Inception (with implanted spoilers)

Good article that argues for the theory that the whole movie is Cobb's dream:
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html

set up that minute where the synchronized kicks kick in and everybody wakes up 3 times in a row

Yeah, but tbh, that scene was nowhere near as over-the-top as I expected it to be. I was half-anticipating a series of close ups of each character gasping awake in rapid succession. Kind of happy Nolan handled it the way he did.

it's lame if it's literally ALL a dream and cobb is just some guy we never see awake

think you have to accept that some of it is real

counterpoint to that (already posted upthread):
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html
xxp

FWIW the film has been making scary good money in the US this week -- $10 million Monday, just under $10 million yesterday, projections are it should hit $100 million by tomorrow night. So it's getting people into the theaters at the least.

It's a limbo party now — who can go lower?

Rao gets a million points for making this joke

Had to wait to read the whole thread until I saw the movie last night.

I pretty much came to a similar conclusion to San Te wayyyyyy upthread. I feel like the only thing really in question is whether or not Cobb came out of that subconscious level. I don't buy the 'it was all a dream' stuff. And I can't really buy into a happy Reality ending for Cobb. It's a happy ending for him, but it's on his terms, not reality. I feel like he's still in the subconscious level. Little things for me, like us not ever seeing him come out of the first (?) level (van underwater)...the movie seems to set up a precedent that you get to see each person come back, in each level they're in. (I might be remembering that wrong though, don't know if I saw Cillian Murphy do all the levels now that I think of it.) Anyway, the way I remember it, we only see Cobb come out of the top level back to 'reality'. That stuck out to me. Whoosh he's back on the plane? It didn't sit right. And there was that small exchange with Cobb and Mal, where he said 'At least let me keep them', or something to that effect, and she said 'Only if you stay here with me.', which I took to mean he could keep the children if he stayed there. I think that he stayed. Because that was the only place he could see his children. I don't feel like Watanabe came out of it either, so that meant there could be no deal for Cobb. I think he finally saw the children's faces because he had resolved his guilt with Mal. Or Mol, or whatever her name is, when he told her about the inception. And I think maybe the 'viral' nature of inception had maybe planted itself within his mind somewhere too. Maybe not to same degree as Mal, but to the point where he felt like the subconscious level was more of a home to him than reality.

but maybe I'm reading too much into it.

But damn I can't stop thinking about it and I must go see it again. I feel like I'm enjoying it more and more as time passes, because it took me a couple of hours afterwards of just sitting, thinking, digesting to really figure out how the movie sat with me. I enjoyed the experience of watching it, it just took me a while to figure out if I really understood it. And I like that.

I don't feel like Watanabe came out of it either

hm, why? he reaches for the gun, and then ...

if Watanabe was lonely couldn't he have dreamed himself up some hot women who had old guy fetishes?

it's lame if it's literally ALL a dream and cobb is just some guy we never see awake

think you have to accept that some of it is real

Not to pick on you here, because I've heard this argument a lot, but why does it bother you so much for it to be all a dream with no reality shown on screen? Do you really NEED that reality anchor to feel invested? (These are honest questions here)

yes, I think the reality anchor makes it more meaningful. it's more meaningful for us to be watching six people sharing an experience rather than watching the projections of one person, in part for the reason Leo articulates: he can't imagine his wife in all her complexity. but also because watching one person find happiness in their own mind is less interesting then watching one person escape their own mind and re-join the rest of the real world.

I take it you didn't like the first half of Mulholland Drive then?

why does it bother you so much for it to be all a dream with no reality shown on screen? Do you really NEED that reality anchor to feel invested? (These are honest questions here)

yeah i do. think we need things like catharsis.

I just don't get why the dream cycle is "all or nothing" in this film

Someone says "Last night I had a dream about you" and then robots start dancing.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, July 21, 2010 2:45 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark

hahaha +1 million

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnsnZvR4X68

xxp right, and i find this

and what he's ultimately saying is that the catharsis found in a dream is as real as the catharsis found in a movie is as real as the catharsis found in life

from the CHUD article totally unconvincing, because I believe that there is a difference between our relationships with people and our relationships with our internal projections of the same people

but also because watching one person find happiness in their own mind is less interesting then watching one person escape their own mind and re-join the rest of the real world.

Fair enough, but I just don't really share that desire. I like films that leave more open, rather than being able to effectively "close the cover" at the end and say, well, he joined reality again. Great. I like ambiguity in a film like this and it really doesn't change my investment in the characters in the least.

whew, finally read through the thread. I think caek is most otm in describing why I didn't like the film that much:

I don't think the end says "it was all a dream" so much as "i used to read word up magazine".

my problem is that none of the human drama stuff is credible or about life as it is lived. this is not in general a problem in lots of movies, but it's clear that the people came after the premise. and in this case it's a total failure. there is no character development. who gives a shit about imaginary problems due to mental illness induced by an imaginary technology? and his goal is to accept he was right and successfully move house?
anyway, you're left with an action film about a technological idea and the entire weight of the film is on the audience finding (what nolan does with) the premise interesting per se. so yes, exploring dreams is more than just a macguffin, but not in a good way.
― caek, Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:50 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark

also this whole thread reminds me about the time right before the matrix 2 came out and everybody had crazy theories like it's a matrix within a matrix within a matrix etc. but then the wachowski brothers were like sike we just wanted an excuse to have guys in white suits make things blow up

Going back to the totems, I thought the idea of them was so that you could tell if you were in a dream designed by someone else - only you knew the specific detail of the totem; much like how (near the start) the first 'dream within a dream' failed as the architect didn't know the material of the carpet.

I'm fairly sure at one point either Leo or JGL says the totem is so that you know you're not in someone else's dream.

i don't trust caek's reading coz it saw it at like 7am on a sunday?

literally cannot imagine a worse time to see a film

xp yeah but the trick to leo's totem was that it would always fall, right? who dreams of a world where tops keep on spinning forever? I get the loaded die or ellen's bishop that might only fall a certain way or w/e

you're right h-mayne, in the future I expect all film reviews to be prefaced by a recount of where and when and under what conditions the reviewer saw the film

Inception + Juicy = floating Diddy heads

you're right h-mayne, in the future I expect all film reviews to be prefaced by a recount of where and when and under what conditions the reviewer saw the film

― You’re going off of her word that the farmer’s wife is the farmer’s wife? (dyao), Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:55 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

ehh, it wouldn't hurt. the newspaper dudes see too many films in one day, and they start too early. almost notoriously they don't 'get' comedies, which go over much better with a large audience of people who aren't salaried aspies.

what's your excuse

He's an aspie with an AHRC grant?

nah not even... but if anything im 'too easy' wrt comedies

Some of us prefer mornings to evenings.

night time is the right time imo

or mid-late afternoon

I don't think night time is ever mid-late afternoon

maybe sometimes in January

ehh, it wouldn't hurt. the newspaper dudes see too many films in one day, and they start too early. almost notoriously they don't 'get' comedies, which go over much better with a large audience of people who aren't salaried aspies.

― I’ll put you in a f *ckin Weingarten you c*nt! (history mayne), Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:59 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

would love to know how many films have gotten unabashedly great reviews cause the critic was busy getting head in the back row during the screening

"cries and whispers? oh man, family drama of the summer!! bergman's best! just wait for the climax!"

two final thoughts

1. people who say "parts of this movie don't make sense because dreams don't make sense!" really just mean "movies don't make sense"

2. I thought michael caine was actually max von sydow and so I spent a lot of the movie comparing leo to tom cruise in minority report and what do you know, both characters are in sci fi movies in which they spend the majority of their time trying to escape trauma from their past related to their family

2. really makes me go "hmm"

Fair enough, but I just don't really share that desire. I like films that leave more open, rather than being able to effectively "close the cover" at the end and say, well, he joined reality again. Great. I like ambiguity in a film like this and it really doesn't change my investment in the characters in the least.

I like ambiguity in a film when it gives the film more emotional punch, but I don't think it would here.

I guess if I had the choice between viewing it as a cool-ass thriller that resolves, and a more character-driven, ambiguous story about the nature of dreams, I'd choose the thriller, cuz emotionally this film is like two inches deep. The bringing Leo back to life thing is enough to keep me watching, and that's about it.

At least 2 or 3 people mentioned they agree with caek on his point or opinion here:

I don't think the end says "it was all a dream" so much as "i used to read word up magazine"..

Nolan left the ending ambiguous. That doesn't mean pretentious. Also the way you put that sentence^ makes me think that you left the movie leaning more towards "it's all a dream". I think that people who left the movie with that line of thinking generally liked the movie less than people who left the movie leaning the other way. Seeing the movie at 7am or just one's mental state of being (or even subconscious being) can effect how the viewer perceives a movie.

my problem is that none of the human drama stuff is credible or about life as it is lived. this is not in general a problem in lots of movies, but it's clear that the people came after the premise. and in this case it's a total failure. there is no character development. who gives a shit about imaginary problems due to mental illness induced by an imaginary technology? and his goal is to accept he was right and successfully move house?anyway, you're left with an action film about a technological idea and the entire weight of the film is on the audience finding (what nolan does with) the premise interesting per se. so yes, exploring dreams is more than just a macguffin, but not in a good way.― caek

Translation: no human drama, no character development. The only thing left to enjoy is the premise and where it goes from there. (and I really didn't like watching macguffin stuff + meta ending)

*

Here's my 'bizarre' movie comparison: There is just as much human drama or character development (maybe a little more) in The Warriors. Both movies have really good premises. That's just my opinion and it's fine if you have a different opinion. But out of curiosity did you like The Warriors and/or agree with me in saying that it really didn't have much human drama or character development? Just a lot of fighting and running

I like where the premises went with both movies. Fight for your life and hang with The Warriors as they make their way to Coney Island. Fight for your life* and hang with The Odd Squad as they try to complete their job in a fabricated, layered dream world.

It was fun to watch. I didn't find the action, art direction/cinematography or ending boring (or irritating) for either movie but that's just my opinion. I know some people wanted the ski fight to be shorter. Some people didn't like how Inception started out in the dream world but I thought there was no better place to show off the premise. Plus you get to understand the dream in a dream concept & have some enjoyable plot buildup (Saito hiring them for the inception job and you learn Cobb's goal of going back home). There's also an intense sort of moment when Cobb knows he can't go back to HQ and one of the dude's gets dragged away from the helicopter. Plus from here on out HQ is trying to kill Cobb. The human drama part of the movie unravels in small parts that keeps the viewer guessing like a suspense. At least at the beginning you do want to know more... the macguffin isn't really noticeable until the end of the movie (it wasn't until sometime after Mal jumped off the building that I began to lose some interest in that part of the story). That storyline was necessary for me to enjoy the inception job.

Last sentence typo: wasnt*

We dream, but do we *really* dream?

i enjoyed this quite a lot. i have a total crush on jgl. i would say "no homo" because i'm a straight guy, but really having a crush on a dude is pretty yes homo tbh.

With the exception of Leo the whole cast is v. attractive.

True. Did not realise before I saw this just how ridiculously star-studded it is. Like when they are building the dossier on the Fischers and it's like "here are your targets - Tom Berenger and Cillian Murphy."

Have to say also that Tom Hardy held his own in the company - total star-making turn as one of the reviews said

If you're the droll British guy in an American movie and it's not a star-making turn, you're just not trying.

english guy would have been good if he'd been less annoying

tbh i didnt get the tom hardy thing, he was fine but didnt blow me away or anything. in fact the whole thing where he and jgl were supposed to be the bantering comic relief kind of fell flat for me.

yeah i didn't think it worked that well either. funniest bits in the film for me were jgl waking up while his chair was being tipped.

JGL...huge girly crush. His dance sequence in 500 days of summer was the only thing that kept me from stabbing everyone.

Thinking lots about the buildings & general architecture of the movie. Loved the repeated skyscraper horizon in Cobb's subconscious...almost looked like black paper cutouts.

i still don't get why someone would intentionally want that.

Cuz it looks cool from faraway? Shrug

guys this was enjoyable but also like w/e

This is the kind of "why people liked I movie I didn't" thought that can't help but sound condescending, but I was thinking about a quote Nolan dropped in that Voice interview where he claims he's been baffled for decades by how mirrors reflect light.

"Films are subjective—what you like, what you don't like," he says. "But the thing for me that is absolutely unifying is the idea that every time I go to the cinema and pay my money and sit down and watch a film go up onscreen, I want to feel that the people who made that film think it's the best movie in the world, that they poured everything into it and they really love it. Whether or not I agree with what they've done, I want that effort there—I want that sincerity. And when you don't feel it, that's the only time I feel like I'm wasting my time at the movies."

Even if I find the outcome pretty disappointing and middlebrow, I can't deny that this movie was what pretty clearly 100% what HE wanted to do, and few action blockbusters really have that vibe (ok, well I think The A-Team did, but that was never going to be hailed like this is).

haha that kind of obvious directorial passion is also why i can't fully hate either of the boondock saints