The "Inception" Thread

[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.

Spoiler:

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.

Spoiler:

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]

Originally Posted by mousepod

... 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?