I was able to attend an advanced screening for Christopher Nolan's new film last night, Inception.
I've seen the trailers for months now and I had really high hopes for this film, and it did not disappoint. The film was absolutely amazing.
The best part of this film is that it includes the audience. The idea of "inception" (placing an idea in someone's head so they think it is their own idea.) is presented throughout the film, and when the film ended I realized that the movie had done exactly that to me. The film placed an idea in my head and I came to the conclusion that the end was predictable and that I knew exactly what was going to happen. When the end of the film happened I realized the joke was on me.
Great filming, great story, and great acting. Very rarely does a film play with the mind of the audience.
I was able to watch it for free, but I think I will take my wife this weekend to show my support. It clocks in at two and a half hours so I don't mind paying the $11.75 ($8.50 with a coupon!) a movie now costs here in Vegas.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Did it have scary parts?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've heard that this is an absolutely fantastic movie.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm really excited to see this and am glad to hear that it's not all just hype.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm sold. I never heard of the movie until just now, and now I can't wait to see it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I've heard that this is an absolutely fantastic movie.
I heard that the second Chistopher Nolan announced it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Did it have scary parts?
It depends on what you define as scary. It is not a movie that tries to make you jump or one that is grotesque and disgusting. There are no strange monsters roaming around in the dream sequences.
I think the only thing that may be considered scary are the ideas presented in the movie. I wouldn't call them scary, perhaps eerie. There is no political, religious, or moral ideas presented in the film. I can't really say more without giving away some of the plot, and I really don't want to do that.
If you are asking so you know if it is safe for teenagers, I would say yes. There are 3 uses of "GD" but this is the only profanity.
I realize now why the trailers for the film did not include any plot or storyline elements. It would have ruined it.
I also have not seen such an amazing ending to a movie since the Sixth Sense. (Mind you it has nothing to do with the Sixth Sense in any way, I just really liked the ending. )
Leonardo Di Caprio has proven again that he can act. Ellen Page (of Juno fame) also does a bang up job.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think DiCaprio proved it just fine in Blood Diamond and The Departed. I missed Shutter Island, as it didn't quite look like my type of movie, but this looks excellent and I look forward to seeing it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What type of movie did you expect Shutter Island to be?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I am just happy that Leonardo Di Caprio did not fall into the trap of being known for a certain type of film. Comedy actors very easily fall into this, being known only as a comedy actor and not being able to overcome it. Michael Cera, Paul Rudd, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogan, Will Ferral, and Jonah Hill are a few of them. Jonah Hill is in a little bit of a more serious role in the movie Cyrus though I have not seen it yet. (I heard he is brilliant)
For the most part Di Caprio has made very good decisions on which movies to act in. You will not see him in a movie every single year, but when you do you can count on it being a movie worth seeing.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Dicaprio has been proving it ever since he was ten.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
Even given the "relatively spoiler-free" tag I only read the first couple of lines see if you liked or didn't like it. Glad you loved it.
I'm way psyched for this movie. After a summer of mostly middling (Prince of Persia) to horrible (Airbender) movies I'm hoping this one will be the one to finally blow me away.
In Nolan we trust.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Geraine, we don't get much character interaction in the trailers. Does Page hold her own with DiCaprio? Cause that's what I'm looking forward too most beside the special effects and more Joseph Gordan Levitt. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Ellen Page does hold her own with DeCaprio. She is great in the film. I can't really explain her role well, but she is the only one in the film that is allowed or able to fully understand DiCaprio, and help him confront his own inner demons. She is also a sort of a genius apprentice to DiCaprio.
She does a very good job at keeping that bit of uniqueness we saw in Juno while also playing a serious role. You can't help but love her in this film.
As for Joseph Gordon Levitt, he is the pointman. A really badass pointman. He's also the one that attempts (unsuccessfully) to reel DiCaprio in at times when things seem to be getting too dangerous. Oh, and that scene in the trailer with him fighting in a hotel hallway in zero gravity is epic.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Joseph Gordon Lewitt is awesome.
Check out Brick if you havent already. It's a lot like Veronica Mars.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Awesome! It'll be nice to finally get something really good in the theater.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
OK, just got home from seeing it and here are my thoughts, again relatively spoiler free.
Of course, I say spoiler free but to me there are no spoilers because I saw it coming from a mile away.
Many of the reviews I have seen talk about how original, unique and surprising this film is. I guess none of these people have ever heard of Phillip K. Dick. If someone had told me that this film was based on a recently discovered, never before published Dick story, I would have believed it. I have seen this kind of story in his novels and film adaptations many times before.
So I wasn't surprised by anything in the film, does that mean it was bad? No, it was still a pretty darn good film. The best part for me was Ellen Page. She has quickly become one of my favorite actresses. There are a couple of scenes where she confronts Leo with an incredibly calm, yet intense demeanor that really made the scenes for me.
So in conclusion, by all means go see this movie. Just remember that if you are really well versed in the SciFi classics, you probably wont be as surprised by it as the average movie goer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: What type of movie did you expect Shutter Island to be?
Some sort of horror thriller from the looks of things. Something along the lines of 1408.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I think they're talking about it in relation to film.
Cant really think about any good Dream invasion movies--Paprika was alright, though. Only PKD related movie i've seen is Blade Runner--which is awesome.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Some sort of horror thriller from the looks of things. Something along the lines of 1408.
Not really no. I can't say much because it IS a mystery thriller that I don't want to ruin. There are certain elements that it borrows from the horror genre but I really wouldn't describe it as a horror film. It doesn't need to be seen on a big screen but if you like DiCaprio I'd recommend it when it comes out on DVD.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I think they're talking about it in relation to film.
I suspect they're talking about it as film critics, who watch lots of films but do not read lots of science fiction.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:I think they're talking about it in relation to film.
I suspect they're talking about it as film critics, who watch lots of films but do not read lots of science fiction.
I've seen two movies that have very similar elements. One is based on a PKD story, the other is not. Don't want to mention them for fear of "spoiling" it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Some sort of horror thriller from the looks of things. Something along the lines of 1408.
Not really no. I can't say much because it IS a mystery thriller that I don't want to ruin. There are certain elements that it borrows from the horror genre but I really wouldn't describe it as a horror film. It doesn't need to be seen on a big screen but if you like DiCaprio I'd recommend it when it comes out on DVD.
Thanks, I'll probably rent it when I get a chance. Hopefully it'll continue what I think is a good streak of DiCaprio movies.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Nevermind.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think DiCaprio proved it just fine in Blood Diamond and The Departed. I missed Shutter Island, as it didn't quite look like my type of movie, but this looks excellent and I look forward to seeing it.
I was unsure of him until I saw The Beach, the guy is just great at what he does. Im gonna go see Inception today.
Update: Well Im a bit worried about Christopher Nolan's mental stability if he can randomly think that up, but I have no concerns as to wether or not his career will be influential and lasting after such a stand-alone production.
[ July 17, 2010, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
Thought this was a really fantastic film. Really entertaining, and really creative. Nolan is officially my favorite director at this point, and DiCaprio is pretty much my favorite actor. I'm looking forward to seeing it again.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
SPOILERS FOR BOTH INCEPTION AND SHUTTER ISLAND
-
-
-
-
-
-
Okay, just saw this and... well, first of all, overall it was a good movie. A better sequel to the Matrix than the Matrix sequels were. I'm a little confused as to why they went deeper into Cobb's subconscious when they went further into Fischer's.
The main thing I walked away with, though, is how similar this movie is to Shutter Island. DiCaprio is haunted by his wife who is responsible for him losing his children and is trapped in a fantasy world from which there is no escape (or which he chooses not to escape from). If DiCaprio wasn't the main character each time I wouldn't have noticed, but it's really weird for him to make the same movie twice in a row.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Offhandedly I can think of a couple of really great movies where DiCaprio goes nanners. The Beach, The Aviator, Shutter Island and now Inception.
Not many A-Listers do that many crazy roles, but then again DiCaprio doesnt take any filler roles just to keep up his career like the rest of them do.
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: SPOILERS FOR BOTH INCEPTION AND SHUTTER ISLAND
-
-
-
-
-
-
Okay, just saw this and... well, first of all, overall it was a good movie. A better sequel to the Matrix than the Matrix sequels were. I'm a little confused as to why they went deeper into Cobb's subconscious when they went further into Fischer's.
The main thing I walked away with, though, is how similar this movie is to Shutter Island. DiCaprio is haunted by his wife who is responsible for him losing his children and is trapped in a fantasy world from which there is no escape (or which he chooses not to escape from). If DiCaprio wasn't the main character each time I wouldn't have noticed, but it's really weird for him to make the same movie twice in a row.
Actually I'm pretty impressed with the fact that, despite the similarities you point out, his character was actually quite a bit different in Inception. The man is a great actor.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:
Not many A-Listers do that many crazy roles,
Are you kidding? That's how they get Oscars! Play an insane person, get an award.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
He doesn't take filler roles, but taking almost the exact same plot (and frankly the characters don't stand out from each other too much in my mind either) is a really weird choice.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:
Not many A-Listers do that many crazy roles,
Are you kidding? That's how they get Oscars! Play an insane person, get an award.
I was refering to the regularity of his crazy roles, no other purely dramatic (as to exclude the likes of Robin Williams and Zach Giliafinakis) actor has been this succesful making these kinds of choices.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Al Pacino
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Wow! I saw it this afternoon, and I loved it. Sure, I could guess the ending, though I love that they left it somewhat vague. I loved the characters and the actors and the issues everyone was coping with. And I loved the effects. Let's not forget those.
Page was every bit as good as I'd hoped she be. But Gordon-Levitt surprised me by being sexy. Sure, he's been adorable in plenty of movies before, but he was downright manly here. I could get used to that. Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
This movie is mazing.
get it?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
So far, my buddy and I have come up with eight different explanations as to what's actually going on. I don't think I've ever watched a movie that made me want to talk about it so much!
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Just got back from it and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was definitely intense. I (and I hope this doesn't count as a spoiler) loved the way that with each scene you could ask yourself, "How did we get here?" Not that they didn't make sense or were out of context, but it gave the movie an interesting feeling overall. Very different than most I've seen.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
I have to say that i was really impressed with this movie. I think the last time i was wowed like this was seeing the matrix for the first time. Much better actors in inception though. Totally called the ending.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm a little confused at you guys saying you called a completely ambiguous ending.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
SPOILER WARNING!!!
NO REALLY.... DIVERT YOUR EYES!!!!
You don't think it was possible for us to call that his wife's totem would be shown spinning? Yea it wiggled right before the cut so as to be ambiguous as to the truth of his state of mind. But from the moment he mentioned that an idea was like a seed of doubt that would grow and make you question your reality i knew they were going to end the movie in a way that would make you go "so is it/he real?" Once he spun the totem i said to the person next to me (it was a friend not some random movie go-er) "i bet it'll keep spinning."
I wasn't making a claim that before i walked into the theater i called "i bet he will spin a thing called a totem that when not in reality doesnt fall down, and when the movie ends it doesnt fall over thereby forcing you to question the reality of the moment." Although i think many of us went in with the assumption that the ending would be "it was never real" or at least the vast majority of people i have spoken to said this was their idea or the "bet" on what would happen.
It wasn't something like shutter island (which admittedly having the preview say "And an ending that will leave you speechless" or something to that effect does not help you take the movie at face value) where you could go "yea, hes one of the criminally insane people who thinks he's investigating the institution" But it was a fairly predictable ending for the plot that we were given.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Xavier,
quote:I'm a little confused at you guys saying you called a completely ambiguous ending.
Well, I did for two reasons. It was just a guess, really, but turned out to be accurate.
SPOILER
One reason was that this was a film where nothing on the screen could be absolutely trusted to be actually happening within the story. When everything you see could just turn out to be a dream, and that's because it's a core premise of the entire film, well, it's a big possibility, no?
Then when they introduced that the one thing which would let the viewer know whether it was reality or not, and it was something that could be shown in a very simple, short way, well, I thought to myself at the time, "We'll be seeing that again at the end of the film."
SPOILER Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
SPOILER
Usually someone, when predicting a movie, goes something like "I predict it is all a dream." and not "I predict that it will be ambiguous as to whether it was all a dream or not."
If you guys really predicted that the ending wouldn't say one way or another, I'm impressed. SPOILER
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: SPOILER
Usually someone, when predicting a movie, goes something like "I predict it is all a dream." and not "I predict that it will be ambiguous as to whether it was all a dream or not."
If you guys really predicted that the ending wouldn't say one way or another, I'm impressed. SPOILER
OK, so now that the spoilers are out there, I'll give one of my similarities. Before the movie got half way through I was expecting a Total Recall kind of story where we would never truly know if the whole thing was real or imaginary.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I like how they left it open at the end. It will never get a sequel so we will never know for sure, but it was interesting anyways.
This movie would also make a really good TV series. You couldn't get the same actors to do it of course, but perhaps another group that worked in the same field.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
SPOILER!! Big one!
* * * *
About half way through the movie, maybe earlier (it was when he said that his totem used to be his wife's) I knew that he had planted the idea that their world was fake in his wife's mind by corrupting her totem and subsequently knew that that the end would necessarily be ambiguous, as it was a corrupted totem. The "absolute" in his world was relative. That's my take on it anyways.
End Spoiler!
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:
End Spoiler! [/QB]
BRRRRRRRRRRRRM
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
SPOILER
* * *
Huh. I didn't think it was Cobb still in the dream that was ambiguous. Him being trapped there was what I called.
What I found ambiguous was the question of which bits had ever been real. Did the movie start real and he never fully woke from Limbo the second time? Was none of it real because he never fully woke from Limbo the first time? Or was none of it real and it was all an attempt of Mal's to bring her husband back from Limbo after she escaped?
Then a buddy of mine posted a review that theorized that shared dreaming is part of the dream and it's just a normal guy in a dream dealing with the loss of his wife. But if the backstory is unreal, why stop there? Why not a single man with no children dreaming that he had and lost a family and is grieving for them in the dream?
My current theory is that Cobb is a dream. Mal was abandoned by her father as a child and blamed herself. As she got older, she gained an intellectual understanding that it wasn't her fault, but she never completely lost the guilt - she just locked it away. Her relationships with men failed due to her abandonment issues.
So one night she goes to sleep and dreams of the perfect man. One who would spend a lifetime with her and still want more. Eventually, she had to wake from the dream, but the man remained buried in her mind.
Mal is the architect and Cobb is the dreamer, but there is no reality for him to return to. The Mal that we see is her subconcious projection of her own guilt. Her backstory as a child stays vague because even in her subconcious she's buried it away.
Cobb will remian in her mind forever because there's nowhere else for him to go, and the catharsis of her life with him and his forgiveness of her abandonment may finally free her to go on and be happy.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
SPOILERSSPOILER CLOSE YOUR EYES!!!111
The children didnt age.
END SPOILER
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Umber,
I thought of the aging of the children, but then figured that he was imagining his children the way they would be at their age. He couldn't imagine their faces but he could imagine the size and shape of their bodies. That would be easier for me at least.
Then again, why wouldn't he know what they looked like? Is the family against cameras?
Oh! I was able to go see another advanced screening last night, this time for Salt. It wasn't as good as Inception, but it was actually a very good spy thriller. If Jason Bourne and James Bond somehow conceived, their child would probably be something like Salt.
I"m not a big Angelina Jolie fan, but she did a very good job in the movie. The stunts were realistic, and you could actually believe they could happen. There were some meaningless elements in the movie that they didn't really have to include. The ending was satisfying but left me wanting more.
If you have already seen Inception and want to see a spy action thriller, it may be worth your time. The movie felt kind of rushed at only 90 minutes, but it is done to keep the adrenaline going. The action never stops.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
SPOILER
* * *I didn't understand the part about him using inception on his wife. What was his purpose in doing that?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: SPOILER
* * *I didn't understand the part about him using inception on his wife. What was his purpose in doing that?
To get her out of limbo. The only way to do it was to kill themselves and you aren't going to do that unless you are SURE the world isn't real. She just couldn't do it so he planted the idea in her head to get her to do it.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I thought the only way to get out of limbo is for the sedative to wear off, that the reason people go into limbo is because they die and aren't woken up. How could he do inception in limbo if he doesn't have that object thing that lets you go into other people's dreams? For that matter, how would he even get her to sleep while in limbo? And why couldn't he just take a gun and kill both of them?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: And why couldn't he just take a gun and kill both of them?
That's how I would have done it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
SPOILER SAVE THE CHILDREN
If they could get out, why did she fool herself in thinking the dream was real anyway?
I think maal constructed a control center in limbo somehow--who says you cant do that in Limbo. Cobb tampered with it. Like a hypnosis button or something. In fact Cobb might have done that to himself at the end of the movie. I really, really want to watch the first scene again.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I thought the only way to get out of limbo is for the sedative to wear off, that the reason people go into limbo is because they die and aren't woken up. How could he do inception in limbo if he doesn't have that object thing that lets you go into other people's dreams? For that matter, how would he even get her to sleep while in limbo? And why couldn't he just take a gun and kill both of them?
I think the idea was just that they pushed so deep into the world of dreams/into their own minds that they reached the most basic dreamworld. His idea was that it wasnt real so he was happy living that life with her but always knew he had to wake up and live the rest of life. She apparantly either did not want to deal with the real world or was more than content with just spending forever in the dream. To just kill her would cause her to be lost in this limbo place. He had to make her want to leave (although the idea of the train would be quite grotesque.)
I don't think the dream device is necessary in the dream world (although it shows them using it multiple times) I think it just becomes representative of some process or another (or you could go with a matrixian idea that in the mind everything is real and therefore they would always need to "build" this device even though they are just dreaming and no such device exists.
The better question i think for Him and Mal being in limbo together is one of where the other dreamers are. We know that each person must provide the dream, we know that limbo is at least 4 dreams in. Every time they went into another level another person has to provide the dream world. Cobb+Mal is 2. They would be missing at least 2 other dreamers unless they are suggesting that the dreamer can dream a dream (of time gone by) about dreaming a world that the dreamed dreamer it is unaware of.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
They dont need a person to send you to the dream from the previous world, but they need someone there to kick you. But for them it isn't as long.
Maybe it is possible to have a subconcious kick you, but they were in Fisher's dream so that wasnt possible.
Or I dunno
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Ecthalion, that makes sense. One other thing that confused me though was how come Fisher didn't recognize Cob at the end in the airport after they all woke up? Wouldn't he have thought, "Wait, that's the security guy from my dream! What is he doing here!"
Also, was it ever explained how him and Mal ended up in limbo? I don't recall.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
How vividly do you remember faces when you dream? Assuming you remember the dream at all.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
This may be a simple question but... why is it that the top never topples in a dream?
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I thought the only way to get out of limbo is for the sedative to wear off, that the reason people go into limbo is because they die and aren't woken up. How could he do inception in limbo if he doesn't have that object thing that lets you go into other people's dreams? For that matter, how would he even get her to sleep while in limbo? And why couldn't he just take a gun and kill both of them?
I had the same thought about dying under sedation as well, but then I remembered Saito's situation. He was shot in the Hotel Layer, and died there, but entered the Snowworld Layer before doing so. He was not influenced by the music played in the Van Layer, so couldn't awake and was stuck in limbo. I hope that makes sense.
Overall, some very confusing plot elements and ideas. I think I need to see it again to understand.
The only thing I am disappointed with is the "company taking over the world" plot device. It should have been either more fully developed, or left by the side. Instead it served as a weak device for Fischer to gain his father's approval.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: This may be a simple question but... why is it that the top never topples in a dream?
The top was her totem. In the real world it eventually falls down. If it stays spinning shes dreaming. Its supposed to notify you that you are still dreaming in case you forget. Though spelling this out in this paragraph now makes me think that either the movie messed up with that plot device or just didnt explain what Cobb did to it to make her be uneasy with the dream world. Presumably if it spun perpetually she'd know she was dreaming and you'd think it would be easier for him to say "see hun we're dreaming, time to wake up now... i have this really creative way where we get splattered....."
If what he did made it fall over it would explain why she never accepted the real world as genuine but i can't imagine that that would make it easier to convince her to leave the dream world. What he incepted in her was "this world isnt real" and it stuck in her mind If he made the top fall over (then again.... we really don't know what he did to the top so i might just be thinking circles around a non issue) you would think she would have accepted the dream as the real world, unless of course she forgot which sign signified which (she did lock it in a safe.. perhaps long period of time away from the totem made he unsure of whether still spinning was real or if falling over was real.) Perhaps just the act of him touching the totem disturbs the dreamer enough to not want to dream anymore.
All in all there were a lot of things that they didnt need to explain for the movie to be good. I for one am glad they didn't explain them i love movies that make me want to talk about the who, what when where and why of things. Its a good thinking movie.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I thought the only way to get out of limbo is for the sedative to wear off, that the reason people go into limbo is because they die and aren't woken up. How could he do inception in limbo if he doesn't have that object thing that lets you go into other people's dreams? For that matter, how would he even get her to sleep while in limbo? And why couldn't he just take a gun and kill both of them?
I had the same thought about dying under sedation as well, but then I remembered Saito's situation. He was shot in the Hotel Layer, and died there, but entered the Snowworld Layer before doing so. He was not influenced by the music played in the Van Layer, so couldn't awake and was stuck in limbo. I hope that makes sense.
I think dying in the dream world acts as a kicker. The problem with Saito was that he was so heavily sedated that he wasn't kicked. He was therefore a product of Arthur's dream (subconsciously Arthur's mind would be saying "this entity cant exist (at least for long) so i'm going to erase it.") Think of it as one neural pathway trying to eradicate another, since Arthur is providing the dream and Saito is visiting Arthur's mind would presumably erase Saito before Saito could get back into his own.
By jumping into Fisher's dream (and then Fishers Dream of Browning's dream) it simply resets the process. Eventually he is kidnapped by Mal (who resides in Cobb's dreams) So now he is in a 5th or even 6th dream state (depending on whether or not Mal is part of Cobb's dream or whether Limbo is Mal's dream within Cobb's dream the only way to get Saito back was to have Cobb (the last dreamer) bring his consciousness back with him.
This is why the ending is questionable if it was real or not. Cobb never woke from Arthur's first dream (that we know of), if Arthur woke up in the real world before Cobb got back you'd presume they'd be lost in Cobb's (or maybe even Arthur's) Super-deep ultra subconscious.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
SPOILERS*******************
As I understood it, the issue with Limbo was the fact that, unlike normal dreams, you could not wake on your own. The sedatives were so heavy so as to prevent you from feeling the effects of the actual world and have them let you know you were in a dream, which was the reason they used 3 layers and had the 2nd layer be where he did know he was in a dream and they could incorporate all that outside-weirdness into the narrative exposition.
The down side of sedatives preventing you from waking up naturally is that when you died in the dream you were in, your mind couldn't go anywhere but deeper- into limbo. But each layer down took more and more of real world time...so that in limbo, you could spend up to an "infinite" amount of time in that dream world. There was mention that when a person who had been in that state "awoke" their minds would be mush. They would have gone mad and their minds would have been destroyed after an eternity in Limbo, even though objectively they only went through a finite amount of time.
As for the top...I think it did end ambiguously enough so that each person can decide for themselves whether it was real or not. Personally, I was really hoping he'd make it out. His conversation with "Mal" in limbo, when he let her go and told her they had had a life together, they had grown old together, and now he had to move on, was beautiful. I just felt he deserved to live a real life now, his children deserved a father, so that's how I choose to see the ending.
(BTW, love the resolution between the father and son...even though it wasn't real.)
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
Hey guys, check out this analysis of the film over at CHUD. I think it's a pretty great analysis, though I'll have to see the film at least a second time before I know whether I agree with it. It's certainly worth thinking about though.
That makes a lot of sense.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
That article is pretty much what I was thinking. That's why I compared it to Total Recall. It's all fake.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:The top was her totem. In the real world it eventually falls down. If it stays spinning shes dreaming. Its supposed to notify you that you are still dreaming in case you forget.
Yes, I know. I just don't understand why it can't fall down in a dream. Is it like... even if the dreamer tries to make the top fall down, it doesn't? Or... in a dream the dreamer can use their mind to keep the top spinning, but in the real life they can't?--but then in that case if the dreamer's attention wavers the top would fall down in the dream too.
Basically, what I don't understand is why a top can have the quality of "never falls down in dream," not why this quality would be a useful plot device.
Currently, my best guess after reading that article is that the assumption "this is a top that never stops spinning if you're in a dream" is just something no one ever questions because they're in a dream and people accept strange premises without questioning them in dreams.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The article's the one I read that I don't think goes far enough. Why stop at just that layer of unreality?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I don't recall anyone in the movie saying it never stops. The deal with totems is that they act in a way that only the owner knows. He would know exactly what the top feels like, how hard it is to spin it, how much it wobbles, how long it takes to fall over, etc. and no one else does. So if he is in someone's dream, they won't know exactly how the top should act and it will therefore act differently.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
No, it's clearly stated in the movie that the top never stops in a dream, which is why the ending with the top wobbling is supposed to be so dramatic.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
The 'top wobbling' (i.e. what you make of it) is, actually, the 'inception-idea'--into you, the filmgoer.
If you believe the premise, then you've been inoculated...if you don't, then it hasn't really worked....either way, the film works--that's the beauty in it--and why it wobbles at the end.
edited to add: if you have the feeling, at the end of the film, that you knew what was going to happen before the end, then the 'inception' worked. That 'knowledge' was planted at the beginning--it's the 'joke' of the movie. If you walked out going: "what happened," then it didn't work.
[ July 25, 2010, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: deerpark27 ]
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
your defenses were too good.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
It's difficult to read through this thread. It's a spoiler mine field. Can't you guys keep them out of the "relatively spoiler free" thread???
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I just got into an advanced screening for Dinner for Shmucks. Should I just change this thread title to "2010 Movie Thread" so we can talk about all of them? It seems like we've created different threads for quite a few movies over the past few months,we might as well consolidate them.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I say leave it.
But if you want to talk about others, Salt wasn't bad.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, bingo. I figured this all out in the theater. The fact that he "gave" the idea that the world was not real to Maal caused him to be unable to wake up when she did. She isn't dead, she's alive. He tried to keep her tied to him in limbo, because when they were hit by the train, he was the one that kept them in the next layer of the dream, and refused to wake. She woke up, and he stayed there convinced it was real, all because he gave away that spark of credulity that he had given to her. He still remembers it however, so all his encounters with her are his subconscious trying to recapture that idea itself.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I saw Inception yesterday.
I've never had a lucid dream. Is it actually possible to experience something even remotely close to what happened in that movie?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes, it's remotely like that. I've had a few experiences of lucid dreaming where I seemed to feel consciously aware of what I was doing, and found that I could control the shape of the dream while I was in it, including making people appear and making things happen. It's difficult to say how much actual volition was involved, or how "aware" I was in that state- certainly I did become aware that I was dreaming. I did it by listening to tapes before going to bed, but there was never a time where it consistently would happen.
I would say too that the interesting point the movie makes is that it *feels* real while you're in it. Later, when you wake up, the details aren't there for you to access again, so you literally can't remember how real it actually was, because you only ever looked at the things you looked at, and you can't go back and see them again to confirm the "realness" of the experience.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Do you mean in it feels real while in the lucid dream, specifically? It seems odd that the dream would feel real, but you would be aware it was a dream. Something of a contradiction.
I ask because, in the more normal (I'm assuming) type of dream, having it "feel real" isn't even an issue that arises. That would presuppose self-awareness, which (for me) is either not present or so limited that it makes no difference.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I've had lucid dreams on more than a handful of occasions. Where I've known without a doubt that I was currently dreaming and controlled my dream from there on out.
I find that I have a very hard time maintaining that state of awareness. What normally happens is I wake up shortly after I become lucid, or I slowly lose control of the dream and eventually forget I'm lucid dreaming and transition back to regular dreaming.
I think that chud article is spot on. I was particularly struck during the film with mal's presence on the hotel ledge across from their room, and haven't been able to come up with any legitimate reasons for why that would be so. The fact that the children hadn't aged at all was also bothersome. Mal's arguments when trying to convince Cobb he was still dreaming were pretty damn convincing as well!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Do you mean in it feels real while in the lucid dream, specifically? It seems odd that the dream would feel real, but you would be aware it was a dream. Something of a contradiction.
I ask because, in the more normal (I'm assuming) type of dream, having it "feel real" isn't even an issue that arises. That would presuppose self-awareness, which (for me) is either not present or so limited that it makes no difference.
I mean to say that despite whatever you may see or whatever you may do in the dream, doing it or seeing it are not strange to you- they feel quite natural and therefore not strange.
If you're asking whether the dream world is a photo-realistic representation of waking life? I don't know, probably not. The only thing that exists in your dream is your perception. This is difficult to render in a film because the camera is a 4th wall. In a movie there is no perspective outside your perspective, and so everything you see and accept as normal in your dream feels real to you. For instance, if you were to try and do a reality check while in a dream, for instance by checking your watch, which is the most common way (that's the way I have done it), the numbers would appear to be random symbols and or change randomly every time you looked at the watch. Sometimes you have a hard time looking at it as if you're drunk or stoned or something.
But when you *are* looking at it, it doesn't feel like anything other than an actual watch to you- because you're not actually "seeing" anything, you're just seeing a representation of all the elements that make your brain say: "this is a watch." So of course, it's just a watch- you can't exactly examine it for authenticity. If you do try to closely examine the watch, your unconscious-mind just jumbles around a bunch of other images for you, so the watch falls apart in your hands, or it changes shape, or you can't get it off your wrist, or whatever.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I think that chud article is spot on. I was particularly struck during the film with mal's presence on the hotel ledge across from their room, and haven't been able to come up with any legitimate reasons for why that would be so.
I think the chud article is right as well, particularly the bit about the walls closing in on him in that "real world" scene. But the ledge thing... I figured she'd walked around the ledge to keep him from grabbing her.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I have had a couple very lucid dreams, sometimes I can tell its a dream, other times the dream feels very natural even though when I wake it's pretty obvious how strange it all was.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I think that chud article is spot on. I was particularly struck during the film with mal's presence on the hotel ledge across from their room, and haven't been able to come up with any legitimate reasons for why that would be so.
I think the chud article is right as well, particularly the bit about the walls closing in on him in that "real world" scene. But the ledge thing... I figured she'd walked around the ledge to keep him from grabbing her.
That, I thought was a given. If she had just been on his side of the window, he would have pulled her in.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Want to have some really crazy dreams? Wear a nicotine patch to bed. Freaky.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
For anyone who is not addicted to nicotine, be aware that wearing a nicotine patch will make you feel very sick. Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I think that chud article is spot on. I was particularly struck during the film with mal's presence on the hotel ledge across from their room, and haven't been able to come up with any legitimate reasons for why that would be so.
I think the chud article is right as well, particularly the bit about the walls closing in on him in that "real world" scene. But the ledge thing... I figured she'd walked around the ledge to keep him from grabbing her.
That, I thought was a given. If she had just been on his side of the window, he would have pulled her in.
But wasn't there a through street or alley or something beneath them? Unless there was some sort of pedestrian bridge, I don't see how she could have walked around any ledge.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@Herblay, I think by this point the thread is about discussion of the movie, and if you blocked out all the spoilers you'd be missing pretty much the entire conversation. Probably better off just seeing the movie or avoiding the thread.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: @Herblay, I think by this point the thread is about discussion of the movie, and if you blocked out all the spoilers you'd be missing pretty much the entire conversation. Probably better off just seeing the movie or avoiding the thread.
I've been seeing the construction "@X", where X is the name of ther person being addressed, crop up more and more lately. What does the "@" bring to the sentence? With or without it, it's clear that the person typing is addressing X. Is there any other meaning conveyed by the "@"?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The credits to Inception list two different actresses to play Phillipa: one at age 3, and one at age 5.
The children are not the same age in the final scene. They are wearing nearly identical clothes and the staging is similar, but they are older, different kids than the ones Cobb sees everywhere else.
------
I noticed she was on the wrong side as well, but it's not inconceivable that she got the room across the space as well. The inside is similar to the room they left, so I bet it's the same hotel/building. It's weird, but it doesn't HAVE to be dream-weird.
That the children are definitely older, bigger and not played by the same kids is my biggest reason for thinking the final scene is real and not a dream.
Regardless, I think the ending is a bit of a cop out. Not as enormous a one as the Sopranos ending, but still a copout. Pick a story to tell and commit to it, people.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I've been seeing the construction "@X", where X is the name of ther person being addressed, crop up more and more lately. What does the "@" bring to the sentence? With or without it, it's clear that the person typing is addressing X. Is there any other meaning conveyed by the "@"
Heh. I think the biggest thing is that the @ prefix allows people scanning the page to easily locate sections that are addressed to specific people. Yes, "Herblay" and "@Herblay" technically mean the same thing. But if you're quickly looking through a page, "Herblay" won't necessarily stand apart from words like "Hereditary" and "Help," whereas "@" clearly denotes that someone is being addressed.
It helps the people who want to participate in a given conversation to follow it more easily, and the people who want to ignore it to do that as well. The easier legibility may be slight, but given that it's a single character that takes less than a second to type, I think its worth it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:That the children are definitely older, bigger and not played by the same kids is my biggest reason for thinking the final scene is real and not a dream.
Regardless, I think the ending is a bit of a cop out. Not as enormous a one as the Sopranos ending, but still a copout. Pick a story to tell and commit to it, people.
I think it is intended to be real, the more I hear and think about it. But the point is not so much that the ending be ambiguous, but that the ending force you to wonder for a period of time before deciding what's the truth. The wonder/period-of-confusion is I think what that review linked on the last page was getting at.
It goes back to the "am I the man who dreamed he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was a man?" conundrum (can't remember the source of that line, it's on the internet somewhere I'm sure). Yeah you can use logic/evidence to decide that you're real life IS the real deal, but that period of "huh... what if it wasn't?" can be worth the experience.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I wasn't really bothered by the opposite ledge thing. Mal engaged in some pretty serious engineering to make it look like Cobb killed her - he mentions that she'd had herself examined by three different psychologists to establish her sanity. It's not so far-fetched that she'd rent a different room for her purposes. She couldn't very well make Cobb join her on the SAME ledge - he'd just pull her back in.
The squeezing alley scene WAS a big tip off, though. It was one of the few scenes in the film that actually felt like a dream to me. The instances where the dream projections would all just turn and stare also felt very dreamlike.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:I've been seeing the construction "@X", where X is the name of ther person being addressed, crop up more and more lately. What does the "@" bring to the sentence? With or without it, it's clear that the person typing is addressing X. Is there any other meaning conveyed by the "@"
Heh. I think the biggest thing is that the @ prefix allows people scanning the page to easily locate sections that are addressed to specific people.
I've seen the @ construction most frequently on Twitter, although that may just be a coincidence for all I know.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it has actual functionality on twitter (though it didn't when people started using it, beyond interacting nicely with search). Twitter's what started it becoming big elsewhere.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
If you have read the novels of Philip K. Dick and/or seen the films of Charlie Kauffman there is nothing to be excited about in Inception. In fact, it's quite banal compared to the work of those guys and taken by itself is considerably less clever and involving than Nolan's earlier work Memento. The scenes in which the characters explain the "rules" are cringe inducing (and they comprise 60% of the film) rather than involving. When in "The Matrix" Neo was being shown the rules of the matrix there was the dramatic tone of revelation. Here the explanation of the "rules" are nothing but a drudgery. It's as if Nolan, through his characters, is imploring the audience to find the central idea fascinating, because he doesn't trust (rightfully) in his material enough to hope for that fascination to develop naturally. In fact, the scene in which Ellen Page first explores the concept and walks that city deliberately echoes the scene in The Matrix in which Neo and Morpheus walk the streets as Morpheus explains the rules, and Inception is so much the lesser for the evocation, because there was a film that didn't need to try so hard to sell us it's central idea. And all of it is replete with what is becoming Nolan's trademark: unrelenting heaviness and a pervasive and suffocating sense of dread, something that was effective in counteracting the inherent banality of comic books to create bizarrely enjoyable spectacles but by itself (since there is not much in "Inception" that is really gripping) is quite unpleasant to sit through. In the end, Inception, along with Insomnia and The Prestige, is yet more blustering from Nolan.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Thanks, did you copy and paste that screed from your blog or something?
ETA: yes, you posted exactly the same review at Rotten Tomatoes, on two different threads, or you copied it from someone who posted it there. You understand the difference between a forum and a place for you to post your stuff?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Just sharing my impressions of the film in the thread on the front page dedicated to the film. That I posted the same message elsewhere is irrelevant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No it's not. Get a blog, and link to it if you must. You don't get to repost your missives wholesale without engaging here, especially with 7 posts under your belt.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No it's not.
Convincing.
quote:You don't get to repost your missives wholesale without engaging here, especially with 7 posts under your belt.
Perhaps I intended it as a prelude to engagement. I didn't anticipate anyone having an epileptic fit over it though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't give to craps about you or your opinions on anything, and I just wish you would go away. Failing that, I wish you would reform yourself in any regard as a poster or as a human being.
It's "apoplectic" by the way, epilepsy is a neurological disorder.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I understand where you're coming from Orincoro. The only thing is that I agree with him. Fortunately, I still enjoyed the film despite its shortcomings.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wingracer, this person has a long history of trolling this forum- I doubt he actually wrote that, but you never know.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I routinely post things here that I also post elsewhere, because I'm curious how people here will react to them in addition to others, and I see no particular reason to rephrase it. Why is this a big deal?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I routinely post things here that I also post elsewhere, because I'm curious how people here will react to them in addition to others, and I see no particular reason to rephrase it. Why is this a big deal?
It isn't. Orincoro is just interested in engaging in a flame war as his last post indicates.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I understand Orincoro but I just don't have anything against what he posted here so I'm not going to jump down his throat. Now one of the other threads he's posting on, I have my popcorn ready. That could be fun to watch, haha.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Christopher Nolan keeps going around announcing that he was working on this screenplay for ten years, which is funny considering how inept it is. Ellen Page's entire character functions to just stand there to have things explained to her so the audience gets it, and to serve as a therapist to Leo's character. Why would this person who apparently has things going for her choose to randomly join a band of thieves? Is this when fans of the film start rationalizing away these faults as possible virtues? "Oh you see, all these things are evidence it's all a dream/everything was staged to help Leo overcome his wife issues." Yawn.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The film is anything but inept.
Don't like it? Fine! And I think your reasons for not liking it might be interesting. But when expressed with such scorn, it's hard (for me, anyway) to relate enough to want to engage.
A lot of people like it, and think it was very well done. Some reviews might be so superlative as to reveal some naivete, some interpretations might be wishful, some praise might be undeserved...but in the end, in the general consensus, it's a well made movie. So, to be honest, I interpret your harsh criticism as forced. I assume that you choose to hate it because of the bourgeoisie appeal. :/
What's a movie that you really enjoyed lately?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
The Lady Eve My Dinner with Andre
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Ellen Page's entire character functions to just stand there to have things explained to her so the audience gets it, and to serve as a therapist to Leo's character. Why would this person who apparently has things going for her choose to randomly join a band of thieves?
Well, for one, she was fascinated by the challenge. How perfect a maze can she design? Second, the place is flat out awesome. How could the small child part of you not want to control a dream world where you can do anything? And third, she's Ariadne. I'm pretty sure she's entirely a dream construct - though if she's part of Cobb or Mal's subconcious, I'm still unsure on.
But if you don't enjoy taking the movie apart trying to decide what was real and what was dream, I can see where the movie was just ok. Leaving you the question was kind of the point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I thought the film was a fun, well-made cerebral exercise but emotionally frigid for everyone but Cobb. I suspect Nolan knew it, too, so I give him props for working so hard to inject the emotion SOMEWHERE, so at least it is in the movie.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
SPOILER---
If it's all (or mostly) in Cobb's head, it makes sense that he and his wife are the only ones with strong emotions. Those are the only two real people. The rest are aspects of his personality, which he only needs to act as set pieces for the emotional drama he's staging for his own benefit.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I thought the film was a fun, well-made cerebral exercise but emotionally frigid for everyone but Cobb. I suspect Nolan knew it, too, so I give him props for working so hard to inject the emotion SOMEWHERE, so at least it is in the movie.
:rolf:
I think I pretty much agree with this.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Sa'eed, it sounds like you were expecting or hoping for a different movie. I'm sorry that your expectations prevented you from enjoying it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Well, OSC sure liked it.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: SPOILER---
If it's all (or mostly) in Cobb's head, it makes sense that he and his wife are the only ones with strong emotions. Those are the only two real people. The rest are aspects of his personality, which he only needs to act as set pieces for the emotional drama he's staging for his own benefit.
MightyCow, if the movie was all a dream, then there's really no proof that his wife is real, or ever really existed. In fact, if the entire movie is a dream, Cobb might just be the dream persona of someone completely different, a woman, a small child, anybody!
Just thought it was worth mentioning.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I thought Fischer's storyline was very emotionally compelling.
On a completely seperate note, Arthur's fight scene in the hotel where the gravity was changing is amazing.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I have to agree. That fight scene was incredibly inventive. I actually don't think I've seen a battle where the gravity itself was changing, and the characters took advantage of it before.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Ariadne could always choose to leave if she thought they were doing something atroicious.
But yeah, that bugged me a little.
But then again so do you.
But then again, I bug everone, a lot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just saw this movie tonight, and I loved it.
SPOILERS . . . . . . .
I thought the story was a lot of fun, and it literally kept me on the edge of my seat until the end. I too thought that the movie would end with the top, but, I had no real guess as to what the top would do, either spin, fall, or ambiguously wobble.
What I particularly liked were a lot of the little things. First off, be either coincidence or homage or humor, the song that always played to kick them out of events was "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien" which was sung by Edith Piaf, who in the movie "La Vie En Rose" was played by Marion Cotillard, who was Leo's wife in this movie. Also, the song means "No, I regret nothing." Considering how much of the movie is tied up in the idea of regret, I found that fitting.
I'm not sure how much I believed was real or fake. I think a lot of the main plot was real, in that, he planted the idea in his wife's head, and that they actually made it out, but she killed herself, so he was forced to leave. However, I don't know if his plot to return was real or not. The thing is, don't we at least in one point in the movie see him spin the top and have it fall over? I remember the scene where he knocks it over when Saito walks into the bathroom, but I know I saw it work at least one other time to prove he wasn't there.
But what makes me think most of the characters were fake was their names and attitudes. First off, Fisher's father seems to almost literally be the Fisher King, or depending on which version of the myth you want to use, his son is. There's a wounded, ailing father who holds the Holy Grail, which in this case is Cobb's ticket back to his family.
Arthur himself is the stalwart warrior. He's steadfast, loyal, honorable, and a bit of a boyscout, which he's made fun of for at several times, which makes him a lot like the real King Arthur.
Then there's Mal, "bad," who for much of the movie plays a negative role for Cobb despite the fact that it's his love for her that causes him so much grief. Though in fairness, I think that's supposed to be Mol and not Mal, but she's French, so I'm not sure. Maybe the pronunciation is more important than the actual spelling.
Her father is also a bit of a Merlin-like figure, for he was the one who first taught Cobb how to control the dream state. I know it's mixing characters and plots a little bit, but Cobb and Mal also die in the deepest dream state, which is a bit like Gwenovere and Arthur in Avalon, a place to hide away and heal from wounds.
Then there's Ariadne, a figure from Greek mythology who, depending on which version you look at, was left in a long slumber and was wedded to a God, and is considered to be a weaving goddess, much like an architect.
So either one of three things is happening with all that. 1. I'm totally off and none of the names and behaviors are references to anything. 2. It was Nolan who wanted the actual characters to be referenced as such. 3. It was Cobb who drew these characters from his own knowledge of these myths and legends because he needed their help in his dream world. I'm not sure where Saito and Eames fit into that theory yet.
At the very least, there's a lot going on here, and none of it is really simple at first glance. I can't wait to get it and check out the behind the scenes stuff.
Edit to add: I just read that Nolan wrote the song into the script before Marion Cotillard joined the cast, and almost pulled it when she joined. He was convinced not to replace it by Hans Zimmer.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Don't forget that Ariadne, in myth, provided the means for Theseus to find his way out of the labyrinth.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
In a strange twist of events, some people are claiming that Christopher Nolan stole the plot of Inception from (of all things) DUCKTALES!!!!
His totem is a 25 foot high piece of gold, and his "limbo" is a desert in which all the sand molecules are actually mini gold coins.
The gravity changing hotel hallway fight scene? Apparently that was stolen from the Gummi Bears Christmas Special.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Don't forget that Ariadne, in myth, provided the means for Theseus to find his way out of the labyrinth.
That's right! I forgot all about Ariadne's string. That's probably the more direct reference. Good call.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: In a strange twist of events, some people are claiming that Christopher Nolan stole the plot of Inception from (of all things) DUCKTALES!!!!
His totem is a 25 foot high piece of gold, and his "limbo" is a desert in which all the sand molecules are actually mini gold coins.
The gravity changing hotel hallway fight scene? Apparently that was stolen from the Gummi Bears Christmas Special.
You need to be careful about making libelous claims you don't dane to support with evidence. The existence of other stories involving the same mechanisms is not evidence of theft, such claims need to be proved to be credited. I have to chuckle every time someone digs up something like an obscure issue of a comic printed in Norway (after inception had been treated and shopped to studios, btw) and points to the similarities, however glaring, and claims "it's theft!" There are only 6 stories in the world- every else is details. OSC wrote a "shocking" explication of the similarities between Ender's Game and Harry Potter, then immediately dismissed it because the point was that the explication itself frames both stories in exactly the same way. But that's the same thing as what fortune tellers do- making something exactly as general and exactly as specific as it can be to apply to as many things as possible, and remain vaguely credible.
I could write you an explication of the similarities between Inception and Dante's Inferno, and you would swear up and down Nolan "ripped it off," even though most people have never read the thing.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Absolutely right Orincoro. Also, apparently this comic didn't appear until Dec of 2002 and that was in Norway. Nolan first pitched the movie to the studio earlier in 2002.
I love how often you see two somewhat similar movies come out at about the same time and people always say one is a rip-off of the other, as if movies get made overnight.
Pretty amazing similarities though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Or it's possible Geraine was joking?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Or it's possible Geraine was joking?
Geraine said "other people are claiming" and provided a link so I have no problem with him but the guy that wrote the original article in that link needs a good lesson in plagiarism.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
fair enough, but jumping on Geraine just for linking the damn thing seemed ridiculous to me, especially since he didn't actually say anything to endorse it, just "look at this craziness!"
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I gotcha Raymond. Yeah Orincoro's post was a bit scathing. I imagine his frustration was directed at the author of the article and Lyrhawn as the poster got caught in the crossfire Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You mean Geraine.
It's been a long time since I got caught in a good crossfire.
My opinion on Inception: Not only was the whole thing a dream, but Mal was right and Cobb did still need to wake up. The whole job was really a job on him. Ariadne earned his trust and found out what it was that he couldn't let go of so that he could move on and come back to reality. And at the end, Saito planted the idea that he needed to return and honor their old agreement—his agreement with Mal to grow old together.
As for the top still spinning or wobbling, I'm not sure it even matters. The top was originally Mal's, and therefore it shouldn't work for anyone but her, right? He's been relying on an unreliable test of reality, and sooner or later he's going to realize it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
DAMMIT. I was SO going to link to that. As soon as he said cross-fire, I was all "Cross FIIIRREE!" in my head.
And yeah, Geraine just linked to the article, it was an editorial: "you."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Whoever wrote that Crossfire ad should have gotten a lot of money. Not many commercials get that ingrained in the brains of their target audience so that people remember it (fondly even) a decade and a half later.
quote:As for the top still spinning or wobbling, I'm not sure it even matters. The top was originally Mal's, and therefore it shouldn't work for anyone but her, right? He's been relying on an unreliable test of reality, and sooner or later he's going to realize it.
The top doesn't have magic powers. The only reason why other people can't have access to the totem is that they can't know how it works. How it spins and falls, the weight of the dice to know how it throws, or the weight of the rook to see how it falls when tipped over. It's something cannot be replicated or falsified in the dream world when the architect is someone else. Mal is dead, and Cobb has ceased to be an architect, so, if you assume that the entire movie is NOT a dream, then the top should have normal functional properties whenever he uses it.
But here's where it loses me a little bit. If he is in his OWN dream, and he is thus his own architect, he knows the properties of the top, and can lose himself in his own dream. There'd be nothing to stop him.
The fact that it was originally Mal's totem doesn't seem to matter at all given the rules stated for how the totem works.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)