Here are several interepretations of the movie. Your job is to read over the blog and pick three to talk about. You don't have to agree with them: you can pick them apart with evidence from the movie.
Questions to choose from (pick three):
1. Near the end, Mal (or her projection) in limbo makes a pretty good case that Cobb is lost in his own dream and can't tell one reality from another. Do you think that this is a plausible alternative? Why or why not?
2. This blog from Moviefone.com outlines six different interpretations of the film (and also five plot holes - see next question). Read it for more details on each of the six interpretations, but I'll just list each of them below. We have talked about some of them in class.
** If you decide to fully tackle more than one interpretation of Inception, this will count as another of your three questions.
a. All of Inception is a dream - are we ever really shown reality? Whose dream is it, anyway?
b. Everything after the test sedation is a dream - after Yusuf's chemical test, do we see Cobb spin his totem and see it fall properly?
c. Saito is the architect and pulls a Mr. Charles gambit on Cobb - instead of a job audition like Saito said, maybe Saito is trying to extract something from Cobb?
e. We do see reality in the movie (first train ride in Japan, Paris, Mombasa), but Cobb is in a dream at the end - could this explain why the totem never falls at the end of the movie? This interpretation apparently hinges on the idea that the children don't appear to have aged. Plus, we don't see how Saito and Cobb get out of limbo.
f. What we see is what we get - that we are presented with a reality at the beginning of the movie (train ride in Japan) and that Cobb is back in the U.S. at the end of the movie.
3. Evil genius theory - We should have discussed this in class, but I wonder if it's possible to show that either Saito, Mal or Cobb could be the evil genius manipulating everything we're seeing. Or could it be the film maker Christopher Nolan?
4. Is Inception really just an extended metaphor for films? In a previous blog from last semester, I posted a link from Wired, and I traced it back to its source, so I'll quote the author's take on Nolan's film:
"The film is a metaphor for the way that Nolan as a director works, and what he’s ultimately saying is that the catharsis found in a dream is as real as the catharsis found in a movie is as real as the catharsis found in life. Inception is about making movies, and cinema is the shared dream that truly interests the director."
Here's a link to the whole post: http://www.chud.com/24477/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/
My question is, do you buy this interpretation of the movie? Why or why not? What kind of implication does it have for us as film watchers - this shared "dream space" of watching a movie together? Did Christopher Nolan just perform inception on all of us because it's now an idea, like a parasite that won't go away? :)
5. When Saito asks Cobb to take a leap of faith, he's asking Cobb to believe in him and Saito's ability to fix Cobb's problems. In some ways, Saito almost acts like a deity in this movie because through him, almost everything is engineered to work. He is the Prime Mover or causal agent - Cobb and his team are sent on their mission because they failed to extract vital info from Saito for Cobol Engineering. They are tasked to help destroy Saito's biggest competitor (Fischer), and when it's all said and done, Saito returns from limbo after many many years (remember, Mal and Cobb didn't look like they had aged when the train ran them over after just 50 yrs together, but Saito was wrinkled and withered) and supposedly sweeps away Cobb's murder warrant. What is Saito, really? Is he just a very powerful man or is he something else? Why?
6. Those of you with AP Psych experience, help us out on some of the brain / dream logistics. The way that they explain the dream rules in the movie sound plausible, but what is realistic w/ regards to dreams? Shared dream space isn't possible, is it? Any other psych insights would be greatly appreciated here.
7. Arthur mentioned it briefly on how the technology for the shared dreaming was created - by the military so that soldiers could fight/kill each other without truly maiming themselves in reality. Plus, the character played by Michael Caine, Mal's father, seems to have been the one who taught Cobb how to do what he could do. In many ways, I sense the hints of a "prequel," not a sequel for this movie. Unlike the Matrix (which probably should have been left alone instead of having 2 sequels), it might be interesting to explore how the technology for this type of thing was developed and most likely stolen. If it takes 10 years in between movies like it did with Toy Story or Tron, then so be it. What kinds of possibilities do you see in a prequel or, even if you don't agree with me, a sequel?
Some additional points and counterpoints to theories in the movie - http://inceptiontheories.com/inception-theories-points-counterpoints/
DUE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22 BY MIDNIGHT.
I think it is very possible that Cobb was caught in a dream the whole movie. He could actually still be in limbo and out of his boredom and torment he created this scenario where he had this mission to get back to his kids. I think the idea is solid and at the end of when the totem does not stop spinning it could go as proof for this theory. I also think that the story presented in the movie is a good possibility of what happened. There really is no way for us to prove whether Cobb ended up in reality or if it was a dream the whole time. I think another possible theory is that he should’ve stayed in limbo with Mal because his soul is so old that he has probably lived multiple life times and he could never really be comfortable in the “real world” or he would always have the fear that he is in a dream or limbo still. I think that it is possible that Cobb was an evil genius the whole time and this relates back to my theory that it was always a dream scenario that Cobb created in Limbo. Maybe but very unlikely we were just in the subconscious of Mal the whole time but there is little to no evidence to prove that. Maybe Saito was proof that we were in a dream of Cobbs the whole time and he created the mission to find a way for him to forgive his guilt of him leaving his kids in the real world and being trapped in limbo. Saito was just the symbol that Cobb had finally forgiven himself for leaving his kids. The mission was generated by the intense feeling of guilt and sorrow so Cobb's subconscious knowing that he should not punish himself for his actions generated the mission and inception actually took place with Cobb that he shouldn’t punish himself for the things that happened. I think the real inception took place inside of Cobb's mind.
ReplyDelete1. This is not a plausible alternative. First, Cobb recognizes that the Mal projection isn’t really Mal. He understands that the projection he created of her is not as complex as the real Mal. This would indicate that he is not in a dream. Also the timeline of that wouldn't make sense. He would know if he was in a dream by looking how he got to where he was. He was in Limbo with Mal, then they killed themselves to get into the real world, then they went into 3 levels of dreams and into limbo again. Because of the clear timeline that is set up, we know he can’t be in a dream. It is also impossible for his real life to be a dream and the limbo to be real. How the dreaming state works in inception is that you take some sedative and go to sleep, and that takes you down into the dream world. To get out of the dream world you wait until the sedative wears off and kill yourself. That makes it impossible for the limbo to be real life because they got down there from taking the sedative and Cobb has originally left limbo by killing himself with a train. That makes it impossible for the limbo with the projection of Mal to have been real.
ReplyDelete5. I think Saito is just a powerful business man. We know that Saito is a powerful businessman. He is powerful enough to have another country go after his memories and ideas, and he is smart enough to have prepared for that. Maybe he can use that influence and intelligence to help Cobb. Maybe he didn't get his murder warrant swept under the rug, but rather helped him go off the grid, or some other method that would allow him to stay safe. We also know that businessmen and rich people have a lot of influence in politics and the inner workings of our country. Maybe Saiton has some political connections that he could have used to help Cobb, maybe he spent a ton of money on someone's campaign. I think it’s possible that a rich, smart business owner such as Saito could help Cobb without being some form of god.
7. I think there are definitely possibilities for a good prequel here. I disagree with you that the tech was likely stolen. First, the military and the government create lots of innovations that eventually go public. The internet was originally created and used by the military. NASA has developed tons of things in its history that became something used by the public. I don’t think just because it started in the military that the only way for it to be used is through stolen tech. I also think this because Cobb's father teaches about architecture and the dream spaces, doesn't he? If it is taught at what i assume is a university, that leads me to the assumption that it isn't just stolen tech. With that out of the way I think a prequel would have a lot of promise. It could show the development of the dream technology and its beginnings in the military. It can show the story of Mal and Cobb or the story of Cobb getting in trouble. There are tons of things that are mentioned in the movie that are said to have happened before the movie starts.
I honestly think that the last parts of inception were all a dream. I can’t remember the last point (before the last shot) where we see Cobb spin the top, but I think the most likely place to be the first law of the dream is to be when they’re on the plane. We never see them enter the plane so it could be that (or just more likely that when Chrissy N. wanted to cut it). The big two reasons why I think it’s all a dream comes from the fact that we never see how Saito and Cobb get out of limbo. What makes the most sense is that they never got out and they ended up dreaming as if they did. That’s why we never see them come out of limbo because you always enter a dream in the middle of it. This would also explain why Christopher, Michael Caine is in all my movies, Nolan cut the shot so we didn’t see the top fall. It didn’t fall because the laws of physics don’t apply in dreams. There is the argument that we saw the topp wobble, but Mr. Wife/Girlfriend dies in 90% of my movies, cut the top before we saw it fall down. One reason for the wobble is to simply just spark a debate between dreamers and wobblers, or another reason could be that he, or whoever did the editing, made a mistake and should have cut a few seconds early.
ReplyDelete5. I got to agree with the idea that Saito is some type of God. This goes against what I said before, but could explain how they got out of limbo. Scrap that, even better; Saito isn’t really a god, but rather some type of guardian angel-like being that Cobb set up in his mind. I think Cobb met Saito when he tried to extract the information from him, and Cobb’s subconscious plants that as some type of way for him to get over Mal’s death. The big flaw of my argument would be the fact we see him spinning his totum and it falling while he’s working for Saito, but I think it would be interesting if Saito and the whole mission was Cobb’s way of getting over Mal. It would explain why Saito has all that power. Maybe the way that Mal is in Fischer’s dreams is how Saito could be in it too. The theory also fits nicely with Kierkegaard's leap into faith because Cobb would just need to trust Saito to know what is best for him.
3. I liked the evil Genius theory too. The reason why it could be Saito has a lot of parallels to what I already wrote about, so I’d look at Mal and Cobb (not gonna even acknowledge the 4th wall break part of your question). Mal is pretty simple because we see her constantly trying to do harm to our main characters (especially Cobb), so it’s pretty clear why she could be a representation of the evil genius. Cobb could also be seen as an evil genius, but an evil genius harming Mal. He was the one who pushed Mal to go into limbo, and then pressured her to come out, leading to hear suicide. One can easily see that Cobb manipulated Mal’s perception of reality to the point where she became skeptical of her existence. Cobb really did kill Mal.
1-
ReplyDeleteI think that is very possible that there was no reality and it was all a dream. Although, I do not think there is an actual answer to the question of whether or not it really is real. I think it depends on your point of view. I think there are very good arguments showing that it was all a dream and there are good ones showing how it really was reality. I think it is very possible that Cobb has gotten so lost in different dreams that he can’t tell what is and isn’t real. Mal couldn’t tell if limbo was real and if the possible reality was real. The same thing could have happened to Cobb, someone could have even planted the idea in his mind that he was in reality. We don’t even know if at the end he was really out of a dream, he could still have been lost in a dream without even knowing it.
5-
I think it is possible that Saito is more than just a powerful person. More often than not people will probably just see him as a powerful businessman, but I think if you look closer it makes sense that he is more than that. Saito could be a deity, such as the Prime mover or a casual agent. He was more in control of the situation than he let on. He could have wanted Cobb to fail at first just so he could have him take Fischer down. I think it is more probable that he really just was a powerful person rather than a deity but he could have been for all I know.
7-
I think a prequel for this movie would be very interesting. A sequel, I think, would take away from the ending of the movie. The movie has an open ending, you don’t know exactly what happened. So making another movie explaining what happened would take away from the unknown feeling at the end. A prequel would be more interesting than a sequel. A prequel talking about how they created these dreams and how they started out. Arthur mentions why they started using these dreams but it is not said how they started this. Talking about the way this was created, including how someone even came up with the idea, would make watching Inception even more interesting. Talking about how it went from a tool for the military to being used to steal things from people's mind would also be intriguing. It could also talk more about Cobb’s, Arthur’s, or Eames backstory. Seeing how Arthur and Cobb ended up meeting and working together would make watching Inception easier to understand for some people.
7.) Shared dream space is definitely not possible. The closest thing you can come to shared dreams is someone who had the exacts same dream as you and you featured in each others dreams. But you did not dream with them. Dreams have been greatly romanticized and mystified, and although there is still some mystery to dreams, we've found that they mostly boil down a highlight reel of what we did that day combined with the thoughts that have been lingering in our mind, and some creative liberties added in to make it a dream. The deeper meanings of dreams are not endorsed by psychologists, but mostly by pseudo-science.
ReplyDelete8.) I think a prequel would be great. It's never really explained how Cobb or anyone else can do the things that they do. There are specific jobs that are neatly laid out with distinct roles, so obviously this isn't a brand new business. I would like a prequel about the very first "dreamnhoppers". Maybe they've existed since the dawn of man, and technology has just made it more accessible. Maybe Cobb is one of the few rare natural dreamhoppers. I think there are many ways to take a prequel, philosophically, and plot-wise.
4.) The whole time I was watching this movie, I felt like it was subtly filmed like a dream. Especially the pacing. We are dropped straight in the middle of the action. No introduction to what's happening or where we are. It's like we've been dropped in the climax of a film, just like how you can never remember how a dream started, but you seem to remember the key moments, and not the stuff in between. This is also why there is no subtle transition from scene to scene, and the pacing is much more gung-ho, and there's barely any downtime to calm down and recollect what's happening. Just like a hectic dream.
I think it is plausible that Cobb is lost in his own dream because it seems to be impossible to know the truth in this movie. In addition to that, after fifty years in a place where you can live an entire life where you can design everything, it’s quite possible that anything could’ve happened. Since they were in limbo and dreaming on their own, no one was watching them. No one would’ve been there to wake them up or tell them when their time ran out. The dream could’ve gone on forever, and no one would’ve known unless they’d gone looking for them. And in the end, cobb gets what he wants. This movie could’ve just been a depiction of his journey in a seperate dream to get back to his family.
ReplyDelete2c: I think I would need to watch the movie more to understand this, but I think it’s an interesting idea. If Saito were to extract anything from Cobb, I think that it would be to find the truth about his wife’s death or to learn about inception. For learning about Mal’s death I could see extraction being a useful tactic in trials, but that would be more so extracting a confession or memory than extracting an idea. Though this could be way off, we know cobb is in trouble for what he’s done with dreams and Mal’s parents don’t even believe him. I would believe that this could just be a ploy to get information from him, but I do feel that it would have to be someone else who’s the mastermind behind it. Saito did make it into limbo as well and we don’t know what happened there either.
2f: I think that the movie is too complex to be so straightforward. This movie tackled difficult concepts, it had a wonderful storyline, and it’s action scenes had amazing explosions, moments of anti gravity, and entire worlds made out of dreams. What I’m trying to say is that this was a great movie, and for such a great movie that's literally about how easily one’s reality can collapse in on itself, I see no reason for the directors to give viewers a direct ending. Such an ending doesn’t make anyone think or question what’s happening. I never would’ve questioned Cobb making it home if it hadn’t been for the last shot of the totem and the director knows that. If they wanted to display reality for reality, then they would’ve never added it
Question 5: In the film Inception I believe that Saito is more than a business competitor to Fischer. In the movie Cobb is tasked by Cobol Engineering to extract valuable information from Saito, when Cobb and his team were unsuccessful, surprisingly, Saito wanted to propose a deal. Basically Saito told Cobb if they helped him bring down his competing company then Saito could wipe Cobb's suspicious history clean and he could finally see his kids again. Saito risks his life for this job, almost dies, and gets stuck in limbo for about 50 years until finally he returns to reality and wipes Cobb's slate clean. He kept his word. As a businessman whose only goal was to defeat a competitor this seemed to be a lot of work… Plus Saito did not have to keep his word to Cobb but he did. To me, Saito seems like quite a blessing for Cobb because without Saito Cobb would have been wrongly accused of killing his wife for the rest of his life. Saito is a very powerful man but he is also a very honest man… well to Cobb, not Fischer.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 6: There are many theories of dreams. There is the theory that dreams are what you desire. For example, if you dream that your sibling dies, it could possibly mean that deep down in your consciousness you wish harm upon your sibling. Another popular dream theory is that your dreams represent what you experienced that day. For example, if you were walking to the grocery store and you saw a lady walking her dog then in your dream you may see the dog (the dog does not have to just be simply walking). Shared dream space is not possible, but you can dream of other people in your day to day life, although they will not truly be experiencing it. I believe in this movie the first theory I mentioned is most relevant for Mal. The life that Mal has created for herself in Limbo and her dream world was exactly what she desired and it was her “perfect life.” She thought that the perfect world that she created was her true reality when it really wasn’t. She was willing to kill herself to get back to her mind designed reality, which she did not end up going back to since it was just a figment of her imagination.
Question 1 (f): I agree with the fact of “what we see is what we get” when referring to this movie. It is very unlikely that we truly know the concept of time throughout this movie, it is quite confusing. It is also unlikely that we know when someone is in a dream or not, and at what level. Not only is it confusing for us but it is confusing for them! Mal couldn’t even distinguish reality from her imagination (limbo). In conclusion, at the end of the movie when the totem doesn’t fall we have no way to know if Cobb is in a dream, in limbo, or in reality. Unless… the director tells us?
Towards the end of the movie while they were in limbo, Mal made a pretty good point. That point being that Cobb is lost in his dream and he is unable to be able to tell the dreams from other dreams and the dreams from realities. I think that her point is completely plausible. Whose brain would not get confused when going through so many dreams and constantly going back and forward. All that they went through seems like it would be too much for the brain to handle, so him getting confused without realising it seems like it could have for sure happened.
ReplyDeleteWith the evil genius theory thinking that Saito, Mal or Cobb could have been manipulating everything that was happening and everything that we were seeing. Throughout the whole movie there were twists and turns. And i don't know about everyone else but i was kind of lost and confused the whole time. So if it were to be that Mal, Saito or Cobb were masterminds behind the whole movie and someone told me that i would for sure believe them. There really isn't much reason for me not to believe it. There are so many holes that can be filled with so many theories and this one is very interesting and it would really shake things up, I like it.
I definitely agree that it should be a prequel instead of a sequel. I am interested in seeing who came up with this whole concept. Could it have been Mal's dad or did he just teach it to Cobb. If it wasn't Mal's dad who could it have been. How long has this experiment been worked on, and is it considered to be perfected. Did it fall into the wrong hands. Maybe there was another original use for it. I think a prequel would be much more fitting for this movie.
- Andersen
Question 3: I strongly believe that instead of the evil genius being Cobb, Mal or Saito, it’s the director, Christopher Nolan. Throughout the movie, there are points where they aren’t 100% certain of their current situation or anyone else’s for that matter. However, the mastermind behind everyone’s perception is the director. Nolan is the only one who knows what’s going on all of the time whereas the other three are very knowledgeable, but not all-knowing. As the director, his job is to control our perception, what we see and what we are hidden from. Therefore, Nolan is the evil genius who is constantly confusing both us and the characters, never notifying us when we’re seeing a dream or reality.
ReplyDeleteBetween 4&5: Me personally, I can’t say I buy into the entire interpretation of the movie, mostly because I was thoroughly confused most of the time. In reality, there is a clear distinction between our dreams and our “reality” whereas in this film, it isn't there. I think the film implies that there is no such thing as “reality” in a sense, something is always being controlled by someone or something even if we can’t articulate what it is. Nolan definitely performed inception on us because he inserted this idea into our heads, and now we question the world around us and the reality of it (at least I do). The idea comes up in a lot of my thoughts in different ways. For example, whenever I hurt myself I wonder how I’m feeling pain because in my dreams while I’m asleep, there’s no pain when I “get hurt,” so I wonder the degrees of dreaming and how our body reacts to certain degrees.
Question 6: In Psychology and AP psychology, we learn how dreams are derived from your subconscious, and they occur during REM, a stage of sleep where your muscles are paralyzed so that you don’t act out the dreams. What we dream about is somewhat realistic, pulling memories into your dreams as well as creating combinations of new memories and knowledge. As far as I’ve learned, shared memory space isn’t possible. Our dreams are derived from our own headspaces, and it seems impossible for one to sync memories and knowledge with another individual (although that would be so cool).
- Nia Dawsey