Inception

Started by modage, August 24, 2009, 10:21:41 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

blackmirror

Quote from: I Love a Magician on July 16, 2010, 01:41:49 PM
but it'd be Cool if someone could tell me what they think

[do not proceed if you have not viewed the film; spoilers are present]

I have a theory about the ending focusing on Cobb's totem.  Before the scene cuts to black, the spinning top begins to wobble.  For me, that indicates we have been viewing a dream the entire film.

As we near the end in the "waking/physical" world of the movie, Cobb wakes up on the Sydney-LA flight, and he is able to go home because Saito has fixed his fugitive status.  Moreover, Cobb has also forgiven himself for his wife's death.  Now, he can return home, and look at his children in the face, free of guilt.

At that point, the story of the movie is over.  Despite that, we focus on the shot of the top spinning, which begins to topple, followed by the sudden cut to black with the musical kick which, to me, declares: "Wake up, audience.  Cinema is like a dream.  And, this dream, this movie, is over."

What I think Mr. Nolan is trying to express through Inception is what filmmakers try to do with cinema. They construct a dream world that we, the audience, occupy for a while.  I began to wonder about this when Cobb and Ariadne had their discussion at the Parisian cafe.  He asks her if she can recall how they got there, and she cannot remember.  It is often that way in cinema, too.  In fact, that is how it was for that scene.  When that scene began, did you, the viewer, wonder how they got there?  In other movies, when we cut to a scene of characters walking in the park, do we, for instance, wonder how they got there?  No, we accept it, and we progress through their subjected world, continuing with the narrative.  The architect/filmmaker can do fantastic things in their created world, and manipulate it in numerous ways.  However, if the architect/filmmaker attracts too much attention their way, or does something that does ring true to the presented world, the subconscious starts to "see" the architect/filmmaker.  Once that boundary is overstepped (breaking the fourth wall, as they say), and one moves too far past the rubicon, the dream is over -- the illusion is gone.

The quest of most filmmakers is to wrest emotion out of you -- whether that is to make you laugh, cry or be afraid.  Most filmmakers argue that is the essence of cinema.  Yet, Mr. Nolan feels that the bold filmmaker can layer a film enough, make it intricate enough, and with careful suggestion, that the filmmaker can change your point of view, and make you feel like the inception of it came from you -- not the film.  He is making a commentary of the potential of cinema and the power of the filmmaker.  Once this is masterfully executed, we reach the end, and Mr. Nolan tells us to wake up because the dream is over.

I can say with confidence this is the best movie I have seen in 2O1O.

Gamblour.

Best movie of the year. Nolan's masterpiece. Great ideas in a great movie. We live in an interesting time. Would I see 2001 today and think, "I'm not emotionally connected enough to Dave. Shouldn't I be? I don't feel empathetic to him." The answer is no, characters are as much a function of the film as anything. I guess this is a premature response to the by-now-typical response to Nolan's films of little emotional involvement, because fuck that, I felt more during this film than any other Nolan film, specifically regarding Leo and his wife. I loved this film and its mechanisms and it's powerful and well executed and deeply thoughtful. And the audience, at the end, gasped and sighed simultaneously. Congrats, Chris, job well done.

The fight scene with JGL was one of the most riveting action scenes I've seen in a long time. I was constantly asking myself, "How did they do that?" And I was confused yet understood. Great film. Thank god!
WWPTAD?

Stefen

Loved it. This is the best movie I've seen this year, and depending on subsequent viewings, maybe one of the best movies I've ever seen.

I saw this with matt35mm today and I think I'm going to drag someone else with me to see it tomorrow. Maybe my mother. I can't wait to see it again. I have so many questions. I wish it was already out on Blu-ray so I could study it.

SPOILERS.

I find it fascinating that there really isn't a villain in this. There really aren't any bad guys. It's not even really a crime what they are doing. Their plan doesn't involve death or anything that is going to hurt anyone. Maybe Cobb is the villain? He really screws his team over. If that was me, I would have not been happy about that and when the job was done, I wouldn't be all smiles.

As for the ending, I don't think there is any doubt that it was reality. It was done. FINISHED. Unfortunately, I think our minds are so engraved to expect a sequel that we always see an ending as open-ended even if it isn't.
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

Ravi

Great film.  Dreams are tricky in cinema because the temptation is to just throw internal logic away, but the film sets up clear rules and structures, so it just doesn't become a free-for-all of crazy dream stuff.  I like the idea that extractors are common enough that rich people pay to learn how to defend themselves from them.  I'm going to have to see this again.

I'm a bit miffed that I paid to see it in IMAX.  I was under the mistaken impression that, like The Dark Knight, parts of this were shot in IMAX.  But it wasn't so.  Oh well.  Still a great experience.

picolas

spoils!

i'm not expecting a sequel but there's no question it's an ambiguous ending. blackmirror's theory is the most perfect one i've heard. i also like the possible idea that Mal is actually alive in the real world and Cobb will simply wake up to her in a few more dream hours. or another theory that i'll propose near the end of this post..

i really loved this but i think some of the praise is.. too positive, or at least too dismissive of any flaws. probably because it's been a miserable year so far (there isn't even a 'so far this year' thread for godsakes). don't get me wrong. it's the best movie of the year up to this point and i am seeing it again in theatres, but i do have issues with it. i'll focus more on those since not many other people are.

- there's a long passage of the film as everyone's preparing for the job and giving exposition to set up the rules that is simply too relentlessly paced. every line of dialogue feels so crucial and it's just flying into your brain like encyclopedias and dictionaries off a treadmill on max speed. i think the score was going unbroken for like 30 minutes. this movie needed to be 3 hours long and take a half hour to just let the audience breathe. cause after a while i felt numbed by the constant montagey feel of that section. it's weird how that part of the movie was too propulsive to me, but the last hour or so was my favourite.. i think that's the difference between exposition and payoff. i also feel like there was not enough SHOWING of the rules and a little too much telling. having said that, this movie is so rule-heavy. it did a really good job with what it had to get across. it just occasionally straddled the line between cool exposition and bad LOST territory where it didn't care about being entertaining, it just HAD to be spelled out cause you need to know/memorize these things.
- watanabe is deeply miscast. whether or not he can speak english in life, i never believed his character could. his pronunciation and general rhythm is so atrocious. i needed subtitles for half the things he said. and physically his performance is so.. mannered and choreographed and unreal. that moment where he opens the car door to take out a bad guy/rescue dicaprio and then says something like "Need a lift?"... it's another one of those performances that i'm surprised nolan let slip through. it's so obviously wrong.
- the explanations/rules continue to unfold at a more manageable pace further into the movie, but i was still using about 20% of my mind just to make sure i understood everything as it was happening rather than simply enjoying the things that were happening (oh, the things that were happening... i was involuntarily going "yes!" more than once..). on repeat viewings this will only get easier, though. i have a lot of questions about the nature of kicks.
- i wanted to be more involved in dicaprio's relationship with Mal, since it's kind of the real story. i'm not sure if it's underdeveloped or just tougher to get a grasp on in the first view because it's so fractured and overshadowed by the heist/dream rules. only more views will tell. cotillard is somethin else though.
- i love how much of a callback this movie is to everything nolan has done up to this point. it's like a dream collage of his movie universe.. the dead wife and the character trying to alter his memories, professional thieves, snowy mountains, dicaprio's back looking exactly like nolan's back. it all fits so well with the idea that this is nolan's dream, or our collective dream as incepted by nolan..
- i had a half-baked idea for the ending as the film was coming to a close.. it would've required a lot more explanation but. i wanted it to turn out that dicaprio was actually getting closer to reality rather than deeper into his subconscious, and that the real world had been reduced to this forest of crumbling buldings because a. we're in the future and cities should be far denser and b. everyone has lost touch with reality and become addicted to the dream technology as foreshadowed by the basement of people unable to distinguish between the two. i'm not sure where you go from there, but it woulda been a neat extension of the dream-addiction idea. on a mass scale. as well as the idea of not recognizing how something is strange until a dream ends, the strange thing being that dicaprio seems to exist in our time, when in fact this technology is way too advanced. i also think it's cool to think of dicaprio's crew as subconscious extensions of his own personality.
- there are so many great things that happened that i struggle to remember all of them. i'm almost certain i've forgotten something a day later that would've been a standout in some other movie.. i will never get tired of gimbals.

blackmirror

SPOILERS

We meet upon the level, we depart upon the square...

It was only a matter of time for the reality purists to materialize – and I am so pleased that they have, as it provokes the philosophical debate this movie demands.  My opinion that the conclusion is a dream should not be confused as a lingering hope for a sequel.  The film is perfect as is, and leaving it so, treats us to enduring, meaningful reflections.  

[once again, do not proceed if you have not seen the film; spoilers follow]

I know there will be the faction that believes the ending was real.  Evidence to support this is Cobb's father urging him to return to reality, and it is his father waiting for him at the airport at the end.  On the flip side, isn't it Eames who tells us it is key that the understanding of the relationship between father and son is what propagates the ideal inception?  It makes me question if we are viewing a level of Cobb's subconscious exploring the relationship he has with his father.  Moreover, Cobb's children did not age when they reunite, which hints to the possibility that we remain in a dream.  Cobb repeatedly asserts the notion of planting the seed of an idea deep into the subconscious to take root for its purpose to take effect.  If this is all a dream, imagine how deep Cobb has descended.  The chain of kicks has to be so massive and complex that it poses the risk that it is too late for his return to reality.  Plus, if this is a part of a larger construct, we have only seen a splinter of the entirety of Cobb's illusive Jacob's Ladder.  (On a side note, to entertain the possibility of additional chains/kicks, we would have to consider Cobb is connected among the sedated group in the Moroccan sleep room – much like picolas' account of multiple extensions of Cobb's personality...we are talking eternal manifestations.)  If preceding levels do indeed exist, what we have been exposed to in the film must be near the very core depth of Cobb's subconscious.  As the chains increase to reach this core, so does the threat of it breaking, which would sever Cobb's ascension/homecoming/reawakening.  We very well could have seen one of these severances as Nash (Lucas Haas' character) dissolves.  Given this possibility we would have to rationalize at some point that Cobb must appease with a compromised version of reality within the depths he has immersed himself.  Perhaps, the reality we are presented at the end is the level he has ascended to accept.  That would suit the faction saying, no, it was not all a dream.  However, a part of me believes there is a ground zero, where the real Cobb – the estranged soul who has lost his wife and is separated from his children – remains unconscious as he performs the ultimate inception of repairing his guilt amid a grand labyrinth quest inside his mind of seeding the idea to eradicate it.  Granted, it is a solipsistic interpretation, where figuratively he is all that exists, ignoring the external, and embracing the impossible as if there are no consequences to his actions.  (Good call Stefen for observing the unmistakable absence of a villain.  This gives credence to the solipsism of Cobb's world, as his struggle depicts that we are often our own worst enemy.)  The brilliance is that the impossible becomes possible as we are dealing with dreams, which Mr. Nolan skillfully exhibits.  Ariadne blows up Paris, bends buildings and defies time and space with her mirror of infinite dimensions.  Arthur can herd a pack of inert individuals through sub-g gravity, while combating interlopers.  Eames also illustrates this ability of turning the impossible into the possible as he forges identities within dream interphase.  Anything can happen!  It is not too big of a departure from the philosophy of René Descartes who reasoned cogito ergo sum.  Mr. Descartes was half-awake when he uttered those words, and from that perspective -- especially for the relevance of this discussion -- I believe a minor alteration to his expression makes for a better fit: ego somnium sum.

I dream, therefore, I am.

Pubrick

Dude, put your spoiler warning before you talk about the ending.

BEFORE.

This shit gets released here on the 22nd.

THE 22ND.
under the paving stones.

Derek

If done well, like Avatar, this would have been very cool in 3D.
It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.

Kal

Quote from: Derek on July 18, 2010, 11:05:01 AM
If done well, like Avatar, this would have been very cool in 3D.


FUCK 3D.

Derek

Quote from: kal on July 18, 2010, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: Derek on July 18, 2010, 11:05:01 AM
If done well, like Avatar, this would have been very cool in 3D.


FUCK 3D.

That's it?
It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.

Pozer

3D is waay cooler than saying fuck 3D.

movie was good, not sure about THE HYPE IS REAL good or maybe one of the best movies I've ever seen good, but purdy good.

that's it.

modage

And I'm okay with that. If there's a better movie this year, we are lucky.  

The ending was definitely meant to be ambiguous. Here are a few theories. 

ENDING SPOILERS MAJOR

A. The film is as presented.  Reality was real, dreams were dreams, wife commits suicide, happy ending is reality.

Conventional if a bit convenient. Most people will probably view the film this way.  But the last shot should leave them with lingering doubts. 

B. The film is mostly as presented.  Reality was real, dreams were dreams, wife commits suicide, happy ending is now tragic as it's actually still a dream.  

We never saw how Dom got out of the subconscious. He just awakes on the plane mid-scene without the audience knowing how he got there.  Now that he's forgiven himself, he can finally face his children in the dream.  Nolans previous work in Memento ends with a character who refuses to accept reality so that would be a reoccurring theme here.  Also: where is grandma?

C. The film is entirely a dream except for the flashbacks.  Reality was a dream, dreams were dreams, wife wakes herself up and ending is tragic because Dom refuses to come back to reality.

On 2nd viewing I wondered if his wife was right and they were so many dream layers deep that when she commits suicide she's actually waking up while Dom spends years deep in the dream.  As pointed out elsewhere online Dom never mentions how long he's been on the run. And in the film this is brought into question by him being chased down in "real life" just like his projections. The company is so vague you have to wonder why there weren't more details given. 

D. Everything is a dream, dream invasion technology doesn't exist and none of this happened. 

But that's too disappointing to ponder. 

I think I like B the best but I think the film basically falls into one of these explanations. 
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Gold Trumpet

Spoilers

I'm not going to mount a Dark Knight attack, but it was an alright film with little greatness attached to it. Without getting into too much explanation, my problem is that the context of a lot of the dreams were just elaborated on with action sequences and minimal challenges to the psyche of Cobb. The film leaves you with a puzzle by the end to consider, whether what he is experiencing is a dream or not, but the decision is still pretty simplistic. Most of the events leading up to the end don't make you consider many different avenues of thought to Cobb's psyche. I think the film would have been better served if it began with Cobb and Mol's relationship. See, with more context there, the film could have gone many more routes and planted all the delineations in a better emotional grounding. As is, the story does not even get you to understand elemental basics of their relationship until later in the film so when the story tries to add ambiguities and doubts, they are based on a few simplistic ideas of his emotional history. The lack of development of an emotional center reminds me of the worse elements of genre fiction. This film needs it too because it needs you to believe in the greatness of his trauma affecting everything about him.

The ending is an ambiguity, but not all ambiguities are the same. An ambiguity should not have clear decisions like this film does. It defeats the purpose, but the film is very exciting nearing the end. I kept thinking about how Nolan is a good craftsman of action sequences, but I also sat through a lot the film kind of bored as the story kept going back to continuously repeat and re-affirm new logic rules to dreams as they came up. Even the original Matrix is wordy of its own theoretical levels, but I remember being more touched by the human component of that film.


Stefen

Has Nolan touched on the ending at all?
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

blackmirror

Quote from: P on July 18, 2010, 10:58:18 AM
Dude, put your spoiler warning before you talk about the ending.

BEFORE.

This shit gets released here on the 22nd.

THE 22ND.

Please accept my apology.  I have fixed it.