you don't like LEGO diorama art, then whatever. Some people don't like matchstick replicas of famous landmarks, either.

Attempt at joke = FAILED

:sad:

[number8]

It did.

[Sycophant]

Look deep within your heart, and you'll find you agree with me about everything. EVERYTHING.

Your opinion on Stephen Chow keeps you from ever being anything more than 85% right. But you're a pretty right dude.

[MadMan]

Silence heathen! These Legos will bring out the Apocalypse! Lego Jesus Christ will condemn us all!But he was taken apart to save us from our sins!

[Boner M]

OMG: Inebriation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsZ1SagUPb4)

[SirNewt]

I don't believe so. This is, after all, a corporate matter. Cobb and Arthur aren't exactly dream knights. They're thieves. I never took Saito's explanation for his motives as a "OMG Monopoly is evil we have to stop this!" speech. It was more in the corporate interest of their monopoly being bad for the business climate in general, and especially Saito's own business. The thing between Saito and Cobb is a transaction, not a common heroic quest.

Remember also that Saito had no idea if Cobb really killed his wife or not. He was just gonna clear him of all charges regardless, as long as Cobb does what he asks him to do. They are not clear cut heroes. Even Ariadne didn't show any resistance when Cobb came to her and flat out said, "Well, the job's not exactly legal." She didn't care. None of them cared. It was just a job.

I mean, the whole thing is pretty shady to begin with. They're there to rewrite a guy's relationship with his dad.

If that's the case I need more ambiguity in the portrayal of the characters. They sure as hell seemed like standard likable Hollywood heroes to me. And there was no moral examination at all of what they were doing. Ariadne, was especially inconsistent for me. She expresses a lot of concern when Cobb won't tell the team about the danger he's putting them in but then has no qualms about screwing up someone's head.

Sorry to revive this from so long ago.

[StanleyK]

So I watched this movie and really like it, then I watched it again and loved it. But upon reflection the ending is really bothering me; the idea is that it doesn't matter whether the top topples or not, only that Cobb walks away from it, right? He's accepted his reality. But if it is a dream, then the kids he's holding are just projections, and his real kids are still motherless and with an absent father. That would pretty much negate his entire arc, and one of the main ideas of the film: that you can't lose yourself in your own dreams and you have to face reality. I'm starting to get the impression that Nolan is willing to sacrifice the emotional thrust of the film for the sake of a cool money shot- and a really cool shot it is, at least. But now I feel like I have to rewatch it (when it hits DVDs, of course) with this in mind; for now, I'm lowering my rating back to ***½ for prudence.

[Qrazy]

So I watched this movie and really like it, then I watched it again and loved it. But upon reflection the ending is really bothering me; the idea is that it doesn't matter whether the top topples or not, only that Cobb walks away from it, right? He's accepted his reality. But if it is a dream, then the kids he's holding are just projections, and his real kids are still motherless and with an absent father. That would pretty much negate his entire arc, and one of the main ideas of the film: that you can't lose yourself in your own dreams and you have to face reality. I'm starting to get the impression that Nolan is willing to sacrifice the emotional thrust of the film for the sake of a cool money shot- and a really cool shot it is, at least. But now I feel like I have to rewatch it (when it hits DVDs, of course) with this in mind; for now, I'm lowering my rating back to ***½ for prudence.

Originally I liked that final ambiguity for the sake of the ambiguity itself, and I still do, but now based on mounting evidence (the children's clothing being different in particular but also other things that have been noted elsewhere) I lean towards the fact that the end is much more likely reality. However I stand by the value of the initiation of our uncertainty for many reasons... for one the fact that a central theme of the film throughout is about blurring the line between dream and reality. Secondly because the fact that he walks away before looking actually does say something about where Cobb's arc has taken him. It's not only that he's just accepted this situation whether it's dream or reality, it's that by not looking at the totem it's clear that he's finally made peace with his subconscious, and accepted his wife's death. Finally if we see the top obviously spinning forever or falling over the ambiguity is gone and the film is either obviously a happy ending or a sad one. That's just boring. This way the film is a puzzle (and the film is very much about puzzles). You have to go back and look at the clues Nolan has given you in order to come to your own conclusions about which ending is actually the case.

Although I ultimately disagree with the position that Cobb is in limbo the entire time I like that the structure of the film raises that possibility and thinking about that structure has certainly made me think more deeply about the film in general. Something I think many of us wouldn't have been as driven to do if there were no basic narrative puzzle to solve. Nolan sets so many of his narratives up as puzzles in order to draw the audience a level deeper. Once you start thinking about how the narrative pieces together you then begin thinking about how these narrative threads tie together on an emotional and thematic level. Because much like the action set pieces in the film (dream effects dream), everything is connected. If the ending of the film is one way versus another, this changes both the emotional and thematic content of the film. So I don't fully agree that one of the core ideas of the film is that 'you can't lose yourself in your own dreams and have to face reality'. I believe this is a potential focus but the film also raises the opposing propositions that... 'Who are we to tell these people (the shared dreamers) that this must be their reality', or that 'There is no longer one reality' and finally and most significantly Cobb is finally able to let go of his wife precisely because he had spent a lifetime with her in a shared dream. Now I do agree with you that just seeing his kids in a non-shared dream solely as projections is a tragic ending, but I don't see that it negates Cobb's arc in anyway.

[Morris Schæffer]

Saw it again this evening. It's still mesmerizing. Some new things came to light. The girlfriend loved it too. She squeezed my hand during the finale when Cobb is holding a crumpled Mal in his arms and tells her they've had their time together and that they did grow old in the dream world.

Hand-squeezing girlfriends can really make a difference. Do not underestimate this power.

I love the music in the entire movie. It feels so perfect in all its incessancy.

[Morris Schæffer]

One other thing, and I'm probably digging too deep here for the movie to remain consistent, but how was Eames able to look like Pete Browning? How did it work? He studied his mannerisms, voice inflection, went to sleep, started dreaming and Bingo! The Robert Fischer character instantly saw Tom Berenger appear in the dream? I know that the Hardy character was called the imitator, but this bit was somewhat dubious.

[Henry Gale]

One other thing, and I'm probably digging too deep here for the movie to remain consistent, but how was Eames able to look like Pete Browning? How did it work? He studied his mannerisms, voice inflection, went to sleep, started dreaming and Bingo! The Robert Fischer character instantly saw Tom Berenger appear in the dream? I know that the Hardy character was called the imitator, but this bit was somewhat dubious.

Well going with the ideas of "inception" and birthing ideas, the team had to ensure that Fischer believed Eames to be Browning before he ever saw him by making it sound like he was being tortured in the other room. So by the time he came in, Fischer would only perceive him as such.

I haven't seen the film for about a month now, but that's as far of an explanation as I can remember.

[Qrazy]

I'm going to just assume they built his appearance change into the architecture of the experience. Alternatively it's just something certain shared dreamers can do by mustering a certain degree of focused will power.

[Morris Schæffer]

Well going with the ideas of "inception" and birthing ideas, the team had to ensure that Fischer believed Eames to be Browning before he ever saw him by making it sound like he was being tortured in the other room. So by the time he came in, Fischer would only perceive him as such.

I guess the torture scene must have had a profound effect, but if you recall the carpet scene in the beginning where Saito suspects he's in yet another dream level, introducing a character as Browning, but who doesn't resemble Tom Berenger at all, seems like a weakness of the plot. Let's not forget. This team is meticulous to the core, and they remind each other at several intervals to not leave anything to chance.

[number8]

The longer you've been in a dream world, the more manipulations you can do, and certain people are just gifted in different skills. Architects like Ariadne can sustain complex structures like folding cities, point men like Arthur know how to fight effectively in that plane, and forgers like Eames have learned how to configure their dream avatars into whatever they want. I think the simplest explanation works best.

[Qrazy]

The longer you've been in a dream world, the more manipulations you can do, and certain people are just gifted in different skills. Architects like Ariadne can sustain complex structures like folding cities, point men like Arthur know how to fight effectively in that plane, and forgers like Eames have learned how to configure their dream avatars into whatever they want. I think the simplest explanation works best.

Not sure if there's really any evidence of that.

[number8]

I don't mean the length of time you're in a dream. I mean if you've been doing it for years and you do it often, you'd know the dreams world so well that you can develop these skills. Eames has obviously practiced his forging for long enough to be widely known as a great forger.

[Qrazy]

I don't mean the length of time you're in a dream. I mean if you've been doing it for years and you do it often, you'd know the dreams world so well that you can develop these skills. Eames has obviously practiced his forging for long enough to be widely known as a great forger.

Ahhh got ya now, yeah I agree.

[Dukefrukem]

ending confirmed by caine

"[The spinning top] drops at the end, that's when I come back on. If I'm there it's real, because I'm never in the dream. I'm the guy who invented the dream."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00twxzw#p00b9p1f

[Spinal]

Michael Caine is an actor. An actor needs a specific reality in order to convincingly do his job. A director will typically not tell an actor 'I dunno, you could be this or you could be that.' An actor wants details in order to ground himself.

However, this is not the same as how the film has been crafted and edited by the director and his crew. I don't think you work so hard to make a film ambiguous just so later you can say "this is the correct answer, this isn't." The purpose of the ambiguity is to open up possibility. Caine is not viewing the film the way an audience member does. He's viewing it through his specific connection.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, how did Caine invent the dream anyway? There's nothing that supports that idea.

[Morris Schæffer]

Two really cool pictures of the finale of this great movie:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47352

[[ETM]]

Bigatures FTW.

[Irish]

Man, how did they manage to put something so mainstream and so distinctly American on top of a list like that? You'd think with the two films bookending this list, they would have found a slot for Nolan's film somewhere in between. Where's the British love?

It could be the British press are less interested in film politics (excluding Nolan isn't much of a gamble), or maybe they just know an overwritten piece of shite when they see it. :P

[Skitch]

Overwritten? In a medium as cliche-ridden as cinema is, that strikes me as a strange criticism.

[Irish]

Please explain "overwritten" in objective terms.
In short: The plot is linear and simple, but the execution of it is needlessly complex. If your film is still explaining the rules well into the third act, your script has major problems. If you have to include a character (Adriadne) solely to deliver unfiltered exposition to the audience, that's also a problem.

[balmakboor]

In short: The plot is linear and simple, but the execution of it is needlessly complex. If your film is still explaining the rules well into the third act, your script has major problems. If you have to include a character (Adriadne) solely to deliver unfiltered exposition to the audience, that's also a problem.

I friggin hate confusing movies. I'm too old to spend more time trying to follow movies than simply enjoying them. The guy lost me with Following and I can only imagine this makes that look like Toy Story. I know it hits DVD tomorrow, but I'm still not terribly excited about it.

I did love Mulholland Dr though, so go figure.

[Spun Lepton]

I friggin hate confusing movies. I'm too old to spend more time trying to follow movies than simply enjoying them. The guy lost me with Following and I can only imagine this makes that look like Toy Story. I know it hits DVD tomorrow, but I'm still not terribly excited about it.

I did love Mulholland Dr though, so go figure.

Inception isn't confusing in the least.

[Sven]

Inception is not confusing if you don't think about it. It works pretty well if you leave out the fine print.

[balmakboor]

Geez, I'm surprised I didn't write that I couldn't follow Following.

Considering I disliked both of his Batmans and I was the world's one person who wasn't impressed by Memento, I can safely say that Nolan and I are not on the same page.

[balmakboor]

Keep talking guys. You've elevated it from "don't bother" to "Netflix when I get around to it."

[Irish]

Geez, I'm surprised I didn't write that I couldn't follow Following.

Considering I disliked both of his Batmans and I was the world's one person who wasn't impressed by Memento, I can safely say that Nolan and I are not on the same page.
If you disliked Memento & didn't care for the Batmans ... you're going to loathe Inception.

Please see it immediately so I'm not alone on this board. :D

[DavidSeven]

It's not that confusing. And yes, Adriadne's function is to embody the audience and its entrance to this world of rules. I don't know why this in itself is inherently a flaw. It takes information that might otherwise only be conveyed through vast narration and incorporates it directly into the plot. This is what you're supposed to do.

[Spun Lepton]

Keep talking guys. You've elevated it from "don't bother" to "Netflix when I get around to it."

Well, I enjoyed Memento, didn't much like Batman Begins, and thought The Dark Knight was a decent Batman flick -- if only for Ledger's performance. Inception, on the other hand, knocked my socks off.

[baby doll]

I wouldn't say it's confusing, but is is over-written in the sense that they spend half the movie explaining the plot. That's also true of The Big Sleep, which actually is confusing (and that's largely because they had to cut so much out of the book to get around the production code), but at least that film didn't take itself so freakin' seriously.

[Spun Lepton]

It's not that confusing. And yes, Adriadne's function is to embody the audience and its entrance to this world of rules. I don't know why this in itself is inherently a flaw. It takes information that might otherwise only be conveyed through vast narration and incorporates it directly into the plot. This is what you're supposed to do.

Yep.

[Spinal]

The characters in Inception are discovering as they go along. They are in uncharted territory. It's natural that they would talk about it.

[DavidSeven]

The characters in Inception are discovering as they go along. They are in uncharted territory. It's natural that they would talk about it.

This is at least part of what makes it a great experience for the audience, too.

[Spinal]

I love how critics of Inception complain about the talking as if it doesn't have action. As if it doesn't have strong visuals. As if it doesn't allow room for emotion. As if it doesn't allow room for introspection. Ridiculous.

[balmakboor]

I actually have a writing buddy here in town that I'm about to collaborate on a screenplay with. His favorite movie is Inception. This could be an interesting collaboration.

[Irish]

It's not that confusing. And yes, Adriadne's function is to embody the audience and its entrance to this world of rules. I don't know why this in itself is inherently a flaw. It takes information that might otherwise only be conveyed through vast narration and incorporates it directly into the plot. This is what you're supposed to do.
Most movies combine the point of view character and the protagonist and make them an outsider. It's an easy device so that the audience can get information at the same time the hero does as the world unfolds (eg: Luke in Star Wars, Neo in the Matrix).

You can split the point of view character and the protagonist, like in the novels Shane and The Great Gatsby, but then the point of view character has to have a compelling reason to exist outside being a vehicle for exposition. In Shane, the point of view character is the little boy. Aside from exposition, his presence in the novel is also the major reason why Shane ends up doing what he does. In Gatsby, the point of view character is Nick. But in addition to being the East Egg outsider, he also holds together every theme in the book and operates as a kind of thematic "red herring" for the reader.

Inception splits the protagonist and the point of view character between Cobb and Ariadne. But outside of exposition, Ariadne doesn't have a compelling reason to exist. You could remove her completely from the movie and little to nothing would change in the actual story.

[DavidSeven]

You can split the point of view character and the protagonist, like in the novels Shane and The Great Gatsby, but then the point of view character has to have a compelling reason to exist outside being a vehicle for exposition.

I can make up a dozen and half reasons why this theory doesn't hold or why Ariadne has a "compelling" reason to exist. But it doesn't matter because I'm not talking in the clouds. Your objection is completely academic and theoretical. How does she tangibly take away from your experience of this film?

[Sven]

Inception splits the protagonist and the point of view character between Cobb and Ariadne. But outside of exposition, Ariadne doesn't have a compelling reason to exist. You could remove her completely from the movie and little to nothing would change in the actual story.

Why can't all these goll-darn movies just follow the rules, eh?

[Spinal]

Inception splits the protagonist and the point of view character between Cobb and Ariadne. But outside of exposition, Ariadne doesn't have a compelling reason to exist. You could remove her completely from the movie and little to nothing would change in the actual story.

No. Wrong. She offers the human connection and perspective that allows Cobb to recognize and confront the issues with his wife. Critical function.

[balmakboor]

I love Shane. I resisted reading Gatsby back in high school with all my might. I should give it another go now.

[Irish]

I can make up a dozen and half reasons why this theory doesn't hold or why Ariadne has a "compelling" reason to exist. But it doesn't matter because I'm not talking in the clouds. Your objection is completely academic and theoretical.

How doesn't the theory hold? Anytime you include an expositional character purely for the sake of it, it's always painfully obvious. They feel shoe-horned into the story. Sometimes you can hide it pretty well by giving them a slightly larger function (like Obi-Wan in Star Wars or Morpheus in the Matrix).

What you call academic and theoretical I call basic storycraft. I mean, there's a reason why these elements exist and why they're used time after time. It's because they work, and straying from them creates the kind of overwritten, convoluted mess like Inception.


Why can't all these goll-darn movies just follow the rules, eh?
Heh! I know, right? ;-)

[Irish]

No. Wrong. She offers the human connection and perspective that allows Cobb to recognize and confront the issues with his wife. Critical function.

The "human connection" is the basic function of a point of view character. That's the audience's connection to the world.

I think it's debatable that she allows Cobb anything, because in every scene she's there for exposition, she's there to get the other characters to verbalize what the hell is going on, either in the world or internally, and every line of dialogue is completely on-the-nose.

That's bad writing.

[Spinal]

I think it's debatable that she allows Cobb anything, because in every scene she's there for exposition, she's there to get the other characters to verbalize what the hell is going on, either in the world or internally, and every line of dialogue is completely on-the-nose.

That's bad writing.

No, that's bad criticism. You're insisting on an interpretation of the character that simply doesn't jive with the reality of the film. I just told you her function in one simple sentence. It's there in the film. You refuse to see it.

[DavidSeven]

How doesn't the theory hold? Anytime you include an expositional character purely for the sake of it, it's always painfully obvious. They feel shoe-horned into the story. Sometimes you can hide it pretty well by giving them a slightly larger function (like Obi-Wan in Star Wars or Morpheus in the Matrix).

What you call academic and theoretical I call basic storycraft. I mean, there's a reason why these elements exist and why they're used time after time. It's because they work, and straying from them creates the kind of overwritten, convoluted mess like Inception.


She felt like a natural inclusion to me. She's no more shoe-horned into this thing than Tom Hardy or Joseph Gordon Levitt. And you can ask anyone, I'm a bigger supporter of narrative convention than most. But they exist to get at something bigger e.g. nothing happens in 90% of some script and it's really boring until that point, so maybe a traditional three act structure would help ... or this voice-over is boring and easy tune out, so maybe I should find a different way to present it in the plot. The absence or inclusion of these things in themselves is irrelevant if the film is compelling anyway.

There's absolutely no reason to be dogmatic about these things. And I worry that people are going to start pigeonholing you for this. You can and should enjoy the voiceover work in The Royal Tenenbaums and George Washington. Just because it doesn't work most of the time, doesn't mean it can't be compelling and well-done some of the time. The guys and gals who are really writing the best stories out there are the ones that recognize all of the conventions, but are good enough to operate outside of them.

[Spun Lepton]

The "human connection" is the basic function of a point of view character. That's the audience's connection to the world.

I think it's debatable that she allows Cobb anything, because in every scene she's there for exposition, she's there to get the other characters to verbalize what the hell is going on, either in the world or internally, and every line of dialogue is completely on-the-nose.

That's bad writing.

A point-of-view character? Every character has a point-of-view, and when the scene is focused on that character, the scene is told from their point of view. I don't recall any characters in anything having the sole function of "point-of-view." I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

[DavidSeven]

A point-of-view character? Every character has a point-of-view, and when the scene is focused on that character, the scene is told from their point of view. I don't recall any characters in anything having the sole function of "point-of-view." I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

This is also true. The main character (or POV character, I suppose) of each scene does not need to be, and often isn't, the lead character in the overall film. Ariadne can be viewed as the main character of her few key scenes, even if Cobb dominates the rest of the film.

[Irish]

No, that's bad criticism. You're insisting on an interpretation of the character that simply doesn't jive with the reality of the film. I just told you her function in one simple sentence. It's there in the film. You refuse to see it.

"Reality of the film"? This seems to imply that there's one objective truth about the movies, and I don't think that's true.

[Dead & Messed Up]

A point-of-view character? Every character has a point-of-view, and when the scene is focused on that character, the scene is told from their point of view. I don't recall any characters in anything having the sole function of "point-of-view." I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

I think he's referring to her character's status as a Watson (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWatson), who exist mostly to ask questions about plot logic. Like Myers in Hellboy.

[ledfloyd]

theseus never would've found his way back out of the labyrinth after defeating the minotaur without ariadne.

[Spinal]

"Reality of the film"? This seems to imply that there's one objective truth about the movies, and I don't think that's true.

There are certain basic facts about the film that are not open to debate. You can have your interpretation, but you cannot just say anything you want. You cannot, for example, say that Inception is a biography of Julia Child. What you're saying is that Ariadne serves no function other than to spout exposition. This is not about interpretation. This is about something that is factually incorrect. The character, notably a woman, is there to help Cobb work through his issues with his wife, to offer him perspective and encouragement. She pushes him forward and keeps him focused. She is critical to his journey. This isn't really an interpretation. This is simply a factual account of what happens on screen. This is what I mean by the 'reality of the film'.

[Irish]

A point-of-view character? Every character has a point-of-view, and when the scene is focused on that character, the scene is told from their point of view. I don't recall any characters in anything having the sole function of "point-of-view." I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

A point of view character is your entry into the world of the movie. Most of the time, it's the lead, the protagonist, the narrator.

Most genre movies are single pov movies, meaning the story is told entirely through one character's eyes (easiest example: detective stories). You can break point of view, but usually you're not going to do it without a very good reason (like creating dramatic irony).

Every movie has a point of view character, some have two, some have more than that.

Single pov: Chinatown
Dual pov: Good Will Hunting
Multiple pov: The Great Escape

The brilliant guys can mess with the convention, or at least audience expectation, like Hitchcock did in Psycho with Marion Crane, Ford did with Chance and Dude in Rio Bravo, and what Carpenter did with Loomis and Laurie in Halloween.

[DavidSeven]

Very few movies are told completely from one POV. This necessitates that the main character is in every single scene of the movie. Think back to all of the movies you have seen, and you will realize how uncommon this is. Inception most closely follows the structure of a heist film, which are quite usually told from multiple perspectives, even in cases where there is established "team leader" -- think Heat, Ocean's Eleven, Reservoir Dogs, etc. The list goes on beyond those genre confines: The Godfather, Citizen Kane, just about every film in existence, etc.

Anyway, this is really all that needs to be said about Ariadne's function in this film:
"theseus never would've found his way back out of the labyrinth after defeating the minotaur without ariadne." -- ledfloyd
"The character, notably a woman, is there to help Cobb work through his issues with his wife, to offer him perspective and encouragement. She pushes him forward and keeps him focused. She is critical to his journey." -- Spinal

[soitgoes...]

Every movie has a point of view character, some have two, some have more than that. This is most certainly not true.

[Irish]

She felt like a natural inclusion to me. She's no more shoe-horned into this thing than Tom Hardy or Joseph Gordon Levitt.

This is my other problem with the movie: the supporting characters are so underwritten that they barely qualify as more than a name and a job description.

Adriadne bugs me because her purpose is obvious, her presence is a sore thumb, and she operates mostly as a narrative device and not a fully fleshed out character.

That would be fine if she appeared in a one off scene (like, ugh, the Oracle in the Matrix), but it's awful that she's running through the entire movie.


There's absolutely no reason to be dogmatic about these things. And I worry that people are going to start pigeonholing you for this.

I tend to look to movies for two things: for them to say something insightful and meaningful about the human condition or, if they're not interested in doing that, then they've got to be entertaining as all hell, ten bucks and two hours worth of orgiastic distraction.

Usually a film succeeds at one or the other, and the really good ones succeed at both.

I didn't find Inception to be adept in either area, and if it appeals at all, it appeals as a puzzle piece, to the kind of person who will pick up a Rubik's Cube and start playing with it, or who jumps at the chance to do sudoku or crossword puzzles.

I'm not that guy.

[Irish]

This is most certainly not true.

It's an interesting habit folks here have of making bold statements while failing to provide any examples whatsoever.

I don't have any issue with the contradiction, but ffs tell me what you're referencing.

[DavidSeven]

I tend to look to movies for two things: for them to say something insightful and meaningful about the human condition or, if they're not interested in doing that, then they've got to be entertaining as all hell, ten bucks and two hours worth of orgiastic distraction.

Usually a film succeeds at one or the other, and the really good ones succeed at both.

For me, Inception not only succeeds, but excels so much at both as to be almost textbook examples of each. So, agree to disagree, different strokes, and all that. :)

[Irish]

Very few movies are told completely from one POV. This necessitates that the main character is in every single scene of the movie.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Dead & Messed Up's example of Holmes/ Watson was a good one. All of Conan Doyle's stories are single pov, told exclusively through the eyes of Watson. The same goes for Raymond Chander's Philip Marlowe stories.

As I was trying to say, you can break pov, but if you're going to do it, you must have a reason. Raiders of the Lost Ark and Diehard are both single pov movies where the protagonist isn't in every single frame of the film.


Think back to all of the movies you have seen, and you will realize how uncommon this is. Inception most closely follows the structure of a heist film, which are quite usually told from multiple perspectives, even in cases where there is established "team leader" -- think Heat, Ocean's Eleven, Reservoir Dogs, etc. The list goes on beyond those genre confines: The Godfather, Citizen Kane, just about every film in existence, etc.
Here's where Inception runs into trouble: In every example you cite with multiple pov, all of those characters have their own arc. In Inception, only Cobb has an arc.

It's an attempt to create a multiple pov heist picture in the format of a single pov, which doesn't work.

[soitgoes...]

It's an interesting habit folks here have of making bold statements while failing to provide any examples whatsoever.

I don't have any issue with the contradiction, but ffs tell me what you're referencing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaGh0D2NXCA

Or many other avant-garde films, and yes they come in feature length form too.

EDIT: Baraka and the qatsi trilogy also come to mind.

[DavidSeven]

Here's where Inception runs into trouble: In every example you cite with multiple pov, all of those characters have their own arc. In Inception, only Cobb has an arc.

It's an attempt to create a multiple pov heist picture in the format of a single pov, which doesn't work.

Sonny Corleone doesn't have an arc in The Godfather. Yet there is at least a scene or two told from his perspective. Brando might not even have an arc. The purpose of the film is to tell Michael's story. But there a number of scenes that are not from his POV. I'm not sure that Joseph Cotton has an arc in Citizen Kane either, but I haven't seen that film in ages. Only Clooney gets an arc in Ocean's Eleven. Movies are made up of scenes, which are essentially mini-movies. A common screenwriting "lesson" is to figure out who exactly is the main character of each scene because it frequently changes from scene to scene. This notion of the "single POV" narrative seems plausible in the literary world where its all exposition and dialogue, but I contend that it's not very common in films.

[Irish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaGh0D2NXCA

Or many other avant-garde films, and yes they come in feature length form too.

EDIT: Baraka and the qatsi trilogy also come to mind.

Christ, don't be so pedantic. Those examples are so far out of the scope and context of the discussion on this page as to be meaningless.

[Irish]

Sonny Corleone doesn't have an arc in The Godfather. Yet there is at least a scene or two told from his perspective. Brando might not even have an arc. The purpose of the film is to tell Michael's story. But there a number of scenes that are not from his POV. I'm not sure that Joseph Cotton has an arc in Citizen Kane either, but I haven't seen that film in ages. Only Clooney gets an arc in Ocean's Eleven. Movies are made up of scenes, which are essentially mini-movies. A common screenwriting "lesson" is to figure out who exactly is the main character of each scene because it frequently changes from scene to scene. This notion of the "single POV" narrative seems plausible in the literary world where its all exposition and dialogue, but I contend that it's not very common in films.

Huh? Sonny's actions drives an enormous chunk of the story. He definitely has an arc, it's just not an internal one like Michael's.

I haven't seen the Ocean's 11 remake in a long time, but I can almost guarantee you that each of those characters has their own little arcs. They might be small, they might only exist for a couple of scenes, but they're there.

As for Kane, Cotten's characters has a huge arc, which plays off and acts as a kind of mirror for Kane's. Through the course of the film, he goes from enthusiastic and optimistic to completely and utterly disillusioned by what Kane has become. (The central scene for this character is when he makes a point of saving Kane's "statement of principles" when the Inquirer is first taken over).

Back to Inception: Nolan doesn't even bother giving the supporting characters here a backstory, much less any kind of independent arc which either drives the story or informs on them.

This is different, and in my mind truly awful, than the other multiple pov titles you mentioned.

[DavidSeven]

The POV in films is constantly changing. In Inception, when Eames is learning how to mimic Browning, we are in Eames POV. When Arthur is maneuvering in zero-gravity, we are in Arthur's POV. When Yusef is trying to get the van to its drop point, we are in Yusef's POV. This is how movies operate. The only rule in narrative films is that a central character is established in any given scene, not an entire movie. This is so the audience has someone to relate to, empathize with, etc. while action is happening on the screen at any given moment. There is absolutely, positively no rule that necessitates the POV remain constant in one character throughout the entirety of a film or that to have a POV, a character must also have a complete arc because there is no reason for it. It rarely actually happens in practice because you can craft a well-written and engaging story told from multiple perspectives.

Honestly, I think you are misapplying a narrative convention here in a pretty dogmatic way, which is the reason why a lot of people react negatively to them. To apply them correctly, you have to understand what they are fundamentally trying to accomplish. Telling someone that the good stories are ones that are told entirely from one character's POV doesn't say anything if you can't explain why it has to be that way.

PS: If you can find an arc in Sonny Corleone in The Godfather or Bernie Mac in Ocean's Eleven, it is patently absurd that you would not be able to find one in Ariadne.

[Irish]

Telling someone that the good stories are ones that are told entirely from one character's POV doesn't say anything if you can't explain why it has to be that way.
I never said this, afaik I never came close to implying it.

I gave examples of single POV stories, and said that, yes, there are dual and multiple POV stories too.

The point I was trying to make about Aridane was that:

- She's the primary POV character
- She's the audience's stand in
- She's primarily an expositional character
- Spoon feeding Cobb lines so he can spout on the nose dialogue doesn't make her a well written character or even necessary to the overall story.


PS: If you can find an arc in Sonny Corleone in The Godfather or Bernie Mac in Ocean's Eleven, it is patently absurd that you would not be able to find one in Ariadne.
Granted, Bernie Mac might be a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure I want to get into breaking down the entirety of the Godfather, but it's structural brilliance is this:

- Michael is an audience touchstone at the start, explaining everything to newcomer Kay at the wedding. To use Dead&MessedUp's term, he's a Watson.
- Sonny is the guy you'd normally expect to be the protagonist, because he's second in command and drives so much of the story.
- For most of the film, Michael is absent or a minor, supporting character. Until he says, "I'm with you Papa" at the hospital.
- It's at that moment that Michael and Sonny's arcs, their individual stories, cross paths.
- Sonny's story is resolved and Michael's takes off.
- Both of these characters tie into the bigger themes about family, loyalty, and doing "what's right," but in different ways.

What you're calling shifting pov and little mini-movies aren't, so much. A really good example of this is the television sitcom Malcom in the Middle. That show had an obvious protagonist but most of the episodes were structured in a multiple pov format. Meaning, you had a family with 5 members, each of them had individual stories with their own arcs, that sometimes could cross paths. (Doing that, and doing it well, is a helluva challenge. I was constantly astounded that this sitcom pulled it off every week in 21 minutes.)

Here's, again, the problem with Inception: Not only do the supporting characters not have any kind of backstory, they don't have any kind of arc. While they participate in the main plot in a utilitarian way, they don't drive it. They don't have individual needs and desires outside it. They function mostly as a name and a job description.

Cobb's sideplot with his wife is awkward. It seems to exist to me because somebody, somewhere realized the stakes in the main plot were so completely bloodless (corporate CEO we barely know outfoxing another corporate CEO we barely know? Who gives a shit?).

There's a myriad of ways Nolan could have tackled Cobb's sideplot. He did it in the most awkward and rudimentary way possible, by having Adriadne tag along and prompt the character for verbal reactions.

She's not so much a character in her own right. She's more of a plot device, and she suffers from the same underwriting as the other supporting characters.

The stupidly ambiguous ending at the end renders most of this meaningless, and it goes back to the entire problem with this film, namely that it exists as a puzzle box.

[soitgoes...]

Christ, don't be so pedantic. Those examples are so far out of the scope and context of the discussion on this page as to be meaningless.I'm pedantic and you overgeneralize. The examples don't fall out of the scope and context of discussion because you allowed them by claiming wrongly that "every movie has a point of view character..." You included the film Good Will Hunting as an example which had up till then no previous bearing on the discussion. Apparently the inclusion into discussion is only limited to narrative films, after all is there some other aspect about Good Will Hunting that allows for its inclusion over Baraka or was its inclusion only made so that you can make a point? When I use a random film to make a point then it becomes no good?

[Irish]

When I use a random film to make a point then it becomes no good?

I do generalize, but I think it's in a way that's reasonable to most people. Granted, those generalizations run afoul of internet pendants but I'm fine with your being right on the internet and wrong everywhere else.

Example: When people reference a "David Lynch movie" they're generally talking about a certain kind of fucked up style and experience that you find in Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive. They don't immediately think about Dune.

Another example: If people are talking about "war movies" they're usually talking about a specific kind of film, not thinking about Au revoir les enfants or MASH.

So if we're in a thread talking about narrative films, character development, and point of view .. it's pretty goddamn pointless to mention high art movies and experimental stuff that contains none of those things, because you want to prove a point and be right on the internet above adding anything substantial or interesting to the conversation.

[soitgoes...]

Granted, those generalizations run afoul of internet pendants but I'm fine with your being right on the internet and wrong everywhere else. :lol:

I read the whole post. Good stuff, but this is where you shine.

[Kurosawa Fan]

:lol:

Irish reminds me of a film studies professor who can't possibly see beyond the textbook. I had one of those once. He did a great job teaching me how not to pigeonhole cinematic experience through his constant pigeonholing.

[Irish]

:lol:

Irish reminds me of a film studies professor who can't possibly see beyond the textbook. I had one of those once. He did a great job teaching me how not to pigeonhole cinematic experience through his constant pigeonholing.
:D You say that as if there's something wrong with analysis, theory, and academics, that the textbook has no value in and of itself.

To me, that's where the pleasure in this lies.

[Derek]

So if we're in a thread talking about narrative films, character development, and point of view .. it's pretty goddamn pointless to mention high art movies and experimental stuff that contains none of those things, because you want to prove a point and be right on the internet above adding anything substantial or interesting to the conversation.

You know what else is pointless? Saying "Every movie has a point of view character, some have two, some have more than that" when what you really mean is "Every movie has a point of view character, some have two, some have more than that except for movies that are not similar to the one I'm talking about and that don't have a point of view character". The problem isn't so much that you make gross generalizations, but that you make them with the assumption that we all understand the ridiculous limits you put on them, ie, you assume that foreign films, art films and avant-garde are completely irrelevent as if they are some sort of "specialty" class that should be ignored when talking about profitable, mainstream narrative films. When you make broad claims about every movie, assume that we will think you literally mean that since many people on this site do watch those other guys.

[Kurosawa Fan]

:D You say that as if there's something wrong with analysis, theory, and academics, that the textbook has no value in and of itself.

To me, that's where the pleasure in this lies.

There's certainly value, but if you force those theories into everything you see, you kill their effectiveness. Like I said, it's pigeonholing. Use the theories and analysis where appropriate. Not everything is so black and white.

[Derek]

:lol:

Irish reminds me of a film studies professor who can't possibly see beyond the textbook. I had one of those once. He did a great job teaching me how not to pigeonhole cinematic experience through his constant pigeonholing.

He strikes me more as a screenwriting grad student with a background in marketing, but I know what you mean.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Conversation would've been over in two seconds if Irish just called her a Watson.

[Spinal]

Conversation would've been over in two seconds if Irish just called her a Watson.

"Watson with tits" and I would have repped him.

[Irish]

The problem isn't so much that you make gross generalizations, but that you make them with the assumption that we all understand the ridiculous limits you put on them
That's just my point, though: I believe these to be reasonable assumptions, reasonable generalizations.

To assume that I'm referencing Catch 22 or Grand Illusion when talking about "war movies" is to almost intentionally miss the point of the larger conversation.


ie, you assume that foreign films, art films and avant-garde are completely irrelevent as if they are some sort of "specialty" class that should be ignored when talking about profitable, mainstream narrative films.

To me, they are a specialty class, because the audience and intentions behind them are almost always completely different than with a mainstream, American films. To lump them all together encourages situations where we're comparing Alphaville to Avatar on the basis that, yes, technically, they're both science fiction movies. That kind of thing becomes silly and inane pretty damned quickly.

The internet is a contentious place, and people have gotten into the habit of applying endless caveats and weasel words to their posts, because to do otherwise is to have some ill bred basement dwelling neckbeard leap out from behind their avatar and scream, "GOTCHA! You're factually WRONG on the INTERNET!"

Everyone here strikes me as insightful and intelligent, moreso than on other boards. I did not believe, and still don't believe, that footnoting my posts with one off exceptions and belaboring a peculiar exactness of speech benefits the conversation.

[endingcredits]

He strikes me more as a screenwriting grad student with a background in marketing, but I know what you mean.

And no background in logic.

[Irish]

There's certainly value, but if you force those theories into everything you see, you kill their effectiveness. Like I said, it's pigeonholing. Use the theories and analysis where appropriate.

I tend to ascribe to the viewpoint that "life is most successfully viewed from a single window, after all." When it comes to creative things, at least.

To do otherwise is like attending a church without any particular belief system. What the hell's the point?

In order to process this stuff, have any kind of thoughtful opinion, you've got to start from some kind of reference point, some kind of framework.


Not everything is so black and white.

Hm. I dunno about that, especially in the case of genre films.

[endingcredits]

Hm. I dunno about that, especially in the case of genre films.

I've seen genre films in color.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I tend to ascribe to the viewpoint that "life is most successfully viewed from a single window, after all." When it comes to creative things, at least.

To do otherwise is like attending a church without any particular belief system. What the hell's the point?

In order to process this stuff, have any kind of thoughtful opinion, you've got to start from some kind of reference point, some kind of framework.



Hm. I dunno about that, especially in the case of genre films.

I can't tell if you're joking with all of this. The way I'm reading it is that you're being extremely sarcastic. I hope I'm right.