Inception

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheUsualSuspect
  • Start date Start date
I'll try to knock a few of these down, if I can. I don't think we have any big plot holes here, but I'm going to see this flick again in an hour or two, so I'll probably be back with more specifics. But here's my interpretation after a single viewing:


We don't see Saito as an old man until after Fischer is kicked up out of limbo. We kind of jump forward after that, to Cobb waking up on the beach. We have no idea how much time has passed, but whatever it was, it was enough to age him.



No idea, but it is still a dream, and consistent with the "don't remember how you got there" theme that comes up a couple of times.


I think the way we see people wake up (or not wake up right away) is probably inconsequential. But yes, my understanding is that, at the top level, they're waiting on the timer. That's the final "kick," and it's one of the reasons everything has to be synced up, I believe. I think Dileep Rao (Yusuf) said in the Q-and-A I linked to earlier that you basically need to time it so that the first kick is from the bottom level, and on up. If the 3rd level kick came before the 4th, for example, it wouldn't work, because they wouldn't "be" on the 3rd level yet.



Yes, it seems that limbo, dying wakes you up. But there are some caveats: one is that this is only true if you're in limbo with one level. Dreams-within-dreams is another matter, and it'll only kick you up to the next-deepest level.

I think the thing is that, once you're in limbo, you lose yourself. You become less aware of what's happening and even less willing to stay. I believe it's supposed to be a fairly herculean mental feat that Cobb was able to become aware of his limbo with Mal, and even decide to leave it. Even then, it seemed to take him decades to muster up the awareness and ability to do this. I think Cobb's exceptional on this point. Also, there may be a major difference between whatever Cobb and Mal were experimenting with, and Yusef's sedative cocktail. Not to mention, again, the dreams-within-dreams thing, which could account for other differences.


They did get old, but as you say, they didn't really realize it/visualize themselves that way. We see them that way late in the film, when Cobb reflects on it. So it's a little tricky, because we have how old they are, and how old they feel, or allow themselves to seem. So I think you're touching on something important here that explains a number of differences. Also, Saito was, it seems, probably a decade or so older when he entered limbo than when Cobb and Mal did, if that makes any difference.


I think the key to 90% of this is the way the film depicts the passage of time. We never really know if it's 1 minute or 5 that passes between scenes or cuts. If 5-10 minutes can be a decade, then I don't know if it would be too hard to find a few shots or jumps that would account for the difference, since we're constantly cutting away to other levels.

Mainly, though, I agree with what you said in the beginning, which is that the things that seem like big problems can't be, given how much time Nolan clearly put into this. That may sound like a brush-off for anyone who thinks they've found a plot hole, but I think it's true.
 
This is cool, my cousin showed me this and said it's official. But who wrote it? Is this Chris Nolan's work? I just want to know if this is part of the official Inception 'canon' as it were. Because if it is, then we can assume not everything is a dream.

I've been looking for as many reasons as possible to prove that the plot-line we generally accept as real was not a dream. There was that interview with Yusuf, who says Cobb's totem stops spinning, but people still want to entertain this theory. I just don't think Nolan would create a story in which every person we care about, and all the actions they perform in the film are operating in a dream world. It kind of negates any semblance of emotion in the movie; it has no moral center because it's not based in reality. I wanted Cobb to come to terms with his guilt over his wife and kids, I wanted Fischer to resolve problems with his father and become a success on his own, and I wanted Ariadne to prove she's strong enough to resist the appeal of the pure inspiration and creativity of the subconscious world. On a simpler level, I wanted Arthur and Eames to succeed, I wanted the job to be successfully pulled off to perfection like any good heist movie.

Nolan has been known for his coldness, a quality that I think works in some films and doesn't work in others. But for a movie that spans a plain as vast as dreams and the hopes they can bring, and forces us to become emotionally invested in the characters and their fates, it would be downright wrong for a storyteller to just say, "Fooled you! It was all fake!" We need to know it was all for something.
 
I'm seem to remember Cobb saying something about he had trained Fischer to use his defences in the past but that Fischer doesn't remember or something. Or maybe he meant his team had trained Fischer at one point, which would make a bit more sense, I guess. I'm sure it was said in the 2nd level dream sequence.
 
G P, you're absolutely wrong about films being adaptations having to be looked at in a totally different way. What different way is this? Do you subordinate all the directorial decisions to the decisions of the source material? What are you even saying about the differences that make tDK and Inception hard to compare? wtf I think it's pretty easy to compare Se7en to Fight Club. They are very, very similar films. They even have, like, the same lead actor so you can compare how Fincher uses Pitt. My god, tDK and Inception are very easy to compare. Explain to me how the source material has anything to do with it. Inception used plenty of elements from Jung in his film, if that counts, but even so...

I totally disagree with this notion that two films cannot be compared. Give me two films that cannot be compared, and I will attempt to compare them. It's art. You can compare anything. wtf are these rules you're setting up that comparing two works of art is futile or pointless or something.

OH U.


It takes absolutely nothing at all. Fads take absolutely nothing at all. I think some utter garbage like the Simpson's movie shot up to number one when it first came out 2. Inception's been out for 2 weeks; that's hardly enough time for a fair judgement anyways. People are impulsive, and the film is highly advertised. I don't even need to explain how IMDB has NOTHING to do with the quality of a film.

A quick search yielded that Battleship Potemkin is utterly missing from its top 250. This is strange seeing as many critics cite this as one of the greatest films of all time.

I guess fads win then. Inception's been out fur 2 weeks yall.
 
Fair enough. And I plan to see this again so, my rating may go up slightly. Something about the flick left me really cold though and I'm not sure if that's going to change.
 
Before seeing this film, I knew Christopher Nolan had the ability to make really good films but I didn't think he had the abilities to make a film of this high caliber and depth. So I guess you could say it is the inception, IMO.
 
Saw the movie twice in 2 consecutive days.

Loved it, this is the movie that I'd love to sit with my friends & discuss over couple of drinks..
Sadly all you people are faraway!!!
 
Nope... that never happened..
If you are referring to the Mr. Charles trick, than that was a trick.
 
Okay, first off; The Simpsons Movie was hysterical. I something in your general direction if you believe otherwise. Unless you hate the show as a whole, in which case, there is no talking to you, sir, and we must part ways.

I agree that people tend to flip out when a film is first released, but you can't dismiss it on that alone. And you sure can't cite "many critics" when discussing a film when you've been deriding such measures in other discussions about The Godfather and the like. I cry foul! Foul I cry.

But, I'm getting off topic. To your first few paragraphs: sure, you can compare any two films, but the comparison will always be imperfect, because each film sets out to accomplish a different thing under a different set of circumstances. I wouldn't say this means we can't or shouldn't compare them, but it does mean they are not fully comparable, if you get my distinction. It's perfectly reasonable to modify one's general judgments based on the constraints a film and a filmmaker have to work within. Inception has a freedom that an adaptation doesn't realistically have, and noting that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Now, I realize 99% of this reply has nothing to do with Inception, so I'll stop talking for the moment.
 
I think my ratings are coming from a totally different perspective. I give an 8/10 an A-, so I'd never say an A- is remotely partially 20% cowpie. It's just that I try to save the area above 8/10 for the movies I find just that much better. I also don't buy into the "anything below a 6/10 is an F" school. Why would you have the majority of your available ratings be movies which are "failures"? My F zone goes from about 0-3/10 although it's getting harder to determine what deserves a 0 or a 1 because you actually have to watch a lot of bad movies to differentiate.
 
Whoa, I saw it this afternoon and right now, I am utterly confused and flabbergasted by what I've seen. There is just so much to process and I didn't have enough time to actually do all this processing, because complicated stuff just kept coming. I was overthinking one thing and before I knew it, the next line already had me pondering again.

What I can say though, is that this is one of the most experimental and thought-provoking films I've ever seen. Yet I'm unsure on how to rate it. I think I need to rewatch it multiple times before completely understanding everything, let alone begin to rate it.

SPOILERS from here on.

This is the theory that I've worked out so far on how everything works out. Bear with me here please: Cobb says that if you die in a dream when you're under heavy sedation, you fall into limbo. But limbo is:

A. unconstructed dream space
B. the dreamspace of whomever in the party that has spent the longest time there, i.e. Cobb

In the snow level (level 3), Fischer dies because of Mal's action, thus falls into limbo (i.e. the dreamspace that was constructed by Cobb and Mal). Cobb and Ariadne then decide to rescue Fischer from limbo. This is possible, because Cobb has constructed the world that is limbo. Therefore, when Cobb and Ariadne are hooked up to the machine, they enter Cobb's dream (i.e. limbo). Right?

So they enter Cobb's dream / limbo and Ariadne notices the lightning flash (i.e. the defibrilator) and tells Cobb that they have to leave. Cobb tells her "no, I will find Saito and bring him back with me". Then, Ariadne pushes Fischer off the building and lets herself fall down as well (i.e. the kick to drop down to level 3: snow level).

I am then bugged by the question of howCobb ends up washed up on the shore. I presume it's because he died from drowning in the van? I like to think this, as we see Cobb seatbelted down (yes, I just made that verb up, I think) in the van and then a direct cut to him washing up on shore. I thus assume this signifies the drowning in the van, meaning that Cobb died in a dream while under heavy sedation which would mean that he is plunged into limbo.

Then he persuades Saito to take the leap, i.e. shoot himself, in order to return to reality. Cobb must've realised that the other levels had collapsed by now, which means that if you kill yourself in limbo, you go straight back into reality, much like Cobb and Mal already did.

Am I about right with this theory or just way off the mark?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Saito is so old in limbo, but what I've worked out so far: A good 10 minutes passes between Saito's actual death in level 3 (thus plunging him into limbo) and Cobb's drowning in the van. This could mean that Saito is already in limbo for decades,whereas Cobb is immediately found on shore by Saito's guards. Hence, why he has not aged, but Saito has.

I guess... Inception was definitely worth my
 
Hi Pres, I'm glad you liked the film as I know you're a big Nolan fan so it's good to not be let down . I didn't actually mean a smaller budget film, cos yeah I agree you need the fx to recreate dreams, I really meant something more intimate , more claustrophobic but still with surrealness at the heart. All the shootouts just didn't do it for me, it felt like a dream one of my sons would have after playing computer games all night
 
"Written by Jordan Goldberg, and featuring art by Long Vo, Joe Ng, and Crystal Reid,


http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/13/inception-prologue-comic-book-online/

Jordan Goldberg seems to be a long time Nolan collaborator. He has helped produce Inception, The Dark Knight, and The Prestige.
 
Can't help wondering if our boy Pete Postlethwaite earned more per seconds appearance in Inception than any other film he's been in.
 
Back
Top