Here are some thoughts I'd like you to respond to in your answer to this blog:
1. Philosopher Immanuel Kant would likely say that both inception and extraction are immoral, despite your intentions, because because you (as the extractor) are violating the autonomy of the individual. These actions disrespect humanity because your personal autonomy (or ability to control yourself, your thoughts, and actions) is a mark of your humanity, what makes you different than other animals in this world. If someone has implanted an idea in your head, how can you be responsible for it or the actions that come from it?
2. Ariadne acts like Cobb's therapist throughout the movie and helps him with the guilt that is sabotaging his dreams and memories. In the first dream (Yusuf's, in the scene in the warehouse), Cobb tells her why he feels so guilty - because, after 50 years in Limbo, he had planted the idea in Mal's head that this world (Limbo) wasn't real and that they needed to kill themselves to get back to reality (being awake). She brought this idea back with her into reality and flipped the idea around - her waking state was Limbo and that she needed to get back to reality (in her mind, Limbo). My question for you is: is Ariadne practicing her own version of inception w/ Cobb by placing the ideas in his head that he needs to confront Mal's projection and rid himself of the guilt of her suicide (which he eventually succeeds in doing)? Why or why not?
3. Catharsis -- a concept first introduced to us by Aristotle (a purging or purification of the self or the transformation as a result of the catharsis), Cobb, Arthur and Eames have all talked about Fischer reaching a state of catharsis with his father so that their inception idea can take hold. Reconciliation with positive emotion is much stronger, according to Cobb, than with a negative emotion. So we see that Fischer is reconciled with his father at the end and decides to break up his company when he awakes from the kidnapping scene. But, does Cobb reach his own catharsis when he finds that he's allowed into the United States and can finally see his children's faces again? Throughout the movie, that's all he's ever wanted is to get back home to his kids, and the ending scene shows that reunion (with his children a couple of years older - I checked the credits - there are two different pairs of child actors). But does this catharsis really happen because of the ending scene with the top? Did the scene turn off before the top fell over?
- Cobb also has another scene of catharsis near the end in limbo when he says goodbye to Mal "you're just a shade of my real wife..."
4. Movie - Making - Inception, as a film, is all a dream, but it's also an extended metaphor for filmmaker Christopher Nolan. Like a dream, the movie is a shared dream for the audience and has its own rules and functions along those lines. Some characters and scenes happen like dreams in which there seems to be no rhyme or reason: Mal comes out of a crowd and stabs Ariadne; the train in the first dream that blasts through downtown where there's no tracks; the elder Fischer's hospital bed in a huge vault inside of a mountain fortress; Cobb squeezing between an amazingly small gap of two buildings. Mal even makes the case to Cobb at the end that he is in fact still stuck in a dream, with feelings of persecution (the authorities or Cobol's security forces), creeping doubts, and little remembrance of how he got there. On another thought, the way the dream team works is similar to how a movie is made - they plan the scenes and the movie sets down to the smallest details, always conscious of the audience (the dreamer's projections) and its reaction. And, the way the movie ends with the cut scene of the top and then kicking into the music (Edith Piaf's haunting melody) as the credits roll is kind of like a dream because sometimes we are ripped out of a dream before its ending and we want to know how it ends. Yet we can't go back.
-- all of this is controlled by the master manipulator, the director, Christopher Nolan. Everything in this movie is done for a reason. Cobb is the director, Arthur is the producer who does the research, Ariadne the screenwriter when she acts as the architect, Eames is the actor and Yusuf is the technical guy that makes it all happen. Saito is the money guy (also a producer) who finances the whole operation and Fischer is the audience who is taken for an exciting adventure by the director, Cobb. Yet we are also the audience too, since this is a movie. Arthur mentions continuously that they cannot mess with the dream too much, otherwise the dreamer knows something is wrong. The same can be said for movies - when there's too much fakery or interference from the director, we as the audience snap out of the trance that the movie is weaving for us and see the movie for what it is. We lose ourselves in well-made movies b/c we're not paying attention to the poor acting or screenwriting or plot holes or ridiculous scenes. We care about the characters and want to see a satisfying resolution. And so Cobb, as the director, makes an amazing movie, but also brings part of himself into the movie (Mal) which can influence the audience (she shoots Fischer in the 3rd dream). Most of the jarring scenes in Inception include Mal. And it's Mal who questions Cobb and raises doubt as to his true purpose.
- And since the movie is like a dream, it has planted the idea of itself in the mind of the movie audience as well - is this a movie or was the whole thing a dream? This is where the movie becomes almost a meta-movie; it is Christopher Nolan dreaming about Cobb.
Please discuss your thoughts on 3 of 4 of these topics. 400 words minimum for your total comment. Due Wednesday, May 10 by 11:59 p.m.
Enzo -
ReplyDelete1. Before answering the question, I want to cover something in the context leading up to the question. Does the supposed ability to control ourselves really exist and is it not present in animals as well. The way people act are a result of internal impulses, and external influence like stuff we’ve been taught and the current situation one is found in, and is that not how animals also do things. A person can learn to control themselves the same way a dog can be conditioned to not snatch food placed on its nose, so in this sense humans aren’t any different from animals. Now regarding the question. If someone as skilled as Cobb managed to plant an idea in my head, partial responsibility would go to both of us. It would be the inceptor’s (?) fault for implanting the idea because of what may have come from the inception. However, the mark would also be partly to blame, because that idea alone shouldn’t convince someone to do something. Other inside factors would have played into the actions, which does place some of the responsibility on the mark's hands. Extreme example, but if someone planted the idea of killing someone and it took hold, morals and other factors should have stopped the person from carrying out the murder, but if they went through with it, it means they already had the mental capability to kill someone, which means they should also be held accountable for actions carried out as a result of inception, and actions done due to inception are just actions the mark had the capability to do regardless.
2. Of course we can say that Ariadne was practicing her own type of inception, because the similarities between actual inception and her provision of free therapy sessions to Cobb are enough that we can justify what she did was “her own type of inception”. However, when considering what actual inception is, even being a bit lenient with the definition and process of inception, what she did was not inception, it was therapy. In inception the inserter of idea(s) is supposed to be subtle and make it seem like it was the mark’s idea, and is supposed to use simple ideas on multiple levels. Ariadne, however, confronted Cobb about his issues head on and faced him with what he has to do, and how he must get over all of it or she tells everyone. She simply provides, in a way, therapy sessions to Cobb and makes him face both his guilt and Mal’s projection.
3. I think he does reach catharsis at the very end of the movie, and it is proven by the top being cut off. When he arrives to his children and they turn around, his first reaction is to spin the top, to make sure he’s not in a dream, because that’s become a habit at that point in time. However, he goes to his children without verifying whether the top is spinning or not. This seems like it could mean two things that are kinda similar and interconnected. One, it shows that Cobb doesn’t care whether he’s in a dream or not, and is just happy to be with his children. Two, the movie leaves it to the audience’s imagination as to whether real life is a dream after all with the top still spinning, but it also shows that Cobb has moved on, he’s let go of Mal AND her idea that the world isn’t real, and simply wishes to live in the moment with his children. Both show a change in Cobb, a transformation into a more peaceful and happy self, a catharsis.
Phares Assaf
ReplyDeleteI suppose if someone was able to fully implant an idea into my head, and I was unable to stray from it’s wishes, then no it wouldn’t be my fault for the actions I commit. To use Inception as an example, I believe Cobb is at fault for Mal’s belief that the real world was another dream, even though he didn’t mean for it to lead to her death. Before the idea was implanted in Mal, she did not have suicidal tendencies; moreover, Cobb must take the responsibility of causing her to think the way she did. Now to relate this back to reality, I think there is a certain extent of inception that occurs from person to person each day; when someone speaks about ideas with an audience, the listeners must then use their knowledge and reasoning to dissect the new incoming information. If it’s something they already know, a listener may choose to ignore the remark. However, new insite or disagreeable ideas will have a different result. Observers minds’ have then become altered for as long as they remember, and all similar thoughts will proceed with this information in mind. With a different mindset comes different actions, which in turn creates mini inceptions every single day, all of the time. From there, we can now discuss whether or not Ariadne is practicing inception on Cobb by trying to change his mind and actions towards Mal. Using the movie’s version of inception, then no Ariadne is not incepting Cobb because he must still use his reason for debating her propositions. Using the version of inception in reality, then yes she did try and succeed in altering his mind and his actions. We as the audience will not know if Cobb does reach his catharsis, as we only see up until he sees his kids for a split second. It very well could’ve been all a dream, but because we did not see if the top kept spinning or fell, we don’t know for sure. In those few moments where Cobb sees his children again and gets to visit with them, he has indeed reached his goal and received the prize. It may have been fleeting, or everlasting, but there isn’t a way to say for sure. This uncertainty is what I believe Christopher Nolan was trying to display; Mal became unsure of her own reality and commit suicide, and us as the audience are unsure of whether everything we saw was just a dream. We will always be uncertain with our senses, because they can be misleading. But utilizing our reasoning and our senses in unison is sure to bring the most favorable of outcomes.
I believe that if someone implants an idea in your head, you cannot be blamed for the consequences of that thought. If you have no knowledge that someone has planted this thought in your mind, it is not possible for you to contradict it, because it is literally just what you think. (I don’t know if that makes sense). For example, in “Inception”, when Cobb planted the idea that the world around her wasn’t real, she truly believed that the world around her wasn’t real. This lead her to her eventual suicide, because she thought that the real world around her was the Limbo and that she had to commit suicide to wake herself up. None of this was her fault. She had no idea that Cobb had planted this idea in her head and I assume she would never have believed him to do such a thing. In general, I believe that you have the ability to react to influence around you, but not influence that was implanted into your brain, because that influence is essentially your thoughts. For example, if “God” implanted the idea in your brain that you hated dogs, you would hate dogs. It wouldn’t really be your fault if you death stare at a dog everytime you walk past one, because that is what you are conditioned to do.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that Ariadne is planting ideas in Cobb’s mind by telling him to free himself of Mal. If she had actually gone inside of his brain and changed his deepest thoughts, like Cobb did to Mal, then I would consider it the same. I think that Ariadne was just making suggestions, (completely fair ones as well), and was trying to help him out with his situation. I think that most people that knew about the situation with Cobb and Mal thought that he should do the same thing and just let her go, because that is what has been holding him back from his full potential.
Catharsis to me almost seems like clarity. I do not believe that Cobb reached full Catharsis. There is much symbolism and significance of h8im spinning the top at the end of the movie. First of all, it shows that he is not fully detached from Mal yet, because the top was originally hers, and he decided to keep it. Second of all, it shows that he himself isn’t even sure yet that he still isn’t in a dream. The whole situation with Mal and Fischer has really made Cobb question his reality. With the last scene of the top, I believe that Cobb has not fully reached a state of catharsis yet.
Hannah
Madison
ReplyDelete1. I don’t really think I can be responsible for the actions I take if I did get extracted because someone else planted an idea in my head that will change how I act. It seems that with extraction if it works completely, the extraction will make sure the victim will get the resolution their inceptors want. Although, we already somewhat experience ideas in our heads that change the way we act. Persuasion and societal norms change the way people act, even if it’s a little bit. But the difference between that and extraction is that the person doesn’t have a choice if they get extracted. Inception and extraction would be very immoral. Imagine if people used inception in the real world to control people into doing bad things?
2. Kind of. She’s not actually in Cobb’s head and implanted what he should do with Mal. Cobb had the choice to ignore Ariadne and continue feeling guilty, but he chose to listen to Ariadne in hopes of getting better. Although metaphorically, it could be like inception. By understanding Cobb and gathering information about him and his dead wife, she’s able to persuade him to confront Mal. It’s definitely not as forceful as Inception, but it also doesn’t change Cobb’s mind as fast. He’s seen struggling a ton throughout the movie. If Ariadne did Inception on Cobb, he definitely wouldn’t be as conflicted as he was in the movie.
3. Maybe not catharsis. Cobb is certainly happy by being with his kids after so long, but I’m not sure if he has reached catharsis. At the end of the movie, the top is still spinning, meaning that his days of guilt and inception are almost over, but maybe not entirely. The top slowing down by itself means that Cobb is getting better, and I also assume that the top would stop spinning cause it slowed down considerably. However, I can’t know for sure that it has stopped. Maybe talking to his kids and spending quality time together would finally stop the spinning top.
4. I don’t think the entire movie was set out to be entirely meta for the audience. However, the beginning scene when Cobb sneaks into Saito’s palace place certainly felt like a dream. With all of the inception stuff going on without any explanation, it was hard to understand anything that was going on; just like a dream. The whole sequence felt very dream-like because of all the confusion. I don’t think this movie is a dream since I know I’m watching a movie (and typically in dreams, you’re mostly doing things— not watching a movie or scrolling on your phone). However, maybe Christopher Nolan had a dream about Inception or had an Inception-like dream and based a movie off of that. That’s just a theory though.
Inception and extraction are immoral acts; being able to see someone at their most vulnerable and taking that to one's advantage is immoral. The actions of being in someone's mind surrounded by their subconscious thoughts and ideas and altering it towards your liking is inhumane. Even though you are asleep your dreams are a part of your personal autonomy and altering it is unfair and causes a lack of control. I believe especially in the mind of Fischer he lost all control, he lost his choice to take over the company. They altered his mind into believing a false sense of clarity with his relationship with his father. He automatically became unable to be in control of his final decision after this idea was implanted into his thoughts. Even if Fischers company was to become too powerful, maybe he would have decided that on his own?
ReplyDeleteThe second question asked made me think. When Ariadne was first introduced as a therapist figure I just thought she was curious. She wondered what was stopping Cobb from being an architect and how maybe Cobb could become one again. Yet the idea of Adriane performing her own type of inception to help Cobb doesn’t sound too crazy. Clearly throughout the movie Cobb was so protective over the projection of Mal ( killing her projection would be the end of Cobb) that maybe Ariadne was doing what she thought was the right thing. I wouldn’t want to say she did it in a malicious way but maybe to help a friend. But I do believe that Ardiane is using some sort of inception but if she were wouldn’t he have become more aware earlier. I think that she is trying to use inception to help lessen the guilt but it takes until the end of the movie for him to admit that the Mal he was talking to was only a shade of the real Mal.
Cobb in my opinion didn’t reach his full catharsis, I think if he was able to live with his children and Mal then catharsis would be fulfilled. I think he reached happiness but how far is that happiness when all he wanted was Mal? Would reuniting with his children release all negative he had thought prior. I think even if the top never fell over he would have a while of catharsis just seeing his children and maybe he would be reunited with Mal as well. Even then if he is with all of them rather it's limbo or the real world wouldn’t he be happy?
Charley
Question two: I agree and disagree with the idea that Ariadne is technically using inception on Cobb by telling him that he needs to confront what happened with Mal. If you think about it she is performing inception, she is planting the idea in his head that he needs to do a certain thing in order to move forward and move on however I think there’s a difference from the movies inception to what she is doing. Ariadne was actively telling Cobb that she thinks confronting Mal is the best thing he can do so Cobb was aware of her intentions however inception as seen in the movie was about planting an idea without a persons knowing so there’s a slight difference.
ReplyDeleteQuestion four: I don’t think this movie was a dream, I can’t think of a single instance in any dream I remember where I was watching a movie or in class watching a movie for that matter. However with the way the movie portrays itself and the way Christopher Nolan made the movie almost seems like it could be a dream and that’s what I think the intent was. I believe that Nolan knew no one would think the movie was a dream however by filming it in a certain way questions like this very one in answering now can be made and I think Nolan wanted that, so he could add another layer of complexity to his already complex masterpiece.
Question 1: Deciding the question of guilt in regards to something you do when that thing you did is born from inception is difficult but straightforward. Your conscience is tricked into doing something while also making it seem that said thing you’ve done was of your own will and was your idea so I think guilt should be applied to said person for whatever action they did. Even though this idea is rather unfair since it wasn’t your original idea it was something planted in your head, the deciding factor is that it tricks you mind into making the idea happen, you believe that what your going to do is something you should do. Also I have a slight feeling that if inception is used upon you effectively there would be no way for anyone to find out and that on the surface layer to yourself and everyone said action (taken in context if a crime) is something you did of free will so therefor your fault
1. I do agree that both inception and extraction are immoral, but I don't believe that someone who has been incepted isn't responisble for the decisions they make. Just because you have a thought in your head doesn't mean that it rules you. The choice that Fischer made in the film was based largely on emotion that had been planted there by the inception team, but he made a conscious decision to break up the company. Imagine the backup quarterback on a football team is incepted with the idea to murder the starter to get his position. He would likely think, "Oh, that's a good idea, but I would never really do that." Just because you have an idea doesn't remove that fact that you have the reason to think through your actions, and prevent you from acting on a thought that wasn't your own.
ReplyDelete4. I realistically believe that the entire movie wasn't a dream, and that Nolan just included the suspicious aspects of Cobbs reality as a red herring, or to keep the viewer on their toes and thinking about a potential plot twist. However, I do think that it is a possibility that Cobb is in a dream, and he's being incepted. First of all, his reality is very questionable, with the points Mal mentioned like him being wrongfully persecuted for a crime he didn't commit and chased around the globe by an energy company. Also, I wonder why Mal could travel with Cobb into other people's dreams. I understand that she was in his own dreams because she is a reflection of his subconscious, but how can one person's subconscious travel into another person's dreams. One explanation would be that they are all in Cobb's dream, and that the other people's dreams are themselves part of Cobb's dream state.
3. I do think that Cobb reached a state of Catharsis. The final scene highlights it, where he spins the top on the table, then sees his kids and moves away to greet them. He doesn't stop to see whether the top is still spinning but rushes straight to his children. This shows that he doesn't care anymore whether the world he is living in is real, so long as he can spend his time with the people he loves. Also, actually seeing their faces as opposed to their turned heads when he was in his memories signifies that he is no longer in a dream.
-Zane
1. I think if someone has implanted an idea inside of your head, you cannot be at fault for the consequences that happen after that thought. I think it’s sort of like when you watch TV or do something before you go to bed or take a nap that can influence what type of dream you have in that kind of influences your dreams. the consequences that happen in your dreams, and it’s sort of like seeing people that you haven’t seen before, but they’re implanted in your dreams already. So ultimately, I don’t think you’re responsible entirely if you about the consequences if someone were to put something inside of your head. I think also the relationship of whoever put that idea outside of your head can ultimately make a difference in what you decide to do with that thought so, if maybe a parental figure or a close friend, were to tell you to do something or plant something inside of your mind, that may heavily influence what you do with that thought
ReplyDelete2. I do think Ariadne did try to do her own version of Inception I think, as the movie had gone on, and she learned more about Cobb that she tried to find ways to help him to deal with Mal’s interference, but I also think Cobb knew what Ariadne trying to do and at first, was reluctant to get her help, but realized that she was the only one trying to help him. Her help eventually at the end of the movie helped Cobb realize that Mal was just a shadow of his real wife, so eventually, her inception did work, and Cobb got to finally feel not guilty and eventually see his kids.
3. Yes, I do think that the catharsis did happen for Cobb at the end of the movie. I think the end of the movie was actually reality because when we saw the top not fall earlier, and never wobble and not ever signifying that it was about to fall, but at the end of the movie right before it cut off, and it started to wobble. I was a little skeptical when earlier in the film when we never got to see the top actually stop spinning, but at the end when we saw the top, eventually start to see the top stop spinning that reassured me that we were actually in reality where Cobb got to see his kids finally.
If someone has implanted an idea in your head, I don’t think I can be responsible for it or the actions that come from it because I’m not controlling anything. I think that if I’d be in Inception I would try to find something that makes me think that everything is an illusion. Once I do this I would with my mind try to create things to make the person who had implanted the idea get out of my head. Another idea would be that I know that I have free will so I can do what I want ( with some restrictions ), if I don’t want anymore to do this idea I can choose to do something else. Compared to animals who have to do things in a certain way, humans can improve how they live by investing in new things.
ReplyDeleteI think that Aridane probably used her own vision of Inception to help Cobb with his issues because while Cobb showed her how it worked she really seemed confident and began to rebuild things and the architecture in his mind. Ariadne maybe exercised this and implanted her idea in Cobb’s mind to make him look forward, not staying blocked in the past. This could be proved when Mal is committing her suicide and Cobb after seeing her a little bit after he killed her to save their mission, it shows that he went over this traumatizing event. Hnjhb hby hgbugv hvhgvh gvfxfg jhbjvgh jvg gv yhg kllb jhvg khu hvc khb kh kj wset hgtvh lm lknjhb gfxf hgvcgf jhnlm lknjhb hgvg bfgv
I don’t think Cobb reaches his own catharsis when he finds that he's allowed into the United States and can finally see his children's faces again because at the end when he sees them he doesn't seem really happy. He’s happy for a moment but that’s all, I think that he’s still thinking of his wife Mal, he’s really attached to her because throughout the movie in his dreams he’s thinking about her and when he saw her killing herself he’s devastated. Cobb would have maybe reached his own catharsis when he would have come back with Mal, being reunited as a big family. I think that the scene turned off because the top fell over so he didn’t have the opportunity to live the rest of his life as wanted with his kids.
Clara vigan
I believe that you are always responsible for your actions. Even in the film, Inception, Cobb mentions that they can’t fully guarantee the outcome or reaction of Fischer even with inception. This is first because they can’t ensure that the idea will stick even with inception. Secondly, it may just not stick due to emotion or not putting the idea deep enough. Because of this specific detail, you are completely responsible for your actions. Even within society, if you are watching an untrustworthy, biased, news channel that “implants” an idea in your head or inspires you, you can’t blame the news channel for what you’ve done with that information. However, due to how highly unethical and immoral inception is, it gives no room for question, since it comes from your mind. Although you could use the act of an idea being planted in your head as an excuse, you are still fully responsible for what you’ve done with that information.
ReplyDeleteI believe Ariadne is not practicing her own version of inception rather than inspiring him to do the right thing for himself. Since her intentions seem completely positive and helpful, I can’t imagine seeing her in this way. Furthermore, I believe that she does not have the experience nor the reason to do this to Cobb. Due to this, she would be unable to implant such an idea with so little experience especially a slightly vague one. She also had just met him (from what was confirmed) and had no ulterior motive for speaking to him about his past with Mal and Limbo. She has built a relationship with Cobb and I believe that trust is the closest thing to this form of suspected inception.
I believe that Cobb did reach a state of catharsis. This happened after he confronted his past with his deceased wife Mal. By confronting his inner feelings about Mal and what he had done, Ariadne helped him confront these internalized feelings that were holding him back from seeing his children, living freely, and forming close relationships. Ariadne acted like a sort of therapist, making him more aware of his underlying issues, guilt, resentment, and shame. Since he feels so responsible for her death, he had to let go of this to be able to move on. This catharsis does not happen when he sees his children. That is more a feeling of relief and happiness, even if he is still stuck living in his dream world or Limbo.
Jasmine
1. All actions that we as humans do everyday are assumed to be of our own free will.
ReplyDeleteNothing forces a person to take a walk outside, text their friend, or buy a bag of chips.
Due to the nature of how all actions are induced from the actor’s own doing, we must be
responsible for our actions. While some actions are forced onto us, we cannot be held
responsible for an act that we did not freely choose to do. Once extraction and inception
are brought into the picture, it all becomes a little shadier. If the idea to commit an action
is not your own, is that action not forced onto you? How can there be definitive proof that
mental interference occurred? Maybe in a dream scenario, a person who falls victim to
extraction or inception should not be held responsible for the consequences of these
actions, but realistically it is not possible. Especially when there are tactics to fortify the
mind and not fall victim, there is no way to hold anyone except the actor responsible,
even if the idea of the action is not their own.
2. I believe that it was fully Adriadne’s plan to try to help Cobb and free him of his guilt, however
I believe that there is a difference between manipulation and inception. Ariadne does not
intentionally target Cobb to plant an idea deep in his brain, she simply offers her support and
encouragement which may have influenced Cobb to finally confront the projection of Mal. I don’t
think Ariadne acted in an intentional way to manipulate Cobb’s brain through the act of Inception
which she barely even knows about, but simply inspired him to act the way he did.
4. This perspective takes me more towards a sci-fi virtual reality idea, where there are multiple
levels of reality not just in the observed thing, but in the “real world”. There is no basis to declare
the levels of reality in inception any different than real life as the dream levels weren’t “real”, but
they existed to sway an opinion and plant ideas in someone’s head. I think that watching the
movie itself has the same effects, as it gives us ideas and thoughts that we had not had going
into it. The same way ideas were planted into Fischer’s brain to break up his father’s company,
Inception gives us ideas about how we determine what is reality.
Mori
1). If someone has implanted an idea in your head, how can you be responsible for it or the actions that come from it? I think that you can still be partially responsible for the actions that come from it because you are still making conscious decisions after the idea is planted. Even though someone plants an idea in your mind, it doesn't mean that you have to agree with the idea. After the dream, you still have control over what to make of the idea. On the other hand, if the idea was deeply implanted into your head and you had little control over how you act on it then you would not be as responsible. Either way, the person that implants the idea in your head is at fault the most.
ReplyDelete2). Is Ariadne practicing her own version of inception w/ Cobb by placing the ideas in his head that he needs to confront Mal's projection and rid himself of the guilt of her suicide (which he eventually succeeds in doing)? Why or why not? I don't think that Ariadne is practicing her own version of inception with Cobb. As shown in the movie, inception happens when you plant an idea in someone's head without them knowing, often for the benefit of someone else. Even though Ariadne tried to convince Cobb to confront Mal and remove his feeling of guilt, I think she is just trying to help him rather than practice inception. I also think that Cobb is so experienced with dream traveling and inception/extraction that he would know if Ariadne was trying to place an idea in his head. I think ariadnes therapist-like actions were also a result of her want for her and the others of the team to be able to survive the dream and not get stuck in limbo. If Cobb had not been able to get rid of Mal and his guilt then it's likely that they would not have successfully completed their mission and or survived.
3). But does this catharsis really happen because of the ending scene with the top? Did the scene turn off before the top fell over? I think that the top did eventually fall over, thus confirming that Cobb was not dreaming. At the end of the scene, we see the top start to wobble, and if Cobb was still in a dream, the top would not have moved, even slightly. So I think that yes, catharsis was achieved for Cobb. Being united with his children, and being allowed back into the States, was something that was very important to him. And I think that his children brought him happiness that he had been missing ever since Mal died and he was separated from them. I also think that he found some catharsis/happiness in being relieved from the guilt he had over Mal's death and his escape from being haunted by her. The guilt he possessed over the inception of Mal’s mind tormented him, and when it was gone I think it brought him some peace.
Nina
Ellie
ReplyDeleteBy acting as Cobb’s therapist, I do not think that Ariandre was practicing her own version of inception. There are crossovers, but I feel that the differences outweigh the similarities. Ariandre is simply “therapizing” Cobb to be a good friend to him and to help their shared goal of staying on task. Similarly, when Cobb incepted Mal, he was doing it out of good faith, and ignorance. These differ because Ariandre is not, as Immanuel Kant may put it, “violating one’s autonomy.” In Ariandre giving Cobb advice, Cobb’s body and mind have the choice of whether to take the advice or not, unlike Mal. Also, in the Ariandr and Cobb situation, Cobb is aware that he is trying to be persuaded of something. This is unlike Mal’s experience with Cobb incepting her. Another difference between Fischer’s inception and Cobb’s possible inception is that when Fischer had the incepted idea, he did not know where it came from necessarily; there is no specific tracing back he can do; the point is that he thinks he came up with it himself. With Ariandre giving Cobb advice, Cobb will know the ideas came from Ariandre.
If someone planted an idea in my head, I would be, unfortunately, completely responsible for my actions that follow due to the fact that no one would know or believe me that someone else “made me do it.” This is why I feel that the right to bodily autonomy is so important. This can be translated to the abortion debate. If I get pregnant for whatever reason, condom broke, rape, etc., and I am forced to carry and deliver the child to full-term, I would then be responsible for the new baby and all of the responsibilities that come with it (maternity leave, adoption, child care funds, money, dropping out of school, my own health dangers of giving birth, insurance, paying hospital, etc.). Sadly all of this responsibility would fall onto me when it is really the government who forced me into keeping my embryo or fetus. Therefore, I agree with Immanuel Kant that inception and extraction are immoral.
I believe that Cobb did reach Catharsis when he got to go back to his kids. In Aristotle’s original idea of Catharsis, Catharsis was the purpose for plays, even tragic ones. This idea of Catharsis in plays can be carried over to film. To expand, Aristotle believed that Catharsis is when the audience, or character, relieves emotions (for the audience by experiencing characters go through it). I thinks Catharsis does really happen even though there was the mysterious scene with the top. People reach Catharsis many times in their lives and then deal with difficult things right after, just because the top scene alluded to the story not being over, well of course it isn’t because everyone didn’t die, so there are people’s lives to continue to have ups and downs and moments of Catharsis.
Nathan
ReplyDelete1 - If I plant an idea into someone's head, it is definitely my fault, primarily indirectly, of the actions come from it. If I planted the idea into my friend’s head that my other friend stole his girlfriend and then made fun of him for it, my friend would get angry and probably do something about it. Without me there to plant that idea, nobody would have gotten mad and nothing bad would have happened. A friendship would not have been lost if I did not plant that idea. If we try to trace back the lineage of the ruined friendship, we would get all the way down to me planting the idea in my friend’s head. In this scenario, it wouldn’t be my friend's fault for the downfall of a friendship. It would be mine. He might not know that because he wouldn’t know that I placed it inside his head so in that sense, it would make sense that everybody else thinks that it’s his fault.
2 - I don’t think she’s necessarily practicing inception. Inception is a very powerful tool used to trick people into doing things, in my opinion. Ariadne isn’t tricking Cobb. I think she is trying to tell him the truth, or her version of it, and the ideas she’s trying to make him think aren’t going to harm anybody as much as Cobb’s ideas. Also, she’s not actually placing an idea into his head, I think she was just trying to talk to him about his problems so that he could solve them and also so that they could be successful on their mission. The bottom line is that Inception is a pretty powerful action and just because you’re trying to convince someone to do something (like Ariadne), doesn’t mean you’re practicing Inception.
3 - Cobb definitely reached Catharsis. Christopher Nolan obviously did not show the audience the dropping or continuation of the top spinning because he wanted to let the audience think for themselves but I think that everything in the end happened too fast for Cobb to suddenly be home with his kids and not worry about anything else. It was clear throughout the movie that Cobb just wanted to have his family back. What I do think is interesting is that throughout the movie, we never saw his kid’s faces. We always saw their backs. But at the end, when the audience doesn't know if Cobb is dreaming or awake, we see his kids. This could either mean he is awake and he has finally found them or that he’s reached where he needs to be in his dream. He doesn’t need anymore. He has his family (minus Mal but he had already come to terms with her death at this point.)
In response to the first point, I believe that there are two answers. For the sake of the world of Inception, the answer is no, people cannot be held responsible for actions that come from it. As viewers, we’re not given any evidence suggesting that people have much control over what they do after an idea has been planted in their mind. In real life, however, I’d say that we have a decent amount of responsibility for ideas that could be “planted” in our mind (In this case, “planted” would represent an idea that is given to us by someone else but not explicitly stated). While much of said ideas could be the result of manipulation, as Kant said, humans have autonomy, so the person doing the action would have to be held accountable to an extent. This is why the “I was just following orders” argument is generally looked down upon.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second point, I’d say that the idea of Ariadne doing her own inception with Cobb is very possible but I think it sort of takes away credit from Cobb. At its core, Inception is a film about grief and regret, so I think chalking up Cobb’s ability to overcome the blame he feels for his wife’s death as an idea planted by Ariadne takes away a lot of the message about overcoming grief.
In response to the third point, I’ve always found the debate about whether the spinning top fell to be pointless. I see it this way: if Nolan wanted the top to fall, he would have shown it falling. If he wanted it to keep spinning, he would have shown it spinning longer. The ambiguous ending is what completes the main theme. As mentioned earlier, Cobb is struggling with the grief of his dead wife as well as the guilt of not seeing his children. He’s reminded constantly of his failure as a father through the images of his children (who’s faces he never gets to see). The spinning top is his stability, telling him whether or not he’s dreaming. And as the film progresses, that very notion is called into question — the main example being the top falling off the sink. In the end however, when he finally sees his children, he abandons the spinning top (or his certainty of reality) in order to see their faces. It seems like Nolan is telling the audience that certainty over things like that isn’t what makes us happy, it’s surrounding ourselves with people we care about.
In response to the fourth point, I do not understand the question.
- Kaitlyn
ReplyDelete1. I think that there’s a very thick line between brainwashing and knowledge gained throughout time, yet many people argue that they are similar if not the same. I relate this to the question because I see that an implanted idea in one’s head can, 1. Mess with them psychologically, but also 2. Doesn’t determine said person’s call to action. If there is some idea implanted in someone’s head from a young age, then yes it is understandable that they take that idea and run with it, not knowing the consequences, but at some point in your life there’s a line that can be crossed and you have to accept that you know that line should NOT have been crossed. For example, if you were in an abusive teen/adult relationship and then once out of it went around abusing your future partners, you cannot have the excuse of “this is what I’m used to”, obviously that’s a very extreme example but it makes sense when relating implanted ideas - in this case: abuse - and one’s response to those ideas - continuing the abusive string. You are responsible for your own actions because at some point you know the moral right from wrong and there’s no excuse that can break that truth.
2. In a way I could see how Ariadne is practicing her own version of inception but realistically she's not because she isn't actually in Cobb’s head - for all we know - and because she’s not up there, she’s not inceptioning - ? - up in his brain by implanting ideas. In the real world Ariadne did give Cobb good advice and if he didn’t take it then he would probably continue to feel guilty about everything surrounding Mal. To me I don’t see this as a real version of inception but I can understand the reference that might be trying to be made as Adriadne does INTROSPECT - not incept - Cobb’s mind and gain knowledge about not just him but Mal as well, and by doing so she can talk Cobb into confronting Mal - plus she’s the one he seems to trust the most so because of their connection she can help convince him. The way she goes about helping him get to that decision making point is just a good friendly way of doing so, not an inception on Cobb’s mind.
3. I definitely think that Cobb reaches catharsis at the end of the movie when the top is cut off. He finally gets to see his kids faces and that was his whole motive throughout the movie, so of course when he gets back home and they turn towards not only Cobb but the audience as well, Cobb spins the top to confirm if he is dreaming or not and it seems as though the top wobbled - before falling? - which leaves viewers in shock. Cobb continues forward towards his children without actually checking to see if the top kept spinning and it made me realize that he just really wanted to see his kids so it didn’t really matter if he was dreaming or not which also allows him to let go of his wife and showed he was past her idea of reality, plus it’s also a cliffhanger ending to leave the audience to decide what the true ending is. This can be seen as catharsis because Cobb has transformed into a happier higher self.
2. The idea of inception is quite a foreign concept to the human mind, and the movie itself challenges a lot of our subconscious and what we truly believe is real versus fake. Ariadne as the role of Architect, and Cobb's unofficial therapist could be viewed as inception, certainly. But I think it is more the opposite. Ariadne is actually keeping Cobb quite grounded, 'down to earth' if you will. Planting an idea into Cobb's head could be an example of inception! But the idea is that these are things that Cobb needs to hear in order to benefit himself, and the well being of his group. These ideas that Ariadne brings up in reference to Mal, are for Cobb, what snaps him out of a trance when it comes to Mal. They allow him to pull himself back to the surface, mentally, so that he can then finish his mission. For someone who may view Ariadne's therapeutic ideas as negative, inception may very well be what they refer to it as. But me personally, these are things that Cobb needs to hear. It is inception, but from the dreams, back to reality; not the other way around like how it normally goes.
ReplyDelete3. I feel that yes, Catharsis really does occur by the end of the film. The beauty of the cinematography is that we don't really see the top officially fall over. It does begin to wobble though, an abnormality that we don't see when the top is actually spinning during inception, leading the viewer to believe that it really did fall. Cobb does break his own catharsis. He's come to peace with the idea that Mal is gone, and can now focus on his children. Seeing their faces again is the moment the viewer gains understanding of the fact that he has indeed broken his catharsis and all is back to normal.
4. Throughout the movie I found myself thinking - "what if the top spinning is just a comfort mechanism? how do we know if the spinning really resembles anything?". If this is really all just a dream in Noyle's head, his brain can decide when he wants that top spinning, and when he wants it to stop. What if these are all just characters in a mind, and the brain's subconscious explanation for things that might have happened to bring the dreamer some clarity in the real world? We may never know.
Sarah
Blair
ReplyDelete2. Throughout the movie Ariadne acts as a sort of mot for Cobbn to vent his inner issues. Ariadne also helps Cobb conclude that he cannot simply ignore his innermost fears, but must confront them, for the safety of himself, and everyone in the group. This could be seen as a form of inception, not as in-depth as the subject of the movie, but subtle influences that urge Cobb to a conclusion that Ariadne wanted him to reach, be that god or bad. She was influencing him, however, and therefore for that reason, I would consider that she was doing inception, and I would go further as to say she was successful in incepting the idea of self-growth in Cobb, as he overcame Mal.
3.) Cobb has several moments of catharsis throughout the movie. I think the most obvious one is where he tells his projection of Mal that she is not real, and leaves her behind. I also think that the moment where he reunites with his kids is a good example because, obvious or not, he has been striving for it throughout the movie. As to whether or not I believe the scene was real or not, I think that it was. I think that the top not falling until the last moment was an artistic choice and that after the camera cuts off, it falls, and he is in the real world.
4.) I agree that the movie could be seen as a metaphor for movie making, with the various characters representing different aspects of a successful box office film, however, I do not believe that was the intent. I think this was just a cool movie idea that Christopher Nolan dreamt up (pun intended) and resulted in a deep, philosophically useful, good movie. I think that we as the audience are related most to Fisher because we are being manipulated by the movie itself, and we never really know what or why things are happening; we have to simply go with the flow. However I think that the movie itself is just a movie, I don't believe it was meant to be a metaphor for the making of a movie at all. I also wanted to note I agree with the metaphor for this movie and the movie experience in general, several things have to go right for us to enjoy the movie much like everything must go correctly for Fisher to believe he is in the world of the dream.
1. I suppose that if an idea is planted in your head, you aren’t necessarily responsible for the feelings that end up stemming from the idea, nor would you necessarily be responsible for the idea itself, however so semblance of me eats at the idea that while you aren’t responsible for the idea, you’re technically responsible for your reaction to the idea, therefore making you responsible for your actions, regardless of if they were planted or not. The concept itself is incredibly unfair and immoral in my opinion when weaponized or used to manipulate people regardless of intention. Internally and after the fact, if one did decide to act upon one's implanted thoughts, and later felt remorse or regret, could tear them apart from the inside out. So in an ideal world, no they wouldn’t be responsible for their actions, but it also depends on the severity of the thoughts that were implanted. For instance, if someone implanted the idea that they should kill another person, and they end up killing them, while it isn’t their fault that the idea was implanted, they are most definitely responsible for going through with killing another person. To my understanding, the act of incepting another person's thoughts leans more towards the air of heavily suggesting things into one's psyche, it isn’t mind control, so really, depending on the situation, a person should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of whether or not it's fair.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t think so. I really feel that Cobb’s journey with his grief is such a fundamental part of the film to the point where it's one of the biggest visual takeaways the audience can get from the film as a whole in the way that they physically and visually show what “effects” that lingering grief and guilt can have on ones psyche. If you take away the complexity of that entire subplot of the movie, you’re really burning it down and taking away any ambiance that the film may have been attempting to convey. Overall I just feel like it feels cheap to chalk it up to her just incepting that into his mind, taking away all of the grief that he processed and the journey he went on to get himself to that place.
3. Well not to be that person but the book illustrates that he IS awake, but I can see what the filmmakers were trying to do with it, leaving the audience on a cliffhanger and all, but superseding all that yes the scene ended before the top fell over. Throughout the film, from beginning to end, the top had a consistent spin when he was dreaming, and never, regardless of the situation he was in, wavered or slowed in the way it does in that last scene, so yes, I really do believe that he’s awake when he sees his kids in the end.
Lily
1. I am conflicted on this question -- I think you are responsible for your actions to an extent if thoughts are placed in your head. Obviously you cannot control that happening, so you are not responsible for your thoughts, but the way you act upon them is up to you. I guess it is kind of like intrusive thoughts, sometimes they just pop into your head, even though they are extremely unlike you. However, I believe that acting upon these thoughts is your responsibility and people should be held accountable for that. So yes, you should be able to control yourself and your actions, even if you cannot control your thoughts.
ReplyDelete2. I am also conflicted on this. Ariadne wants Cobb to feel better and less guilty, which is why I think she is trying to convince him he isn’t guilty. She wanted to see herself and her team thrive and succeed, and knew this was the way to do it, because the guilt would probably hold Cobb back. She also wasn’t really planting ideas into his head, more just being his therapist and giving him the solid truth and her thoughts on everything. So I don’t think she was actually practicing inception. However, you could make the argument that she was because usually they practice inception in order to help someone else or make something happen for someone else. In this case, she was looking out for the entire team by doing it, so technically she is practicing it, but, in the end I think she actually wanted to help Cobb.
3. I think it is completely up to audience interpretation (and this was done on purpose), because you could argue both ways. However, I definitely think Cobb was back in reality. If the top didn’t move at all, I wouldn’t be as sure, but since it did, it confirms to me he was not in a dream. Being reunited with his kids was probably super relieving for him. After losing Mal, and carrying the grief and all of his guilt with it, he probably felt isolated, so the reunion with his kids probably relieved a lot of the negative feelings he had. I do believe Cobb reached a state of catharsis in the movie, but I think Cobb still feels empty after the loss of Mal. He was super attached to her, and even though he is happy to see his kids, I think he will always feel something missing in his life.
Mikayla