Possibly Disjointed Inception Thoughts

[annundriel]

Inception is a sneaky film.

Some things I've been thinking about since viewing #1:

- The story in Inception could really only work in a film. Or work to its best advantage. We're told that we don't know we're dreaming while we're in the middle of a dream, that we join action in medias res. You can't remember how you got to your current location, what lead you to this or that situation.

That's how movies work. They start and you just go with it. They jump scenes, they jump time periods, and you just accept the fact that between Point A and Point G, you also went through Points B, C, D, E, and F.

Now, sure, this happens in writing as well, but we'll stick with visual mediums. Were I reading Inception, I don't think I'd get to the end and have the same moment "whoa."

- I was really interested to read Dissecting Inception: Six Interpretations and Five Plot Holes where they talk about the audience's totem and how if we know how we'd gotten there, we'd know we weren't dreaming.

It's a good point that we just accept that when we see Arthur, Cobb, Nash, and Saito on the train in the beginning we're finally in "reality." But this, like the argument that Ariadne learns to quickly, is built into the nature of film. We don't get to see things like that.

I also always find it interesting that Cobb says he's getting off at Kyoto and, bam!, we get the Paris skyline. ETA: Ignore that. Clearly I was, like, hallucinating or something because that statement is wrong, wrong, wrong.

- In Entertainment Weekly, Christopher Nolan says, "In trying to write a team-based creative process, I wrote the one I know." The entire film is a metaphor for the creative process, and for film-making specifically. You've got the director (Cobb), the producer (Arthur), the production designer (Ariadne), the actor (Eames), and the financier (Saito).

You've also got the way films work and the way dreams work and the way that, while we're in them, we accept the world presented to us. Because it's a movie. Because it's a dream.

Suspension of disbelief is a beautiful thing.

- I lean more and more toward the theory that the entire thing is in Cobb's head. I tried to explain to EB the idea that the act of entering someone else's dreams and extraction/inception don't even have to be "real" in that case, they become symbolic of, I don't know, basic human interaction.

If the film is in Cobb's head, then it's his way of dealing with his wife's death and his guilt surrounding it. In which case he builds this elaborate world in his head where you can literally enter someone's mind and plant an idea there, gives himself the opportunity to do it again, and in that process has to confront his wife, her death, and his guilt.

This theory makes me sad because it means everyone besides Cobb is a projection; they don't exist. Which is a ridiculous thing to be bummed about since they aren't real anyway. But isn't that what my mom is always telling me when I read/watch something and end up in tears? "They don't actually exist, Mary. It's okay."

Sure they don't, but that's about emotional catharsis, too.

And isn't that where Greek drama came from? A way for the people watching to experience intense emotions without actually having to go through the experience itself?

Thank you, drama courses.

- I didn't hear the top topple at the end this time. That may have been the audience around me.

But I really am fine going either way on this, because in the end...Cobb works through his grief and his guilt.

The children were definitely wearing different clothes, though. But there's still that phone call where Phillipa's voice seems to change.

- My first viewing, I spent a good portion of it thinking Mal was the one who was right and she's been trying to get Cobb out and he just will not listen.

Comments

[juliarchy.livejournal.com]

My feeling about it "all being in Cobb's head" is that if that is the case, it renders the whole experience pointless. To me it's too close to the AND THEN HE WOKE UP cliche bad ending. I don't think Nolan would do that. And Nolan as a filmmaker knows the importance of connecting with characters and reaching a conclusion with resolution. I don't think he would resort to such a tactic. And for Cobb's catharsis to happen, it needs to happen in real life, not just in his dream.

That, or he has taken the "and then he woke up" tactic to a whole different level. But I am convinced that it is real, and it is not just in Cobb's head.

[annundriel.livejournal.com]

Cobb's catharsis is the point of the movie, I think. I don't think it's necessarily devalued if it is all in his head. Catharsis in dreams is catharsis in real life, because that's how our subconscious helps us work through issues. You work through an issue in your dreams, sure things aren't magically fixed when you wake up, but you've also found some sort of...release. If it's not all in Cobb's head, Fischer's catharsis only took place in a dream but was going to have real consequences. So I don't think Cobb's catharsis has to happen in real life.

I just don't think this is the same as the "and then he woke up" cliche ending. (Especially if the movie never shows up the "real" world.) I think saying that it renders the whole experience pointless belittles the experience. Because I think the whole point of the end is that Cobb has reached a place where he doesn't care if the top falls or continues to spin. So the whole experience - whether it's all in his head, or only part of it was; whether the children are real, or that's part of a dream - means something to Cobb.

I think the reason why I want to disagree and explain myself so badly is that those other "and then he woke up" endings are always a copout and sort of handwave any emotional development characters may have had. And while you'll get people who argue that there is no character or emotional development in Inception, I think Cobb very clearly works something out for himself. So, dream or not, the journey has meaning.

Boy, I hope that made some sense. :) (Also, omg, there's some sad grammar going on in my post. ::facepalm:: )

But! I don't actually have a theory I've settled on. I sort of love them all and can see the merits in each of them. As I've said before, I love the process of the movie so much, I don't feel the need to have a definite answer.

[lattimore.livejournal.com]

I saw the movie again this weekend, and it made me think again of how some criticize the movie for a lack of emotional involvement. But really, the children are a MacGuffin - getting back to them compels Cobb to take the job, but his relationship with them is not what the viewer is supposed to be absorbed by. Otherwise yes, the movie would seem incredibly lacking; we never see Cobb personally interacting with his children, other than as voices over the phone. So what motivates the main character isn't necessarily the driving force for the plot.

I also don't care whether the characters other than Cobb were projections or not. As the caretaker at Yusuf's said, who are we to say what is real? We form attachments to each member of the team, they have weight and meaning within the worlds of the dream and the film - that makes them "real" to me. Although it does help that the ending is ambiguous, never stating that they are only in Cobb's mind. So there remains a chance that they really do exist, on some level.

[juliarchy.livejournal.com]

Oh I totally agree that Cobb's catharsis is the point of the movie. Which is why I think so many things are glossed over (the sleep machine thing, for one). Beau and I were trying to give it a genre and decided it is definitely not sci-fi or fantasy as those seem to focus on the how and why of all the elements of the world. This seemed like a psychological drama. The emphasis is on Cobb and his past and his problems.

I can see what you mean and how it's different than other cliched movie endings. My general theory/consensus is that it doesn't matter whether the top falls or not. That isn't the point. And that's similar to your point about Cobb not caring. The point isn't whether he's in a dream or not. You're not supposed to know. He let go of Mal and made it home to his children. At this point, it's what he needs and is his happiness.

I feel like I'm not explaining what I mean very well, though, about it negating things if it's all a dream. I feel like the whole point of the movie was not to perform inception but to see Cobb get in there and deal with his past issues. I need to see it again probably to really formulate more thinking on it. I just feel like there are a lot of elements that wouldn't have been necessary if it were a dream. I don't know.

I think I just like the idea that it's all possible without someone having to dream it. I can't explain why it being all a dream feels like a copout to me. It would just be kind of disappointing, I guess.

[annundriel.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay, I think I get what your saying now. I think. I mean, while I'm happy to accept that I'll never know for sure, and more than happy to talk about it over and over, I will admit that I find the idea that all of the characters might not actually be this seriously competent, awesome team disappointing. It's like what I said in the post itself; that makes me sad. Because the idea is so neat and I like the characters so much.

It's like when you have a dream yourself where you're friends with these awesome people and then it's depressing when you wake up because, yeah, they're just in your head.

I feel like the whole point of the movie was not to perform inception but to see Cobb get in there and deal with his past issues.

And I totally agree with that. Which is why I feel it could all be in his head, since the other half of the plot was just a way to force Cobb to deal with his issues.

One argument I had for it not being in his head is that we get to see other points-of-view, like Arthur trying to figure out how to drop everyone without gravity. Or Yusuf driving through the rain.

I'd be really interested to talk about elements that wouldn't have been necessary in a dreamstate. I think dreams are sort of...Rube Goldberg machines in our minds, making things more complicated to help us deal with basic issues. I'm not saying I disagree.

I don't know, Julia. I flop back and forth on what my favorite theory is and which one I believe most. I bet we'd have an easier time expressing ourselves in person. :)

[annundriel.livejournal.com]

I've thought about the emotional involvment criticism a lot (and posted a little bit about it over here (http://annundriel.livejournal.com/586669.html)). I think the problem is that there is a lot of stuff going on in the movie that gets infront of the emotional story. Each time I watch it, I feel sort of like I've peeled another layer back, or gone a level deeper. The first time, it was all about "this is awesome." The second time I found myself really wanting Fischer to reach that positive emotional experience with his father. It wasn't until the third time that I really felt something when it got to the final scene with Mal.

As one reviewer said, you're less stressed on subsequent viewings because you're not trying to keep up quite so much. So I don't think the film is without emotional involvement, I just think we as audience members have to work to get there.

Some people don't like that. I'm not one of them. :)

Does any of that make sense?

As the caretaker at Yusuf's said, who are we to say what is real? We form attachments to each member of the team, they have weight and meaning within the worlds of the dream and the film - that makes them "real" to me.

Exactly. And, you know, that scene is one that always sticks out to me. I can't help feel that there is something going on there that I should be paying more attention to, but I can't for the life of me figure out what or how. Or, rather, I have suspicions of what/how but don't know what it means.

I am mostly just nodding along thinking, yes, exactly. I love the way it's true for both the characters as they exist within the film and the characters as they exist outside of it, to us the audience. They're given meaning and life because they exist to us, or to the dreamer if they happen to be in a dream.

I imagine I'm starting to talk nonsense.

My mother points out that even if they are in Cobb's head, who is to say that they aren't manifestations of people he knows? Or in fact are there to help him workout his issues without him knowing it?

I love that the ending is ambiguous. So very much.

[everstar3.livejournal.com]

I am very carefully not looking at the text of your post (because I still haven't seen it, aha) but I thought you'd like this:

(http://www.savagechickens.com/2010/07/inception.html)

[annundriel.livejournal.com]

LOL

You were right; I liked it a lot. Thanks!

[lattimore.livejournal.com]

LATE RESPONSE IS LATE!

That makes complete sense to me. I had a similar response - the first time, I was so engrossed in how the story was going to conclude that my reaction was "jfc that was exciting!". The second time was when the emotional side of the story really hit; the moment when the film reveals that Dom and Mal actually aged during their time in Limbo was especially striking. I remembered how uncentered my grandpa was after my grandma passed away, and that colored my perception of how deeply the movie is colored by Dom's grief - that he was bearing the burden (as well as the guilt and regret) of someone who had spent an entire lifetime with Mal, despite us seeing him outwardly as a young man.

So yes, I think the emotional side to the story is there from the outset, but it does deepen with repeat viewings.

My mother points out that even if they are in Cobb's head, who is to say that they aren't manifestations of people he knows? Or in fact are there to help him workout his issues without him knowing it?

Yes, exactly! It makes sense that he'd tackle something painful by surrounding himself with those he knows and trusts. God, I just love that the ambiguity of this movie supports so many different theories (which is not the same as being full of plot holes and in need of fan-wanking to make sense). It heightens the enjoyment that I'm still puzzling over it days after watching :D

[annundriel.livejournal.com]

The second time was when the emotional side of the story really hit; the moment when the film reveals that Dom and Mal actually aged during their time in Limbo was especially striking.

It really was. I remember the first time watching it, I wondered why they were still young when limbo lasts so long. And then of course, of course, they grew old down there together. Coming back would be disconcerting to say the least.

that he was bearing the burden (as well as the guilt and regret) of someone who had spent an entire lifetime with Mal, despite us seeing him outwardly as a young man.

Excellent point.

On the opposite side of that, I guess you could say that in the end...at least he got to have those decades with her?

It heightens the enjoyment that I'm still puzzling over it days after watching :D

I love that, too. Though I think now, after my fifth viewing, I've found the theory that works for me. Or, rather, I've gone back to an old theory with new evidence and found that it works for me. Which gives me a sort of...resolution? I guess. But in no way at all detracts from my enjoyment of the film or the many other ways it can be read.