web
counter
 

You Can't Resist Her, She's in Your Bones

By Daniel Carlson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (173)



Inception_review.jpg

In a recent series in The New York Times, documentarian Errol Morris explored a disease called anosognosia, a term coined by neurologist Joseph Babinski in 1914 that basically refers to a person who suffers from a disability but also lacks an awareness to perceive that suffering. In other words, it’s not that you can’t figure out what’s wrong; you don’t even know there’s a problem. It’s a heady and confusing malady that entangles scientists with philosophers, struggling to understand how someone can both teach their body to adapt to a setback while on another level never admitting that they have one.

It’s this nebulous area between self-deception and idealization that writer-director Christopher Nolan so dazzlingly explores in Inception, a film that’s classifiable as thriller, action, science-fiction, and romance, but is all of these in tilted and inventive ways and so much more than the sum of those uncertain parts. The nature of choice and identity has been central to Nolan’s filmography all along, from the tricky doubling of Following to the shifting realities of Memento, from the cops who construct their own stories in Insomnia to the dueling illusionists of The Prestige. Is it any wonder he was able to do so many amazing things with the Batman franchise, turning a cartoon about a pissed-off WASP in foam rubber into something grand and terrible and obsessed with the effects of our causes? His latest film returns to the daring and challenging heights of his early work, as he he wrestles once more with the demons that haunt us and the lengths to which we go to forget them.

Nolan’s territory this time is the world of dreams, and it’s the latest testament to his skills as a filmmaker that his movie is inherently dreamlike in the best way: You understand the world completely the moment it’s presented, even though it bears little or no resemblance to reality as you know it. The dialogue is blunt but never dumb, and compounded with the action it’s enough to instantly clue you in to things that take much longer to explain in other ways. Namely: Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the leader of a team of specialized operatives able to move together through a person’s (often lucidly) dreaming subconscious in order to extract information. The hardware with which they achieve these awesome ends is wisely never discussed in detail; remembering Clarke’s words that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, Nolan simply presents a team of people who use sleep-inducing chemicals and a small box with wires and tubes inserted into their arms that allow them to enter a shared dream-space together. The opening sequence is the first of many throughout the film that are gorgeously and almost flawlessly done, as Cobb and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) work to infiltrate the mind of Saito (Ken Watanabe) to retrieve classified knowledge. As the dream breaks up, the environment shatters and torques in ways that underscore a dream’s no-nonsense way of violating the laws of physics. Nolan’s dream worlds are fantastically rendered but only used in service of the greater narrative, i.e., every stunning shot (water shooting into a building through the windows and flowing up to the ceiling) is connected with a tangible story aspect (the dreamer was dunked in a tank of water to return to a waking state, thus creating water images before the whole thing disappeared).

Saito then decides to use Cobb and his team for his own ends, hiring them to do something that most people say can’t be done: inception. Instead of entering another person’s subconscious to retrieve information, Saito wants them to plant an idea and let it grow. His target is Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), son of the dying Maurice Fischer (Pete Postlethwaite) and heir to a considerable fortune when he inherits his father’s company, which is in direct competition with Saito’s. In exchange for artificially inspiring Saito’s rival to break up his own empire, Saito promises to reward Cobb’s team handsomely and send Cobb back to the home he hasn’t seen in years.

Why Cobb can’t go home — why he is who he is — is a discovery best left for each viewer to make, though it involves his former love, Mal (Marion Cotillard), in ingenious ways. The film is primarily concerned with the planning and execution of a heist, and Nolan wisely keeps the action moving along at a tight clip for most of the 148-minute run time. One of the screenplay’s strengths is that it never lets the more fanciful aspects overrun what’s essentially a story of a con man putting together one last big job so he can get home, or the fact that said job is basically just subliminally inspired asset stripping. Cobb assembles his team, including Arthur as the point man; Eames (Tom Hardy) as a forger and idea man; Yusuf (Dileep Rao) as the chemist responsible for the cocktails that will get them under; and Ariadne (Ellen Page) as the architect. It’s Ariadne’s job to mentally design the dream worlds in which the others will work and through which they’ll guide a dreaming but unaware Fischer to bend to their will.

The introduction of Ariadne allows for the kind of sequence at which Nolan excels: the narrated instruction manual. Watching her experiment with different ideas for landscapes, constantly moving buildings and reshaping the world with the glee of a god, you remember how amazing it was to hear Leonard Shelby tell you all about his world devoid of memories, or to see Bruce Wayne rhapsodize about the need to become something greater than himself. Nolan is an expert not just at building realities but at communicating the excitement of creation. Ariadne, named for the figure in Greek mythology who helped Theseus navigate the Labyrinth, builds amazing worlds on a massive scale, and Nolan’s globe-hopping location shoot provides plenty of backdrops that feel plucked from the director’s imagination.

Nolan’s always been skilled at using music and light to his advantage, too, and the score and visuals are breathtaking here. Hans Zimmer (who worked with Nolan on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) has created a propulsive score that’s heavily electronic but still symphonic, full of minor twists and paced just quick enough to never let you rest. His percussive scores for the Batman movies mimicked the sound of flapping wings, and the music here has hints of ticking watches and thudding hearts to match the characters’ descent into their own minds. The movie is scored almost wall to wall, which heightens the dramatic impact of the key moments when Nolan drops the sound and focuses on a specific action. One such instance is the first time Cobb’s team descends into Fischer’s dreams, and the music-free sequence lands like a gut punch. Wally Pfister’s cinematography is equally evocative. The compositions are often painterly in their balance of light and texture, and the camera movements underscore the emotion of the scene — e.g., a static shot bobs just a bit, as if floating, when Cobb sees something he shouldn’t in a dream — in subtle but strong ways.

Which is not, I should add here, to say that the film is perfect. Nolan’s screenplay, though fresh and effective, still hits a few structural bumps and shows thin in places, as potential holes are left open and story ends left loose. What’s more, Eames is the only one to get any dialogue resembling levity, which means that his punch lines feel a bit jarring in the context of such a relentlessly brooding film. There’s an often spiritual rigidity to Cobb and the rest that makes them feel at times not so much like people as pieces moved around a chess board. Nolan is exceptional at putting them where they need to be, but not always successful at letting them feel like they got there on their own. The film’s pressing darkness works best when his characters remember the light.

Yet as real as these flaws are, they’re outweighed by an overwhelmingly astonishing movie experience. DiCaprio is the perfect anchor for the cast: He’s become a master at playing characters driven by frustration and desperation to do dangerous things, and at 35 he’s fully a man, long shed of the teen heartthrob label that threatened to derail what’s become a fantastic career. Cobb is haunted by the memory of Mal to the point where he can’t even acknowledge that he’s got a problem, which places him with Leonard, Bruce, and the rest of Nolan’s collection of self-deluding heroes. Gordon-Levitt makes a good sidekick, though there’s the feeling he’s pushing his natural tenor into the baritone range in an attempt to sound, well, like the man DiCaprio’s become. Hardy, probably best known stateside for “Band of Brothers,” is the quintessential rogue, while Cotillard is heartbreaking in a role that provides the emotional core of the story.

Inception is all about the unknown unknowns, those damning blind spots that allow us to live without knowing we’re dying. Nolan has constructed an elaborate maze, a puzzle for his characters and viewers to run through over and over in a search for truth and redemption. The film is a thing of cold and sweeping beauty, wonderfully rendered and constantly engaging. Like all good dreams, it’s over too quickly.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a member of the Houston Film Critics Society, as well as a TV blogger for the Houston Press. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









There, That Wasn't So Bad, Was It? | A Weekend Comment Diversion | Bad Blogs Gone Worse













Comments

Fuck. Yes. Thank. You.

Posted by: Skitz at July 16, 2010 11:11 AM

Reading this makes me want to play sick for the day just so I can leave work and see this movie right now. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Posted by: Kayanne at July 16, 2010 11:19 AM

Thank Godtopus that Nolan is still reliable enough to give us a worthwhile movie experience. My weekend is filled, but I will need to see this in the theater. Soon.

Posted by: Pinky McLadybits at July 16, 2010 11:22 AM

It's about fucking time I had a real reason to go to the movies this summer. Praise be to Jebus.

Posted by: Schpida (he is our hero) at July 16, 2010 11:26 AM

AAAH! I need to see this! I need to see this now!
I need to stop working 14-hour days.
I need to tell people I'm going out to a "big meeting" with "Christopher."
I need to find a movie theater in Houston. I need to find a car. WHY am I in Houston?
Oh, panic.

Posted by: esme at July 16, 2010 11:29 AM

Sounds like my cup of tea (sweet iced tea, of course, not that bitter shit Brits and Yankees drink).

Posted by: EJ at July 16, 2010 11:40 AM

Beautiful review, Carlson. (Tired of hearing that yet?)

My intro to Nolan was with Batman Begins, which I loved (and maintain is a better, or at least more enjoyable, movie than Dark Knight), then I saw Dark Knight, and somewhere along the way, a friend suggested I watch The Prestige. It was with the Prestige that I finally started taking notice of the impact a director can have on his or her film, and I decided Nolan was one I wanted to watch.

In the 6 or so years since I started reading this site, I started watching movies the same way I read books - critically. Before pajiba, I think it's fair to say there were very few movies I didn't enjoy, and very few I particularly loved. They were just there, and if they weren't quotable, I probably wouldn't remember them. I never felt like I could properly critique a movie the way I could books because I never felt like I knew or understood the medium.

Thanks to pajiba, now I do. So I'm pleased to hear this about the first director I've ever cared about.

Posted by: dsbs at July 16, 2010 11:49 AM

Wonderful. Like others, I'm contemplating taking off from work to go see this RIGHT NOW.

It's moments of clarity like this movie that make Hollywood seem redeemable, and all the Michael Bay crap, all the remakes, all the worsening sequels, all the novels plundered just fades away.

For the moment anyway...I'm sure right now some Hollywood exec is pitching "Apocalypse Now 2: Kurtz's revenge" to other execs. "Yeah...this time, we can do the whole thing in CGI and get Vin Diesel to play Kurtz! Someone call Bruckheimer now!"

Posted by: Jacktrade at July 16, 2010 11:50 AM

It's been a while since the last time I immediately recognized a review title/song lyric. Good ol' Weezer. Also, this movie needs to enter my brain through my eyeballs as soon as possible.

Posted by: the_wakeful at July 16, 2010 11:53 AM

Why Nolan has but 1 Oscar nom is the reason the Oscars are a steaming pile. There's not better resume of movies over the last 10 years. period.

Posted by: pete at July 16, 2010 12:05 PM

saw a midnight showing. It was breathtaking and totally immersing. It is easy to ignore the holes and just let the story flow, and the weaknesses of some of the charcters are few. definitely worth seeing.

Posted by: ninetwenteetoo at July 16, 2010 12:27 PM

Psssh! Whatever. You are all a bunch of sheep, getting all excited to see a movie just because DUSTIN tell you to. You couldn't make up your own minds without Pajiba's say-so, huh? Buncha wannabe cool hipster dickheads.

....Now that the obligatory "idiotic attempt as trolling/counter-review with incorrect author credit" is out of the way, I would also like to express my relief that it may not be a waste. I haven't been disappointed by Nolan yet, but still it is nice to have confirmation.

I am especially happy to hear that all that Batman money was put to good use in the visual effects.

Posted by: Vermillion at July 16, 2010 12:37 PM

So I know a question lingering in many of our minds: did Ellen Page shed her Juno-ness? Did she make you believe she was a real person and not a snarky pregnant high-school girl?

Posted by: MM at July 16, 2010 12:38 PM

I to saw midnight showing, and it blew me away.

Here's the brilliance of Nolan: after watching each of his films, you have to reflect for just a second and then determine you need to see it again. Not just for replayability - to pick up on what you missed and challenge yourself to understand more clearly.

My problem with the film was the fact that many of the charactersjust didn't have a personality and could have been played by anyone. I mean, I'm no JGL-hater, but all he had to do was careen down a hallway. Not much acting going on there.

But then again, if each of the characters were given a backstory, the film would be much too dense. Nevermind.

Posted by: penelope at July 16, 2010 12:40 PM

AHHH sooo excited for this! I'm so glad you reviewed it, Dan!

Posted by: denesteak at July 16, 2010 12:40 PM

Good review, Daniel. You made up for your wrongheaded Toy Story 3 review (I kid! I kid!).

Saw it last night as well. Not perfect, but it was an exhilarating time at the movies nonetheless.

Posted by: HoJu at July 16, 2010 12:41 PM

It's nice when people go to considerable effort to make a movie, instead of just a cynical grab for cash with special effects ladled over a shitty story.

Nolan tries to tell interesting stories, is what I'm getting at. He doesn't pander to the stupid people. He wants to turn on the smart people.

Posted by: Slash at July 16, 2010 12:42 PM

And MM: she wasn't given enough of a fleshed-out character to determine for sure, but she seemed pretty damned intelligent to me when she was using real words and speaking intelligent dialogue.

Posted by: penelope at July 16, 2010 12:45 PM

It's a relentless film that makes you keep up, and I enjoyed every minute of it--even some of the clunky dialogue. But I think the most surprisingly thing in the movie is the fantastic constuming. I have rarely seen so many well tailored suits in one film.

Posted by: kelsy at July 16, 2010 12:50 PM

"those damning blind spots that allow us to live without knowing we’re dying."

Thanks for that. Lovely writing, and a breath of fresh air after that NY Press blathering. And now I need to see this movie immediately.

Posted by: Kalexal at July 16, 2010 12:51 PM

I just keep getting more excited for this movie. And I have to wait all the way 'til Monday.....

Nicely balanced review, Mr. Carlson. Between you and Roger Ebert, I am nigh breathless with anticipation.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverdouche at July 16, 2010 12:55 PM

I really wanted this to be as good as it looked. After I see this, I just need a third to complete the movie experience.

Posted by: richmac at July 16, 2010 1:36 PM

.....for the summer...ugh, sorry.

Posted by: richmac at July 16, 2010 1:36 PM

MM: I present you Hard Candy. Yes. Ellen Page knows how to not play brooding pregnant Juno girl thingy. During Inception she doesn't have a lot of screen time to break the mold like the above mentioned movie but she does well with the time she has. I never once thought "Juno!" - I thought "Please, for the love of Jeebus, she needs to marry me."

I'm going to disagree about a few of the "flaws" but won't elaborate for a bit since people need to see the movie.

Over all, this is the Number 1 movie of the year and beats the releases from last year. And I loved me some Up in the Air and Where the Wild Things Are.

Posted by: Zerath at July 16, 2010 1:49 PM

@Penelope regarding the actors. Slate has a nice (complementary) review of Inception which discusses the lack of character development and/or whether one likes DiCaprio when he's in "scrunchy face" mode.

Posted by: bananapanda at July 16, 2010 1:55 PM

kelsy, isn't it funny how these days in movies, it's easy to signal the future or a fantasy by having everyone wear somber suits and ties?

I first noticed it in Gattaca years back, but it's really taken hold...

Posted by: Jacktrade at July 16, 2010 2:04 PM

Hey, I bear Ellen Page no ill will. And I liked Juno, only seen it once but I enjoyed it. I just know that her casting is something people have been ... hesitant ... about, and I was wondering if that was warranted.

I'm reeeallllly excited about seeing this. I don't know quite when I'll get to, but hopefully soon.

Posted by: MM at July 16, 2010 2:13 PM

Had to IMDB Tom Hardy to figure out who he was in BoB. Say he was Bronson or freaking Picard and then I'll know who you mean!

Posted by: Irina at July 16, 2010 2:17 PM

Fantastic review Dan! This review has just about convinced me to get a babysitter and actually go see this one in a theater, which is no small feat. And thanks for the NYTimes article referral. I now have something to read throughout today at work. Fascinating stuff.

Posted by: katy at July 16, 2010 2:19 PM

Thanks bananapanda! I just don't like reading reviews saying that JGL was the stand-out. It was the special-effects that made him a stand-out, not his acting.

Bah. Why do I seem to have so much ill will for JGL? I like him, I swear.

And I think Tom Hardy is quite possibly the new Statham in my eyes.

Posted by: penelope at July 16, 2010 2:56 PM

Oooohh, I haven't been this excited for a movie in so freaking long! Also for the first time in years, everyone in my family is going tonight to see it in IMAX.

Posted by: Katie (KP) at July 16, 2010 3:15 PM

I haven't been to a movie theater in AGES (I'm a Netflix on my couch kind of girl) but this makes me want to cancel my plans for the rest of the day and see this movie. Now.

Damn work.

Posted by: GwenBear at July 16, 2010 3:15 PM

Saw it...was fookin awesome...great review...now off to Joel McHale in Atlantic City

Posted by: Luke at July 16, 2010 4:14 PM

Does Cillian Murphy use his natural accent? This is seriously important to me. I just watched 28 Days Later and I am baffled by his constant use of the high pitched American thing. I want to assume he stays super sexy Brit since Pete Postlethwaite plays his dad.

Oh, and also, I am pleased by the reassurance that this movie is as great as I've been hoping.

Posted by: HB at July 16, 2010 4:25 PM

Damn! Now more people will start using MY name!

Oh, and very nice review, Dan. I was gonna see it anyway, but your review has increased my anticipation.

Posted by: ariadne at July 16, 2010 4:30 PM

Ready.... Set... RACE TO THE THEATRE!!

Yeah I can't wait to see this tonight!!

Posted by: Wormer at July 16, 2010 5:32 PM

Since becoming a dad, I've only had a chance to see three movies in the theaters. Two were Nolan directed, so I'm psyched to hear this is good.

Posted by: Irving Washington at July 16, 2010 6:05 PM

Thank God this is good. It looked good but I've been burned so much lately. I needed reassurance.

Thanks Dan!

Posted by: becks at July 16, 2010 6:10 PM

Zerath, thank you. I was going to say Hard Candy. Also, The Tracey Fragments. She's good, that girl.

Posted by: SB at July 16, 2010 6:16 PM

And it still sounds very similar to Paprika. I'm not saying this film necessarily borrowed from that film. It could be based on the ideas in the source novel for Paprika that came out years before either.

It's not even just visual similarities. Now that I know a device is used to infiltrate the dreams and the agent/team can design and control the dreams, the similarities don't seem so coincidental. The box and wires sounds like the DC Mini and the navigation of dreams, by cooperation or coercion, sounds just like what the villain does to DC Mini test subjects.

Now why do people keep bringing up these similarities all over the place? That's simple. We want more people to see Paprika. We're still sore Paprika didn't get in for Animated Film at the Oscars a few years ago and more sore that this isn't one of the breakthrough anime titles that transcends the cultural differences to international reverence, if you will. It's worth trying Paprika if you plan on seeing Inception because everything seems to indicate two very similar films in subject matter and style.

Posted by: Robert at July 16, 2010 6:43 PM

Very much looking forward to this. The Buffalo News reviewer panned it so completely that I actually was wondering, but this makes me think that he simply didn't get it.

Posted by: Nayl at July 16, 2010 8:12 PM

Oh Penelope, you have to know, no one can ever replace The Statham.

Also, I found Page to be fine. While her role didn't require a lot of heavy lifting, she was understated, and believable. In fact, I think the spare nature of the dialogue and the consistent action helped her to avoid becoming too heavy for the role, if that makes any sense.

Posted by: Smokin at July 16, 2010 9:49 PM

I saw it this afternoon and it was great. I was totally engrossed and am completely willing to go and see it again. Soon.

Posted by: MyySharona at July 16, 2010 10:12 PM

Just came back from seeing it. Had not seen the trailer before hand or read anything about the movie.
I must say, it sucked. Didn't like it. About 40 minutes too long for me.

Posted by: lama at July 16, 2010 10:38 PM

A glimmer of good in a summer of suck.

Posted by: , at July 16, 2010 11:37 PM

I saw it tonight, it was good - but definitely too long, and a bit wrought. Great concept, music and design, though.

Posted by: jzhz at July 17, 2010 12:48 AM

Holy balls, this movie was fantastic. Gonna have to see it a couple more times for it to fully sink in. I was riveted the entire time and especially loved JGL and Tom Hardy.

Posted by: Snrub at July 17, 2010 12:50 AM

This movie was amazing and ORIGINAL and just...great experience.

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at July 17, 2010 1:14 AM

Just got back from the cinema, which obviously meant I got to read this review and man did you hit the nail on the head! I just let it all go and sank into this wonderful movie and oh...was it ever wonderful.
I for one felt Ariadne to be a very irksome character but I suspect that wasn't all Ellen Page's fault, although her casting made me more aware of it..if that makes any sense. I think my great experience of this movie also had a lot to do with the fact that I was in a full movie theater - with people who seemed to love the movie just as much as I did. There was a lot of cool audience participation, gasps/laughter all that kind of jazz. Especially with the final scene, I think the fact that everyone was so freaking into it made it that more enjoyable. Coolness allround!

Great review, you really captured the essence of the film!

Posted by: Mona at July 17, 2010 1:24 AM

It's brilliant... perfectly brilliant. I'm going to have to see it again to fully understand everything.

Posted by: tallulahc at July 17, 2010 1:25 AM

A warning: Inception is dense. It's thick and has in it about as much going on as 5 normal summer movies.

That said, HOLY SHIT! It is the best movie of the year. Simple. Nothing less.

Posted by: Fredo at July 17, 2010 1:35 AM

Agghhh! What is WITH those horrible Twilight Eclipse Pajiba links?! At first, I thought it was some commentary on the over-exposure of Twilight, but now I'm concerned it's some permanent fixture! Please, help! PLEASE!!!!

Posted by: Vince Noir at July 17, 2010 2:07 AM

In reference to the Buffalo reviewer who panned it so completely... I'm convinced that some critics make up their minds months ahead of time that they will be the one douchebag who hates an awesome and popular movie.

I hate to throw around the word masterpiece, but there... I said it. Inception is a masterpiece. Best movie of the year (and best movie in years).

Posted by: Melissa at July 17, 2010 2:47 AM

wow~good!

Posted by: fuire at July 17, 2010 3:34 AM

Hey esme! I'm in Houston, with a car and a working knowledge of theater locations. If you let me know where (roughly at least) in Houston you are, I can help you find and/or get to a theater. You know, anything to help a fellow Pajiban, etc.

Posted by: megaera at July 17, 2010 3:52 AM

JUST got back from the theater, and as all my friends are asleep I came here to talk about it. Very possibly the best movie of the year (it's neck and neck with Micmacs), and I was literally on the edge of my seat for the entire 2.5 hours. I've never sweat that much in my life. The visuals were amazing, the hallway fight scene was amazing, and all the actors were amazing despite the dialog faltering in parts. I was literally screaming (under my breath, of course) at the final shot. People who have seen it will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Posted by: the_wakeful at July 17, 2010 4:25 AM

Loved this film - nice review Dan.

I've always enjoyed JGL but never felt over the top about him until now. All his scenes in the hotel were grand and he and Tom Hardy worked well together. Leo was Leo - brooding and tortured and a great actor as always.

Ellen Page was out of her league and out of place. She didn't fit. Whether it was all her or some of it was the character, she was the one thing that kept knocking me out of the story and wishing for someone else. As for the character, the one thing that really irked me was how she was introduced to dreaming by Leo, and then a short time later she was acting like the expert, telling him what to do and almost more knowledgeable than him.

But still, I loved it. And I need to see it again.

Posted by: Cindy at July 17, 2010 9:31 AM

Great movie, but you'll want to read Gödel Escher Bach beforehand to fully understand what's going on.

Posted by: Neil Morse at July 17, 2010 10:42 AM

Cindy, I completely agree with your assessment of Ellen Page's role. At one point, I leaned over to my friend and said, "Ugh, she needs to mind her own goddamn business."

She was so shocked that a (young) man would want to do everything he could to remember his deceased wife. Paraphrasing here, but the scene where she was all, "why would you do that?" needed a big STFU from Leo.

Great film and I definitely want to see it again soon. My heart can't take it for a week or so though. I was on edge the entire time, and I mean that in the best possible way.

Posted by: Mac at July 17, 2010 11:10 AM

Cindy & Mac, I agree with your comments re: Ellen Page and her character. Ariadne's scenes with Cobb bugged me because she seemed too emotionally stunted to understand him and his psyche.

Posted by: Snrub at July 17, 2010 12:06 PM

I'm sorry, I just didn't like the movie. I really, really wanted to, but after the first hour, I was squirming in my seat. The clunky exposition, the interchangeable dialogue, and the absence of actual characters with motivations left me cold, and removed from the movie.

I'm also a believer in show, not tell. If I tell you a stick a dynamite can blow up a house, you might believe me, but if I place some explosives in the base of your home while you're sleeping and light the fuse, it'll have a bit more impact.

There was also a vagueness in the dream worlds, while understandable, left some glaring, gaping holes. Wouldn't you enter any dream state, regardless of what may or may not be inside, with some form of body armor? Couldn't you dream yourself up an invisible force-field that'll protect you from harm?

And I'm starting to think, in a devil's advocate sort of way, that Nolan is horrified by women. Every single one of his movies has a confused male being manipulated and haunted or fearing the manipulations of women. These women always prove to be their downfall, and they all usually meet horrific, and tragic ends.

Or maybe I'm just over thinking it.

It's a gorgeous looking movie, with great actors all playing the same nihilistic characters, but the story is too over-thought and never gets a chance to breathe.

Posted by: Brian at July 17, 2010 12:46 PM

Good Weezer reference. The Blue Album always takes me back to when I was just starting puberty and discovering good rock music. Later on in college I got involved in a pretty serious discussion with a roommate with regards to whether or not Weezer partook in recreational drug use. His response was to get me high and put on "Only in Dreams" (the song cited, for those wondering).

I think he was right.

Posted by: Jarsh at July 17, 2010 1:13 PM

"scrunchy face" mode

Ah, that describes my problem so succinctly. Yeah, just makes me want to slap him and yell "shave off the 14 year old's whiskers, you're not Russell Crowe, kid! Lighten up!"

Posted by: Jay at July 17, 2010 3:49 PM

I really, really, really want to see this, but I'm so effing preggers right now that I just don't think it's possible for me to comfortably sit for 2+ hours. Baby should be here shortly, so maybe this can be one of my first trips out of the house. *sigh* There's finally a movie worth shelling out my 9 bucks for this summer and I'm too "cow-like" to go and enjoy it.

Posted by: superEdna at July 17, 2010 4:22 PM

Brian,

I'm interested on how you came to that conclusion about Nolan. I'm usually more then slightly hyper aware of misogynistic undertones and have never gotten that from Nolan. It's the women manipulating the men. Often they are either the ones searching for the truth of collateral damage.

Insomnia has Hilary Swank as the presence of truth. The male leads around her fall into the vices of rage, self preservation, and self inflicting justice. Meanwhile she is the one trusted in the end to bring fourth the truth. Her only vices were ambition and blind trust.

In The Prestige and The Dark Knight the women, and child, are left as the ultimate collateral damage. All of the women found in these films are the victims of their male counterparts deep seeded flaws and hubris. They are the constants who exist with raw emotions to give and it becomes clear to the viewer the males in their lives are too preoccupied with rivalries, achievement, and duty.

Nolan has never given the development to the female characters fully...but I've never felt any forms of Sampson vs. Delilah or Jezebel.

Posted by: Ren at July 17, 2010 4:33 PM

Mmmmm, it was amazingly well put together.

Posted by: Mick J at July 17, 2010 5:05 PM

Ren

I'm not saying his views are misogynistic. I just get the vague feeling that he's afraid of women, and the manipulative power he seems to think they can hold over a man.

In Following Cobb (I just realized that!!) is manipulated by the woman, gives into her advances, and winds up paying big time.

In Memento his wife can't stand the way he is, so she tests him and winds up letting him kill her because that would be easier than standing by the man she loves. Then Trinity manipulates the hell out of him right to the end.

In The Prestige the obsession with the women fuels both men's hubris and rivalry right until the bitter end. Be it the wife, or Scar-Jo using her sexuality to play both sides.

In Batman Begins and The Dark Knight , Rachel is a distraction that keeps Bruce from his chosen duty as Batman and gets all blowned up because of it.

It's a couple not so thoroughly thought out observations, but like Wes Anderson and his Daddy issues, it seems to be some kind of running theme. Not necessarily that he hates women, or views them as lesser, or anything like that. Just this subtle fear of them, their advances, and what "love" might do to a man if he allows it.


I'm a huge fan of discussion, it helps points and ideas develop a little more clearly and maybe I can see where I'm delving in to deeply. So does any of that make sense? I could be straw grasping.

Posted by: Brian at July 17, 2010 6:46 PM

Just saw this today and I was blown away. I've tried to avoid spoilers and getting myself hyped up so I didn't get let down from built up expectations (I'm looking at you, Shutter Island), but this film was near perfect for me. Dan, your review hits it right on the head; a few flaws but the visuals, and story, and just sheer ambition of the movie completely makes up for it.

As a few people noted above, Nolan doesn't make movies for lazy people. He gives you the important bits without excessive exposition and then it's up to you as the viewer to remember what's what and put some of the pieces together. Combine that with strong actors who deliver great performances and ridiculously stunning visuals and well, I'm in love.

Posted by: Even Stevens at July 17, 2010 6:46 PM

Arguably for me, the biggest missed opportunity lies in their lack of a debate over the morals of what they are doing to Junior Fischer. It's one thing to head into a mind and steal something: after all, the person hasn't lost what was stolen. It's only been revealed to others.

But with inception, you are fundamentally rearranging the target's choices, beliefs and ideas of the world he/she knows. It's equivalent to brainwashing.

And no one seems concerned about what they're doing?

Posted by: Fredo at July 17, 2010 7:13 PM

I wish I hadn't just seen Shutter Island three days ago because it makes this movie seem like SI on steroids -- Dicaprio, the plotting, the family dynamics, the guilt, the layers of reality, even the ending.

Of course, Inception is so much more. Loved the how the film loops back on itself, like a labyrinth. It's one of those movies that I best enjoy when I don't think too much about it while it's happeneing and just take it in, in the moment, just like a dream.

Posted by: Stillnadine at July 17, 2010 8:38 PM

I've only seen four of Nolan's movies, but in this one I think the women kind of work as foils to one another. Mal takes Cobb further into dreams and represents his desires and his hopes, Ariadne designs them but knows them and tries to pull Cobb away from Mal. She wants him to confront Mal, and I think she's motivated to do that out of a sort of fear of the other woman. Mal is essentially the femme fatale and Ariadne is more like Judi Dench in a Bond movie, that trustworthy pure source that can keep the male protagonist focused on his goal. Even the casting sort of points to that, as Marianne Coltard is a french, sexy, older woman and a mother, whereas Ellen Page is a very young American (Canadian) girl, with a very young and non femme-fatale body. They carry out the same roles always reserved for women in these movies, just as JGL as the backup/sidekick, Hardy as the comic relief/impersonator and the chemist works in the role normally reserved for the guy who makes neat shit.

Ariadne is also the closest we get to someone who does experience a bit of character development and revelation, and while it's sometimes a bit tedious with the exposition, I think she gets to a point where she's asking Cobb questions because she wants him answer, not because she doesn't know. I had a point in the movie where I was like "why does Ariadne keep asking him? Why doesn't she just tell him, why hasn't she figured it out?" and then I was like, oh, Page is playing her as someone who knows the answer, but won't give it to Cobb because he has to discover it for himself. She has to make him answer to her, and I think Page was playing it that way. She's figuring it out while she's in it, and making him reaffirm it. I liked her casting, and I think she took a role that a lesser actress would have overdone and (probably) would have sexed up out of insecurity and treated it the way all the male players treat theirs, with a sort of calm acceptance.

On a side note, I got mistaken for her tonight. Ah, the joys of being a skinny, short brunet in Ellen Page's home town.

Posted by: Claire Allison at July 17, 2010 9:47 PM

stillnadine,
I saw Shutter Island when it originally came out in February, but yes, I also noticed the similarity between Leonardo DiCaprio's characters and their guilt about their situations. I have been wanting to discuss it with someone without becoming all spoilery.

Posted by: Jen K. at July 17, 2010 10:30 PM

Jen, you are right, you can't compare the movies without spoilers. But it is interesting that one movie takes a fairly straight forward narrative and wraps back on its self and the other adds layer and layers to its story but both end up in the same place. I'd love to hear how Dicaprio compares the characters.

Posted by: Stillnadine at July 17, 2010 11:16 PM

Claire Allison you know you look a little bit like that Juno chick?

Posted by: Brian at July 17, 2010 11:39 PM

Anyone who says this movie is too long needs to realize that they have a short attention span and should probably start reading more books. Immediately.

Anyone who says the plot was too dense has a short attention span and needs to start reading more books. Immediately.

Anyone who says Nolan is afraid of woman is an idiot. You can read books immediately but I don't think that would help.

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at July 18, 2010 12:50 AM


an extremely well written review and i hope dan was paid by the word.
as for the mind-bending movie about the " unknown unknowns ",
i pass.

Posted by: snake at July 18, 2010 12:55 AM

About the only problem I can find with women in Christopher Nolan's movies is that he sometimes casts lightweights against his male leads. I mean, casting Katie Holmes in Batman Begins? Putting Scarlett Johansonn against Christian Bale and Michael Cane? Even putting a good actress like Maggie Gyllenhall in The Dark Knight kinda backfired since it led to many making jokes as to how she looked like the Joker.

But thematically his movies are more about the disturbed/distraught artists who seem to seek exceptional ways to cope with their lives with women seeming to be the escape to normalcy that they can't take.

Posted by: Fredo at July 18, 2010 1:52 AM

Saw this last night and enjoyed it very much. Although my experience was really close to being ruined by a family sitting behind me with their open mouth chewing and talking through the ENTIRE movie. Also their loud 10 year old kids who were bored and didn't belong there.

Anyway, spot on review Mr. Carlson. And I am so glad that you dedicated a paragraph to the music as it was beautiful. I never pay attention to music during movies (unless it's horrible and you can't help but notice it), but here the music was simply perfect. So much so that I'm planning on buying the soundtrack (again, something I don't do).

Posted by: Scully at July 18, 2010 10:05 AM

Also, JGL really rocks a 3 piece suit, doesn't he? And with Cillian Murphy in the French cuffs and all the Windsor knots, this movie was almost too much for me. (Yes, I am a hooer for nice, tailored men.)

Posted by: Scully at July 18, 2010 10:08 AM

My name is Brian, and I'm an idiot.

Posted by: Brian at July 18, 2010 10:35 AM

People really do not like negative thoughts about this movie, and that's making people feel really good about themselves, and really smart, all over the web. I've enjoyed following the reception.

Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2010 11:06 AM

I wonder what it's like to write reviews and then watch the bullshit responses come flooding in... how many ass kissers on this website?

Posted by: H at July 18, 2010 1:17 PM

Posted by: Scully at July 18, 2010 10:08 AM

Amen, girl. I've made no secret of my love for JGL and getting to see him for 2 1/2 hours looking very dapper in his tailored pinstripe suits? Heaven.

Posted by: Even Stevens at July 18, 2010 1:22 PM

@Neil: Godel Escher Bach - you get it - you totally get it. I'm quite certain the average movie goer (perhaps even the average pajiban) couldn't make it through chapter one, which for me underpins the glorious discomfort of the whole concept of this film - it's a movie that assumes its viewer is smart, rather than assuming its viewer is a moron.

Posted by: KC at July 18, 2010 1:27 PM

*snort*

Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2010 2:02 PM

Scully, I prefer a DOUBLE Windsor myself.

Posted by: grendel at July 18, 2010 2:32 PM

"Inception" would have been a significantly better film, as a whole, with a much smaller budget. Technically and visually, it's a marvel. In that regards, it is mandatory viewing on the big screen. But other than that...it felt hollow. The lack of development of the characters was fairly jarring considering the plot in question. And I think Nolan is smart enough to realize that during production. As the movie progresses, it's not the emotional stakes that get higher, it's just the action that gets bigger. A van falling slowing off a bridge in to a body of water! No wait! An elevator burning and falling down an elevator shaft! No, wait! A big ass fortress on the side of a snowy mountain exploding and collapsing! No, wait! An entire city, literally by the ocean starts to collapse and destroy itself!

On top of that, it was supremely distracting to feel like I was watching "Shutter Island 2". By and large I like DiCaprio, but it's tough to praise this performance when it's nearly identical to the one we saw six months ago.

Posted by: Barnes78 at July 18, 2010 2:56 PM

God, some of you are irritating the crap out of me.

1. What the fuck is you people's problem with Ellen Page. So she was in Juno, so the fuck what? She's a decent actress, a hell of a lot better than some of the girls that get praised around here for nothing more than being beautiful and able to string together complete sentences. And she was fine in this film, as I said before. I'm not sure what exactly she did to you people, but it can't have been anything that warrants this kind of unreasoning hatred.

2. KC...please. I had an entire rant here, railing on the utter pretension of your statement, but it's sooooo not worth it.

Posted by: Smokin at July 18, 2010 3:00 PM

"Inception" would have been a significantly better film, as a whole, with a much smaller budget. Technically and visually, it's a marvel. In that regards, it is mandatory viewing on the big screen. But other than that...it felt hollow. The lack of development of the characters was fairly jarring considering the plot in question. And I think Nolan is smart enough to realize that during production. As the movie progresses, it's not the emotional stakes that get higher, it's just the action that gets bigger. A van falling slowing off a bridge in to a body of water! No wait! An elevator burning and falling down an elevator shaft! No, wait! A big ass fortress on the side of a snowy mountain exploding and collapsing! No, wait! An entire city, literally by the ocean starts to collapse and destroy itself!

On top of that, it was supremely distracting to feel like I was watching "Shutter Island 2". By and large I like DiCaprio, but it's tough to praise this performance when it's nearly identical to the one we saw six months ago.

Posted by: Barnes78 at July 18, 2010 3:17 PM

I wanted to love it, but just couldn't. The world the movie exists in was fascinating, but the plot was really no different than any other heist movie. I kept waiting for it to go to the next level, but it never did. Lots of wasted potential with this one.

Posted by: misty at July 18, 2010 3:33 PM

I wonder what it's like to write reviews and then watch the bullshit responses come flooding in... how many ass kissers on this website?

Posted by: H at July 18, 2010 1:17 PM

One Kicker For Every Ass!

That's not "kicker' but "kisser"? Oh, my mistake. In that case, here are some other things that probably cause you to wonder.

#9. What is the nature of perceived reality? Kidding! Pondering whether that really is a computer screen in front of you is actually a very difficult philosophical question.

So let's move on to things you probably do wonder about.

#8. What it's like to write a complete sentence.
#7. What it's like to write a critical review.
#6. What it's like to write a critical review longer than your 3rd grade book report.
#5. What it's like to have someone kiss your ass.
#4. What it's like to have someone kiss you.
#3. What it's like to have a job.
#2. What it's like to leave the basement.

And the #1 thing you probably spend days wondering about....

#1. What it's like to be a success on a real website. It's so difficult to be "FIRST!" and yet you keep trying and trying and trying...

Posted by: Smokey at July 18, 2010 3:59 PM

Just saw it and absolutely loved it - one of the most original movies I've seen in years, plus 2.5 hours of JGL. I thought a lot about it when I got out of the theater though, and couldn't shake the sense that we never saw reality (the "top level") once in the whole film. This guy's theory seems to really put the pieces together that were floating around in my mind after leaving the theater:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/board/flat/167024711?p=1

What do you guys think?

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2010 3:59 PM

re: Character Development or the lack thereof

Here there be SPOILERS!

Maybe the reason why the was no or little character development, especially in the supporting cast, is that there was only one character in the movie. All the others were likely subconscious projections, not people. If the top doesn't stop, that is.

Whoa, buddy. SPOILERS up there. Watch out.

Posted by: myjetski at July 18, 2010 5:37 PM

Saw it. Fucking loved it. Stopped trying to follow the plot beyond my basic understanding of it 10 minutes in.

To quote William Hurt's character in The Big Chill, "Sometimes you just have to let art flow over you."

I understood what was happening, that was enough. If I'd tried to keep all the puzzle pieces in their proper order, I'd have got lost after those first 10 minutes. (I know what you mean about the plot holes, but they didn't matter.)

DiCaprio has fulfilled his early promised and exceeded it by light years.

And there's an inside joke that goes on throughout the film that made me smile every time it happened, involving Cotillard - not her character, I don't think she's ever actually around when it happens. They MUST have made the choice consciously... I won't say another word about it, it's too amusant to spoil.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at July 18, 2010 5:53 PM

myjetski, that was the conclusion I came to as well. It makes sense if you look at it through that lens - many of the above complaints do - for example, Ariadne's treatment of Cobb.

On a shallow note, I definitely missed a couple of things JGL was saying due to being so distracted by the way he looked in those suits! I do wish he'd had a bit more to do, acting-wise, but you can't have everything I guess.

Posted by: CL at July 18, 2010 6:04 PM

And now that I've read the comments, may I just say -- wow, there are some real assholes out there, and most of them seem to be TOTALLY in love with themselves.

Which is good, because ain't nobody ELSE gonna be, wit those holier than thou, I'm the only smart person in the room attitudes.

Jesus, fucktards. We liked the movie and found it engaging, and somehow you think that's an invitation to go all John Kennedy Toole on our asses? Okay, but please... go ALL the way with it.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at July 18, 2010 6:05 PM

@MARYSCOTT O'CONNOR,

Eh? Wha? Isn't part of the fun of Pajiba in the disagreement of discourse? I'm all for passion, but um...you might be taking things a bit too personally. Saying someone you disagree with will never find love is a bit...well, it's a bit...misplaced? Misguided? Almost amateur-like? Hate the disagreement all you want, but..take it out on the person you disagree with, a person that's basically a stranger? Sheesh.

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 18, 2010 6:30 PM

@Adrienne:

I've read that too, the one thing I don't get it is why would his team have true emotions/characters if they were only projections? For instance, why does Arthur bother to kiss Ariadne? Or why does Eames bust Arthur's balls and vice-versa? Doesn't make sense to me.

I think the script was tinkered with so much to keep interpretation as open as possible, which is fine with me.

Posted by: Mick J at July 18, 2010 6:37 PM

Hi! I'm the average Pajiba-an and GRRRRRRRR! How DARE anyone say anything bad about NOLAN! NOLAN is a GOD and I want to just drop to my knees and FELLATE him!!!! GRRRRR!!!! I get SO PISSED when anyone says ANYTHING bad about him or his past films or his new film (which I probably haven't even seen yet). GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!! SO FUCKING MAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Case at July 18, 2010 6:56 PM

Aw, man, someone went to the "basement"? Gods below, I expect a better class of insults here.

Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2010 7:07 PM

@(Basket?) CASE,

Welcome to the freak show sir/madam. Enjoy your visit....

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 18, 2010 7:13 PM

Mick, that's a good point, I didn't think of that. I definitely agree that certain decisions were made to keep various interpretations open, but in a way, doing that is the only way the film could really work. In other words, if it was easy to point to one thing (the given plot) or another (it was all in Cobb's dreamscape) as the definitive plot, then the thin pieces of the script would give way to holes; this way, every part of the movie works within one structure or another (even if it can't be proved which one is "right"). Uh, if that made sense...

Anyway, loving that I'm still thinking about it hours after seeing it, and that people are still talking about it (some more calmly than others apparently - Case, shove it). I enjoyed the hell out of watching it on a big screen, and if future viewings yield more "answers", cool - if not, the sheer brilliance of the puzzle's conception is more than enough for me.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2010 7:32 PM

Mick & Adrienne-

I think it's because the subconscious projections (SPs) don't know that that's what they are. To themselves, they're real. And, as SPs, they'd be created out of an emotional response to something, wouldn't they?

Posted by: myjetski at July 18, 2010 7:41 PM

I suppose you could argue that if Ariadne and Arthur are projections their "moment" goes to show us that Cobb is narcissistic as fuck and in love with his own brilliance.

Alternatively, perhaps they are projections of people that Cobb knows in real life who either have feelings for each other or he has feelings for that he is unable to express.

Posted by: CL at July 18, 2010 7:57 PM

CL- That, too would make sense, seeing as how he was choosing to stay in a world of his creation, forsaking his wife - his supposed love - in order to do it. He's planting the ideas in his own mind without knowing that it's him doing the planting. To do so, he had to remove himself from himself, making people as good as himself. No, better. Perfect distillations of his own understandings of perfection.

One would imagine, though, that no matter how deep he's gone, even if it's approaching infinity, he'll have to wake up in reality at some point, possibly at the same time Mal does, having "lived" god knows how long.

Posted by: myjetski at July 18, 2010 8:26 PM

*SPOILERS*

The last fifteen seconds with the 'you know what' on the 'you know what' just indicates lazy film making. After spending 2.5 hours surrounded by archetypes and only two, mildly fleshed out characters, this ending isn't fair to audience. Instead of relishing in the successful conclusion for the main character, we're basically left in limbo. Fittingly ironic, yet complete bullshit for the audience. Instead of telling a story that leaves us pondering and discussing the ethics and possibility of something like inception (or extraction) or the lengths we'd go to keep a true love alive, we're left with a "was it or was it not" scenario. After a third act that was basically action packed, this isn't a conclusion that caters to intelligent cinema. And we're all suckers for it. Look, I dig Nolan. He's one of the best, technically savvy, mainstream directors working today. He's given us images that will be, if they aren't already, iconic in film history. But we shouldn't forget one of his best storytelling gifts: the sleight of hand. He made a big, bombastic, gorgeous looking action film with more exposition than a Tolkien novel. The ultimate deception in the last few seconds of the film is the trick of actually convincing us that the story was more profound than it actually was. It's bullshit to even suggest that Cobb was actually stuck in his dream. Why? Because it renders all the emotional pain, suffering, heartbreak and hope pointless. If Nolan sincerely cared about the emotional journey and resolution of his main character, he wouldn't have sent him through a James Bond movie to find redemption (if it was even redemption at all).

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 18, 2010 9:26 PM

@Smokin, I don't blame you, but I didn't mean to come across as pretentious. Nobody cares about science anymore so when I saw Neil has read one of my favorite books I got all excited. What I should've said was "would" instead of "could". Pajibans definitely could get through the whole book, if they wanted to. But I kind of doubt they would want to. Hell, I've been reading it for 4 years and I've never made it past the 6th chapter. I would have enjoyed your rant but I didn't mean to insult anyone. Except Average Moviegoers whose favorite movies are Die Hard, Transformers and some Adam Sandler crap.

Posted by: KC at July 18, 2010 10:38 PM

I also completely agree with the observations about Shutter Island - I was also thinking a little about Revolutionary Road, another role in which he has to deal with the loss/suicide/mental illness of his wife. Starting to think Leo might have a complex. But that'd be none of my business.

Posted by: KC at July 18, 2010 10:41 PM

SPOILERtown, USA

CreativeDeath-

My first words to my little lady on leaving the theater were, "I think I'm getting tired of the ambiguous ending." As we discussed it further, we settled on it being pretty unambiguous. And further than that, that the fact that it was all a dream is not a cop-out.

Let me lay this on you: So, the big deal in the movie is that inception is impossible, except that it's not, because Cobb has done it before, right? No, he hasn't. He's the unreliable narrator, He never convinced he wife that her reality wasn't real. She had the truth locked away inside her the whole time, and he couldn't change it.

That truth is the one that gnawed at him. It wasn't guilt that he was consumed with, it was the truth that the reality he wanted to be real was not.

In order to get around the pain of that truth, he methodically created a world in which he could go beyond inception, to perform a self-inception, to plant an idea in his own mind, without him knowing that the construct was false. His mind was constantly attempting to reject the dreamworlds as realities, so he had to fool himself, to beat his own mind.

If you think on the opium den scene, where we meet Yusuf, the point is driven home that each man creates and acknowledges his own reality and that no one else can question what is real to anyone else. To those men in the den, their dreams were the only reality, just as they are for Cobb.

Now, you can certainly call bullshit on that, and say there is only one reality and that is not it. The thing is, we were in a world of Cobb's creation, where he controls not only the physics, but the metaphysics. His philosophy of reality was what was on full display there.

If, for him, that constructed reality was his reality and his self-deception wasn't self-deception but elaborate construction, then he went on a successful journey and didn't have to learn his lesson, because it was his world. He was redeemed by his own standards and metaphysical/ ethical constructs. In that world, we can't judge him and his actions, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to judge his actions and motivations from our reality, or our own realities.

At the heart of that, though, is the debate over cultural relativism that thrives today. Can we really apply own own culturally accepted standards to evaluate another culture? Although it's a one-man show, is it any less valid?

As a sidebar, I couldn't help but think about the fact that the man who played Kobayashi is The Usual Suspects was the father. The "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" quote kept running through my head, due to all the sleight of hand/deception, etc.

Now Leaving SPOILERtown, USA

Posted by: myjetski at July 18, 2010 10:50 PM

I think you nailed it, myjetski. And your answer to an earlier question about the subconscious projections seems plausible, too. Thanks.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2010 11:29 PM

Except Average Moviegoers whose favorite movies are Die Hard, Transformers and some Adam Sandler crap.

*squealing breaks*

Oky I was all prepared to get into some real discussion, some deep down meta physical shit, about this movie.

But then I read that line.

Did you just say.... that DIE HARD was not only somehow inferior, but put it in the same league of idiocy as Transformers?

Pistols. At Dawn. Name your second, and update your will.

Posted by: Ultimate Quicksilver at July 18, 2010 11:44 PM

In a recent interview/conversation with Elvis Mitchell (it's available online), Chris Nolan said the emotional aspect of his characters and their story is what is now most important to him, specifically with "Inception". Hearing such a sentiment leaves me even more perplexed as to why he showed the totem at the end. At the outset, it completely strips away any emotional response and leaves you in the analytical, rethinking response. It is, ultimately, counter productive from his stated objective.

I'll say it again, I really like Nolan. I think he's one of the most gifted, mainstream directors we've got going. And my respect for him only deepens with his love and preference for old school cinematography. I'm already looking forward to his next film (even his next post-Batman film).

Having said that, I still think he fumbled on this one. He built a maze so abstract, so multifaceted, that he forgot the emotional core along the way. I would think the number of people walking out of this with a gut, emotional response is low. The reason it's likely so low is because we're robbed of any last, emotional payoff (with the character and for us, the viewer, following the character). And that's why, ultimately, the film left me cold. It's a brilliant, gorgeous puzzle but it has little heart.

And if, in fact, the entire narrative takes place in Cobb's mind, then Nolan isn't even playing by his own rules. In all of the heavy handed, persistent exposition, then he left a significant detail out. We were told how a projection can turn on a visitor if the 'dream reality' is altered too much (assuming, at that time, Ellen Page is actually a visitor and not already a projection). These were specific rules that Cobb laid out. However, we had no reference point for how projections could, in essence, turn on other projections (if, in fact, he was dreaming the whole thing).

Also, if we are in Cobb's dream the entire time, then we have completely unnecessary moments in the narrative. From that vantage point, there's no reason or explanation for the brief, flirtatious moment when JGL kisses Ellen. There's also no relevance to the poignant and touching moment between Pierce and his dying father. This also leaves me to wonder...why would we still see the action from the levels where Cobb is already sleeping? For example, the van chase with everyone sleeping in the back as well as JGL's zero gravity sequence, fight and all.

I would have loved to seen this film with a $40-50 million dollar budget and less action.

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 19, 2010 12:10 AM

I have to respectfully disagree. I think for all the magic and science and constructs and whatnots, that the emotional core was very much present and persistent, in the form of Mal and her attempts to undermine Cobb's own invasion of his own mind. His goal seemed to be to shut down his emotional attachments to the real world and rebuild within this new construct, but he was subconsciously attacking that attempt via his main emotional attachment to the real world.

That attachment, I'd argue was very real and near impossible to overcome. He tried to cordon it off and imprison it in a separate dream-reality, but that didn't work, because his memories of her were still important to him, no matter how important his self-built world was. His narcissism wanted to undermine his love for anything else, but it couldn't accomplish that directly.

He was clearly struggling with that to the end, while telling Mal that she was not real and that they had grown old together already. There was that flash to them as an old couple, walking down the area by the train tracks. It was just a flash, but it was the remainder of what he could not kill. The real him, the emotional core, could moat off those houses and weather them, but it couldn't destroy them. It could reduce Mal to a shade of what she was, but not make her disappear.

Really, it's what many of us do at the end of any relationship, breaking emotional attachments through physically removing the souvenirs of a life together. These things in limbo, Mal, etc., were a mental shoe box of the last vestiges of a relationship that he waned to forget. Just as a lot of people can't throw away that last photo or memento, he couldn't throw away his memories, emotional attachment and understanding of the truth of reality.

I think, knowing that it was a dream, we would have preferred Cobb to learn that he couldn't fool himself, that he couldn't get that Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind treatment, that he wouldn't want to throw that all away, but we already have that story.

We want to identify with our main character, and we think we do, until the end is revealed. When that top keeps spinning, we have found ourselves identifying with someone who has done something anathema to our moral and emotional centers, and that is jarring. I agree that there is a sudden emotional detachment there. I hope that there would be. I think if you find yourself cheering, you probably need therapy.

There has to be a nagging thought, "Am I capable of this?" I would hope not, but then, he was down there, alone with one other for a long, long time. and then all by himself for a long time after. Who knows how much we would grow to consider ourselves godlike geniuses in the same position?

We are weak, still, as we are strong, and our minds can play tricks on us. We need to be careful about our perceptions of reality and our perceptions of others' perceptions, or we could very well be lost. To me, that's a hardy, emotional core for a film.

As far as the flashing between levels within levels, it was to give us a perception of the geometric expansion of the perception of time as one goes deeper and deeper. How much of the movie happened as the van was falling from the bridge? How deep was Cobb really and how long has he been in there? Also, it gave us the perception that, even though these were dreams, that there are consequences and limits and rules to abide by.

Re: The subconscious projections (SPs) acting like people (the flirting): All the other projection that we didn't know seemed to be involved with their own lives, not acting as if they were projections. Theoretically, Cobb could have created SPs to be more real, to fool himself even further by giving him the real tools he needed to succeed.

I would also argue that we were given the full force of SPs turning on invaders in dreamworlds via the mob invading Saito's love nest at the beginning of the picture.

As far as the touching scene between the father and son: it happened. It was just as real as anything else in the movie. Perhaps it was reflective of Cobb's knowledge that his own dad was disappointed that he didn't do something different than follow in his footsteps by doing dream invasion. Michael Caine, after all, seemed kind of peeved by what Cobb was doing. Or it could have just been a MacGuffin.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 1:41 AM

@MAJETSKI

I certainly didn't mean to imply an emotional response of cheering at the end of the film. An emotional response carries a whole range of feelings, not just peace or cheer. And the fact that Nolan chose to cut off that response with ambiguity is a bit of an amateur move on his part. While I agree with much of the insight you shared, I don't see how a lot of it fits with the film itself. If I may respectfully say, I think you're projecting more on to what you saw as opposed to what was actually present in the film.

If you still, in fact, believe the entire film took place in the realm of Cobb's dreams, then I need you to explain the details I pointed out that didn't involve Cobb. Why did those even take place and/or why did we even see them? You can't be dreaming, in a dream, while fully knowing what's going on in the other dream (that you're currently sleeping in). When Cobb is talking to Fishcer at the bar and gravity starts to shift, that specific Cobb has no direct reference or idea as to what's happening in the van. From a plot and narrative stand point, those things must be reconciled with your interpretation.

If, on the other hand, you believe that only some of the film took place solely in Cobb's dream, then I need you to point where it shifted. At what point did we cease being in a dream, started in a real world and start hanging out in Cobb's dream layers from a dream already in progress.

In a film that mainly consists of exposition and action, it leaves little room for a gut punching emotional investment. Even the entire story between Cobb and Mal was delivered to us in exposition. We never saw them in love, so to speak. Instead, we were beat over the head with them telling us just how much they loved each other and why.

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 19, 2010 2:18 AM

CreativeDeath

I see what you're saying, as far as Cobb not having the ability to know what's happening in the van. I think the movie went through great pains to show that each layer of dream/reality had an effect/breakthrough point on each interconnected level through the dreamer. The scene with the the water flooding Saito dream as he is kicked into the tub. Remember, too, that these dreams weren't that of a single character, but multiple characters, some creating the space, some populating it, some manipulating it. Each dreamspace, to my perception, was really the dreamspace of different aspects of Cobb's subconscious, delving deeper into their own sub-subconsciouses, delivering greater separation between pieces of his own subconscious, in order to create partitions, until these subconscious projections acted as their own units, separate from Cobb's own purified vision of himself.

Even though our perception of the world is based in the reality of Cobb, he is not the narrator of the film, but an unreliable narrator of the the dreamworld. Maybe not unreliable narrator, but unreliable expositionist? The narration is still omniscient, and views each of these manifestation of Cobb as separate characters within this reality, which is why we see them as separate characters, integral to the story. As we want to dig deeper into their back stories/ motivations, we are left empty, not as a result of poor storytelling, but because these "people" are dreams themselves, who became sentient in the middle of everything, and just assumed that they had always been there.

I don't think we ever saw the "top level," the real world at any point during the film. I would think that is where Mal went after she jumped off the ledge, kicking herself out of the dream scenario Cobb masterfully constructed to be reality.

You might be right, too, that I'm projecting too much of what I got out of the movie back into the movie. I've only seen it once, and have probably thought too much about it, not as a Nolan acolyte, but as a fan of art that provokes this kind of thought and discussion.

It's definitely strange to have this kind of arthouse philosophy rumination juxtaposed with an action/adventure blockbuster type of picture, but I feel that's where a lot of its originality comes to fore. Usually, the subject matter attempted is only brought up when bearded Baumbachian professorial types smoke a joint halfway through a movie and have a ten minute discussion/therapy session with some protege/ former lover or something.

I feel like Nolan took a chance by letting these thoughts play out in action form, trusting that the viewer would be able to interpret what was happening without the dialog. As the dialog tended to just drive forward the technical aspects of what was happening, it gave us a base level of understanding of the world so that the action could speak for itself, without the almost inevitable pretentiousness that a metaphysical/ethical discussion would usually have.

I do grant that I would rather have been shown, as opposed to told about Mal and Cobb's great romance. I wonder if there was such a great romance, or if Cobb was always too in love with himself to ever have such a love. Maybe he only loved how she loved him and that was what he had a hard time letting go of? He's despicable enough to render that plausible.

I absolutely agree that the ending was too ambiguous. I think we're meant to assume that the top spins ad infinitum, but the slight wobbles before the cut make you wonder. I feel like the damn thing should have either fell over, or continued to spin through the credits. either it's a dreamworld or it's not, and we should be allowed to know, even if Cobb doesn't anymore. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say amateurish, but the device is way over-used and, here, completely unnecessary.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 3:42 AM

MYJETSKI

Friend, I love your passion with this but you're only making my heels dig in deeper. Though, to be fair to the film, I will see it again this week or next. While I know you don't mean to, you contradict yourself in a couple of moments. If the opening sequence with Saito actually consists of the dreamscapes of various characters (creating, participating, manipulating), then how does that not qualify as the 'real' world? If it is, as you suggest, all layers of Cobb's subconscious, then why weren't these rules or possibilities stated along the way? Something as significant as that would have been included in the tutorial with Ellen Page. Quite the contrary, Cobb informs her that any manipulation on the dreamer's world will, in essence, fight back. That would be a lot of chaos for the dream of a projection to be fighting within the dream of another projection. I hope I said that right. Since the rest of the characters were so thinly developed, that's a tough sell to make. And I do think it's fair to criticize Nolan for poor storytelling with his archetype characters. If, for no other reason, the one character that is supposed to be fully fleshed out, is a mess. Cobb is, like you said, simply a narrator expositionist. Ultimately, he is a reactionary archetype. That leaves room for little layering as a character.

It's interesting that you mention the idea that Nolan may have taken a chance to trust the audience to interpret and figure things out in the course of 'action'. I find that curious considering how heavy handed and constant the exposition was. The 'action' in question was mainly 'action film' related. At this point, I tend to think that's an easy out as a storyteller. When the confrontation and resolution are dependent on excessive action sequences that just keep growing to extreme levels, then our senses are overwhelmed and compromised. I think if Nolan really trusted the audience, he wouldn't have explained everything (and I mean everything).

Unfortunately, I think we, the viewers, are having to create the meta-physical conversation from the flimsy package we were given. It's a thrilling action movie with sequences and set pieces unlike anything I've seen. Technically, it's beautiful with tons of gorgeous frames to salivate over. Beyond that? It just doesn't hold together. The logical arguments of ethics and morals as it relates to the script aren't really anywhere to be found in the film (other than JGL saying, "It can't be done. We can't do this.") They discuss the procedure of 'how' but never discuss the 'why' or 'should we'.

"Inception" is a great film in its own way. As time passes it'll be important to praise it for the elements it does well. I now wonder if the whole ending ambiguity is Nolan's last minute effort to make the film more provocative than it actually is. Sure, we could spend hours dissecting Cobb, but that's a small ceiling in a thought provoking room. But as it relates to our lives, as a reflection or the culture now (or what the culture could become), it falls way short. A number of other movies have done a significantly better job at instigating that conversation.

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 19, 2010 4:54 AM

Before I really start, I wanted to address the question on why the team never wore any kind of protection when breaking into dreams. But they never had to. The only reason Saito was even in danger was because he was too heavily sedated to wake up by death. As was seen, dying simply knocks you out of the dream. Why bother with armor (which could stop a bullet from killing you but still hurt), when you could die, wake up, and go again? They were so used to this tactic that when Saito was shot, all of them were shocked to learn the real danger they were in. And considering the risky endeavor they undertook, they probably didn't want to disturb the dream anymore than necessary, which is why they didn't try inserting armor until the last level of the dream, where it would make the most sense to the dreamer.

I feel like the damn thing should have either fell over, or continued to spin through the credits. either it's a dreamworld or it's not, and we should be allowed to know, even if Cobb doesn't anymore.

After reading that, I just had a thought about the ending. What if the point of the ending, shot the way it was, wasn't that Cobb (and, by extension, us) didn't KNOW what was real anymore, but that he stopped caring? I mean, consider the scene. He does this action, testing himself, but after he sees his kids (the one action he has been unable to do, the epitome of his "returning home"), he walks away. He doesn't care anymore. If it is reality, great. If not, he feels it is real enough, and doesn't want to obsess over it like his wife apparently did. The wavering and the cut to black were indicative of that.

What if Nolan was saying "hey, real or dream, this is what he wants. He has stopped running from it. He doesn't want to become trapped in his obsession anymore. But you (audience). Are YOU going to be trapped in it? Are you going to obsess if it was all a dream or not? If the protagonist is happy, why aren't you?"

Or for a more Pajiba-appropriate version "I, Christopher Nolan, have just dicked you. Dicked you HARD. You thought you were going to get a concrete ending. Fuck you. Fuck you and your horse. You don't have a horse? Hold on.....here. I bought you a horse. Now fuck you and it. If you want to do the whole 'it was a dream' thing and drive yourself crazy, go right ahead."

I believe that, if the ending was indeed a dream, the breaking point was when he stayed behind. Everything before that actually happened. But as they said, it is pure unfiltered dream scape down there. Time is infinite. He could or could not have gotten Saito out, but got stuck. I am not saying that it is true, just that, if the whole movie was a dream, they yes, the ending breaks down. But if the dream started after his plunge into the abyss, all of it still works.

I am still offemded by that Die Hard remark though.

Posted by: Vermillion at July 19, 2010 8:35 AM

I believe that, if the ending was indeed a dream, the breaking point was when he stayed behind.

I agree with Vermillion on all of the above, but this point in particular. While it is entirely possible "the whole thing was a dream", that's not how I saw it. I thought the ending was great.

I have read some complaints about lack of character development. I am not exactly sure what folks were expecting or wanted. Cobb and Mal were very well developed. Between those two characters and the development of the whole inception/extraction science and theory, there wasn't a ton of time for the development of the other characters and neither was it terribly necessary. Like Carlson said in his review, this is essentially a heist movie. I thought the group - The Chemist, The Pointman, The Forger, the Architect, The Tourist/Organizer - were developed enough for the roles that they served and enough to care whether they died or not. I didn't really feel the need to know whether Arthur had a family or what Ariadne's hopes and dreams were, etc. I got a good enough vibe off each character.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at July 19, 2010 9:21 AM

I, too, need to see it again. Maybe the things that seemed flimsy to you, will be flimsy to me, then, too. I felt a certain amount of leniency, though, especially in the aftermath. I'll try to explain why without contradicting myself, but I'm doing this on the fly, and, hey, it's the internet.

I would suggest that even though we worked solely within dreamscapes buried deeply within Cobb's subconscious, that he, as a master architect and maze-builder had created created a world who's rules and logic very closely resembled reality. Remember that he needed to fool even himself, so his rules couldn't be broken, even by himself, without endangering the world he had constructed. Without the rigid structure of what was most likely dreamworld, it would no longer seem real to either him or his subconscious.

As far as the flimsiness of the supporting cast, or maybe the entire cast, we have archetypes, with little to no flesh on them; essentially characters yanked in from other stories, the jokester/forger, the underworld scientist, the carbon copy first mate, the young female protege, the femme fatale, the Asian businessman/mafia type. I would put forth that these were subconscious projections, created my Cobb, to perform specific functions for him. Being a master builder, an architect, an academic-type, who was probably constantly focused on himself and his work during his real life, and not a consumer of deep facets of others and the breadth of literature, he created the simplest, basest forms of people that he could draw on from his limited experience. Think about that last interaction with Mal, and how he told her that he could never capture all her facets and imperfections, that she was only a shade of her real self, just a slice of her in his mind. If he couldn't create a fully-formed version of the person he knew best and supposedly loved more deeply than anyone, how could he create other people who were more real? He absolutely could not. They had to be good enough to fool him, but we should see that these people are not drawn correctly. We should be uneasy with them.

If, however, you don't see the world we were in as one totally in Cobb's subconscious, then my argument completely falls apart. It is 100% contingent upon that fact holding. If it doesn't then, yes, these characters were very poorly developed. I would argue that Nolan, with - as you cited - his investment in the emotional cores of his characters, would not have created ones so flimsy if they were not dreams.

I think that the film provides enough of a leeway, after one viewing, to say that either of us may be right. I hope it's me. I really, really do. Not just because I like being right, but because I don't want the characters in what was otherwise a beautiful and masterful film to be so poorly drawn. I could be projecting that desire back onto the film. We'll see in time.

CreativeDeath, you raise a very interesting question, in your observation that the film doesn't deal with the "why" or "should we," , but only the how, when it comes to the actions of these characters. Do you think it's incumbent upon a movie/piece of literature to address those questions? Personally, I feel that it's not the art's job to judge and moralize, but our job, as viewers/experiencers, to take what we see and learn and and ask those questions after the fact. In my mind, the provocation if that discussion is the important thing and it need not raise those questions directly. Do you feel that without there being a moral center or compass, that the film has failed you?

Vermillion, I agree that whether it's real or not, objectively, doesn't matter to Cobb at the end. My problem is that as an audience, as the outside observer, we are due that last hard fact. Maybe he's being a dick, but it felt more like a Shayamalan-style "Aren't I clever?" move. Fuck that, him and his horse jokes.

Also: (ahem) Die Hard rules so fucking awesomely, it melts minds from five miles away and it should never - never EVER - be called into question!

Yippee-kai-yay.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 9:42 AM

Maryscott O'Connor what is the joke regarding Cotillard? I'm intrigued by this and I'd like to know it before my second viewing of this movie. I don't know much (well, anything) about her, so googling will be fruitless.

Posted by: Scully at July 19, 2010 9:56 AM

Scully, I think she means the wake-up song they use, which almost always coincides with her entrance, La Vie En Rose, which was the title of the film in which Cotillard played Edith Piaf, whose most famous song was "La Vie En Rose." Cheeky.

I believe this song's overuse as a Parisian signifier in movies was discussed here last week. I blame it, again, on Cobb's limited literary imagination, and not Nolan's.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 10:07 AM

Emotionally a bit flat but intellectually stimulating for me. A swell film.

If Cobb is aware enough to figure out Mal is his own projection in limbo, in time he should realize his kids are a projection too (if the end is a dream), unless of course he no longer cares. Shit, the point of the film could be figuring out the identity of Cobb's kids. I'll have to see it again.

Posted by: Stew at July 19, 2010 10:13 AM

Thanks myjetski. I missed that discussion. I also thought the song Nolan used was Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien.

Posted by: Scully at July 19, 2010 10:15 AM

Fuck, I feel dumb. A simple google revealed: "It is used as the finale of the film La Vie En Rose, a biography of Piaf." Your comment confused me.

Just ignore me now, please.

Posted by: Scully at July 19, 2010 10:18 AM

Scully, you're right, the song was Non... not La Vie.... Whoops.

I'm tired of analyzing for a minute, but my brain also want s to point out that Cobb want to regret nothing as well. Fudge. I need to stop thinking about this more a minute. Blargle.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 10:40 AM

took me forever to come here n do tis even though i caught the midnight "premiere" last Thursday.

really enjoyed the bac n forth between myjetski
n CreativeDeath although the whole movie being a dream is just a lil too much for me.

Sori myjetski but i'm happier with the reality not sold separately version.

this reminds me of the debate dat went on for pages (not here) when Neo shot emp..bolts? from his hand when the sentinels almost got to them in the "real world" (or you can remove the air quotes).

So, there's a Matrix in the Matrix now? Everyone was still plugged in? *foams at the mouth*

i'm thinking now, how everybody was pissed wit the ending being cheap coz the damn thing was left spinning.

if u ask me, it wasnt ambiguous at all. if anything it was Nolan jerking us around coz we all expected the totem to stop spinning alot sooner.

the fact dat we did hear the totem stumbling abit b4 resuming the spin means dat it was not a dream after all. coz u remember how the thing was spinning creepily straight in the safe dat whooole time?

the totem totally stopped.

Posted by: haplo at July 19, 2010 11:12 AM

In the end it's still just a meta-physical bond film.

Come on. Be honest. How many of you expected someone to jump off of the mountain fortress place and pop open a union-jack parachute?

Posted by: Some Guy at July 19, 2010 11:36 AM

and if you couldn't see that ending coming, you don't watch enough movies.

Posted by: some Guy at July 19, 2010 11:38 AM

MYJETSKI

I had no hope that the film would moralize the questions and fall to one conclusion on the subject. You can make something morally/ethically ambiguous and even questionable for the sake of character discussion without ever presenting a final word (as the film maker). Watching the characters struggle and debate isn't the same as stating a position on either side of the coin. Nolan avoids that entire aspect. Which, if that's part of his choice, I'm fine with. Let's enjoy and celebrate it for what it is, an excellent action film. I still say the film is not as thought provoking or profound as Nolan suggests it is with the final few seconds.

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 19, 2010 1:21 PM

CreativeDeath

Agreed. It was an excellent action film, no doubt, even besting my beloved Die Hard, which is no small feat.

Michael Caine attempted to bring up the morality of Cobb's profession, but was quickly swatted down, with some nonsense about having no choice, which makes me think that the moral ambiguity/lack of moral discussion was purposeful.

That, itself is just me projecting myself back onto the movie again, of course. I do think there was too much left open to interpretation, but maybe I'll feel differently after seeing it again.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 2:22 PM

MYJETSKI

I still say DIE HARD wins by a slight edge. It provided an emotional resolution to the audience. In that case, it was a 'happy ending'. John and Holly driving off, bloody mess, to enjoy Christmas as a family. Tragic or happy, INCEPTION chooses to give us neither. I'm more than fine with an ambiguous ending, just as long as it isn't at the expense of the grand, emotional journey that the main character has been through. When Nolan says the emotional arc is the most important element for him, as the film maker, then he's contradicting himself with the ending. In that respect, he failed. Alas, at the end of the day it's just a gorgeous looking action film.

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 19, 2010 3:00 PM

Why didn't the children age!?!? AAARRRGGH IT'S DRIVING ME MENTAL!!!!! *Brain melts*

Posted by: Bon at July 19, 2010 3:18 PM

SPOILERS

If y'all are still discussing the movie here, I'd like to cover one point that I don't see beaten to death on this particular thread.

For me, the spinning top was not the most important element of that final scene. It was the kids. They have not aged. At all. (Admittedly, we do not know how much time has passed.) They are wearing the same clothes. They are doing the exact same action in the exact same spot that we had seen before in what was established as Cobb's dream/memory. Am I supposed to interpret that as coincidence? On the contrary, I tend to read it as a rather explicit red flag that this is not reality. Seeing their faces is set up as that which he can not do in his dream, but surely he can imagine something outside of his own memory that would enable him to see their faces if he had achieved some sort of closure that had bypassed that subconscious self-imposition.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 19, 2010 3:24 PM

Ha. Bon had the same question. And like I said: it's not just the aging. It's that Cobb's view of the kids is identical to the prior one.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 19, 2010 3:25 PM

He refused to look at his children's faces before that, it wasn't that he couldn't see them. Maybe there was an idea planted in his head that when he saw his children's faces, he would know he was in "reality," so he wouldn't look at them until he was in the right place. Maybe?

As for why they wouldn't have aged? Please see above for my (well-disputed) theory.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 3:34 PM

And just to be a quibbling jackass, whether or not that top falls over would not be a foolproof way to determine if something is a dream. How easy would it be to keep that top spinning on a flat surface in a hotel that is being turned upside down because the dream is being had by someone who is in a van that is plummeting off a bridge?

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 19, 2010 3:35 PM

myjetski >> Yes, I read your posts. You subscribe to the theory that it was not reality. My question is for those who do think the ending could have been real. How do they explain the kids?

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 19, 2010 3:38 PM

CreativeDeath

I'm gonna give you Die Hard, mostly because it was much funnier. If Carl Winslow had been in Inception, that may have tipped the scales.

...but I'll still (obviously) continue to disagree about the other stuff. Luckily, we're not running for President on platforms based on our perceptions of Inception, and we can just say, "Cool," shrug our shoulders and walk away.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 3:39 PM

DarthCorleone, that is a very good question. I like the way you think.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 3:41 PM

DarthCorleone, pretty near impossible, I reckon, since it's a top that never stops spinning a dream. That's what it does. That's all it does. Turn it sideways, turn it upside down, turn gravity off, shit's gonna keep on keepin' on. It's a Dream Top.


Posted by: Forbiddendonut at July 19, 2010 4:57 PM

As for the kids, DarthCorleone, maybe he wasn't gone more than a few months, so they didn't age. Maybe they don't have a lot of clothes or its just a coincindence that they are wearing the same outfits.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at July 19, 2010 4:59 PM

Also, as far the top, an experienced Extractor like Cobb would probably be able to tell he's in a dream if he was in a hotel that is being turned upside down because the dream is being had by someone who is in a van that is plummeting off a bridge.

So, at that point, even if the top did stop spinning, which I don't it would, being a dream top and all that in dreams spins under all conditions, I think he'd realize it.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at July 19, 2010 5:01 PM

I think back to SHUTTER ISLAND as it relates to the kids. They never aged either. In fact, we only saw them at the age at which they died. They were, in essence, stuck in a fixed time for the character, much the same way with Cobb in INCEPTION.

Saito is the only character present in every level of the subconscious with Cobb. He's the key. How? I have no idea at the moment. It didn't help that he spent a large chunk of the movie slowly bleeding to limbo (death), but he is a key factor in this maze of perplexity. But he wasn't a 'tourist' in the dreamscapes like everyone thought. He had a hand in being with Cobb at every level we see. I hate to make this even more confusing, but...I have to now wonder if Mal is even...well, Mal. What if that was just a forger planting an idea in to Cobb's head? Off hand, I have to think the two most important sections of the film (for unraveling) are the beginning sequence (roughly the first 20ish minutes) and the tutorial with Ellen Page.

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 19, 2010 5:15 PM

Forbiddendonut >> If you want to interpret the appearance of the kids as coincidence, then that is an acceptable explanation. It's just one of those "coincidences" that crosses my personal coincidence threshold, and I wonder if most who interpreted the ending as happy and real considered it as coincidence or just took it at face value.

As for the top, at first I thought you were making a joke about its spinning sans gravity, but he's still placing the thing on a flat surface in the dream to test it. This implies that it complies in some way with the structure of whatever world he is in, be it dreamed or real. Otherwise, he could just start it spinning in midair, and if it falls to the ground, he knows that he's in reality. An inverted hotel is an extreme example; my point is that if gravity and direction apply, even slight fluctuations in those at the level above the dream could affect the top without the dreamer's realizing it.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 19, 2010 5:17 PM

Darth, I agree about the kids. It does push things quite too far, but if you go "real world", I can't see any other explanation, as strained as it might be.

As for the top, I really do believe that it would keep spinning in a dream regardles of the circumstances. While not explicitly stated, Cobb does say that in a dream the top will never stop spinning, so I think it would keep on spinning even if it were disturbed as you mentioned. Who knows if Cobb could spin it in mid-air in a dream or up against a wall. We never saw him try it. While there were definitely quite a few rules in the "dream world", since it is a dream world I am more than happy to roll with a few punches of fantastical things happening, like a top being able to keep spinning and spinning. It's not that big of a stretch in my mind.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at July 19, 2010 5:23 PM

Also, as to the Saito point. One take of the ending, of course, is that neither Saito or Cobb ever made it back to reality. I am not sure if that makes Saito anything more than just a Tourist.

It's possible that the old man Saito was just a projection in Cobb's mind. Granted, Saito died in Dream World 1 (and all the others) a bit before Cobb decided to stick in Limbo land, so it's possible, given the super accelartion of time, that he grew old fast, whereas Cobb didn't. But, it's also possible that old Saito was just a projection of Cobb's and he created that encounter with Saito to make it more believable to himself that he got Saito back, Saito honored his part of the bargain and Cobb got got to "go home."

This could be Cobb's own way of performing an "inception" in his own mind. He gives himself the idea that he succeeded in his task and, thus, gets his reward.

That would sort of mirror's Nolan's protagonist's actions at the end of "Momento", where he uses his "ability" - short term memory loss - to deliberty trick himself into believing he was still looking for his wife's killer to give him purpose, because, with out that, he would be lost. Similarly, here, Cobb uses his "inception" ability to plant the idea that the he succeeded and earned his reward in order to trick himself into actually believing that what he "came home" to was actually real.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at July 19, 2010 5:28 PM

Forbiddendonut >> Fair enough on the top. As I someone else mention (perhaps above or elsewhere), for a dream world that place certainly did seem a little overly constrained by real-world physics. I suppose I should just accept it as part of the conceit.

One thing that I couldn't help wondering, though: do those slight fluctuations that we hear/see in the top's spin that occur before the final cut to black occur in the same rhythm as the waves of the surf where Cobb "awoke?" That's a bit of a stretch, but I can't help but wonder if there is a definitive "answer" that Nolan was trying to communicate, with all the clues there for the assembling.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 19, 2010 5:39 PM

The other complicated detail is the plane ride with Fischer. This is where Cobb wakes up and everyone's back to "normal" on the flight to Los Angeles. Saito immediately picks up the phone to honor his deal. If that brief scene were, in fact, a dream, then how can we reconcile the beginning of the plane ride? We would have to treat, I think, the original sequence on the plane as actually being a level of the dreamscape. Otherwise, how do we justify it's presence near the end? How did such a possible dream mirror, damn near detail for detail, the reality from which it started? And if the original scene in the plane was part of the dream layers, how did we get to that point? When did the original dream start?

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 19, 2010 5:46 PM

I personally think the key scene that I'm missing something from is Mal putting the top inside the safe inside the dollhouse. We see it so many times that I feel it must have some more significance than just 'she didn't want to look at it anymore.' What is it that she once knew, but has since forgotten? Also, why, in what Cobb felt to be reality, could he not prove it to her with the top? Was it that she had stopped believing in it? Or that it never fell?

Also interesting to me is that though we see some other totems, we never see them used. The only one who ever gets confused is Cobb.

Posted by: CL at July 19, 2010 5:48 PM

The morality question: I think that it was addressed. The question of right and wrong was already asked and answered by the fact that it is clearly a clandestine and illegal affair. Remember, not only did they have their old bosses trying to kill them for failing, but also the fact that the very act of altering a person's dreams would cause their projections to react violently.

And think about it. All of Cobb's problems with Mal started because a) they dived further into dream than they should have, then b) he did an inception on his wife. We are seeing the consequences of these actions through his psychosis. He is tortured by his choice to invade his wife's most secret of places and altering it. It isn't "should you" more than "what would happen if you did". That was the real purpose of Ariadne. She is Cobb before he got taken in by his own ego. She is there to get him to see that he crossed a line, and that he needed to acknowledge what he did, instead of trying to hide it away from himself, putting everyone else in danger.

The children: The timeline is skewed quite a bit, and the exact length of time between the death of Mal and his return is negligible. But let's also remember that the only scenes we saw the children in before the ending were confirmed dreams. It is possible that he was building them from pictures of them at the time, and it could be a coincidence. Plus, during the phone call, his son asks if Cobb was bringing Mommy home too. If it had been years since they saw him, why would the boy still think his mother was coming back as well?

I got more to say dealing with the totem idea, but I am borrowing this machine, so later.

Posted by: Vermillion at July 19, 2010 5:57 PM

VERMILLION

If that's the extent of the morality question with the narrative, then we truly are analyzing this more than we need to. That's basic, action film procedure.

I don't have the answers yet, but someone, please, jump in and throw out theories as to what was the real world, what was the dream and when did we cease being in the real world altogether.

It's possible that Mal was right the whole time. I mean...we never actually see her hit the ground when she jumps, let alone any dead body or funeral service. We just see her drop into oblivion. At this point we might as well consider the idea that Mal was the one that did the inception to Cobb and was, in fact, trying to get him back. Which, if true, she failed in her mission.

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 19, 2010 6:09 PM

Also, why, in what Cobb felt to be reality, could he not prove it to her with the top? Was it that she had stopped believing in it? Or that it never fell?
Also interesting to me is that though we see some other totems, we never see them used. The only one who ever gets confused is Cobb.

Well, damn, now that you asked that...

The way totems work is to remind the user of the concrete rules of reality. Physics, math, what have you. Just like how kicks instigate our natural sense of balance and equilibrium, the totems use minute yet meaningful changes to confirm stuff we insist is true. Really, the totem is about confidence; you have to believe, with all your mind and soul, that that one tiny aspect is "real". Otherwise, you are screwed.

The top represents the truth that their world wasn't real. Mal locked it away because she didn't want to wake up. She wanted to forget it was a dream, and let it become her reality, like the men in the opium den. Cobb broke in and changed the meaning of reality to her. This top, supposedly from the true reality, now violated the rules. Mal isn't looking for the top to stop spinning, she wants it to spin forever. Because "reality" in her subconscious, means a top that spins. So to answer your question, yes, she stopped believing in the top, because he changed the meaning the top had to her.

Cobb gets confused because he is the only one who knows for sure that you can break a totem, making it completely useless. All any of the others know is "don't let someone else touch your totem, or they can replicate it and screw with you". Only Cobb knows how bad that really is, and only he has reason to believe his sense of reality is just as damaged as Mal.

Posted by: Vermillion at July 19, 2010 6:09 PM

Vermillion >> I didn't think it was "years," and I just assumed the younger kid was too young to fully understand the implications of death. As I said, it's much more the precise imagery of the moment than it is the age of the kids that bothered me. I'm sure the similarity was intentional; I just don't know the full implications of that intent.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 19, 2010 6:43 PM

Well, for what it's worth, I just checked IMDB and there are different actors listed for the children at two different ages, two years apart. That doesn't necessarily mean the footage got used, I suppose. They looked the same to me.

Another moment that stood out to me was that he couldn't seem to tell them apart on the phone. Maybe that was just a clumsy way of expositing their names.

Posted by: CL at July 19, 2010 6:51 PM

DarthCorleone said:

...for a dream world that place certainly did seem a little overly constrained by real-world physics. I suppose I should just accept it as part of the conceit.

All the dreams we know for sure were dreams, were inside scenarios constructed by architects to be rigid and finite mazes. One of the reasons why I don't think we ever saw the "real" world, is that those times during which we could have been in top-level reality, that "reality" functioned more like what a dream should be: shifting, quick cut, popping into the middle of things, etc.

Posted by: myjetski at July 20, 2010 1:04 AM

CREATIVE DEPTH

I agree. It's a pretty cool film, and I'm familiar with dream movies-Paprika is also a damn good one. However I just think the emotional journey could have been developed a little more. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't really connect to Cobb's situation with his wife.

Posted by: luna at July 20, 2010 1:08 AM

myjetski >> Yeah, I get that the rules are dictated by the architect's constructs. Even so, Hardy demonstrates an ability to instantly generate a bigger gun and change his personal appearance at will. This sort of power seems extremely useful and relatively untapped for most of the film.) I was just observing that Inception - while true to its own universe - bears very little resemblance to my personal dream experiences.

Incidentally, I did read elsewhere on the web tonight that the kids are wearing different clothes in that final shot. I don't know if that's absolutely confirmed.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 20, 2010 4:34 AM

Isn't one of the points was that each person draw their own conclusion about reality v dream? And further, whether such a differentiation even matters?

In any event, the husband and I saw things very clearly once we decided to use the Marion Cotillard - Edith Piaf in-joke and take it further. That is, this isn't the only meta-reference in the movie. Dicaprio being kicked out of the dream at the beginning of the movie and watching the setting flood with water...kind of like a sinking ship? JGL floating around...kind of like outer space? Performing the delicate international mind crime on Cillian Murphy on board a long flight...kind of like a red-eye flight? We can go on here, about Hardy being a clone in Star Trek, blah blah blah. But the biggest meta reference seems to be the fact that Michael Caine reunited Christian Bale and his daughter at the end of Nolan's The Prestige. Not to mention that in his role as Alfred, he remains grounded in reality while Bale is dressing up like a bat. Conclusion: the presence of Caine in scenes/levels of consciousness is a cue that we are in the real world.

Oh, and yeah, the kids aged 2 years.

Posted by: Idprefernottosay at July 20, 2010 10:02 AM

I like Chris Nolan movies. He’s a good writer and director. My reaction to the end of the movie wasn’t to ponder reality and if the world is real or not. I flipped off the screen. If this had been a M. Night movie, I think this thread would look a little different. You all would be trashing the hell out of the ending. You can try to add any philosophical meaning you want to that ending, but my god is it hackneyed. Raise your hand if you’ve seen a horror, sci-fi or thriller whose last frame does the its all over … or is it gambit. It might be better shot but is the end of “Inception” that much different from Ming’s ring disappearing at the end of “Flash Gordon”?
This thread has mainly talked about the ending, but the ending is completely superfluous. The movie does not need one more twist. There is plenty in this movie already. There’s the philosophy of implanting the inception of an idea in someone’s subconscious to the technical aspects of the worlds created. Like how did Cobb and Mal get that deep and come back by themselves. The world they created was four layers deep in the movie; van in rain, hotel, hospital, then their world. They needed a kick, started by someone on that level, in the van, hotel and hospital to get back. When they did it by themselves, they just died to get back.
If this was Cobb’s dream, or an inception on him then everything we are told about the world of the movie is not true or the writer/director is cheating. If the totem is spinning at the end of the movie either someone unknown to us changed the totem or Cobb never noticed it never stopped spinning any of the other times he used it in the movie. Since an inception on yourself makes no sense, if an inception is being done to Cobb it would have to be by Mal, which means everybody else in the movie are parts of Cobb’s dream and not real. That means that there is another team running the inception that we never see. If that is true then the movie is a very pretty piece of shit.
This is my problem with Nolan. He adds these pieces that the movie doesn’t need. Even worse than the end of “Inception” is the second time round with the cats and hats in “The Prestige”. “The Prestige” is a movie that hides nothing from you but is subtle enough that if you aren’t watching closely you will be surprised. Then at the end of the movie it decides we were too dumb to understand and beats us over the head with the cats and hats again. Why does he insist on making what he must think is a smart story and then at the end insult us by treating us like we are too dumb to understand. This is why he is good, very good by summer standards, but not great.

By the way the reason he won’t look at the kids faces is because they don’t have any. They aren’t dreams. We are told they are memories. We are told he regrets not seeing their faces on last time. His memory does not have faces. That is why he won’t look when Mal calls the kids.

Posted by: PB3 at July 21, 2010 12:40 AM

Wow, that was long.
The soap box is open.

Posted by: PB3 at July 21, 2010 12:41 AM

There seems to be an overwhelming focus on the cleverness of the story, the special effects, the zero-gravity fight scene (this one is genuinely exciting and feels new even tho Matrix has done it earlier), Leo's sob story, but nobody seems to talk about how a Japanese tycoon, a foreigner, buys the services of American mercenaries with no loyalty to their country and participates in the break-up of an American company by robbing the inheritor of his free will. Fischer eventually says something like:"My dad wants me to go my own way." They succeeded in breaking up a financial empire, an American Empire. A Japanese now has the economic upper-hand over United States, and everyone cheers as Leo gets to see his kids' faces...? Nolan pulls a fast one on American audience.

Posted by: Saytan at July 21, 2010 6:11 AM

So:

Does this mean it's finally possible to kill Freddy Kreuger?

Posted by: penelope at July 21, 2010 8:38 PM

Saytan - you did notice that Cillian Murphy's passport is Australian, right?

Posted by: Idprefernottosay at July 21, 2010 8:47 PM

im not as smart as all of you, my questions started with: how did his dad know to oick him up from the airport? did the japanese guy call him and he teleported from paris?

Posted by: hold up..... at July 21, 2010 11:35 PM

I hope I don’t get tarred and feathered for suggesting this but is there a remote possibility that the Pajiba website could get some of those fancy “share on facebook” buttons below its reviews? It would be easier than trying to tell friends about the awesomeness that is Pajiba bitchiness with my mouth. Great. Thanks.

Posted by: heybud at July 22, 2010 1:46 PM

Guys I've really enjoyed reading this discussion because I thought the movie was ambitious but a complete failure and it was good to get some intelligent debate over what worked at what didn't.

Ultimately though, the way that people are explaining possible flaws like the atrocious thinness of the character serves to close down meaning at the end. The incoherency of the plot, the shitty dialogue, the poorly-drawn protagonist, all of these only serve the movie if the end (or the whole thing) is a dream. That's the only way to read the movie as a well-crafted psychological drama/heist.

So the question is, does Nolan want that spinning top to be ambiguous? I think he does, so both (or more) readings need to be plausible. Instead all you're left with is a bunch of action set-pieces, some pretense to metaphysical depth, and a cutesy ending. I couldn't bring myself to give a toss about anyone or anything.

I wish it had been a miniseries so these ideas could have been examined with some consideration and care.

Posted by: nigeltde at July 22, 2010 11:15 PM

Not adding anything intelligent to the discussion here, just wondered if anyone else noticed the plan of the pantheon on the chalkboard behind michael caine. It made the movie for me.

Posted by: elisenavidad at July 23, 2010 2:29 AM

To get into a less plot-ponderous conversation, Brian, I feel your point about Nolan's treatment of women is actually the opposite of how I believe it is. If you look through his films, including this one, it's ultimately true that the male protagonists are either the direct instigators or the indirect causes of the suffering of female characters, and that this suffering is seen as a negative trait towards our view of that male character. Batman's inability to save Rachel shows his fallibility and his complicated priorities. Even in Memento, the female characters are taking control of their lives, though in the end Guy Pierce's issues lead to tragic or at least unsatisfactory ends for them.


Also, on an unrelated note, holy shit am I glad I waited until after I saw this (nearly perfect) movie to read this thread.

Posted by: ChristianH at July 24, 2010 2:44 AM

Excellent review. You really hit all the highlights of the movie for me and simultaneously put to rest some of the silly criticisms I've read, like, "It's not dreamlike enough!"

HB: Cillian Murphy's natural accent is Irish. If you watch "Perrier's Bounty" or "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" or even "Breakfast on Pluto" you'll hear it.

Fredo: Thank you for bringing up the morality issue with regards to what they do to Fischer. It's really the only sticking point that prevents me from calling this movie a masterpiece.

Posted by: Less Lee Moore at July 27, 2010 11:49 AM

Two thumbs and two big toes up for Inception. Reminds me a lot of Primer - both had multiple layers in telling the story. Difference is, inception has multiple plots, but Primer had multiple narratives. Where inception's plots occur at the same time, or more accurately, like a russian vase, within one another, Primer's occurs recursively.

Posted by: oroboros at August 3, 2010 12:55 AM

PB3, I totally agree with your comments. But I also had an issue with bringing all of the characters together in the plane. We are supposed to believe that the head of a major energy corporation (Saito) is sitting across from the son of the head of another major energy corporation (Fischer) and they don't recognize each other? That'd be like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs sitting across from one another and not acknowledging each other. Not plausible. But I don't think it's an argument for it all being a dream, just sloppy filmmaking. I loved this film until the very end, and then it all fell apart for me. It's overrated just like the Dark Knight, although admittedly still the best big summer movie to come out this year.

Posted by: queenbeth at August 8, 2010 7:59 PM

Inception is great, but there was Paprika, but it is still great.I just thought I should show some respect to the original concept, like The Departed is great but I respect Infernal Affairs.

Posted by: Trag Lee at August 19, 2010 10:20 PM

I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.I think you have done an excellent job with your blog. I will return in the near future.I had bookmark it :)

Posted by: Cheap fashion dresses at January 5, 2011 11:05 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time