The "Inception" Thread

[Alex]

Those who've seen Inception might find this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkQ0C4qDvM) interesting (it's about the music and score).

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, that was cool. LSPE tweeted it yesterday.

I saw Inception again over the weekend, only to discover I didn't really miss anything the first time - even though I thought I had. I still like it a whole lot, though I never really connect with the characters on an emotional level (I think it's going to be a cold day in hell when Leo DiCaprio sells me on a performance).

That connection is not a necessary thing for me to like the film, though it's a component of most other films I like. This one's just so wonderful in so many ways. Oh, and even after seeing it a second time, and though many people beg to differ ...

I'm convinced there's not a single moment of non-dream in the entire film. It doesn't matter whether the spinning totem falls or not after the cut-to-black at the end of the film; it's shown falling a couple of other times in what I believe are dream sequences.

Most of the "real world" stuff has the same crazy physical logic of the dreams. And at least one important plot point only makes sense if everything's a dream, i.e., why Cobb can't see his kids - which is his entire motivation and drives him to extremes. I note it doesn't drive him to buy two tickets for them to come to Paris, which would be perfectly reasonable in the real world if this was his real problem. It's only in dreams that obstacles have only one solution that makes no real sense.

Anyway, I prefer that interpretation to giant, gaping plot hole in a film that took 10 years to make. So I'm sticking with it.

[Alex]

That is certainly one of the common interpretations of the movie. My problem with it is that if there is no basis on which to believe anything in the movie.

For example, it is then equally possible that the entire movie a dream from a 13-year-old girl who doesn't actually appear in the dream.

So to me it is a great way to fanwank away any plotholes but it doesn't give any depth to the movie.

[innerSpaceman]

Except that in internal framework of the film, the dreamer is always IN the dream. So I could imagine the whole thing is happening on Mars, and Cobb is kept in an ice-cold snowglobe while the Martian Princess dreams about him ... but since Cobb is the main character of the film and, I believe, is in every scene in the movie ... I'm comfortable with my assumption that the entire film is his dream.

Of course, one of the things I like about the film is - like life - it's completely open to multiple interpretations. I may develop a slightly different one if I see it again.






And, au contraire, I think it gives incredible depth to the movie. But that's just me (and, well, maybe a few hundred thousand other folks).

[Alex]

True, except in the internal framework of the film there is a level of non-dream reality. If that isn't true then you no longer need give any credence to the "rules" if another interpretation is more to one's liking.

I'm sure Nolan knows what he thinks happened but I'm also sure he wants it to be ambiguous.

Oh and

Cobb is not in every scene in the movie. Several scenes with Joseph Gordon-Levitt take place without even a sleeping Cobb in the scene. The scene with him stealing a kiss from Ellen Page, for example. Or both of his fight scenes in the hotel.

Also, both of the scenes where Eames is pretending to be Tom Berenger and interacting with Fischer take place without Cobb being in the room.

So if Cobb is dreaming those, he's dreaming content he wasn't present for.

[innerSpaceman]

Ah, very true about the scenes where Eames is "forging" Berenger. I'd forgotten about those. I may have to re-evaluate.


But Cobb IS in the scene where Arthur steals a kiss.



I'm sure Nolan's going to keep mumm about his own interpretation. I wonder if it would change if presented with gaping plot hole that he didn't manage to fill or care about during the 10-year gestation of this project.

[Alex]

But Cobb IS in the scene where Arthur steals a kiss.

No he's not. Arthur and Ellen Page are in the hotel lobby. Cobb and Fischer are in the hotel bar.

This separation was intentional to make it harder for Fischer's projections to find Arthur when while Cobb was making him aware of the dreamstate, creating the reason Arthur tricked Page into kissing him.

Unless I"m completely misremembering that.

I'm curious which gaping plot hole your thinking of?

[mousepod]

Here's my quick take on the Inception plot:

I think the whole movie takes place in a controlled dream.

The only two ways that they use the dream technology in the movie is either for research, or to steal information.

If the dream movie was the former, then it would suck. Therefore, the purpose of the dream-movie is to steal information from some "mark".

So if the big cathartic revelation of Inception is that Cobb admits to Ariadne that he performed 'inception' on Mal, then most probably Cobb is the mark and Ariadne is the person who was hired to get that information.

If that scenario is true, then Arthur could well be the dreamer.

But who would want that information in the first place? Going out on a limb, I'd say Mal's father... who (at least in this dream reality) knows all about the process.

The whole Saito/Fischer story, then, is the 'fictional' contrivance that lets us know what's 'really' going on. It's a microcosmic telling of the story constructed to bring Cobb to his admission.

Did I mention that I really enjoyed this film?

[innerSpaceman]

Well, it wasn't such a severe separation that Arthur and Page don't see Cobb walking by from where they sit. Cobb may then walk into another adjacent room, but he's in the scene. Doesn't much matter, as the forgery scenes you pointed out require some deft acrobatics on my part to maintain my current version of my theory of the film.

The gaping plot hole I'm thinking of is ...
Why Cobb's kids can't come to Paris, or any of the other dozen places outside the U.S. Cobb visits in the movie. He's obsessed with not being able to get back to the States to see his kids' faces. But not for one instant does anyone suggest or consider bringing the kids to him.

This is so much like a dream conundrum. But it's probably just a gaping plot hole. I don't know why movies are so riddled with them, despite years of preparation and constant attention.

But also supporting my It's-All-a-Dream theory is the style of editing. Most movies jump from place-to-place, never showing the details of people getting in or out of vehicles, or the mundane routines of travel or interim time where no plot points happen. But I noticed early on that Nolan's editing style for this film was extreme in this regard, calling distinct attention to these jumps instead of adhering to the typical style for this sort of thing, which doesn't usually pull you out of a film by highlighting the editing.

So when the film specifically referenced the dream effect of never knowing how you got anywhere, but always just being plunked down in the middle of "scenes," I sensed a winking nod to the film's exaggerated editing style.


That style continued in much of the "real world" scenes, and was certainly as exaggerated in the final sequence (that was purposefully a mystery) as in any other dream sequence.

Of course, since it's set up to puzzle the audience as to whether Cobb ever wakes up at the end, I don't find it too much of a stretch to assume he's asleep at other times we assume he's awake.

As for whether he's asleep during the entire movie, I have to choose between the illogic of him dreaming of scenes he's not present for, and a gaping plot hole that negates his entire motivation in the film.

I don't remember my own dreams very often, or in great detail. Do people have dreams in which they are not a character, or in which they are missing from some scenes that feature other people??

[Alex]

The gaping plot hole I'm thinking of is ...
Why Cobb's kids can't come to Paris, or any of the other dozen places outside the U.S. Cobb visits in the movie.

I reading on that was that Cobb made the choice not to take the children with him when he ran and so has left them in the care of Mal's parents and since they believe he murdered Mal, why would they be willing to give them back to him?

And somehow Saito's magic access cleared his name such that her parents were mollified as well.

And in fact if it is his dream, he could bring his kids to him if that is what he wanted, it would be as easy as projecting them into wherever he is.



[spoiler]I don't remember my own dreams very often, or in great detail. Do people have dreams in which they are not a character, or in which they are missing from some scenes that feature other people??

I never remember dreams so couldn't say but on other boards where this has been discussed plenty of people do claim to have dreams where they're just fuzzy observers.

But again, that's my problem with the "it's all a dream" theory. It may be the intent but it also renders moot any discussion as any point of view is equally valid by waving a hand and saying "it's a dream."


I think we need a separate thread. Spoiler tags are getting confusing.

[mousepod]

My theory handles all of the plot holes.

[Alex]

True, but like I've said, it moots all the plot discussions, too.

[mousepod]

No, it doesn't. Clearly, every non-documentary movie takes place entirely in fantasy, so your 13-year-old girl idea could be true for anything.

What I'm saying is that there is an internal logic for the movie.

But there are two stories. The plot about Saito and Fischer is the Macguffin, but it's also a roadmap to the real story, which is the Adriadne (?) and Cobb story.

[Alex]

Oops, forgot the spoiler tag.

And I'd argue that you're just picking and choosing which statements in the movie you wish to decide were true, and having stipulated that the movie is never presenting an objective reality there is no basis on which to make those decisions.

If the whole thing is a dream is there any reality to the idea of totems and how they work? No way of knowing. Is there any reality to the idea of limbo? No way of knowing. Is there any reality to the idea of projections and how they behave? No way of knowing. Each can be used or discarded as needed in pursuit of any theory as it can now be explained as a necessary component or just a lie used to achieve the predetermined goal.

I could just as easily, in my opinion, argue that the entire movie is a dream but the goal was to take dream researcher Cobb and get him break his ethical vows in order to commit an act of inception on Fischer and that actually the last scene after waking up is really the first time Cobb has been awake in the movie and his weird dream is making him uneasy as he goes through customs. After all, nothing in those final scenes explicitly mentions that he was on the run from the law. Maybe he was actually on his way back from a scholarly convention in Europe where he was waylayed by Saito and his crew.

[innerSpaceman]

FVCK Spoilers: DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN INCEPTION.


Sorry, but once there are 18 posts in a row that require spoiler tags, for a movie that's the talk of the town and has been out for 12 days, I'm officially calling spoiler tags OFF for my posts.


mousepod: I love your theory, as I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's simply adding a rationale for Cobb's dream - as to who would be invading it and why. From what I can glean, this encompasses the general theory of the entire movie being his dream. That takes care of my gaping plot hole (and no, Alex, obstacles in dreams are not solved by simply making them disappear by virtue of the dreamer's godly power of creation) ... but what about the scenes in the film where Cobb does not appear? Are these ok with you?

[mousepod]

Are we going spoiler-free? OK.

I actually tried to be objective in "picking and choosing which statements in the movie ... were true".

I took all of the information about the technology, totems, "architecture", and limbo (i.e. all of the stuff that relates to the act of entering and manipulating dreams) as true for the movie. The only information I took to be not reliable was the information about specific individuals.

[innerSpaceman]

Alex - absolutely, you could interpret the entire movie like that if you choose.

I don't think it's at all out of line to assume that Nolan left all of this open to interpretation. Certainly the ending was specifically designed to leave one wondering if Cobb was awake or not.

For a movie about dreams within dreams within dreams within dreams, where one of the presentations of the real world is purposefully twisted to leave it open as to whether it's been a dream, I don't see how it's not a legitimate, filmmaker-intended avenue of theoretical pursuit to imagine some or all of the other "real world" segments to be dreams.

In which case, yeah, your 13-year-old girl theory is as legit as any other, including the one where Cobb breaks his ethical vow (except, uh, what vow? - He never seemed to have any compunctions about performing inception, though of course he was embarrassed to reveal details of the time he successfully did it. Despite that, he seemed damned anxious to do it again. Hardly breaking an ethical vow.)

[mousepod]

... and iSm: the scenes where Cobb does not appear (in my opinion) should be taken as clues to who the 'dreamer' is.

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, my theory negates what we're told about totems, so I guess I fall more into the selective-acceptance practices that Alex criticizes.

[innerSpaceman]

... and iSm: the scenes where Cobb does not appear (in my opinion) should be taken as clues to who the 'dreamer' is.
Then what about the scenes where Arthur does not appear? Or where neither of them do?

[Ghoulish Delight]

If you're going no spoiler, I'm moving the discussion to a new thread.

[innerSpaceman]

Thanks, Greg. Great idea!



Yay! Inception Free Reign!!!

[Alex]

(and no, Alex, obstacles in dreams are not solved by simply making them disappear by virtue of the dreamer's godly power of creation)

Why not?

If the whole thing is a dream then all the stuff about totems is bull**** that must have been foisted off on Cobb somehow, even though he's an expert in this stuff. Presumably it is a tool to strengthen Cobb's belief that the first dream level is the real world. Or we have to assume that Cobb's totem was compromised off screen since it is shown working (that is, falling).

Secondly, all the stuff about Limbo is bull**** because that level is then simply another constructed level used to reach Cobb's final catharsis.

Are there really different layers of dreaming or is it all just actually single layer with them moving from one part of the maze to another? Is there really any time dilation in dreams, there's no longer any objective reason to believe so since we have no knowledge of how fast time is passing in reality. Is the stuff about sedatives all just made up to strengthen the reality of the fake? The explanation of aggressive projections must be a lie (but they're a bit of a plot hole anyway) story since presumably Fischer is a co-conspirator and perfectly aware he's dreaming.

All that's left is "you can share dreams and in doing so impact their reality." Everything else in the movie can be accepted or dismissed at will without impacting the credibility of that conclusion. But even that isn't entirely there, why can't it be that the whole movie is the natural dream of a damaged psyche working through guilt over his wife (that is, maybe the whole movie is the dream of DiCaprio's character from Shutter Island).

So, having determined that two or more of the core rules of this presented world are lies, what else is a lie and how do you decide?

That's my view of the "it's all a dream" theory anyway.

[mousepod]

Thanks, GD.

[innerSpaceman]

In Inception-related news (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/07/inception-star-tom-hardy-of-course-ive-had-sex-with-men.html#comments), Tom Hardy, who plays Eames, says of course he's had sex with men, and discusses his fluid sexuality and femininity/masculinity flow. :D

[mousepod]

Alex,

I don't think you need to throw out any of the core rules and still have the movie take place inside a dream state.

[Alex]

Then what about the scenes where Arthur does not appear? Or where neither of them do?

If we assume the dreamer has to be present (which there's no reason to actually assume, Arthur is presented as the dreamer of the Hotel Level and so it is the scenes with Cobb and other people where Arthur isn't presented that have to be explained within the presented framework of the movie).

You just have to have a frequent transfer of who the controlling dreamer is.

There are scenes without Cobb (add to the list the first scene of Fischer and his dad on his deathbed; the other only crew member present for that is Eames).
There are scenes where Cobb is alone (of the top of my head) with Ariadne (late night bull session), his father (when he goes to get a new architect), Eames (the bar where we first meet him), and Arthur (the hotel room in Kyoto).

There is nobody who is present for every scene of the "reality" level.

[innerSpaceman]

Alex, the most successful elements of dreaming presented by the film are those that resonate with our actual experience of dreaming. Thus, time dilation is brilliant. Most of us experience that in dreams, so it was a fun element to have it quantified and further expounded such that the dilation became greater the deeper the levels you experience.

On that note, another resonant concept - in fact, the underpinning of the entire move - is that there are dreams within dreams. I daresay most of us have experienced that. I know I have.

The audience doesn't need to be convinced of these concepts. They have experienced them. But, yeah, totems are bullsh!t. :)

[Alex]

I don't think you need to throw out any of the core rules and still have the movie take place inside a dream state.

True, it isn't necessary for it to still be a dream state. But I don't see how the presentation of totems and limbo is consistent with your theory of what the purpose of the dream state is. At least not without assuming facts not in evidence within the movie.

But I'd love to be shown what I'm missing.

[mousepod]

If we assume the dreamer has to be present (which there's no reason to actually assume, Arthur is presented as the dreamer of the Hotel Level and so it is the scenes with Cobb and other people where Arthur isn't presented that have to be explained within the presented framework of the movie).

Good point. I completely forgot about that. So the absence of Cobb from any scene isn't a plot hole at all. Nice.

There are scenes where Cobb is alone (of the top of my head) with Ariadne (late night bull session), his father (when he goes to get a new architect), Eames (the bar where we first meet him), and Arthur (the hotel room in Kyoto).

I'm fairly certain that they present Miles as Mal's father, not Cobb's. Perhaps he's the one who is trying to get Cobb to admit that he performed inception on his daughter.

What if Mal isn't dead, but in some kind of permanent dream state? If she was the dreamer, that might explain why Cobb uses her totem - and why her "secret" was the totem itself.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, the concept of limbo as stated and then as show were radically different.

It was said that if you spent an inordinate of time in limbo, your brain would melt. I guess they were talking about real time as opposed to limbo time, but both Cobb and Saito spent lifetimes in limbo without any brain-melt on return to "reality."


How, in fact, did Cobb escape from Limbo? I forget, if it was told? I know it was told how Mal broke out, but I forget that, too. I suppose if Mal and Cobb were only in limbo for a few weeks of their real life, no brain melt would be necessary. Of course, water would be.

If someone spends 50 years in limbo, how long is that in real time? There must be some Inception Dream Time Calculator up on the internet somewhere, no?

[mousepod]

Initially, Mal and Cobb broke out of limbo by committing suicide by train, if I remember correctly. The same train that plows through the city in Fischer's dream.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm not the only one who love's Page's line, "So who's subconscious are we in now?"

Yeah, if Arthur is the dreamer of the hotel level, then his absence in the On Her Majesty's Secret Service level means that the dreamer doesn't need to be in the dream.

Of course, since the hotel level was a dream of Fischer, aren't all subsequent levels his dream regardless?


And wait a minute, Arthur is not the dreamer of the hotel level, is he? Ok, I need a chart!

[innerSpaceman]

Initially, Mal and Cobb broke out of limbo by committing suicide by train, if I remember correctly. The same train that plows through the city in Fischer's dream.
Ah, thanks.

So is that "incantation" she says before being train-killed later repeated by "her" as a trigger to wake people up?


I can't afford to see the film again. When does it come out on DVD?

[Alex]

Good point. I completely forgot about that. So the absence of Cobb from any scene isn't a plot hole at all. Nice.

True, but then the absence of the dreamer from a particular scene becomes the new plothole. For example, in the snow level, action is shown taking place in at least three distinct locations at the same time. No one person was present for everything shown.

I'm fairly certain that they present Miles as Mal's father, not Cobb's. Perhaps he's the one who is trying to get Cobb to admit that he performed inception on his daughter.

That's possible, I thought he was Cobb's father but may have missed/forgot something. Steve, since you've seen it twice do you recall anything explicit one way or the other?


What if Mal isn't dead, but in some kind of permanent dream state? If she was the dreamer, that might explain why Cobb uses her totem - and why her "secret" was the totem itself.

Agreed, completely possible truth. But not one, I think, with any evidence in the movie itself.

It was said that if you spent an inordinate of time in limbo, your brain would melt. I guess they were talking about real time as opposed to limbo time, but both Cobb and Saito spent lifetimes in limbo without any brain-melt on return to "reality."

They also spent times in constructed realities within Limbo. It was said that Limbo was unconstructed empty dreamspace or whatever you yourself created in it. I took melting to meant that you'd go crazy from a near-eterinity in sensory deprivation.

How, in fact, did Cobb escape from Limbo? I forget, if it was told?

The first time? He put his head down on the train tracks with Mal. The second time, if he did escape, presumably he and Saito killed themselves.

I suppose if Mal and Cobb were only in limbo for a few weeks of their real life, no brain melt would be necessary.

Presumably they were in limbo for only a few hours at most in real time. During the limbo explanation it was shown several times that they were lying on their living room floor (same house as he returns to at the end) dreaming. Presumably somebody would have found them and awoken them if they'd been out for much longer than that (having kids and all).

[Alex]

My understanding is the levels were:

Yusef is dreaming the city streets level. This is why he has to stay behind when they go deeper (otherwise nobody would be awake in that level for the kick).

Arthur is dreaming the hotel level. This is why he has to stay behind when they go deeper (otherwise nobody would be awake in that level for the kick). And this, I think creates, a problem if Arthur is also the dreamer of the "reality" level.

Eames is dreaming the snow level (which is why he is the only living team member on that level by the time of the kick, Cobb and Ariadne having gone deeper into Limbo and Saito and Fischer both having died into Limbo).

Everybody in Limbo is independently dreaming of Limbo but it is apparently a shared spiritual plane so all limbos are somehow connected (so Cobb was able to get from his part of Limbo to Saito's at the end).

[innerSpaceman]

True, but then the absence of the dreamer from a particular scene becomes the new plothole. For example, in the snow level, action is shown taking place in at least three distinct locations at the same time. No one person was present for everything shown.
How is this a new plothole? I thought we solved a slew of plotholes by positing that dreamers needn't be present in all scenes of their own dreams. As you point out, this was clearly true of the snow level - so it's set up as the film's own internal logic - - and thus my theory of Cobb as the dreamer of the entire shibang holds water. Heck, even mousepod's theory of Mal as the dreamer works in this scenario.

That's possible, I thought he was Cobb's father but may have missed/forgot something. Steve, since you've seen it twice do you recall anything explicit one way or the other?
Ha! Haven't you realized yet that, though I've seen it twice, I'm not retaining as many details as people who barely sat through the trailer?

But, no, I don't recall any dialogue one way or the other, just that the relationship didn't seem like father-son to me.




They also spent times in constructed realities within Limbo. It was said that Limbo was unconstructed empty dreamspace or whatever you yourself created in it. I took melting to meant that you'd go crazy from a near-eterinity in sensory deprivation.
So where is this sensory-deprivation limbo and how do you get there? Certainly Mal and Cobb's 50-years-together limbo was not this limbo then. And the "limbo" that Cobb rescued Saito from was not a limbo either. Why did he need rescuing? It was clearly told that Saito would be doomed to limbo if he died so deep in dream levels ... but that's not what happened at all. He lived a full life in familiar surroundings. I call shenanigans!



Presumably they were in limbo for only a few hours at most in real time. During the limbo explanation it was shown several times that they were lying on their living room floor (same house as he returns to at the end) dreaming. Presumably somebody would have found them and awoken them if they'd been out for much longer than that (having kids and all).Ah, 'natch. I still want an internet Inception Dream Time Calculator though. :cool:

[innerSpaceman]

And I'm not sure I agree with your understanding of who's dreaming at what levels. Certainly we know who the caretakers are, but I don't think that has any relation to who's dreaming - - though even Page's brilliant Architect character seems to have been confused on that score.

The first level - the rainy street level is Fischer's dream. That's the whole point. The team can enter his dream, but he is the dreamer. They design the maze and invade it.

Putting aside the fact, then, that all subsequent levels are still Fischer's dream - I believe it's explicit that he's also the dreamer of the snow level, but I'm not sure who's the dreamer of the hotel level.


I don't know why I like this movie; I HATE videogames. :D


But since Yousef is the caretaker of the dreamers IN Fischer's dream of the rain level, it's clear the caretaker and the dreamer are not necessarily related. Arthur does not have to be the dreamer of the hotel level simply because he then becomes the caretaker there.

Lukas Haas, the earlier architect, was not the dreamer of any levels he was caretaker in. It was somebody's dream within Seito's dream, but not Lukas's.

Oh Christ, now I'm even confusing myself. :rolleyes:

[Alex]

No, the dream is hosted and constructed and the target fills it with his subconscious. You'll recall that when they get into the city streets dream that it is raining and they say this is because Yusef forgot to pee before going under. That's because it is his dream.

And Lukas Haas was the dreamer of the African apartment dream, from which Cobb dreamed them down to the second level of Saito's villa where they broke into his safe. When they awaken from that into the apartment Saito figures out it is still a dream because of the carpet and assumes that it is his dream and therefore he can control things and Cobb informs him, nope, they're in Haas's dream.

I'm pretty sure there was dialog establishing who was dreaming each level, but I could be wrong. I haven't seen any of the various guides popping up dispute my list, though.

[Alex]

How is this a new plothole? I thought we solved a slew of plotholes by positing that dreamers needn't be present in all scenes of their own dreams.

It's not. My point was just that if there is an assumption that the dreamer must be present for what is dreamed then it just shifts the plothole from explaining why Cobb isn't in each scene to explaining why someone (or a desginated gruop of someone's) isn't in each scene.

If you don't assume the dreamer has to be physically present then there is no issue.

[innerSpaceman]

Ah gotcha, this makes much more sense. So they somehow use the tech to get the mark into the dream of someone else. That explains a lot.

But does that mean the dreamer can't proceed to the next level and has to be the one "awake" and thus caretaker for any further levels? If so ... why?



Get me Chris Nolan on the phone!


Need to see it again.

[Alex]

Not sure if it is absolutely required that the dreamer of Level A not go to Level B but with the rules presented it would make sense that you'd probably not want to do that if you can avoid it.

As an example, even though Fischer's consciousness was on Level 3 (and then Limbo 4) his protective projections were still going after Yusef on Level 1 and Arthur on Level 2. If Yusef and Arthur had advanced down the levels with everybody else it would leave behind a group of deeply unconscious people to be slaughtered (under normal circumstances that would just interupt the mission, under these circumstances send everybdy to limbo).

And even though they didn't know Fischer had defensive training, they still knew they'd need to leave someone behind because the sedative required a simultaneous kick at each level and so someone needed to be there to coordinate it.

As for why it has to be the dreamer who stays behind, I don't think this is addressed specifically but the logic I see is: if the architecture for the level is in the mind of the dreamer, what happens to that architecture if the dreamer becomes unconscious to that level when he goes down one more. It doesn't seem illogical that it would either disappear completely making the next level down now Level 1 or it would become otherwise distorted beyond comprehension.

[innerSpaceman]

But the architecture of the dream is not determined by the dreamer; it's determined by the architect in each and every level, no matter who the designated dreamer is. But i can kinda see the fuzzy logic of sorta common sensical that the designated dreamer of one level stays at that level so it retains some sort of squishy consistency.

Of course, any level seems always to be majorly affected by what's going on in the level above (i.e, zero gravity in the hotel level while the van falls off the bridge in the rain level) - so I'm not sure how much effect the designated dreamer is having.

But maybe their level retains the consistency of jello instead of disintegrating into breadcrumbs if they stay there and don't go further down the rabbit hole.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I don't remember my own dreams very often, or in great detail. Do people have dreams in which they are not a character, or in which they are missing from some scenes that feature other people??

I have "observer" dreams frequently. I don't seem to be any of the characters.

On that note, another resonant concept - in fact, the underpinning of the entire move - is that there are dreams within dreams. I daresay most of us have experienced that. I know I have.

Yeah. It's kind of cool to wake up and then wake up again. :)

I need to see this movie. :)

[Alex]

But the architecture of the dream is not determined by the dreamer;

Yeah, this is the fuzziness I have trouble incorporating. We are shown absolutely nothing about how this happens. How people are put into a shared dream state, how an architecture is imposed on that state (is it something technical or did Ariadne just show each dreamer all the details of a map and since they were constantly dreaming they could use it). How much of what we see was actually fully fleshed out by the architect, how much comes from the dreamer, and how much comes from the other consciousnesses in the dream. Why does only only one person seem to have projections in the dream when their are other "foreigners" in the dream as well? Is it just that they've trained themselves to keep their subconscious out? In the dream with Ariadne when she makes the mirrors, why did Cobb's projections only attack when she tweaked things even though Cobb was entirely aware the whole time that it was just a dream (in other words, what changed that triggered his subconscious to attack)?

Also, since it is shown in that dream that Ariadne can physically change the dream world ad hoc and in situ, why didn't she do this even a little bit at key moments in the movie. Make a medical kit appear for treating Saito, create a tunnel that would lead directly to the safe in the snow level.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, the plot holes are getting wider. They could have solved that by saying it's harder to change on the fly the deeper levels you go. I hate when holes can be fixed by a line of script, but no one bothers.

At least it was somewhat clear that no one person controls the dream. In the rain world, Cobb's freight train rudely interrupted. He was not supposed to contribute his brutish two cents. But, yeah, it was never explained why you can change things in a practice dream, but not in the real thing. In fact, for all her brilliance in practice, she kinda sucked when it came time to play in the show.

[Alex]

They did explain that her shifting things around made the dream less stable and that at each level down the instability would be greater (which is why a special sedative was needed).

But still, when the situation was so completely dire at the end I don't see what the downside would have been.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, especially since all they had to do to solve that question, and have a payoff for her character was to have her create that special tunnel there and then, instead of explaining it was there in her design all along.

Maybe she was just being modest, but that doesn't help the audience root for her, or feel she was worthy as our surrogate for the entire frelling film.



Where's that call from Chris Nolan? I need to have a word with him.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

The movie works for me regardless of its interpretation, which is part of what makes it a success, I think. That said, my favorite interpretation (http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html)(and one that validates the film as a dream from beginning to end, with good reason and without losing any of the characters' significance) is penned by Devin at CHUD.

[mousepod]

I like Devin's interpretation.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, I'm also diggin' the emerging school of thought that extends the film to allegories of Nolan's life and his filmmaking art, and filmmaking in general, and filmmaking as the modern shared dream. This is another great level of thought and discussion inspired by this wonderful film, and I love how a film about dreams within dreams spurs level upon level of interestingness.

[Alex]

I still find it unsatisfactory. So the whole movie is actually a natural (unconstructed) dream being had by Cobb as a result of some guilt he's feeling over the ending (by death or otherwise) of his relationship with Mal?

That may be the intended meaning from Nolan, but if so I like the movie a lot less, not a lot more.

I don't see how the characters don't lose significance if they're all just "projections" (though the definition of projections as we've been made to understand them by the movie should now be ignored).

And if all this anguish over Mal isn't due to him actually thinking he caused her death (though how would be a complete mystery since the explanation given is entirely fictitious under this interpretation) and simply because their marriage ended then he shifts from tortured to pathetic in my view, especially since we have no idea why it ended to have any sense of the validity of his self pity.

Of course it doesn't help that I and the author of that apparently disagree on a key underlying point: "...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..." I've no doubt that writer believes that (and Nolan may also believe it), but to me it is utter bull****.

[innerSpaceman]

The silly simplisticness of his whole overwhelming Mal guilt trip is only palatable to me as a dream construct. To extent that would be the real psychology of a real character would have turned me off. It's really quite dumb.

In the context of a dream, it plays wonderfully.

I understand how you can see it that way, Alex. But it's absolutely contrarily the more the whole thing's a dream, the more i love the movie.



Let's just each have it be the way that pleases us most.

[wendybeth]

If the movie was just a dream, from beginning to end, then nothing the characters do or say can be taken as truth. If the rules really aren't the rules but rather constructs to further the allegory for the filmmaker (going by Devin's interpretation), then the whole thing was a pretty waste of time for me. It's just one very long Mobius-styled vanity piece. I think I'd almost rather believe it full of plot holes than follow Devin's mode of thought- while it has indeed stirred much debate, my interest is rapidly waning and I even feel a bit cranky about the whole thing- Leo D is not my favorite actor, and the special effects were not enough to make it worthwhile viewing.

[innerSpaceman]

Then don't think of it as a dream. It's that simple. There's nothing in the movie that authoritatively says it's all a dream. Taken at its face value, it's nothing of the sort. If that interpretation displeases you, don't interpret it that way.

[Alex]

Absolutely, I hope (though I've probably failed) that my responses don't come across as me attempting to talk people out of their preferred interpretation of the movie (unless it is based on something demonstrably false).

But I do like talking about how I respond emotionally to interpretations different than mine or what I see as the implications of a particular interpretation.

If instead I'm coming across as browbeating I apologize and will try to rein it in.

[mousepod]

Absolutely, I hope (though I've probably failed) that my responses don't come across as me attempting to talk people out of their preferred interpretation of the movie (unless it is based on something demonstrably false).

But I do like talking about how I respond emotionally to interpretations different than mine or what I see as the implications of a particular interpretation.

If instead I'm coming across as browbeating I apologize and will try to rein it in.

You have strong opinions and you back them up. When my opinion differs with yours, it forces me to examine my argument or concede. I appreciate the way you present yourself here.

(Even though you're wrong about Inception.)

[Alex]

It is good, though, that we can have wildly divergent interpretations of the film and still both feel that it is a very good movie.

Also, I need to rewatch Last Tango in Paris so I can revive my argument that the events in that movie are also all delusional.

[wendybeth]

Then don't think of it as a dream. It's that simple. There's nothing in the movie that authoritatively says it's all a dream. Taken at its face value, it's nothing of the sort. If that interpretation displeases you, don't interpret it that way.

Lol- it doesn't displease me- I thought the whole movie was a dream already. I just was racking my brains to figure out the 'whodunit' aspect, and had something of a answer that worked for me. Then I read Audra's link, and that made a whole lot more sense. I suppose it irritated me in that most people, as movie-making outsiders, would not come to that conclusion and would be left twisting in the wind so to speak. Still, after thinking about it, I decided I liked the movie after all. A few things- I mentioned the mobius strip state of this movie, and then I got to thinking- I'm not trained musically, but would the two notes played from the Piaf song be considered a dyad? From Wiki:The Möbius strip is the configuration space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_space) of two unordered points on a circle. Consequently, in music theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory), the space of all two note chords, known as dyads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyad_%28music%29), takes the shape of a Möbius strip; this and generalizations to more points is a significant application of orbifolds to music theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbifold#Music_theory). Also, it may have already been stated here, but the actress who played Mal is also the actress who played Piaf in the biography 'La Vie en Rose'.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Ours is a house divided when it comes to Inception. Though I suspect neither of us like it as much as you all seem to. I think it's certainly compelling on a storytelling level, but the characters took a back seat to plot, and to me, that's something that could have been easily fixed and would have improved the film overall.

When it comes to the is-it-or-isn't-it-a-dream discussion, the answer seems abundantly clear to me. The children are the same age, in the same position, wearing the same clothes as in his dream... years after he last saw them. What he's seeing is not reality, just what he allows himself to see when he thinks it's reality.

[Alex]

Has anybody seen it established with certainty whether the kids shown at the end really are the same kids shown in the explicitly dream part of the movie?

The credits for the movie list two sets of kids, about 18 months apart from each other in age.

Some say the young ones were in the dreams and the old ones were in the last scene (though wearing the same clothes and same set up as the dream, but that is also a common Hollywood trope). In which case they did age and just not very obviously and so isn't evidence either way (he could certainly dream them as having aged). Nothing in the movie though said how long Cobb had been in the run so it need not have been "years".

Others I've read online have said that the older ones were actually the voices on the phone when he talked to them while the younger ones appear in both the dreams and the last scene. This would be compelling evidence that the last scene is a dream but contrary evidence that the phone call scene is a dream (since why would he fail to dream them at older ages in one place but do it in another).

But I haven't seen any formal documentation of where the actual various actors were used.

[innerSpaceman]

Either way, it just implies that the last scene is a dream, which the movie clearly presents as an open question.

Whether the Entire Film is a dream is another issue entirely, and the film is not explicit about that at all.


I agree with LSPE that the characters were cyphers, but that's just another "flaw" (along with the gaping plot holes) that I patch-up nicely with my it's-all-a-dream theory.


But yeah, it would have been a stronger film with stronger characters. That's gonna be pretty hard to do with Leo DiCaprio in the lead. And, despite the lack of strong characters, there was a pretty stellar cast in this film - - so I guess it was the script that had them all so shadow-depth.

[Alex]

I don't see how either way it implies a dream. If the kids were older in the last scene it doesn't imply a dream, it merely doesn't rule it out (since you could still say DiCaprio just dreamed his children older as appropriate.

As for depth of character, this is a heist movie. They almost never have any depth of character beyond, at most, a single lead and many great heist movies don't even have that.

[Prudence]

I have mixed feelings about this film. So. Many. Holes. The only way I can reconcile it to myself is see it as being like a dream. Not a dream itself, because that starts the whole whose dreaming debate, and makes me cranky. But like a dream, the storyline holds together as long as you don't think about it.

The biggest plot hole for me was at the end. If the target was trained to repel extraction attempts, he be familiar with the concept of other people in the dreams. Shouldn't he have recognized the other people in the compartment with him when he awoke? And realized what happened? Plus, every time they needed tofix a warp core breach accommodate a plot development, such as explaining why suddenly people are in *real* danger while in the dream, the was suddenly some sort of jarringly introduced twist.

Anyhow, these are the sort of things that make me thing it was dreamlike - logical in the dreamworld, but falling apart in the light of day - but not an actual dream.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

As for depth of character, this is a heist movie. They almost never have any depth of character beyond, at most, a single lead and many great heist movies don't even have that.

Ocean's 11 had more character depth. Ocean's 11. If you pin a whole movie on the single lead endangering everyone because of his obsession with his dead wife, you ought to make us care about who's in danger. All we know about them is what their jobs are; I didn't even notice particularly different voices among them.

Man, and I was the half of the couple who likes the film, heh. I DO love the film's structure especially. Fantastically creative and unique; I liked feeling like I was in a dream myself. In fact, twice during the movie I caught myself thinking, "man, this is the best dream about a dream ever."

[innerSpaceman]

I found the characters likeable, but I didn't give damn about them. In truth, not many film characters go beyond 'likeable' to me, so this wasn't a huge detriment. But I did notice that, despite the stellar cast, I wasn't involved with the characters at all and never felt any jeopardy or suspense - simply interest.


But since the interest was so intense, I give Inception far higher marks than many a film where I feel jeopardy and suspense, but little interest.

[keith - SuPeR K!]

Uncle Scrooge in Inception (http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/show.php?num=1&loc=D2002-033&s=date)

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Has anybody seen it established with certainty whether the kids shown at the end really are the same kids shown in the explicitly dream part of the movie?

The credits for the movie list two sets of kids, about 18 months apart from each other in age.


Actually, there is an article about a costume designer interview where he mentions that the kids are both older than the ones shown earlier and are wearing different clothes.

http://io9.com/5602799/did-inceptions-costume-designer-just-give-away-the-secret-of-the-movies-ending

[Alex]

Thanks for that. Well that takes care of one fact offered by some as definitive evidence that the last scene was still a dream. It could still be a dream but that isn't evidence of it.

[innerSpaceman]

No effect on my interpretation. I never noticed one way or the other whether the kids were older or dressed differently. In fact, I attributed them starting off in the same positions as being a cinematic decision of cool staging rather than a "clue."

Still a dream. :p

[Alex]

Yep, short of Nolan saying concretely what his intent was there's no way to prove something isn't a dream. But if you're reading the various sites discussing this you'll find a lot of people saying that because the kids had not aged in the last scene and were wearing the exact same clothes it is proof positive that it was a dream.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh yeah, I've been seeing that all over the place, and love that it's been shot down. If anyone wants proof positive of something, I think they're looking in the wrong movie.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Our anniversary gift to ourselves was Inception.

I liked it a lot, but didn't love it. So much to say. I've read most of the thread, I'll try to keep things brief.

1) Regarding dream vs. not dream, I have no doubt that Nolan purposely made it interpretable. I choose to interpret it as NOT a dream at base level because I find it more interesting to ponder in that context. Unfortunately that interpretation doesn't allow me to ignore some of the plot holes, but I'm still more intrigued by the non-dream version WITH plot holes than the dream version wtihout.

2) Like everyone, I've spent a lot of time mulling over the recurring shot in which Cobb can't see his childrens' face. It was CLEARLY intended to be the single most dream-like sequence in the entire film, putting aside the blatant out-of-whack physics scenes. And clearly intended to be the single biggest "clue" pointing to the whole thing being a dream. However, what I've just come up with is this: Like the people in Yousef's basement, Cobb has spent too much time under and therefore can no longer dream without the technology (as he explicitly stated). And, as the weird old guy assisting Yousef said, for such people the dreaming IS their reality, real life becomes unreal. Thus, Cobb's real life memories have become like his dreams and vice versa. BOOM!

3) The main thing that's keeping me from really loving this movie is pace. Specifically, after all the setup about the time shift that happens between levels, I intensely disliked the payoff. I understand that, because of the unexpected variable of Scarecrow's security things got hurried from level 1 on, but even so, while according to the setup each level should have felt slower and less hurried than the last, the exact opposite was true. It became more and more frantic each level down. I understand WHY, and understand that it was because of the sudden need for speed due to the unforeseen, and understand that by showing the van falling in super slow motion was supposed to illustrate the time shift, but it just didn't work for me. I would have like to see Nolan figure out a way to actually slow the pace down at each level while still communicating the urgency. Not that I have the answer for how to do it, but that's the element that was missing for me.

4. While I choose not to look at it as being a dream from the beginning, I AM willing to fall on the side of it being a dream by the end. My biggest clue for that...limbo turned out to be so easy to solve apparently. I mean, it was set up as the worst of all possible fates...but eh, Cobb just kinda went in and saved both the Scarecrow and Saito. I mean, they tried to make it look like he had struggled and worn himself out, but so what? He still did it, and they didn't SHOW much struggle. Which makes me think...he didn't actually do it. He just convinced himself he did, meanwhile he's still stuck deep down, and possibly happier for it.

5. Possibly explained away with the above, but I was bugged by the lose definitions of how to get in an out of limbo. Like, when was it established that you could either die...or just kinda go one more level down? Seems like an odd pair of methods. Why is 4 levels enough to get to limbo? And why, if dying in the "normal" dream was so dangerous because of the sedation, why was dying for Scarecrow and Juno okay in limbo?



There's something about the way Nolan handles the maze-like complexities in both Inception and Dark Knight doesn't click with me. I think the best I can summarize it as is that he puts too much into the cleverness and not enough into the execution, pacing, and storytelling. I appreciate the cleverness but find myself wishing it were presented differently.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Quick hit - good film, enjoyed greatly. Full of holes but that's the way it goes. I love a film that demands your whole brain and every ounce of your attention. iSm mentioned On Her Majesty's Secret Service - I was already thinking this was a great Bond film with all the travel and intrigue, especially in Mumbai, and when they showed up at Hoth world I almost laughed out loud in glee. (Special thanks to the Bond thread, I think.)

The film started a little too quickly but as GD pointed out to me, one could tie that in to the dream-like feel (you never know how you got there). On the other hand, it seems that all the "hey this might not be great filmmaking" comments get answered with "it's like that in dreams".

BTW I shy away from the all-a-dream interpretation for reasons similar to Alex's. I am sure that the film was designed to evoke this and leaves it up to you to "believe" in it or not...I choose not to.

If they had invested just a few extra minutes here and there with certain dropped details, it would have been much more engaging. For instance, when Ariadne rips Cobb apart for his issues, I felt they hadn't sufficiently indicated that she was now so well-versed in all this dream stuff that she could take him to task. When Cobb is trying to remember what he came to Limbo to do for Saito it just isn't enough to sell me on "keeping your head in Limbo is hard." There were a bunch of these moments.

Quite a few important lines of dialog were rushed and hard to hear over music and background sound - unsure if that was our print (I'm never seeing an action/visual heavy film in old-school projection again) or poor editing, though Dark Knight seemed to have similar issues.

I enjoyed all the acting (I don't have a Leo grudge) and felt empathetic to all the characters. When Saito was shot I was surprised how much I cared.

I'm still puzzling out the Limbo issues. There are many. More on that later.

In the dream with Ariadne when she makes the mirrors, why did Cobb's projections only attack when she tweaked things even though Cobb was entirely aware the whole time that it was just a dream (in other words, what changed that triggered his subconscious to attack)?
My interpretation is that the subconscious is supposed to be very separated from the conscious Cobb. As Cobb can't tap into or control his subconscious mind, the subconscious can't control or tap into the conscious either. The projections exist only in the realm of the dream (whether constructed by the dreamer or an architect) and no alarm bells go off until the dream's fabric is tampered with.

Also, since it is shown in that dream that Ariadne can physically change the dream world ad hoc and in situ, why didn't she do this even a little bit at key moments in the movie. Make a medical kit appear for treating Saito, create a tunnel that would lead directly to the safe in the snow level.I thought of this after the "dream big" line where one of the guys pulls out a humongous gun. If you can dream any weapon you want, it kind of unravels a lot of things. These movies always have huge plotholes like this once characters are given some measure of god-like powers. I accept that even though it does bug in the days following the viewing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And another thing...

The whole "totem" thing is very much full of holes. It was explained that, since no one touched it, no one could know how it feels. How does that translate into the spinning/lack of spinning thing? The idea whole point is that, in the scenario you're trying to guard against, you aren't the one dreaming. You're the "target" and have been unknowingly inserted into someone else's architected dream. So, since it's not your dream, you can't control the physics, how exactly is the top supposed to stay spinning in the dream? The person doing the dreaming isn't supposed to know about your totem, so they can't make it still spin. Does not compute.

Nevermind that the whole totem thing calls a lot more into question. I mean, forget holding a certain little object, if a trained dreamer can be aware enough to notice that subtle of a difference, then I could be aware enough to realize that, say, whoever is doing the dreaming doesn't know the specifics of my penis. I'd notice pretty quickly if things weren't hanging right, I wouldn't need anything ELSE in my pocket.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, there was that day I was hanging to the left ALL DAY, and tweeted about it constantly, and it bugged me, and it wouldn't stop ... but it wasn't a dream.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Upon further reflection I suppose it could be argue that one's own body sense is produced by your own mind, even within someone else's dream, so that could be considered an unreliable cue.

However the point regarding the spinning top still stands.

[Alex]

Yeah, the forever spinning thing is hard to explain under the rules given. The architect remembered to make it a part of the dream that a truck driven off a bridge falls into the river, how hard is it to automatically apply other rules of physics somewhat automatically.

That said, there had to have been some unique aspect to Cobb's top otherwise anybody who knew he had a top as his totem would be able to replicate it easy enough. So it shouldn't have been that it fell or didn't but that it fell in some unique way.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Agreed on the issues with the top. Why not pick something that makes more sense?

I went back and read the article EH linked to. I really dug the filmmaking parallels.

[mousepod]

Except that the top wasn't his. It was Mal's. Why, if someone has to have something that's unique your own, would he take someone else's totem. And why was that totem her "secret" that she locked up in her safe?

[Alex]

Because she's dead so it is all his own.

Because her mind was shut down to the fact that she was in a dream. So Cobb broke through that barrier and set the top spinning forcing her to confront the reality of the situation and thus was finally able to convince her that they needed to die to escape back to reality.

But having that top spinning so deeply in her subconscious stuck, the act of inception that eventually lead to her really killing herself.

[innerSpaceman]

I dig that ... except that, as someone or perhaps that article pointed out, the "memory" flashback of Mal's suicide is one of the most dreamlike sequences in the film - for reasons that didn't at first occur to me (dreamy of me), but when pointed out, I cannot take for reality at all (waking life logic). So I don't think she killed herself, I don't know if she's the dreamer of the whole damn thing, I don't know if she even exists.

And I don't care. Nothing about the story has to be "real" to me for me to care. A story isn't real ever.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I dig that ... except that, as someone or perhaps that article pointed out, the "memory" flashback of Mal's suicide is one of the most dreamlike sequences in the film - Ah, that once again fits perfectly into my take, that the dreamiest parts of the movie are Cobb's real memories, due to his dependence on the dreaming. (I did spend that whole scene thinking, "How the fvck did she get to the ledge ACROSS the alley?!")

And I'm not saying the, "it's all a dream" interpretation is invalid. Heck, after reading the movie-making analogy I'm pretty well convinced. But I'm still finding it more interesting to ponder as not-a-dream. Doing so has even lead to some things that contribute to the it is a dream side of things (such as examining the totem concept in detail).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Because she's dead so it is all his own.

Because her mind was shut down to the fact that she was in a dream. So Cobb broke through that barrier and set the top spinning forcing her to confront the reality of the situation and thus was finally able to convince her that they needed to die to escape back to reality.

But having that top spinning so deeply in her subconscious stuck, the act of inception that eventually lead to her really killing herself.Thank you for this, it makes sense.

Ok, so Limbo. Some of this was mentioned above but not delved into very much...

We are told that you spend too much time in Limbo, your brain is mush. How much is too much? I know the time slows so much so that even though it's 50 of Cobb's years it was only a short while out here. So, they're saying you have to be asleep IRL for a long time? How long can someone sleep? What if you wake up normally? Are you unable to wake up normally, like you're in a coma? How about if you wake normally, say after a very long sleep of 15 hours. Would that be enough to mush your brains? I mean, eventually, someone would wake you up, and most likely, it wouldn't be any longer than that.

Is Limbo always 4 levels down? Cobb and Ariadne simply sleep another level down to get there, right? How does this tie into the "whose dream is this" question? They seem to be inside Cobb's version of Limbo. I'm trying to remember how Cobb gets to Saito. I'm thinking he just kind of looks for him and finds his corner of Limbo. It's not like he left and came back, right? So perhaps Limbo is one place with many personalized corners, which could make it very hard to find someone.



Again, I was disappointed that they didn't make it seem harder for them to save people from Limbo. When they first get in and have the discussion about how the drugs change the rules, they impressed on me how horrifyingly dangerous the whole thing was. Too bad they weren't able to make good on that.

[Alex]

The time scaling was exponential for each layer but I don't remember the numbers given. I know it was 5 minutes of reality is an hour of level 1 and I believe they said that the 10 hour plane ride would be decades on level 3 (but don't worry, they won't be there for the 10 hours).

But I don't believe an actual scale for Limbo was ever given. The brain problems I believe were tied to the fact that you'd be there a very long time in isolation, the space would possibly be unconstructed nothingness (total sensory deprivation) or whatever you made of it, and worse you quite possibly wouldn't even know that you were in limbo.

It wasn't explained in any detail how Cobb and Mal had made it to Limbo the first time just that they were playing with going deep. They were shown sleeping on their living room floor with no means of nourishment or care so they can't have expected to be under long, it just ended up being decades in Limbo. As for whether it is always Level 4 i'd guess it must be because Ariadne and Cobb certainly knew that was where they'd go when they went one level down from the Snow Fortress level (though why that level had dreaming equipment would be a mystery, unless she made it up out of whole cloth).

Yes, Limbo seems to be a shared space that exists even when nobody is in it (Fischer ended up in Cobb's constructed area of Limbo before Cobb was back there) and Saito constructed in own part of it. It isn't explained how Cobb got there, just that it was apparently arduous.

The really dangerous part of Limbo seems to be that you don't necessarily know that you're in Limbo and so aren't trying to get out. Cobb and Mal didn't know they were there and when Cobb eventually figured it out after decades from his point of view, he has to completely subvert Mal's subconscious to get her to leave. Saito didn't know where he was and it required Cobb finding him and reminding him. Cobb had been there before so it makes sense that perhaps he'd be psychically prepared for dealing with it.

I don't believe the movie ever makes it clear whether Fischer knew where he was. That leaves just Ariadne that had an easy time of it. It could be argued that this was a combination of having intentionally sent herself to Limbo and having Cobb there from the very beginning explaining where they were.

[innerSpaceman]

It could also be (and this barely detracts from my liking of the movie) that for some reason nobody gives a damn that anything makes sense in a script for a 10-year-genesis, 200 million dollar movie project.

If Inception were the only mega-million-dollar movie that made NO SENSE when analyzed by a five-year-old with austism, I'd be very disappointed. But at least it's complex, whereas most movies that fall apart upon a moment's reflection aren't very complicated at all.


I'll never understand why there's someone to deal with continuity problems (and they always miss a ton), but apparently no one to deal with plot holes and script logic.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm sure there is, but there's also someone saying, "I know it doesn't make sense, but the scene that explains things so that they do make sense is a really boring scene, so screw it, we're just going to have to be okay with that not making sense."

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, then they're not doing their job. The job is to relay all necessary information in a way that's entertaining. Especially since, oh, 1983 or so when movies are not seen once in theaters, but OWNED by consumers to watch in perpetuity whenever they feel like.


Anyway, my point is you can analyze Inception to death, but the things that don't make sense most likely really Don't Make Sense.


I'm not going with It's All a Dream just to cover the plot holes and logic inconsistencies. That's really the feeling I get about the movie. That, for once in the history of cinema, plot holes and logic problems can be dealt with by the way I truly interpret a film is just a super-rare and enjoyable bonus.

[Alex]

And Nolan certainly shows he's willing to not explain every little detail so it is possible that things slip through where since he knows exactly what underlies everything the logic of certain things seems obvious, forgetting we don't have the same certainty.

But fanwanking is a sign of how well something is liked. When the movie isn't liked everybody just says "well that's stupid and doesn't make any sense." When it is much like then the same people (me included) say "well that doesn't make any sense, how can I duct tape it back together."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Speaking of not liking the movie, almost forgot about my favorite part of the movie going experience.

Part way into the movie, somewhere towards the end of Juno's Matrix training, I heard the guy sitting down the row from us, who had been leaning forward seemingly paying close attention for much of the film thus far, lean back and say in a heavy Israeli accent, "What is this movie?". Not long after, I believe it was when they were going over the model of the levels, he piped up again. "This is a stupid movie."

When the credits roll we were all treated to another, "This was as stupid movie."

I found that very entertaining for some reason.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

But fanwanking is a sign of how well something is liked. Agreed. I'm only bringing this stuff up because I really liked it. It's fun to discuss and I'm sure I missed or forgot quite a few things.

As I said to GD on the way back to the car, if I were a teen I'd see it again in a week, and possibly a third time after that.

The brain problems I believe were tied to the fact that you'd be there a very long time in isolation, the space would possibly be unconstructed nothingness (total sensory deprivation) or whatever you made of it, and worse you quite possibly wouldn't even know that you were in limbo.It makes sense then that Mal and Cobb, having each other, could have survived it.

(though why that level had dreaming equipment would be a mystery, unless she made it up out of whole cloth).Yes, which is fine. They had to make Fischer's dad reconciliation moment on the fly as they figured him out.

That leaves just Ariadne that had an easy time of it. It could be argued that this was a combination of having intentionally sent herself to Limbo and having Cobb there from the very beginning explaining where they were.Reasonable enough.

When the credits roll we were all treated to another, "This was a stupid movie."
He stood and announced this loudly, as if he could either convince the rest of us or at least solicit pity for his wasted time. Too funny. Reminds me of my dad's fav Israeli cultural points of comparison from the 70's....Star Wars and Superman were flops there, but Rocky was a runaway hit. They don't care much for dream worlds, but a hard-working man is the ultimate.

[Ghoulish Delight]

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

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, sorry, but if I didn't really feel the whole movie was a dream, I'd have to HATE it for that point alone.

It's so unbelievably stupid, it ranks with some of the plot holes in Star Trek (a film I also like against all, well, can't say "logic" when talking about Star Trek)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Yeah, sorry, but if I didn't really feel the whole movie was a dream, I'd have to HATE it for that point alone.I totally disagree. It's a movie.



(Which, come to think of it, is just about the same thing as saying "it's a dream".)

[Alex]

I don't see why that is considered a stupid plot point.

We don't know who has custody of his children. It seems obvious it isn't Michael Caine since he lives and works in France while the kids still live in America. So if whoever has the kids doesn't want them taken to France, that would be kidnapping.

And if DiCaprio wanted his kids mixed up in his life on the lam he could have just taken them with him to begin with.

[innerSpaceman]

He waltzes in there pretty easily at the end. If there was a custody issue, I think the film portrayed it precisely opposite.


I agree with CP that movies are like dreams. The stories aren't (unless adapting from life) "real" and so I usually forgive some logic lapses for the sake of story.

In this case, however, as I've said before, it's the main character's entire motivation. I expect it to have less of a gaping, wounded hole. In fact, it's such an obvious and distracting hole, the film should have explained if there was some custody or other issue preventing the children from traveling. Half a line of dialogue. No excuse.


In most movies, I'd have to just grit my teeth. In this one, I can use dream logic and all is fine.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

When he talked to the kids on the phone, Grandma didn't want to talk to him. It may not be much, but I think it's an indication that she does not like him, either because she actually thinks he's a murderer or just disapproves of his current lifestyle (the way Michael Caine does).

If that's the case, then getting into the U.S. doesn't help him much, since Grandma would still not want him to see the kids.

[MouseWife]

True points about the kids. I think, what we weren't privey to see is that the guy he made the deal with, that was all a part of it. He would do what he asked and he would be cleared of all charges and be able to return to the US/his kids.

I love this conversation! I only wish I could remember names better. :blush:

CP~ Yeah, if I were a teen {whose money could be blown on seeing movies over and over} I would see it again. Since I'm not, I'll have to wait for the blu-ray.

I did feel that it started slowly, but, they were laying the foundation for the movie. AND I am glad they did. Kind of hard to jump right into a movie full on and be able to grasp it fully. Kind of like a roller coaster ride. They {usually} don't just throw you right into turns and drops.

And no, seriously, GD is the one who said the movie sucked?????

[Ghoulish Delight]

Huh? When did I say the movie sucked?

[MouseWife]

I was asking if you had. I thought you loved it. I just read CP's post 'and he got up and said it sucked' and I wondered it if were you.

I didn't think so.

Who was it?

[Ghoulish Delight]

She was referring to the same guy with the Israeli accent as I was talking about.

[MouseWife]

Oh, sorry. I guess I needed to read back further. :blush:

That's what I get for just jumping in.

LOL I'll try and research better next time. :D

[Alex]

If that's the case, then getting into the U.S. doesn't help him much, since Grandma would still not want him to see the kids.

My take on this and it underlies why I don't think it is a plothole that the kids just weren't taken to wherever Cobb was.

1. Everybody believes Cobb murdered Mal (the question would be why Caine's character is so certain he didn't; yes, he apparently works in the same field as Cobb and so would understand the plausibility of his story but it would still be pretty far-fetched, I'd think).

2. He has no choice but to either go to prison or go on the run. He chooses to run, with the extremely inappropriate impetus of his lawyer.

3. He doesn't want his kids with him on the lam, especially since to support himself he'll be engaging in illegal activities that has him hopping the globe and where failure apparently gets you killed (as is suggested happened to the first architect and would happen to Cobb if he were caught). So not a great environment for kids.

4. Presumably it would be theoretically possible to arrange a visit with the kids but that isn't what he wants, especially while under the cloud of suspicion for the murder (not to mention his own guilt issues that even if he didn't throw her off the ledge it is his fault she was on it).

5. Also presumably, whoever has custody of the kids believes he killed Mal. Why would that person (especially if that person is Mal's mother, apparently) be willing to arrange a meeting?

6. We have no idea what the nature of the single hyper-effective call made by Saito was. However, it couldn't have just been something that would get him through customs but actually somehow did something to clear his name (maybe they produced videotape of Mal jumping on her own; maybe they framed someone else).

7. In clearing his name presumably grandma is also convinced of his innocence and so now a return home (rather than just entry into the country) isn't an issue.

That chain makes perfect sense to me as reasonable in the face of what was presented without Nolan having to spell it all out.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm on board for almost all of that, except...6. We have no idea what the nature of the single hyper-effective call made by Saito was. However, it couldn't have just been something that would get him through customs but actually somehow did something to clear his name (maybe they produced videotape of Mal jumping on her own; maybe they framed someone else).This would make sense except that it's instantaneous.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm on board for almost all of that, except...This would make sense except that it's instantaneous.
Only the customs part had to be instantaneous. Saito makes 1 call, the guy he call then calls his man inside customs to have Cobb's name pulled out of whatever database would prevent him from getting through customs/alert law agencies that he'd arrived, then goes about doing the harder work of clearing his name with the pertinent authorities.

[Alex]

Well, not necessarily instantaneous as we don't know how long it was between when the call was made and when Cobb walked into the house. It could have been anywhere from an hour (assuming the call was made right before landing and Cobb lives near LAX) to the better part of a day (since the time experienced in the Level 1 dream was less than a day that would be less than two hours in reality of a 10 hour flight and then for all we know Cobb and Caine left LAX and drove to the family's home in Yreka).

And Saito may very well have spent the last three months putting in place all the pieces so that they could be knocked over very quickly. Maybe 30 seconds after his call, Saito's agents were in Grandma Mal's living room showing her the proof of how he was innocent, other agents were at the sheriff's office showing the proof to them with a promise that Cobb would be in on Monday to answer any final questions, and a third agent was quickly changing the necessary databases so that Cobb could get in the country without hassle.

I have no idea what was done but, if we accept as given that the last scenes are reality and not dream, then whatever Saito did had to be completed (though not necessarily started) very quickly and it had to be more than just getting him past ICE since returning to America does him no good if he then immediately gets arrested by the local sheriff for murder. Actually getting into the country would never have been a problem, it was the murder warrant that was the problem.

If it was all a dream, then yeah, none of it has to make internal sense. If it wasn't a dream then I don't think it was necessary for Nolan to spell out each of the steps I listed since they are, to me, implicit in what was shown to be happening and nothing shown, as least in relation to this, is a giant plothole (at least to me).

[mousepod]

Not a bad construction, but why is that any more of a valid read than mine, which is that the father-in-law sent someone in to Cobb's subconscious to find out what he did to Mal?

That also makes perfect sense to me as reasonable in the face of what was presented without Nolan having to spell it all out.

[Alex]

It isn't necessarily more valid. As admitted Nolan has intentionally left it ambiguous and so I can't argue against anybody taking the other side of that ambiguity.

As I've said, I personally feel that your view of the movie makes it a less satisfying experience. Obviously not the case for you and it is great that we can both have entirely different preferences and still find it a good movie.

What I'm arguing against is that the image GD posted is a giant plothole that provides additional credence to the "it's all a dream" argument as I don't think that it is a plothole even if you accept the reality of the presented narrative. It just isn't spelling out every implication of what is being shown and I like that; especially in a movie that already bordered on too much exposition.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What Alex said. And I didn't post it because I necessarily agree with it...I just found it an amusing set of images.

Because really, is it that hard to accept that, for someone on the international lamb after being convincingly accused of murdering his wife/mother of his children, it would be a wee bit difficult to see said children? Like Alex said, that hardly seems like a plot point that requires a whole lot of expounding upon to convince me.

[mousepod]

Understood.

In your scenario, your first point in your chain questions why Caine's character doesn't believe that Cobb was responsible for Mal's death - but the revelations in the story (which are abetted by Caine's character) show that he actually is at least indirectly responsible. It might not be a plothole, but it's a logical loop that I have a hard time swallowing.

[Alex]

The logical loop is that Caine isn't holding Cobb responsible (or at least isn't punishing him) for the act of inception that lead to Mal's suicide?

(Just making sure I understand you correctly.)

[mousepod]

Exactly. It seems like from the outset, Caine doesn't think Cobb's responsible, but then his big revelation (in front of Caine's "student") is that he performed inception on Mal, which eventually led to her suicide. And now that Caine most probably has this information, he happily brings Cobb to visit the children.

[Gemini Cricket]

Must see this film. Although, a kid in our cast blew the movie for me by discussing vital parts of the plot at rehearsal. Grrr...
:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's not like it was Cobb's intent to perform inception, and certainly not to do so in a way that would lead to suicide. She was losing herself, he tried to bring her back the only way he could think of, and it unfortunately back fired. Caine holding him responsible would be like holding someone responsible because they set up an intervention for their alcoholic wife, only to have that wife commit suicide in rehab because she couldn't handle being sober.