- Home
- Editorial
- The Devin's Advocate
- NEVER WAKE UP: THE MEANING AND SECRET OF INCEPTION
NEVER WAKE UP: THE MEANING AND SECRET OF INCEPTION
- By Devin Faraci
- Published 07/19/2010
- The Devin's Advocate

This entire article is a major spoiler for Inception. Please do not read it until you've experienced Christopher Nolan's film for yourself.
Every single moment of Inception is a dream. I think that in a couple of years this will become the accepted reading of the film, and differing interpretations will have to be skillfully argued to be even remotely considered. The film makes this clear, and it never holds back the truth from audiences. Some find this idea to be narratively repugnant, since they think that a movie where everything is a dream is a movie without stakes, a movie where the audience is wasting their time.
Except that this is exactly what Nolan is arguing against. 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.
I believe that Inception is a dream to the point where even the dream-sharing stuff is a dream. Dom Cobb isn't an extractor. He can't go into other people's dreams. He isn't on the run from the Cobol Corporation. At one point he tells himself this, through the voice of Mal, who is a projection of his own subconscious. She asks him how real he thinks his world is, where he's being chased across the globe by faceless corporate goons.
She asks him that in a scene that we all know is a dream, but Inception lets us in on this elsewhere. Michael Caine's character implores Cobb to return to reality, to wake up. During the chase in Mombasa, Cobb tries to escape down an alleyway, and the two buildings between which he's running begin closing in on him - a classic anxiety dream moment. When he finally pulls himself free he finds Ken Watanabe's character waiting for him, against all logic. Except dream logic.
Much is made in the film about totems, items unique to dreamers that can be used to tell when someone is actually awake or asleep. Cobb's totem is a top, which spins endlessly when he's asleep, and the fact that the top stops spinning at many points in the film is claimed by some to be evidence that Cobb is awake during those scenes. The problem here is that the top wasn't always Cobb's totem - he got it from his wife, who killed herself because she believed that they were still living in a dream. There's more than a slim chance that she's right - note that when Cobb remembers her suicide she is, bizarrely, sitting on a ledge opposite the room they rented. You could do the logical gymnastics required to claim that Mal simply rented another room across the alleyway, but the more realistic notion here is that it's a dream, with the gap between the two lovers being a metaphorical one made literal. When Mal jumps she leaves behind the top, and if she was right about the world being a dream, the fact that it spins or doesn't spin is meaningless. It's a dream construct anyway. There's no way to use the top as a proof of reality.
Watching the film with this eye you can see the dream logic unfolding. As is said in the movie, dreams seem real in the moment and it's only when you've woken up that things seem strange. The film's 'reality' sequences are filled with moments that, on retrospect, seem strange or unlikely or unexplained. Even the basics of the dream sharing technology is unbelievably vague, and I don't think that's just because Nolan wants to keep things streamlined. It's because Cobb's unconscious mind is filling it in as he goes along.
There's more, but I would have to watch the film again with a notebook to get all the evidence (all of it in plain sight). The end seems without a doubt to be a dream - from the dreamy way the film is shot and edited once Cobb wakes up on the plane all the way through to him coming home to find his two kids in the exact position and in the exact same clothes that he kept remembering them, it doesn't matter if the top falls, Cobb is dreaming.
That Cobb is dreaming and still finds his catharsis (that he can now look at the face of his kids) is the point. It's important to realize that Inception is a not very thinly-veiled autobiographical look at how Nolan works. In a recent red carpet interview, Leonardo DiCaprio - who was important in helping Nolan get the script to the final stages - compares the movie not to The Matrix or some other mindfuck movie but Fellini's 8 1/2. This is probably the second most telling thing DiCaprio said during the publicity tour for the film, with the first being that he based Cobb on Nolan. 8 1/2 is totally autobiographical for Fellini, and it's all about an Italian director trying to overcome his block and make a movie (a science fiction movie, even). It's a film about filmmaking, and so is Inception.
The heist team quite neatly maps to major players in a film production. Cobb is the director while Arthur, the guy who does the research and who sets up the places to sleep, is the producer. Ariadne, the dream architect, is the screenwriter - she creates the world that will be entered. Eames is the actor (this is so obvious that the character sits at an old fashioned mirrored vanity, the type which stage actors would use). Yusuf is the technical guy; remember, the Oscar come from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and it requires a good number of technically minded people to get a movie off the ground. Nolan himself more or less explains this in the latest issue of Film Comment, saying 'There are a lot of striking similarities [between what the team does and the putting on of a major Hollywood movie]. When for instance the team is out on the street they've created, surveying it, that's really identical with what we do on tech scouts before we shoot.'
That leaves two key figures. Saito is the money guy, the big corporate suit who fancies himself a part of the game. And Fischer, the mark, is the audience. Cobb, as a director, takes Fischer through an engaging, stimulating and exciting journey, one that leads him to an understanding about himself. Cobb is the big time movie director (or rather the best version of that - certainly not a Michael Bay) who brings the action, who brings the spectacle, but who also brings the meaning and the humanity and the emotion.
The movies-as-dreams aspect is part of why Inception keeps the dreams so grounded. In the film it's explained that playing with the dream too much alerts the dreamer to the falseness around him; this is just another version of the suspension of disbelief upon which all films hinge. As soon as the audience is pulled out of the movie by some element - an implausible scene, a ludicrous line, a poor performance - it's possible that the cinematic dream spell is broken completely, and they're lost.
As a great director, Cobb is also a great artist, which means that even when he's creating a dream about snowmobile chases, he's bringing something of himself into it. That's Mal. It's the auterist impulse, the need to bring your own interests, obsessions and issues into a movie. It's what the best directors do. It's very telling that Nolan sees this as kind of a problem; I suspect another filmmaker might have cast Mal as the special element that makes Cobb so successful.
Inception is such a big deal because it's what great movies strive to do. You walk out of a great film changed, with new ideas planted in your head, with your neural networks subtly rewired by what you've just seen. On a meta level Inception itself does this, with audiences leaving the theater buzzing about the way it made them feel and perceive. New ideas, new thoughts, new points of view are more lasting a souvenir of a great movie than a ticket stub.
Inception is such a big deal because it's what great movies strive to do. You walk out of a great film changed, with new ideas planted in your head, with your neural networks subtly rewired by what you've just seen. On a meta level Inception itself does this, with audiences leaving the theater buzzing about the way it made them feel and perceive. New ideas, new thoughts, new points of view are more lasting a souvenir of a great movie than a ticket stub.
It's possible to view Fischer, the mark, as not the audience but just as the character that is being put through the movie that is the dream. To be honest, I haven't quite solidified my thought on Fischer's place in the allegorical web, but what's important is that the breakthrough that Fischer has in the ski fortress is real. Despite the fact that his father is not there, despite the fact that the pinwheel was never by his father's bedside, the emotions that Fischer experiences are 100 percent genuine. It doesn't matter that the movie you're watching isn't a real story, that it's just highly paid people putting on a show - when a movie moves you, it truly moves you. The tears you cry during Up are totally real, even if absolutely nothing that you see on screen has ever existed in the physical world.
For Cobb there's a deeper meaning to it all. While Cobb doesn't have daddy issues (that we know of), he, like Fischer, is dealing with a loss. He's trying to come to grips with the death of his wife*; Fischer's journey reflects Cobb's while not being a complete point for point reflection. That's important for Nolan, who is making films that have personal components - that talk about things that obviously interest or concern him - but that aren't actually about him. Other filmmakers (Fellini) may make movies that are thinly veiled autobiography, but that's not what Nolan or Cobb are doing. The movies (or dreams) they're putting together reflect what they're going through but aren't easily mapped on to them. Talking to Film Comment, Nolan says he has never been to psychoanalysis. 'I think I use filmmaking for that purpose. I have a passionate relationship to what I do.'
In a lot of ways Inception is a bookend to last summer's Inglorious Basterds. In that film Quentin Tarantino celebrated the ways that cinema could change the world, while in Inception Nolan is examining the ways that cinema, the ultimate shared dream, can change an individual. The entire film is a dream, within the confines of the movie itself, but in a more meta sense it's Nolan's dream. He's dreaming Cobb, and finding his own moments of revelation and resolution, just as Cobb is dreaming Fischer and finding his own catharsis and change.
The whole film being a dream isn't a cop out or a waste of time, but an ultimate expression of the film's themes and meaning. It's all fake. But it's all very, very real. And that's something every single movie lover understands implicitly and completely.
* it's really worth noting that if you accept that the whole movie is a dream that Mal may not be dead. She could have just left Cobb. The mourning that he is experiencing deep inside his mind is no less real if she's alive or dead - he has still lost her.
Spread The Word
Comments
Comment #1 (Posted by Lance St. Laurent)
This piece was just beautiful. It is incredibly enlightening and passionately written. Well done, Devin
Comment #2 (Posted by Latauro)
I was wary reading this so soon after seeing the film (and by "soon", I mean four days) because I hadn't figured it out for myself yet, and I like to do that before I look at others' opinions. But I was too curious to read your interpretation.
I think you're 100% correct in your analysis. Many of the things you mention were things I'd noticed -- Mal being on the opposing building, the walls closing in, her key line about the mysterious men chasing him in reality -- but I hadn't coalesced them all into a single inclusive theory. I like to think that I would have eventually arrived at the above conclusion: it is a difficult one to refute.
Your point about the vault in the snow lodge is an important one. The fact that the pinwheel is there is almost a metaphor for the way Hollywood films in particular will use a symbol or an avatar or, perhaps, a totem to express a complex emotion. Most would criticise these films for reducing these difficult situations down to a literal, conveniently-placed, pre-established physical object, but when Murphy's character breaks down at it, it's almost like Nolan is forgiving it. Maybe not forgiving it, but explaining that this manner of storytelling is actually a valid one, because of the effect it has on the audience.
Really fantastic piece. Well done.
Comment #3 (Posted by James Rocchi)
I don't disagree with your thesis, but -- not in a creepy, I've-thought-about-this-way -- Mal renting the room across the way makes a perverse kind of sense. If Mal wants Dom to have his dream-life (which he knows is real-life) ruined, then he has to die -- and either she has to convince him to die with her OR, alternately, make his real life such a hel that he'd want to die -- I.E., making him wanted for a murder he didn't commit. She rents a room across the way anonymously, then hurls herself from it's ledge -- leaving Cobb in a hotel room where ther's clearly been a struggle and her dead stories below, which the police will read as an argument in the room he as in where he pushed her to her death. She can't jump from the same room because he'd stop her, but across the way she can either a) convince him to die with her or b) plunge him into a circumstance so loaded against him where death will be even more of a release.
Comment #4 (Posted by Patryk)
The more and more I think about the film, the more I fall on the "it's all a dream" side. What I love about the movie is that it raises all these higher issues while still being an excellent action movie -- something that was becoming more and more an either/or proposition. Excellent article.
Comment #5 (Posted by Daniel)
Devin, I really think you're right on the money with this analysis. After the second viewing, the dialogue Mal gives Cobb about his paranoia regarding corporate espionage really stuck out to me. Him being chased by the corporate hitmen was a moment in the film we are meant to take as reality. If that is in question, the reality of the film is in question. Without any other contextual evidence, we can assume that the film itself is the characters reality. The dreamer, is Christopher Nolan. Such a rich and wonderful movie!
Comment #6 (Posted by Col. Glen Manning)
I haven't seen Inception yet, and it's pissing me off that I can't read this! Oh fuck! I just accidentally read the last line! You bastards.
Comment #7 (Posted by Nopositive)
This is a gorgeous piece of writing. Bravo, sir.
Comment #8 (Posted by Johnny)
It makes a great double feature with David Lynch's Mulholland Drive.
Comment #9 (Posted by Kyle)
I didn't read into the whole heist crew as film crew and dream logic as film logic but that makes a lot of sense and just adds another layer to this masterwork. From the constant jumping from place to place, to the faceless goons chasing him, especially the narrow walls he tries to escape from, to the final scene, everything that takes place in"reality" uses dream logic. The biggest factor though is how Cobb is the only character with any depth. That's because he's projecting all these other parts of his sub-conscience. Arthur is the cool and collected hero Cobb wants to be, Ariadne is the feminine and emotional side he needs in order express his feelings and confront his demons, Fischer is the broken man looking for catharsis that Cobb truly is, and so on. I also believe that Mal may not actually be dead but since that's what he believes in his dream, that's his truth. He had to accept it to move on from his nightmare to his true dream, which is to see his kids again. Even the whole dream sharing technology is probably dreamed up which is the reason it's never explained. Also time and place are never established. I mean, how the hell did Michael Caine get from London to L.A before Leo? This film is DEEEEEEP!!! I love it!
Comment #10 (Posted by DRM)
The more theories I read on this film, the more convinced I become it's an instant classic. I've never heard such a strong reaction in the theater before and the amount of ambiguity makes it seem like either side could make a strong argument. There's even red herrings in both directions. Brilliant stuff from Nolan.
I'm not sure which side I come down on, but this article is excellent Devin. I really love your analysis of how this is about how it connects to the filmmaking process.
Comment #11 (Posted by Chadzilla)
Great piece. One thing that came to my mind after seeing Inception. "This movie is going to make a terrific companion piece to the oh similar yet so very different Shutter Island."
Comment #12 (Posted by nb)
excellent article, devin. you, moreso than any other young film critic, are the heir to the throne of ebert and kael. bravo, sir.
Comment #13 (Posted by Natalie C.)
Thanks for the well-written article. You defiinitely made me think even more about what I just saw. Maybe Cobb simply had a dream about the people he saw on the plane before he fell asleep? I'm looking forward to seeing the film again and thinking of all the things you mentioned in your article. Thanks for the analysis, Devin!
Comment #14 (Posted by NivekJ)
Devin, you took the words right out of my mind. Whenever I hear that audience groan (I've seen it twice), I just smile to myself. Of course it's just a dream; that's what any fictional narrative is. That's where they begin. But I was very pleased to see you write how Inception was Nolan's dream. That just made my day (and completely justifies a third viewing - IMAX was steep, so a matinee should do the trick). I'm really not used to a movie being this good in a while. I'm loving it.
Comment #15 (Posted by Jordan)
The Nolan quotes, while interesting, don't really seem to imply that Nolan has said it was all a dream. They certainly add to the fact that Nolan identifies movies with dreams, but I don't think it's him saying that his story was meant to be viewed as a complete dream. We're probably doomed to disagree, but this was still a very interesting, well written analysis. Good work, Devin.
Comment #16 (Posted by Devin Faraci)
Jordan, it's important to note that I never used the quotes as backup for the 'it's all a dream' part of the article. They're only there to help illustrate the metaphorical allusions to filmmaking.
Comment #17 (Posted by Biggs)
Wonderful read, great deconstruction essay Devin. Really well written and a perfect 'cheat guide' for those people that walked out of the cinema unsure. Definitely good to mull over ones own thoughts first though, I think the beauty of this film will always be it means different things to each individual and can be interpreted many different ways. It's an astounding achievement on that level alone.
Comment #18 (Posted by Fuckface)
You annoy the living shit out of me but that was a really awesome article. Good job.
Comment #19 (Posted by Corey Y)
Devin this is a great analysis of the film technically, artistically, intellectually and emotionally. I just got home from watching Inception and had a lot of these same ideas buzzing through my head, but never made the connection to the movie making process and Cobb as an analogue for Nolan. Thanks for expanding my view of it in that way. I think Nolan pulled together a lot of themes and intentions he's been working at in his previous films perfectly here. I couldn't even conceive of this type of film, let alone this precise one, existing before seeing Inception. High concept, high budget/production value and intense emotion in perfect proportions. I think some people will get irritated because they were "looking for the twist", even as the characters themselves and even the final shot of the film are telling us that the twist, the reveal, doesn't matter. The imagined is just as powerful and cathartic as reality, the story carries its own meaning and power for the dreamer/viewer. I don't know how anyone can watch this movie with an open, sincere mind and still say that the director is dispassionate or sterile.
Comment #20 (Posted by Joe S)
What was Nolan's purpose in starting the film with Cobb on the beach meeting up with the old version of Saito?
Comment #21 (Posted by SUITANGI)
Is this just another article written in a drunken, epiphanic fit of hairy-chested self-indulgence? CN isn't half as intelligent as your theory would indicate. This reading of "Inception" is tantamount to those giving props to PTA's ironic treatment of 1970's porn nostalgia. Absolute fucking nonsense. Trust the Art, not the Artist.
Comment #22 (Posted by Aaron)
the movie is a dream. the audience is sharing the dream. at the end of the movie the lights come on and we wake up.
Comment #23 (Posted by moviebob)
Something else to watch for: Try to find ANY point in the film where we definitively see anyone - other than from someone else's POV - definitively exits one area to enter another, as in the camera goes through a door with them or we see one room lead to another. There aren't any. We only ever see people enter a room/area from the POV of another character (read: potential dreamer) and most of the shot transitions are hard cuts from "I'm in the middle of this room" to "now I'm in another room." Because "you never know how a dream starts."
Comment #24 (Posted by Alex)
And when Cobb needs a mercenary/forger he, for no other reason than the great Zevon song, finds him in Mombasa, in a barroom drinking gin.
Comment #25 (Posted by Matt)
But, the totem ISN'T used to see if you are asleep or awake, it's used to see if you are in someone else's dream. The totem's exact weight, balance etc can only exist in your own mind, so when Cobb is satisfied that the top is spinning correctly, it only confirms that it isn't being dreamed up by someone else. He may still be asleep.
It's interesting that after they visit the underground dream orgy place, Cobb spins his top in the bathroom, but it falls of the sink and then he's inturrupted. He doesn't spin it again until limbo. It's also interesting that if the whole film IS a dream, he is doing a hell of a lot of dreaming about people and events that don't include him. Would he really need to dream Eames watching Fisher have a catharsis whilst also dreaming himself in Limbo having his own revelation with Mal? Not sure that that holds together.
Comment #26 (Posted by cassie)
if mal was right...wouldn't she wake him up when she woke up after "killing" herself?
Comment #27 (Posted by Hess)
I believe the movie is ambiguous and purposefully so. The top stutters at the end for this reason. Until Nolan states the film is a dream, I'll assume it's meant to be open to the interpretation of the viewer. Inception is whatever you want it to be. There's no right or wrong answer. And that's the genius of the film.
Comment #28 (Posted by Paolo)
That's a really cool analysis. About Cobb as director and Ariadne as the writer, he oes let her 'direct' him. They feed off each other, and her advise helps him get out of the dream world, or at least get kicked a level up.
Comment #29 (Posted by dammitjosh)
Great write up. Good connection on the rest of the cast being parts of the filmmaking process.
I saw the different characters as projections of Cobb's self where Saito, Eames and Yusef where Id personalities looking for and providing gratification. Cobb is the true ego/self, while Arthur and Fischer are alter-egos looking to distinguish reality and mediate between the other personalities. Ariadne and Mal are super-egos looking for reconciliation, one through guilt and the other through caring.
Cobb steals the desire (Saito's plans) to get over the guilt from his wife in the begnning.
He listens to Saito to overcome an Fischer. Cobb ends up incepting himself with Ariadne's idea into letting go of Mal. Ariadne got him out of the maze he had built with his wife and into a new maze he built with his kids so he could continue dreaming.
I definitely agree with you about the totem. It was a total red herring.
The totem a measure of his resolve to wake up. His resolve wavered when he was interrupted by Saito (his id personalty that could grant his most wanted desire) and completely destroyed when he saw his kids faces... (catharsis, gratification)
It reminds me of Lot's wife looking back at Sodom, or Orpheus looking back at Eurydice before leaving Hades. The fact that it wobbled is just a big haha. :)
The purpose of the Fischer mission is a negative positive. They're destroying something Fischer has through empowerment and suggestive reinforcement. Through Fischer we see that his relationship with his dad was a lie, and that the truth is he hates his dad (Oedipus complex, "all things begin with the father") He accepts the incepted idea as truth, which in this case it might very well might be true.
But that would also mean that Cobb has finally accepted his lie as a truth. He has no more fears about whether he was wrong in incepting his wife. He tosses away the very idea that caused Mal to kill herself and accepts his fictional reality.
Much like Memento, to live a lie in search of constant catharsis is preferred to the suffering and uneasiness brought on by truth.
So... what's that saying about us as an audience? :<
Comment #30 (Posted by Phil)
So I just saw the film, but did not view it all as a dream. However, by reviewing your article and reading on some of the facts you presented I like to think there is one big key element many of you guys missed. There is a line in the movie, though I do not know its exact quote, but it explains how to understand if you are in a dream. The explanation comes from trying to figure out how you arrived in your current location. The first "dream" we experience is when the characters wake up on a train. This means they had to board a train at some point in time. Meaning at that point in time they were not in a dream. (The only problem with this argument is they could have possibly been in a layered dream) Another example is when they start their mission on the plane. They can identify where they boarded the plane and where they will arrive. This is just my thought and a small little counter argument for funsies!
Comment #31 (Posted by Matt)
yeah maybe she would wake him up from his dream after killing herself but what if they are down more layers and she is in a different world battling other things there and isnt able to create the kick for Cobb
Comment #32 (Posted by Moorish)
This film is gonna be the Blade Runner of this decade - people arguing the toss over whether he definitely *is* a replicant or it definitely *is* a dream. GET THIS: YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO KNOW. As with Blade Runner, the story works either way. Saying that the film is "definitely" one thing or the other entirely misses the point.
Comment #33 (Posted by Minus)
As much as I did enjoy this, I don't think there is supposed to be a definitive answer.That's why I enjoyed the ending(althought his kids kinda made it seem like he was in a dream, being roughly the same age and all.Although I don't really remember being given a time period for Cobb's absence) but that last shot of the spinning top, wobbling a bit, but never actually showing it come to complete stop, leaves the mystery intact. For reasons I don't know, I prefer it that way, the story and emotions conveyed are complete enough, and knowing whether or not that it was all a dream, really doesn't alter the movie for me, but just leaves a small question left in our minds, an idea that seems to be really bugging people, infecting our minds even and it grows and grows and becomes contagious all from Nolan and cast planting their own Inception on the audience.
Comment #34 (Posted by an unknown user)
Fantastic piece. Very thought-provoking.
Comment #35 (Posted by cornelius)
so that means his wife was right the whole time and she's alive?
Comment #36 (Posted by Chuck)
So, Cobb finding catharsis in a dream is fulfilling and dramatically satisfying but the characters on LOST finding it in the afterlife isn't? I smell a contradiction.... Good analysis, though. I agree with you about INCEPTION's themes, which is why I also disagree with you about LOST. The dream is real.
Comment #37 (Posted by Towelie McTowel)
This was a really well-written article, but I honestly don't think there needs to be an "accepted reading of the film"; I think Nolan designed it to be read several different ways. And that's fine. I personally don't believe the whole film was a dream, and I believe that the ending was real. I loved the film, I love the ambiguity of the it, and I love that it can be interpreted so many different ways.
Comment #38 (Posted by SamAsh76082)
I don't believe the whole movie is a dream. People dream about themselves as the central character. In our dreams, we are always there; we don't cut to another character in our dream to see what we can't see. In Inception, there are several moments when Cobb is out of the equation and characters perform actions and express emotion. From a filmmaking perspective, in order for me to believe Devin's take, I would need Cobb to be in every scene, witnessing the actions of the other characters.
Comment #39 (Posted by an unknown user)
Some really interesting and well thought-out arguments here. I do disagree with the notion that there's an 'accepted' interpretation of the film that trumps all others though; I think the beauty of Inception is that it works on any level you want it to. I've seen the film twice now and I think that you can take from it whatever you want - on my first viewing, I leaned towards the more literal interpretation, that the heist had come off, that Cobb had succeeded, simply because I cared about the character and I WANTED him to get back to his kids. The second viewing was spent looking for the clues and hidden meanings that Devin refers to here, which makes it a more impersonal experience but, I suppose, a more typically Nolan-esque one. I don't have a preference; I suspect my interpretation will differ with each subsequent viewing (of which there will be many). Discounting the literal argument entirely feels a bit cheap, like pulling the rug from under the audience's feet, which the film spent two and a half hours deliberately trying NOT to do, while exploring the 'Every moment is a dream' theory is, I suppose, what will make more discerning audiences feel smarter - not that the evidence isn't there to support it. On a separate but not entirely unrelated note, however, what a fucking brilliant film.
Comment #40 (Posted by James bruton)
You know, I think you're bang on. Also I never really liked the tagline 'your mind is the scene of the crime', it just didn't make as much sense as I felt it should.
Unless crime refers to duplicity and then of course 'you' is a you the audience, not a character. Suddenly it's a comment on hoodwinking the audience and perpetrating the twist on us.
Excellent
Comment #41 (Posted by TheOrangeFellow)
I would like to say I agree 100% with what you have to say on the film, however...
]
It's not all a dream. Cobb isn't wearing his wedding ring in the final scene with his children. Throughout the entire movie, in every dream, his is wearing his wedding ring, but not in reality.
At first I thought that the ring being gone could be symbolic of Cobb having "let go of mal"
Until I saw it a second time. When Cobb is in the dream with Saito (AFTER letting Mal go), he's still wearing his ring. The ring is simply an indicator that they are in a dream, and it was absent in the final scene.
Comment #42 (Posted by thrilla)
Nolan has been mentioning this movie being inspired by Bladerunner and I believe this to be his homage to that film. Its similar in the way that when you first watch either film you tend to watch it straight up. But, both films add in just enough clues to lead you to view it in a completely different way upon subsequent viewings. Hopefully Nolan won't come out 20 years from now and spoil it like Scott did, though...
Comment #43 (Posted by Giraffe)
In my mind, questioning whether or not the story is all a dream is irrelevant. As you point out, the emotions are there and either way you have a man reaching the same cathartic experience. It's like asking if Deckard is a Replicant.
Comment #44 (Posted by David Bowles)
There may be something in the character names to support this... Cobb means "spider," and Ariadne was the woman who helped Theseus escape from the labyrinth of Crete in Greek mythology by giving him a ball of thread she'd spun.
Comment #45 (Posted by jrb)
It is all a dream. But it's Mal's dream. Not Cobb's.
Comment #46 (Posted by Cleric)
I am printing this article out to have it kept with my (future) DVD of the movie...
Comment #47 (Posted by Billy Soistmann)
I was very suspicious of the "it was ALL a dream" argument, not because it would be a cop-out (it wouldn't be), but because I thought the evidence wasn't there. Well, you made a brilliant argument for it, and you may have convinced me. Originally, I thought the movie could go either way- if the top does fall, it's real, Cobb brought Saito back, he made the call, etc. OR it doesn't fall and Cobb decided to stay in limbo. However, I now see how your view is a much more satisfying interpretation. Inception is truly a great film because it was really entertaining, had a great story on the surface, and can be dissected so much and still hold up.
Comment #48 (Posted by Jen)
#25 - I don't think the fact that there are scenes without Cobb negates the idea that its still all his dream. Haven't you ever had dreams where you aren't a participant? Or where you are "playing the role" of someone else?
Comment #49 (Posted by Coyote)
While I may not agree with you 100%...I feel Nolan's experiences may have shaped the script and characters more than the idea that he purposefully laid them out that way...I too have to wonder at the weirdness that existed during the Cobol chase scene, as well as Ariadne's name and her own token...and the fact that the mark's name is, essentially, Bobby Fischer. And has been noted, this was beautifully written, Devin.
Comment #50 (Posted by soopergee)
Fascinating argument and whilst I do not necessarily agree I would like to commend you on your well rounded thoughts.
Personally I feel the whole film should be taken literally, for the following reasons:
1. The spinning top visibly and audibly wobbled in the last scene and as seen earlier in the dream world the top has a perfect spinning motion once it is up to full momentum.
2. The kids in the last scene are visibly older than in his memory (not to mention played by different actors). If they were projections they would not age.
3. Cobb's wedding ring. Always present in the dream world, never in the real world. He is clearly not wearing his ring in the final scenes after waking on the plane.
Anyone up for the idea that the ending is Nolan's inception on the audience? With the spinning top he planted the smallest seed of doubt in peoples minds; an idea that the ending is not real. That idea has now blossomed into all the fanciful theories we are hearing....
Comment #51 (Posted by Jer)
Interesting article, but I don't believe it's as iron-clad as all that. I personally interpreted the opposite in many respects. The brilliance of the film is the ambiguity - to claim there is only one interpretation seems overly simplistic.
Comment #52 (Posted by Mike B)
Also, the first "screenwriter" gets sacked by the "producer" which is another Hollywood tradition.
Comment #53 (Posted by Ben Bunch)
Cobb can't architect (screenwrite) and extract (direct) because if he knows too much about the universe he is in it's dangerous, because Mal, his auteristic side, would show up in a second....remarkably pointed given the auteristic nature of the film...but then again, that's the point!!! You can't screenwrite AND direct because then you put too much of you (Mal) into the film (dream.)
Comment #54 (Posted by Josh)
THIS is why I love this site. Devin, as much as I want to strangle you sometimes, you have a gift for explaining complex ideas in understandable ways. I know it's way too early to be throwing around predictions, but I think this article will go down as one of the key pieces of "Inception" criticism.
Comment #55 (Posted by Spartan Tell)
Christopher Nolan's relationship with his brother, Jonathan, must, of a matter of course working on films together as they do, be a very close one. Christopher Nolan's relationship with his convicted criminal brother, Mathew, however, might be, conversely, a very painful one, promoting a sense of deep personal loss of an important relationship. Therefore, Devin, to follow and perhaps complete your thesis, the character and antagonism of Mal might be standing in for the reality of Nolan's brother, Mathew.
Comment #56 (Posted by balaclava)
If it's Cobb's dream, why are there scenes without Cobb in them? Isn't that significant?
Not the scenes where they cut between different levels but the scenes with Aurthur and Ariadne practicing in the dream world for instance.
Comment #57 (Posted by joseph)
it was all a dream, but because it was nolans perogative, it's not only ok, but rather amazing...
I'd personally would have rather seen kubrick or ridley scott handle the material. just like begins the film looks rich but is hollow of emotion. (even the wachoskis)
as for the bay comment, why not make that statment about every director that has opted to make a career out of fun comedy movies?
Comment #58 (Posted by Mr DynaMic)
Fantastic perspective on the film Devin! I see some folks getting hung up on which way the top swings. That seems irrelevant as you so correctly point out. Instead, it's probably better to see the film as celebrating dreams as a means of teasing out catharsis and finding some form of solace.
Comment #59 (Posted by Ben)
Oh c'mon people, there is EQUAL amount of evidence that it wasn't all a dream. People are making a big stink that the walls were closing in...but they weren't. Closing implies they were doing something. They weren't. The walls stayed the same the whole time. The fact is, if you go looking for the answer you want, you'll make all these connections. However if you go looking for that it wasn't a dream, there's a wealth of evidence. That's what's great about the movie. It could go both ways. Personally it makes more sense if it wasn't a dream, otherwise you'd have to ask yourself "Why? Who's trying to get into his dreams? Where are the extractors?" Oh and Mol saying "That's not your world" blah blah, she's saying all the stuff because his projection of her is insane with inception. I don't see AT ALL why that's "evidence" it's all a dream. The focus of the entire movie is that she kills herself because she thought the real world was limbo and that the real world was the dream. That line taken in context means that. That's why she wants him to stay and why she wanted him to "wake up" while in the real world. Otherwise, you're suggesting it was a dream waaaay back then as well. Also, if the top is compromised like you say, then it was all HIS dream, so why would it spin indefinitely in the dreams if they were all HIS dream. Even if he made it behave like it should, he spins it because he's not sure...so why would he be sure how it would behave?? The movie makes perfect sense as presented, when you start trying to connect dots everywhere there is a lot that doesn't quite make sense. That doesn't mean it's completely wrong, it just means the movie was only made with the answers for one. So until someone comes up with better "evidence" that can't be thrown out, I'm with the film as originally presented. Total Recall was made with both possibilities. Inception will fit your views if you make it, though it does favor one over the other by a lot.
Comment #60 (Posted by rfahey)
That's the most articulate explanation of the "it was all a dream" theory that I've yet seen, although it's not the theory that I subscribe to personally. While it's true that the movie apes dream logic, and I think it certainly wants to leave viewers with multiple possible interpretations, the idea that a single person could have such a complex and internally consistent two-hour dream is simply implausible - it strains the viewer's suspension of disbelief, as you say elsewhere. There are also practical problems with the theory - when we see the team members working to align the various kicks in levels 1-3, are we to take that as Cobb's pov, even as he's stuck in limbo dealing with Mal? If the goal was to achieve catharsis, wouldn't Cobb subconsciously structure his dream so as to deal with Mal last, rather than go on a hunt for Saito at the very end? In any event, I'll certainly re-watch the movie with your points in mind.
Comment #61 (Posted by Bruce Stain)
I have a completely different interpretation. The whole movie was once giant con. All of what we saw was an attempt at creating inception in Ken Wantabes characters head so that Dom could get back home.
That's why they opened with the scene of Dom coming to see Ken Wantanabes character. It's central to the story.
Comment #62 (Posted by Midnight Thud)
No one has brought up the scene yet when Cobb accidentally drops his totem on the bathroom floor and Saito comes over to pick it up. I feel this scene, more than any in the film, obliterates the totem's function as a way to distinguish between dreams and reality.
Comment #63 (Posted by Jeffmc2000)
If it's definitively all a dream then the entire movie is Nolan's practical joke on the 95% of the audience who will take it at face value. I don't buy that. It's open-ended, obviously, but the movie is an intentional Schroedinger's Cat (might make a good double feature with A Serious Man) in that it exists with equal validity in two states at the same time---you can take it at face value, or it was all a dream. And I think it exists that way for Nolan as well. Also, the argument that all the characters' functions mirror the movie making process could be equally applied to Mission: Impossible---Jim Phelps is the director, Rollin is the actor, Barney is the special effects man, Willy is the grip, etc---it's not dream specific. And the idea that the real world material only makes sense in a dream, like Leo getting squeezed by the walls, or Saito showing up at the right time is only true if you've never seen a movie before. Dream logic and movie logic are pretty close cousins. In both, things happen simply because we want them to. And if you're going to hew to the 8 1/2 analogy you obviously know that dreams and hallucinations were only part of the story there, and not it's entirety. But here's where your theory gets interesting---I think what your arguing is that even if Christopher Nolan came out concretely on one side of the argument or the other, that a different interpretation is still valid if it makes the movie more interesting for the viewer (I semi-agree with this). So if Nolan says the movie is to be taken literally, but you're happier in, and persist with your dream interpretation, that's sort of an interesting parallel to the movie, isn't it?
Comment #64 (Posted by AJ)
ALL A DREAM!!!!---HOW DOES THE MOVIE BEGIN? HOW DO THEY GET THERE? I think that is the biggest clue. Im not talking about the beach, Im talking about right after when they break into the safe. What are they looking for? Explain how they get involved with the asian guy. What was the purpose? and how do they all the sudden become partners? Do yall agree?
Comment #65 (Posted by Danny)
Excellent article, Devin. I thought my friends and I had deep thoughts and theories about the film, but you've analyzed it from a much different yet higher level. This film has many various thoughts and beliefs from the audience, but this is by far the most believable I've read, heh. Its not about that, though, like you mentioned, Inceptionls audience comes out rather changed, a different look on the world, etc..So few forms of the media or entertainment are able to accomplish these reactions.
This film's reaction reminds me of Plato's The Republic. That higher level of knowlwdge, that quest to go beyond the norm, the risk factors involved, and trying to relay your newfound ideas and thoughts on those still in the cave. That's likely the most difficult task, to explain your enlightenment. I love these "challenging" pieces, be it the mentioned book or film, I long for them, welcome the change bestowed upon us. Thanks for you perception on the film, well-thought out and understandable.
Comment #66 (Posted by Thadzo)
Good article, even if there are bits I don't agree with. I feel like this discussion would be a lot easier (for me at least) if these comments could have paragraph breaks.
Comment #67 (Posted by Estella)
Excellent insight to the movie. :) Truly appreciate your thoughts and after thinking it over, it's logical and true. ;)
Thank you.
Comment #68 (Posted by Steven)
You're interpretation is fine, but it's the height of ridiculousness to say all other interpretations will become unacceptable. What kind of film critic thinks all movies have a "correct" answer?
Comment #69 (Posted by Rob)
A lot of interesting points here, and I agree with #63 that the movie is meant to work at both levels. But the grammar of the whole movie makes it really hard for me to believe that the whole film is supposed to be a dream. The story jumps around between different characters' subjectivities: we spend as much time seeing from Ellen Page's perspective as we do from Leo's, and we also get long stretches as Josh Gordon Levitt and Cilian Murphy. In dreams, we can be in weird situations, we can even change dramatically, but we are always ourselves - we don't suddenly view ourselves through the eyes of others. I feel like it's a big cinematic no-no to place the audience in the subjectivity of an imaginary character (like how would you feel at the end of Fight Club if Brad Pitt had narrated long stretches of the movie). There's plenty of dream logic in Inception, but the grammar suggests that there are plenty of real characters.
Comment #70 (Posted by Melanie)
I assume nothing in your mind changes if you know that his children's clothes do in fact change throughout the film. Just thought I'd point that out since you were using it to support your theory.
Comment #71 (Posted by CJ)
Nolan wanted you to think it was all a dream. He planted a seed in your head and let it grow, so you would look for clues that it was all a dream.
Comment #72 (Posted by an unknown user)
People seem to be either missing or forgetting key information about the beginning of the movie. The argument that the movie doesn't have a logical beginning is invalid because it explains everything quite clearly.
Cobb and Arthur are thieves for hire, and Cobb is the best in the business. The head of Cobble (or Koble, or however it is spelled) Energy Company is rightfully suspicious of it's crumbling rival and hires Cobb for an extraction job on Saito.
Cobb and Arthur fail the extraction and do not bring the information they were payed to gather back to Cobble. The president consequently puts a bounty on their head, either because they are a business risk or they were payed up front. Cobb and Arthur flee.
Saito however wants to hire Cobb for the opposite job, Inception. Knowing Cobb has a bounty on him, he tracks him just like Cobble.
The mystery henchman in Bombasa aren't random, unexplained hitmen. Cobb and Arthur don't just appear on the train out of nowhere.
The movie may still all be a dream, but the argument that the movie just suddenly starts is invalid.
Comment #73 (Posted by TheColonel)
I like this take, Devin, but I'm not sure I completely agree with it. That the whole movie is a metaphor for filmmaking is pretty indisputable, I agree. However, that it's all a dream? Not so sure. The movie puts a little too much stock in stuff that happened that's important to the characters, particularly Cobb, for at least some of the stuff to have happened in "reality." Someone else mentioned the scenes from other characters' perspectives, too. They seem a little too standard and devoid of dream logic to not be taken at face value. Plus, you should consider how much of the dialogue in this movie is spent explaning every logistical in and out of constructing these dream labyrinths. The shared-dream device itself might not be explained, sure, but everything else is to the point where it seems like the characters exist only to explain things and not interact in a truly dramatic sense. If it's all a dream to begin with, why sacrifice interesting characterizations and a great deal of dramatic satisfaction to explain everything to the audience? Why not just let it ride?
Comment #74 (Posted by Matthew Starr)
Mulholland Drive is definitely the best comparison for Inception. Thematically anyway.
Comment #75 (Posted by M)
Good article. The only problem with the whole-movie-as-dream interpretation, however, is that you can't say ANYTHING about what might be in the real world - Mal might be there, sure, but she might not even exist. None of the characters have to exist; Cobb doesn't either, at least not in any recognizable form - someone else entirely might be dreaming his story. It destroys any sense of a valid interpretation of events, though, so you're right back where you started, having to accept the highest level of dream as reality to get anything out of the film. That doesn't mean the line of interpretation is wrong; it just doesn't get you anywhere.
More proof for the dreams-as symbolic of movies, btw - the people who go to the chemist's shop voluntarily to get high on dreams together.
"There's more than a slim chance that she's right - note that when Cobb remembers her suicide she is, bizarrely, sitting on a ledge opposite the room they rented. "
Actually, that makes perfect sense. Nolan is very good at crime capers - and the reason Mal jumps from the other window (though the metaphorical reason is, I agree, important too) is so that A) he can't stop her and B) it will look the same to the cops - and she's trying to make the dream world intolerable for Cobb, remember, by taking away not only herself but his (dream) children too, to force him to kill himself like she did.
Comment #76 (Posted by BadlLuckMurphy)
You are 100% correct. Nolan is the dream. He is formulating a idea. Just like in creating a screenplay you often have the ending come to mind first. You also have diverging ideas,potential other stories that creep into mind, thus the multiple dream levels each one going in a different direction until you refocus back on the your working one.
Comment #77 (Posted by Blaze)
This is why I keep on reading everything you write. You manage to engage me well after the projector turns off.
Comment #78 (Posted by JFCRAW)
Its all a dream...that is except for the ending. It believe your over thinks things just a little too much. I was the same way until it hit me...the plane! This etire things is about a man dreaming of on a long flight home to his kids. Part fantasy(being the hero)part reality (children, face of people seen recently, wife) at odds with each other, just like a typical dream. But what really sold me was what happens on a typical flight. What happens as while on the tarmac? Rocky, shaking as in the building colapsing early on. Engines building up = rioting getting closer. Take off? pressure= squeeze between buildings. Then things are calm and you mind is clear. Until the descent. Feeling of weightlessness=gravity loss in dream. touch down? rocky, shaky again noise of flaps=more buildings collapse. Its really as simple as that. Its just a man dreaming happy to touch down safely and return home.
Comment #79 (Posted by Matt)
JEN
I hadn't considered he was playing another part. Good point. I still think there is more to the totem than is being explored It's not a test of being awake, its a test of if it's your dream. Perhaps the point is, Cobb is in someone else's dream. Perhaps it is his own mind which is being broken in to, and an idea being planted.
Comment #80 (Posted by George)
Nolan said this film took him 10 years to create, and it may take him 10 more years to understand what he created. There are so many directions that a viewer can go to rationalizes what they saw, the film is one that excites the mind and forces us to imagine. When I studied film in college a Prof. told me that I won't be able to fully understand my own work because of the ability of my subconscious to make it onto the page without me realizing it. That is the magic of this film, Nolan fools the viewer by being up front with all of the information. This allows our instincts to see what is reeling happening. Is it all a dream, maybe, but one thing for sure is that its about a desperate father trying to get to his children by any means.
Comment #81 (Posted by Joseph)
I believe that the entire movie is a dream...until the time that Cobb wakes up on the airplane. In other words, everything that happens after that is real.
Comment #82 (Posted by Vince)
sorry for english
I have one problem with your theory. I think tha t all dream are slf centered, for every human being. If you accept this premiss, then why showing off the scen with the van falling in the water and the scene in the hotel if Cobb is'nt active in them.
I believe that these two scene are «real». I think that Cobb is deraming in the end, probably in limbo. But part of the movie are really happening.
Comment #83 (Posted by Average Joe)
Nice article. I didn't all of that out of the movie, but I think it's impressive that so many ideas have come out of it. Can't wait to see it again.
Comment #84 (Posted by Mel)
I love the fact that whether you believe it's a dream or reality in the end, the emotional breakthrough he has when he finally gets to see the faces of his children again is undeniably real, and that's the only thing in the movie that you truly have to believe. If his mind and subconscious accept that moment as a freeing of his burdens, does it really matter what state he's in when it happens?
Comment #85 (Posted by MoRich)
Brilliant criticism, Devin. Frankly, it seems obvious after reading your piece. However, I quickly discarded the notion after leaving the theater. My mind was busy trying to piece together some long con explanation in which Watanabe was the pure mark. This because of his placement in the opening, and the "inception" that Cobb performed in limbo regarding the telephone call. But after reading your article, I'm convinced that none of the movie -- it's "reality" included -- is meant to be perceived as real. Moll's remarks about shadowy corporations and mysterious gunmen can't be ignored. They dream/movie logic of the chase sequence in Mombasa is compelling. But to me, the single most convincing evidence is this: In no reality can one phone call from one man (other than the PotUS) allow a man in Cobb's supposed condition to just "return home" without consequence. It might get him through an airport -- but there are other ways to do that, especially for one of Cobb's talents. The real trick is to allow him to simply return to his family no questions asked, when in their eyes he would no doubt be a killer. Not to mention the complications that would arise when law enforcement became alerted to his presence. While my cinema watching mind regularly accepts impossible feats of action and implausible leaps of logic, something like this invariably blows suspension of disbelief. I'll accept the shared dream technology, but not the idea that one call from Saito makes all of Cobb's legal entanglements disappear. I think a lot of the people here are having the same visceral reaction I did in the moments after the film -- we want it to be real, we want the film's "reality" to have been, well, reality, because it is a cool reality. But I think Devin's spot on with the film-as-dream metaphor and its component parts. Frankly, it makes Nolan's work even more impressive, because all the evidence is right there in the open in hindsight, but subtle. One question I do have for everyone, whether you agree or disagree with Devin, because it seems to violate the internal logic of the movie: Why is Cobb a young man when he finds Saito? Because Cobb and Ariadne actually went into limbo after Fischer before Saito died in-dream, correct, and thus were there longer? Is it just because Cobb had been there before, didn't fall into the trap of thinking of it as reality, and thus did not age? Along the same lines, I was really thrilled at how the van-hotel-snow hospital room worlds maintained the feel of an exponential increase in time as each layer went deeper, but it felt like the ball was dropped in that regard with limbo. Seemed like Cobb and Ariadne should have been in limbo longer?
Comment #86 (Posted by Skip)
The aforementioned point about Cobb’s totem having once belonged to his wife was a major point that I discussed with some folks the second the movie was over. In essence, Cobb’s totem is worthless throughout the entire movie (the concept may still be practical assuming there is a “real” world where that technology exists and other people can go into dreams). As far as this particular in-universe story is concerned, it is worthless since his wife would have known the weight/feeling of it…thus making it where Cobb would have no real way of knowing for certain that he wasn’t in her dream.
Stemming from the “totem is useless” point, assuming the whole movie is all taking place in Mal’s overall dream, there is the question of why Dom wouldn’t wake up when Mal jumped from the ledge in “suicide” world. I think the way around that point should be obvious. Assuming that there is a “real” world, and assuming that Yusuf (or someone like him) does exist in the “real” world, then why couldn’t Dom and Mal have taken a sedative so powerful that when they died in the dream-world, they went down (not up) in dream levels? In the same way that Saito went to limbo from dying in “Goldeneye” world (the snow fortress dream world..........seriously, did any other gamers out there immediately think they were storming the Goldeneye 64 opening levels?), Mal could have simple gone further down (instead of waking up) when she jumped in “suicide” world.
Indeed, perhaps Dom and Mal were at some sort of “group sleep” clinic like we saw at Yusuf’s place. Or, maybe ALL of the main characters were in a “group sleep” clinic. Or, for all we know, Mal is the only real person, and everything (including her marriage to Dom) is all just sub-levels upon sub-levels (though I personally would lean more towards Dom and Mal both being real people).
With all of that being said, I don’t see any importance regarding the big questions on whether or not it was a real world at the end of the film. What I mean is, assuming Cobb was a real person to begin with, he didn’t seem to care if “suicide” world (though at that point “suicide world” (the name used merely as a designation) was Cobb getting home to his happy children) was a real world. He gets home, he spins the totem, and before it even has time to fall, he is already outside with his kids. To me at least, this seemed like Cobb simply didn’t care if it was real or not. If he did care, he would have waited to see if the top stopped spinning. You could argue that he was simply overjoyed at seeing his kids, and that he would come back later to check it….however, if he did come back later and it was still spinning, he would know he was still dreaming. Given that he didn’t even want to look at his kids’ faces earlier in the film because they were “dream” versions of his children, I highly doubt that he would ignore the “is it a dream/isn’t it” question at the end of the film unless he simply didn’t care anymore whether or not it was all a dream.
My last comment is more of a technical one. Namely, how in the world was there gravity in any of the dream-worlds in the last 30 minutes or so of the movie?
At various points in the film, we see/hear about falling being a "kick". Indeed, Yusuf says his secret blend of 11 herbs and spices leaves inner-ear function intact no matter how sedated a person becomes. However, later in the movie Arthur has to find a way to make the floating people fall in the “Ghostbusters 1 hotel” world, as there is no gravity in that world due to them falling in the van in “The Principle of Evil Marksmanship” world. The point is, the idea is expressed that in order to have gravity in a sub-dream world, you have to have gravity in the dream world above it.
So, if gravity does not exist in “The Principle of Evil Marksmanship” world, should this not cause a cascade that makes it where all sub-levels have no gravity? After all, in “Ghostbusters 1 hotel” world, the people have no gravity to affect their inner-ears (or at least, that world's version of their inner-ears) because there is no gravity in “The Principle of Evil Marksmanship” world above it. Thus there should be no gravity in “Goldeneye” world, and as such, there should be no gravity in “Day-After-Tomorrow” world when Cobb is looking for Saito.
I know folks are gonna say “but they never specifically said you can’t have gravity in a sub-sub-world ((2x) intended) if you don’t have it in the sub-world above it”, but I see no way in which your brain could think “Well, there is no gravity in the first layer (“The Principle of Evil Marksmanship World”), nor gravity in the second (“Ghostbusters 1 lobby” world), but let’s just pretend there is in the third (“Goldeneye” world) and fourth (“Day-After-Tomorrow” world)!”
Comment #87 (Posted by OG Loc)
I dont think you can rule out the totem because he says that is how you tell. I think you have a good analogy for some points in the film. However is it hard to beleive that he dies when he doesnt make it out and stays that is where the real world end because they show what cobb experiences after he doesnt make it back, he is essentiially in limbo again and leaves limbo to get to what some may call heaven his own paradise in having his children back in his life. I also think alot of the points you make in your analogies work in a religious connection for people as well
Comment #88 (Posted by Carlos)
Devin, you've formulated a wonderful theory, but you shouldn't cloud it with the insistence that the film is meant to be a dream. It's not meant to be anything definitive and the rest of your theory is much better without it.
That said, I would add that I think the concept of "inception" is a metaphor for making a movie/dream that makes you think or gives you further thoughts. The cliff-hanger and muddled metaphor are not meant to be resolved, they are meant to be discussed as the 'seed' grows.
Comment #89 (Posted by ModernDemagogue)
I agree with your analysis of the films plot, but not of its significance as a film.
To me, all of this was transparent and obvious, and told to my friends the moment before the film started.
I do not see Nolan as having been successful on a meta level, incepting the audience, or bringing the elements of a director and storyteller to the film.
It is not clear that that intentionality was there, and if it was, it was not transmuted successfully.
The film lacked an emotional core. The performances, by necessity of the plot arc were hollow, and there was a lot of hand waiving and internal universe inconsistency.
I think your reading of the film plot-wise is correct, and any argument contrary to that is in fact not a result of brilliant film making or story telling, but of mistakes that had they not been committed, could have propelled the film to the great heights you seem to read into it.
The film may or may not have intended to go where you believe it did, but to me, even if it intended, it didn't capture me and bring me along for the ride.
I was disappointed, as I had hoped the film might be exactly what you describe it as, yet I feel like we must've watched two totally different movies.
Comment #90 (Posted by Joe)
None of this matters at all. A lot of time could be spent intellectually wanking on about every aspect of the movie, though I choose to believe that there was a baseline reality. So much of it was so purposefully ambiguous, that there is no definitive answer.
Comment #91 (Posted by Jason)
I think this film thinks it's smarter than it really is.
Here are some questions that I was left with:
1) Why does being weightless level one make you weightless in level two, but being weightless in level two doesn't make you weightless in level three?
2) Why is the 'imitator' guy able to imagine a bigger gun in level one, but then this never happens again?
3) When Leo's character gets stabbed (repeatedly) in the chest towards the end, why doesn't he die? Why is he then able to finish his (unpained) conversation with his wife with no signs of distress?
This and many more.
J.
Comment #92 (Posted by Nathan)
I really enjoyed reading this review. Thanks very much. Although I wonder if you realized, in writing this, that the theme of actual vs. dreamed/made-up emotion/experience being a meaningless distinction was the exact premise of the Imagination Land arc of South Park.
Comment #93 (Posted by Sabriel)
Actually I rather thought that Cobb was the target of the Inception. That when Mal offed herself in the dream memory that she actually did return to reality... and she has been trying ever since to pull him back out. Which means... she had to make him give her up on his own.
To me, there is a parallel story going on which would make a kick ass sequel that Hollywood will never have the guts to make that involves a spiraling entwined plotline and story arc that weaves in and out of Inception to tell the story of how Mal is trying to plant the idea in Cobb to pull him out and then ending with the conclusion this film should have had, with having to convince Cobb that all the markers the audience saw along the way in the first movie were really flaws in their master plan and he's really still dreaming and it's time to come home... by killing himself. Fade to white, gunshot. The end.
Comment #94 (Posted by Chris)
So wait, is the airport purgatory? Hoe did Saito get off the island?
Comment #95 (Posted by Tom A.)
The article here was great, but I think everyone's comments are that much better and more insightful. It's amazing how a movie can generate buzz and commentary to such lengths and I think that's testament to Nolan's place as one of the greatest directors and screenwriters of our time.
Given all the discussion here, I'm content with believing that everything up until Cobb wakes up on the plane is in fact a dream and everything following (meeting his dad at the airport and seeing his children) is reality. The central theme to Inception is letting go of your past and moving on. It was during 2 hours and 15 minutes that we were able to witness Cobb overcome his fear and inability to move on past the death of his wife with the final few minutes bringing together absolute resolve.
But in the end, no matter how you look at the purpose behind Inception, it has a different meaning for every single viewer and I ultimately think that it was Nolan's goal to achieve that; he wanted to plant that seed inside you and force your dreams to run wild and create something unique to you and you, specifically.
Comment #96 (Posted by Taylor)
I think saying anything definitive about a film like this has somewhat of a pretentious nature to it. I loved the article and was interested all the way through. But I just feel everything is relative. One might say this is the best film of the year but one mans inception is another mans 2012. Clearly we would see a difference in the quality of those films but that will never make anyone absolutely right. Debates are inevitable but rarely do I see any agreement. The only truth is we all like seeing movies and we like seeing them together.
Comment #97 (Posted by DJaY)
A fundamental premise Nolan enlightens us with is the blurred lines between dreams and reality. This is one of the key points Mal uses with Dom. He can't tell the difference. And neither can we. Without some reality there is no context for the debate. Nolan wouldn't all or nothing the dreamworld - in my opinion. It's dangerous to cite movie scenes as evidence. Individually they can be interpreted many ways. But I will. When Dom talked to his daughter from Japan early in movie. She sounded too mature for a 5 year old. Way too mature. In final scene she was the childlike version consistent with previous dreams. For me - Dom is stuck in limbo at the end and this "dream" is his escape. He can't get back to the "real" family we were given a brief glimpse of earlier in the movie.
Comment #98 (Posted by Whoever)
Sure, it makes sense. I've also heard the theory that the whole thing is a dream induced by Michael Caine, and his motive is to discover whether Dom killed Mal or not. Sure, I could see it. But I don't think it was the director's intention.
Listen, one thing I've gathered about Christopher Nolan is that he is a very technical director. I'm not saying his movies are one-dimensional, there are always multiple layers and themes and they're all orchestrated masterfully. I'm saying, if Nolan is gonna spend an hour setting up the rules and differences between dreams and reality, so the audience can tell the difference -- it's not all a trick. He told you that because that's the world he's created.
He's not Lynch or Cronenberg. The movie you described, is.
If the whole movie was a dream, you'd know it was, because he'd let you know. It would be more obvious. So I can appreciate the theory, but implore others not to take it as gospel. I read a theory that Toy Story 3 is an allegory for World War II. And everything made sense. It's an entertaining thought. One I can't entertain.
Comment #99 (Posted by Luis)
This had to be the most well thought out and most eye opening explanation for a movie that I have ever read in my life...I can't even begin to tell you how blown my mind is right now...my respect to you good sir!
Comment #100 (Posted by kevin tobin)
If it is all a dream, who's dream is it? And if it is Cobbs dream why doesn't Mal appear when they are "awake". I love the article though keep up the great work.
Comment #101 (Posted by David Mead)
First off, thanks for a great run-up to the film and this wrap-up.
Though I agree that it was all Cobb's dream from the get go, I really don't think the walls were closing in on him in the Mombassa chase. It was just a very narrow gap due to the way the buildings had been built.
After the film I thought back on the conversation with Saito in the helicopter. "If I tell you not to think of elephants, what's the first thing you think off?". I felt that this was Nolan's way of telling the audience, if I keep telling you its all real you'll believe its real.
Comment #102 (Posted by an unknown user)
I guess we'll just have to wait until Nolan finally bombs a movie for him to tell us what he thinks.
Comment #103 (Posted by Kevin )
The article was pretty much dead on. All except it's take on the totems, that is. Since he was in his dream the whole time, his subconscious was deciding whether the top spun or not. In other words, his subconscious determined whether or not Cobb would believe the world he was in was reality or not. The top continuing to spin in the final scene leads the audience to believe Cobb's subconscious is trying to tell him to wake up, but he doesn't want to believe it.
On a side note, I came home from the theatre seeing Inception, got on the computer, pressed Stumble once, and this came up. That pretty much made my day.
Comment #104 (Posted by Michael C)
Excellent, excellent article. While I still don't believe that absolutely everything that takes place is a dream I couldn't agree more with the film as a whole being a metaphor for filmmaking itself. I already thought this to a degree, or at least recognized the autobiographical elements at work, but you presented the argument beautifully. The characters match up too brilliantly to dismiss it as coincidence. And this interpretation still works fine even while viewing the film with the perspective that much of it is reality and the heist being planned is the metaphorical movie being made. Fantastic piece.
Comment #105 (Posted by Narf Tivel)
Well, if it is all a dream, it has been done before, by David Lynch (Mullholland Drive- the best of the best because it incorporates the dream with the reality), Vanilla Sky (which, in my opinion, effectively did the same), Boxing Helena, the tv series Lost in the alternate reality, to some extent, and most recently, yes, Shutter Island.
Comment #106 (Posted by T-RAV)
It WAS ALL A DREAM, I USED TO READ 'WORD UP' MAGAZINE, SALT & PEPPA AND HEAVY D UP IN THE LIMOUSINE
Comment #107 (Posted by Howard)
I agree that the whole story was a dream, but I think the end from when he wakes up on the plane, gets his immigration card, picks up his luggage, and goes home is reality. And in that reality there's no dream sharing tech (note on the plane they wake up at the same time and there's no suitcase dream machine).
I think he was on a flight (in first class) and fell asleep and dreamed the whole thing, including the passengers around him in the dream. He doesn't talk to any of them after waking up. And when going through the airport they just sort of acknowledge each other's presence. It's like when you wake up from a long flight, jetlagged, and see other people in the terminal that you think you know but don't really and just recognize them from the flight.
Of course with the spinning top final shot, there is of course ambiguity.
Comment #108 (Posted by Xian)
Easily one of your best pieces... well thought-out, and well written. It makes sense... the top at the end never stops spinning for Dom Cobb.
Comment #109 (Posted by Glenn)
No logical gymnastics required for Mal's suicide scene. It's simple and obvious: she's on the opposite ledge so that he can't *possibly* stop her from jumping before she explains everything, and can't blame himself for not trying. She went through a lot of trouble to create the perfect setup for him to feel no guilt about joining her. That's the whole point of the trashed room, the psych evals, the letter to the attorney. And the opposite ledge.
Watch the kids' clothes more closely on next viewing. They're similar, but definitely different at the end. It's especially noticeable on the girl: it's a one layer dress in the dreams, but a two layer with white under-layer in the finale, and a different cut.
They're similar on purpose. It's a great misdirect!
If you don't want a HUGE SPOILER, and would prefer to discover more yourself when you see it again, then don't read the following! I only spotted this the second time. It's not so much the totem you need to keep track of to see if he's in a dream or not. You've gotta watch his left hand. As he says: he and Mal are only together in his dreams. Hence, watch closely. It's perfectly consistent, and very well staged for camera throughout. In the final scenes, we only get a few lightening-fast glimpses of his left hand -- very much on purpose. It may alter your analysis.
Comment #110 (Posted by Sean)
Great article. Not sure if it's true, but it is definitely a possibility.
I've had a few questions running through my mind since seeing the movie:
How long does a person lay on the floor sleeping before they eventually die of hunger?
Where is Cobb's physical body in reality?...is he sitting in a hospital hooked up to tubes for nourishment?
Is Mal possibly entering Cobb's dream to try to wake him up and that is why she is always appearing in his dreams, screwing things up?...also, does Mal give up trying to wake him up, which leads her to plant an inception within his mind that gets him back with his kids so he can have some peace before eventually pulling the plug on the life support machine in reality?
Does Cobb really have a wife and kids, or was that all just a dream?
Comment #111 (Posted by chris)
Why do so many think either the whole thing is a dream or the whole thing isnt.. to me He was not in the dream in the beginning because characters are in other levels then him and his subconscious could not control that...but at the end when he tells the guy to pull the trigger so they can be young men again while they are in limbo..he does not do it in time and he they wake up from their sedated state on the plane without their minds..they are crazy and lost(Leo and Saito) with their minds stuck in the dream world..
Remember either way you wake up..its only in Limbo their minds can get "stuck"
Thus in the End Leo is once again in Limbo which he has not been in since he truly did escape with his wife.
Comment #112 (Posted by EyesWideShut)
It's all a dream: how does Cobb pick up his wife's totem in the dream -- which then manifests itself in reality??
Comment #113 (Posted by ennui)
fine work devin, it seems I have not had much of an excuse to troll you in some time.....
I am with you about it all being a dream..the converging buildings was an obvious give away...Nolan was not so subtle in this. Also the way the generic goons were identical in behavior and presence in mumbasa and in the stated dreams. But he drives the point home to the point of near riduculousness at the end. Not only are the bystanders at the airport acting like projections (taking undue notice of him, with a vague air of threat about the whole scene), the entire final scene is a near exact reproduction of his memory/dream. Nolan left just enough ambiguity (end credits with the 2 sets of child actors) to spark debate, and it is possible that he simply wanted it to end in ambiguity....but to achieve this it was my impression that it was all dream world pure and simple. I will leave the entire part of the movie as allegory to film making to you...all I will say is that your argument is well reasoned and supported. Your an excellent writer Devin, that is why I will continue to read your stuff even when it annoys the shit out of me.
Comment #114 (Posted by Rob)
Excellent piece.
My only quibble is that, apparently, the audience didn't wake up. A great number of viewers are insisting dogmatically that Cobb is awake at the end. I think the Inception that allowed Cobb to live in his dream world with his kids also pulled a great number of viewers into his dream, too.
As a sci-fi spy flick, I'd say this film was OK. As a metaphorical trap, it is absolutely brilliant.
Comment #115 (Posted by jack)
There's a problem here. I've seen it multiple times now, and Cobb's kids are wearing slightly different outfits. His daughter has a white undershirt at the end of the movie, and at the beginning she does not. His son has white stripes in his plaid shirt at the end, but at the beginning he does not.
Comment #116 (Posted by Travelnwander )
This is an imaginary story, aren't they all.
Comment #117 (Posted by Peter S.)
A truly excellent piece Devin... Like one of the other posters I have never been to this site before and found it a wonderful piece of synchronicity to have come across it only days after my first viewing of Inception. I will be going back for a second and maybe third viewing, but as of now I am pretty convinced by the “it’s all a dream” argument. I found (as some others did) that Mal’s asking Dom whether he really believes he is being pursued across the globe (and similar urgings for him to “wake up” that come from Michael Caine’s character) are like rational voices trying desperately to intrude into a paranoid schizophrenic’s delusional mind-set. The whole escape from the failed extraction, including the approaching rioters (a flood of uncontrollable feelings to be evaded?) and walls that felt like they were closing in (a classic panic attack?) seem to me to fit that interpretation. Though I am also impressed by your analysis of the movie as a representation of Nolan’s process of directing a film, it is of less interest to me than a possibly even wider frame – that what Nolan is addressing (with or without full awareness) is the nature of consciousness and the construction of reality itself. Key to this interpretation is your point about the meaningfulness of the catharsis that Fischer undergoes in the fortress – that “despite the fact that his father is not there, despite the fact that the pinwheel was never by his father's bedside, the emotions that Fischer experiences are 100 percent genuine”. It made me remember a favorite line from one of a series of books of “channeled” wisdom from the 1970’s, in which “Seth”, the channeled entity, said of human experience: “It’s not real, but it does matter”. The idea that he was presenting was that our experiences in this life, though not real in any concrete sense, are an educational process of great importance. Hindu reincarnational beliefs take a similar tack, and the Buddhist view that “all is Maya” – i.e. illusion – are another part of the same map. In fact, they say that you can only “get off the wheel of reincarnation” when you fully “wake up” from Maya. So for now I will consider this film another meditation on that theme; and ponder how “breaking up is hard to do” (Dom and Mal) is related to “waking up is hard to do”. P.S.: Speaking of paranoid schizophrenia, was that the Cabal corporation that Dom failed and was being hunted by?
Comment #118 (Posted by Mister_Me)
Interesting read. But your interpretation of the movie is absolutely 100% WRONG!
And to imply that what you have written will become the definitive and "accepted reading of the film" is just ridiculous. There are sooo many things in the movie that could be used to disprove your analysis which I would love to debate with you but you write with such an air of arrogance and pompous idiocy that debating with you would be an exercise in useless futility. I'd be better off debating with a bowl of cereal! But what else should I expect from yet another pseudo-intellectual "internet blogger". Clearly this movie went way over your head as well as many of your readers (rolls eyes). I suggest you stick to watching movies that are a little more at your speed, I recommend "Grown Ups" as I'm sure you'd find it really funny. But stay away from movies like "Inception" as you clearly couldn't keep up with it.
Comment #119 (Posted by 88 Inches)
Thank you for your well-delivered insight, Devin. You seem to really understand that there is never a direct "meaning" of a film or work, but that the meaning of the piece is completed in the viewer. I laugh when people try to interpret art or film, and so many people do. You go the step above... understanding that it's always the story of how an individual's perception of the work becomes the actual work. And artists and film makers that think they can nail their work in conception and execution alone, do not understand the part their audience plays in completing the algorithm. Anyway, thank you for your insight.
Comment #120 (Posted by Daniel_Tiger)
*AHEM*bullshit*AHEM*
Comment #121 (Posted by what)
"mister_me", you should have a chapter in the "textbook on the internet" titled "How to fail at trying to outsmart and insult people smarter than you, and fooling nobody"
Comment #122 (Posted by Dub)
That's a hell of an article. The problem I have with the dream theory is the same problem I have with the Movie Shutter Island. In a way the issue with Shutter Island is the issue with the dream theory. The problem with Shutter Island is that the audience never had a chance to not be manipulated because everything that the twist is based on happened before the movie ever started. Sure you can go back and catch little things that show Ruffalo clearly wasn't trained as a cop, but by that time it doesn't matter. The problem with the dream theory is similar. You can point out all of the things in the "awake" stages you want of Inception that seem to be without logic or dreamlike, but it is impossible to know because if it is a dream then it started for Leo before the movie started. Brilliance of it would then be that the entire movie itself is just like dreams are described in the movie. "You just wake up in the middle of them." Kind of like walking into the movie theater to see Inception. Fascinating film and them more I wrote this the more I think I may be talking myself into the fact that it is in fact all a dream, but then I realize that in a metaphorical sense it is because Nolan designed it to be that way, but as far as the plot of the movie goes, in my opinion, the entire movie is not meant to be a dream.
Comment #123 (Posted by Dan)
I basically said this in a post I made on IMDB. Of course, you said it about 100 times more eloquently. Since the filmmakers let us form our own conclusions, here's mine: Shortly after he embraces his children in the movie and as the credits roll, Cobb actually wakes up, realizes he was in the most amazing dream, scribbles down the concept on a notepad before joining his wife and children for a pancake breakfast. Afterwards, he develops his dream into a screenplay which becomes a movie, making him and his family, very rich.
Why not?
Comment #124 (Posted by cathartik)
Has anyone stopped to consider that the ledge Mal was on was still part of the same building? There could have been a archetectural design that allowed here to shimmy along the ledge from her room to the ledge she was standing on. Thats the first thing I thought of when I was watching the scene, "Wait why is she over there? Oh maybe the building allowed that..."
Comment #125 (Posted by Colin)
i tried to write articles like this years ago for my school paper and they snubbed them for surface level reviews because they thought they were unrelatable. we owe a lot to christopher nolan for making a movie that requires deeper analyzation and i owe a lot to you for reminding me that practicing that analyzation is worth it. thanks, devin.
Comment #126 (Posted by Nick)
Has anyone stopped to consider this: that Michael Caine's character planted the seed of the idea into Dom's dream world in the first place? If Michael Caine's character wanted his son to forgive himself over the guilt of his wife's death, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the whole movie was about creating a moment of Inception in Dom's head in the first place? Michael Caine introduced Dom to Ariadne - hell, apparently he's the one that taught Dom how to do the whole extraction thing in the first place. So if it's truly about the long con (and Devin's right - the giveaway is that the kids are dressed exactly the same and have not aged in the years since he's seen them) then I feel that it's Michael Caine's way of planting the 'seed of the idea' into Dom's mind from the beginning so in the end he'll be able to forgive himself and 'come back home.' Remember - Dom has to believe he came up with the idea himself for the idea to implant properly.... and the idea for the heist came from Saito himself. The name 'Saito' means 'purification wisteria.' Purification. Cleansing Dom's soul. That's what this whole movie is about. in fact, it almost stands to reason that 'Saito' could be Michael Caine from the get-go - and just changed his form much like Tom Hardy did. It doesn't necessarily mean that Dom Cobb won't wake up from the dream after the end credits or what-have-you... it just means that at the end, his soul has finally been cleansed.
Comment #127 (Posted by BumAround)
While Devin Faraci is dead on with his remark that the entire thing in the movie is a DREAM. Indeed. However, I have a slight detour and go a bit deeper by saying that this movie is actually a sad story about two old men: Cobb and Saito.
Mal is Cobb's wife in real life, who chose to live a normal life (read: grow old, grow old gracefully, and consequently, die of natural cause). She is left by her husband, Cobb, who is also old (already), to pursue his "forever-young" moments in dream realms. Saito could be (or not) a real person.
Anyway, nihilistic views all over. Strong script. Sad story about old age, man's lifelong pursue of cheating death, this one is with sci-fi style with hints of zen/new-age thingy.
Comment #128 (Posted by Prasad Bhat)
Considering Devin's explanation of how this could be a reflection of how things work in the movie industry,it now feels like Cobb(Christopher Nolan) was guilty of Mall's(Heath ledger's)death.Since the inception of being in character was carried out for Heath Ledger which later made him go insane?
Comment #129 (Posted by skierPete)
I haven't read all the comments, but I HAD to reply to Devin's article. I disagree with Devin's insistence that the whole movie has to be a dream, but before I go into why I have to discuss the last scenes and shot of the movie.
The last scene's are obviously designed by Nolan not to indicate that he is definitely still dreaming / nor that he is definitely NOT...it is left purposefully for the audience to decide. This can be seen in the brilliance of the final shot panning to the spinning top. Sitting in the audience, you see the top and you wonder if it's going to fall...then when it keeps spinning, you realize (whether you had at this point or not) that this all might still be in his mind...and THEN, when the tops been already spinning too long, the soundtrack puts a slight sound of the top spinning down, and you see a flash of light...or do you...fade to black. The shot of the spinning top was an obvious ending lesser film makers could have come up with, but the WAY it was presented was pure genius. You can honestly interpret it either way. The top will fall, or the top won't fall. It's up to you, as an audience member, to decide how you want it to end. (The movie in many ways reminded me of Total Recall...right down to Mal's speech to convince him reality isn't real mirrored Sharon Stone's, and the way the ending is ambiguous, though not in as skill a way as this - but I digress.)
This brings me back around to Devin's original point...that the whole movie is a dream. I honestly believe that Nolan put things in there that can be interpreted by those eager to do so as being part of a dream. But, here's why I think it isn't...every equence of the film that occurs in a dream-state has some sort of dream/physics defying events. However, ALL the scenes that obstensively happen in the real world are grounded in reality. There's no weird occurences or events.
In fact, that's one of the few logic flaws I see in this movie. It is implied at times people can't tell whether a dream is real or not. But it's also implied that real people in a dream can influence the dream iteself. (When Cobb takes the Architecht girl into his dream, she learns quickly to manipulate his dream...Eaves conjures a "bigger gun" out of mid-air.) This is true of real dreams (I'm talking outside the movie here) where as human beings we have the ability to KNOW that we are dreaming, and then we can influence the direction of our dream. (Not everyone is able to do this, as it takes some practice.) My point is, an expert in dream-state as Cobb is, there is NO WAY that he would not know that the whole thing was a dream.
There's lots of other things I could point out in what Devin claims to see that I disagree with. (Mal is on the ledge of a different building because she doesn't want Cobb to stop her from jumping, if she was just sitting outside the ledge of the same building...he possibly could...they never explain the group-dream mechanism because doing so would be pointless and drag the movie down...) But to me, the fact that reality always behaves as reality
And before I go on forever, can I say one more thing: Isn't it a thrill to have a big action blockbuster movie that you can actually have long discussions about? Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we could just have 5 movies every year that are this entertaining and thought provoking?
Comment #130 (Posted by Michael)
One thing that struck me as I was watching the movie was that the room Mal (Mol? It's comforting that Devin doesn't know either.) supposedly rented across the alleyway was decorated exactly the same as Cobb's hotel room. And may have even been ransacked as well... I need to see it again to be sure. But that definitely seems to put those events in a more unlikely realm. That the distance between them was more metaphorical than real.
Comment #131 (Posted by John Adams)
Multiple people have mentioned the meaning of the characters names. The fact that Cobb means spider is less significant than the fact that it is the name of the antagonist in Following, further suggesting that the movie is intended as a dream to mirror Christopher Nolan's filmmaking process.
Comment #132 (Posted by Steve)
@soopergee, God damn it man, you hit the nail on the head. That's what I've been saying all along. Thank you.
Comment #133 (Posted by aleatoric)
Mister_Me -- Talk about arrogance. Your post is ridiculous. Rage much? I did not interpret Devin's post as the end-all explanation for the film. I don't think anyone did but you. He did appear confident in his analysis, but that's what a good writer does. You can't start each sentence with "I think" and "maybe" and "perhaps" because that is monotonous and excessive. A good opinion piece simply states things with confidence, though at the end of the day recognizes that any number of interpretations and explanations are possible.
Comment #134 (Posted by Beatbox)
Excellent analysis!! Closest to my own theory. Let me add a few things for your consideration, however.
The very first seconds of the film are NOT a dream. Cobb is on the beach, asleep in the surf. He sleepily opens his eyes and sees to kid (his own?) building sand castles. THAT is the point of inception. He then closes his eyes and goes back to sleep, and the dreaming begins.
Did you notice the recurrence of water and waves at all levels? From Cobb being plunged into the tub to the rain, to the storm in the bar, to avalanche. I would even say the folding of Paris represents a wave. I see these as the waves washing over him on the beach. Also, notice that Fisher orders a glass of clear water at the bar. Strange choice. If it it didn't mean anything, I, as a director, would have chosen a colored liquid to give it contrast. but it didn't. Cobb looks at the shifting water in the glass like it is the shifting sea.
Some people may be disappointed by this, but I am not. It leaves open for speculation what is going on in Cobbs life that caused him to dream this dream?
My theory is that he is an archictect. His wife killed herself 2 years ago. He blames himself and has trouble facing his kids, so he puts himself in his work and travels the world. (notice a LOT of travel/transportation themes in the movie..even calling Saito a Tourist).
The problem is, he can't even create new buildings any more and his work is suffering (Nash screws up, the buildings he and Mal built are now crumbling like sand castles).
He decides he needs to forgive himself for her suicide so he can once again look his children in the face.
Comment #135 (Posted by Hector)
Even if I agree with some things of this piece, I don't think the whole movie is a dream, thats just an easy way to interpret the movie, I fully agree with Dileep Rao's opinions:
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html
Comment #136 (Posted by Shane)
Yeah I read the NY Mag piece before seeing the film again last night and I am in agreement with Rao.
I think the wedding ring is a critical yet overlooked item and may actually be Cobb's totem as the top was initially Mal's.
I will say that I could not see if Cobb was wearing the ring in the final scene. His hand was deliberately obscured. However watching the top wobble and listening in to the sound as the film cuts to black (per Rao's suggestion) is key. And ultimately Rao is correct, the key thing is that he no longer cares.
I think Devin missed the mark on his reading of the film (ie the entire film being a dream) but I don't appreciate the article any less for it.
Comment #137 (Posted by Laura )
when you said "in the exact same clothes that he kept remembering them," if you watch closely throughout his dreaming of the little girl her dress is one solid color of salmon with sleeves, at the end she is wearing a white tee shirt under a spaghetti strap salmon colored dress...
Comment #138 (Posted by K. Bowen)
I don't think I buy the "It is all a dream" theory. I think the characters do have material existence. However, I do agree that it is ultimately a movie about movies.
If a film is a public projection of the subconscious mind, and therefore filmmakers take inspiration from the dreams of others, are they not all thieves of other people's dreams?
Comment #139 (Posted by Zach_EL)
I really appreciated this article, but would echo others in saying there's not going to be a consensus come to about the most basic question about Inception, whether or not it is all a dream. Like light, which is both wave and particle; or, like Schrodinger's Cat which is both alive and dead. Both interpretations "make sense," and can be supported with evidence, but both interpretations have chinks in their armor which must cause one to question them. We must live with the uncertainty...I'm not sure whether or not we must make a choice (a leap of faith as it were) of one interpretation over the other in order to engage with the film. Delightfully, beyond this simple "dream or no?" question the film also opens itself to a multiplicity of readings as to what the film is "about" more holistically speaking. So the characters are metaphors for the film-making process, Jungian archetypes, just plain team members in a heist...so many more readings are going to be put forwards in the weeks, months, years ahead.
Comment #140 (Posted by mean)
very well written. and i cant totally disagree with you ... but i do have one point you never mentioned - or anyone else for that matter. Cobb's wedding band. He never wears it in the real world. Every dream scene he is in, he has it on.
i thought about cobb dreaming the entire movie at the end of the first run. i dont think thats the answer either.
he is dreaming at the end, i believe. And yes, this is all based on the one simple little detail ... the wedding band. if you can keep up with his hands you will notice this. And you may come to the conclusion that they hide and show his left hand very purposefully throught the entire movie. In the last few scenes, they do a good job of not letting you see it at all. especially the last totem scene. (i have been able to test it four times now - i work at a theater) there are only two instances where i think they either messed up (and im talking a millisecond flash of the ring in a "non-dream" scene). OR it could lend credibility to the "dreaming the enitire time" theory you presented.
Comment #141 (Posted by R. Quiballo)
the more i read your analysis of the movie the more i am convinced that cobb is still in the state of limbo, where he is stil creating or designing his dream to fit exactly what is in his subconcious mind. the characters, his family, his team and the sequence of events are not real, these are just product of his uncharacteristic imagination, for all i know cobb is probably a lunatic lying or sitting somewhere in an asylum creating all this dream. cobb is really director nolan who is still in a state of limbo and we the movie fanatics are his projections that he could not end this movie with a sense of reality.
Comment #142 (Posted by impie)
I've only read a couple of comments (there are too many), so i'm not sure if this has been said before, but it's very easy for me to believe that the whole story is a dream because of one reason: I've had countless dreams resembling this. Men in suits chasing me, unable to move through some spaces, love stories, war stories, running on rooftops of crumbling buildings, assembling teams and leading them successfully (mostly) through a warzone, dreaming within a dream within a dream (though i don't remember ever going 4 levels deep), a euphoria of being with the "love of my life" (and most of the time she's a completely made up person), and perhaps most importantly moving from one part of the world to another completely seamlessly. I mean i know there's editing, but i wonder if Cobb remembered how he got from one place to another (for the most part).
Perhaps the only difference is that most of the time, approaching happy endings (giggle if you must, i did) ends up being that falsehood factor that alerts me enough to wake my up...before i finish the damn dream.
So i understand that this post is completely useless, but hey...why not share....BTW loved the movie and it's obviously still stuck in my head 4 days later.
Comment #143 (Posted by Steve)
"The problem for me is that you're using negative evidence to support a story that isn't there. I don't know what to say about a character who only exists before and after the movie. You're talking about a character who isn't onscreen." - Dileep Rao
EXACTLY
Comment #144 (Posted by Chadzilla)
In the heist section. Level 1: The urban action movie. Level 2: The cool Stanley Kubrick version of the urban action movie (the nods to both 2001 and The Shining are so nuanced they become organic to the experience). Level 3: The James Bond action-adventure spectacle. Limbo: The cauldron of imagination itself.
Another thing. The one two punch of seeing Shutter Island and Inception in the same year now has me day dreaming of a new version of The Shining that would star Leonardo DiCaprio as Jack Torrance and be directed by Christopher Nolan.
I can dream, can't I?
Comment #145 (Posted by Ema)
On Comment#20(by Joe S): my analysis for the starting scene where Leonardo was in the beach would be because it was just a dream "everything started in the middle"..Note that there was no opening credits for the movie.The beginning started in the middle.
Devin,absolutely nice work! Cant still stop thinking about Inception.
Comment #146 (Posted by BJ)
One thing that surely makes the movie great is the audience "buy-in". I think it is amazing that people say things like it isn't a dream, it is real and that the characters really exist, they aren't just dreams! IT'S JUST A MOVIE! It is all "fake" ie a dream. But the movie has you feeling "wishing" it was real. Nice.
Comment #147 (Posted by an unknown user)
Well written and thought-provoking article.
A problem that I have with the "whole thing is a dream" theory is that there are scenes in the film that exist without Cobb. Nobody in the dream world can create projections so powerful that they exist without the dreamer. Cobb would have to be on screen the entire time, would he not?
Comment #148 (Posted by Adam)
*Being in the #140s for commenting I haven't read all of the previous comments, so I apologize if someone already posted this.*
While I'm super happy everyone's examining the film and thinking about it after they leave the theater (the sign of a great movie) I think there's an important piece nobody's mentioned yet--the movie is not particularly well written. At least not from a traditional view.
Cobb is the ONLY character to have any background, any explanation for who he is, his motivation, where he came from, etc. Arthur, Ariadne, Eames, throughout the entire movie I kept asking myself who are these characters and why should I care?
Additionally, I (and I might be in the minority) found the first half of the movie (pre-heist) to be too loaded with fast-cutting scenes and complex ideas that were hurriedly explained, to the point where it barely made sense.
At first I was frustrated and disappointed by it all, since I thought it was merely sloppy writing. But what if Nolan wrote it that way on purpose? Cobb is the only character with any depth b/c it's his dream--the rest of the characters being projections from his mind? Likewise, perhaps the movie's uneven pacing is intentionally meant to make it semi-inscrutable and hazy, much like dreams appear to be.
This is all supposition of course, but I wouldn't put it past Nolan to intentionally have made some "questionable" writing choices to further his message of the entire movie being a dream. Who knows.
Comment #149 (Posted by Yeti Bash)
this just blew my face off
Comment #150 (Posted by Incep Dan)
Great article, very creative! BUt the movie is meant to be and give ambiguity. Why is it that when Dom was "dreaming" he always had his marriage ring and when he was "awake" he did not have the ring? He has a ring on every scene he is "dreaming" (washing up on the shore and speaking to Saito in the beginning) and when "awake" he does not have a ring (the plane scene you see no ring when he falls asleep and the ending he had no ring but there was a drama effect "slow motion" of accomplishing the mission). No one knows how long he was away from his children. He gave his father in-law a package for his kids in the classroom scene and said "give this to them when you have a chance". He must of known about the mission and when it was going to take place. Also, it's mentioned that The Mark travels every 2 weeks from Sydney (i think) to LAX so you must assume it took the team just about 2 weeks to get everyone ready for the mission giving the father in law time to travel to LA and pick him up when he arrives when the mission is done. As you can see the ending can be interpreted both ways very logically and through. The question is are you a glass half empty or glass have full person. I believe it was real and he did see his children in reality while the totem top was going to fall over right before th eblack screen.
Comment #151 (Posted by Scorsese)
This movie uses the same basic idea as Shutter Island. A man's friends go into the man's fantasy/dream world to try to convince him to come out. In Shutter Island he realizes he never can. In Inception we're left hanging.
Comment #152 (Posted by Davon)
You know, it's funny because the first thing I said to my friends as we were leaving the theater was, "Well at least the whole thing wasn't a dream." Not to discredit your point, I just honestly think it's cheapened if you look at the entire experience as not containing any reality whatsoever.
Comment #153 (Posted by Angriestgeek)
Does no one understand why an ambiguous ending is ambiguous? The filmmaker doesn't make a choice, but instead allows you to do so. YOU make a choice FOR YOU. It has no more validity than someone's whose view is contrary. Also, you miss the point in that at the end, when Cobb is waiting for the top to stop and confirm reality, he decides he doesn't care any longer. That's the only definitive statement the ending has. Other than that it's about as deserving of this kind of analysis as Total Recall which had a similar theme and ended in a similar way.
Comment #154 (Posted by Rick)
>> another version of the suspension of disbelief upon which all films hinge. <<
In could be said that watching films requires the opposite. Films could require our awareness of all aspects of the film: the director, the camera, the script. Then, perhaps, we can participate with the directors intelligence and love of film making and not be duped by those that would merely manipulate our emotions like skillful and deceitful magicians.
Comment #155 (Posted by Risamay)
"Does no one understand why an ambiguous ending is ambiguous? The filmmaker doesn't make a choice, but instead allows you to do so. YOU make a choice FOR YOU. It has no more validity than someone's whose view is contrary. Also, you miss the point in that at the end, when Cobb is waiting for the top to stop and confirm reality, he decides he doesn't care any longer. That's the only definitive statement the ending has. Other than that it's about as deserving of this kind of analysis as Total Recall which had a similar theme and ended in a similar way." - Comment #153 (Posted by Angriestgeek)
I think I have to agree with this view of the film. Whether or not Nolan had a single "truth" to the movie he made, it can be interpreted or explained in any number of ways. Including this very piece, where it is explained as 100% dream and a movie about Nolan and filmmaking.
Essentially though, all of our interpretations are correct and Nolan's story ceases to be his own. Intentionally or not, he didn't write a screenplay or make a film that is open to only one interpretation. Which, in the end, is the genius and success of this film.
So what does the movie mean? Anything! Everything! Nothing! It was a fun movie, but really, who cares what the meaning was. It's so open to interpretation that dissecting it isn't even interesting, really. But it was a pretty and fun big-budget Hollywood picture. Pure entertainment, in the end. The End.
Comment #156 (Posted by Kevin Kelly)
Amazing article, this movie has consumed my life and I can watch it over and over again. I've seen it twice already and I am going to see it in Imax next. The point that makes me truly believe its all a dream is the fact that all the characters except Cobb are one dimensional. They have no motive, no background. You never here anything about why they are helping him and thats because they are all a creation of his imagination. Facts are made up as he goes along. Beautifully acted, director, with amazing cinematography. This is my favorite movie of all time.
Comment #157 (Posted by Mike)
The basic idea behind inception is to plant an abstract thought in an individual and watch it grow into beliefs.
The director/movie plants the abstract idea that the movie is all a dream, and then constantly feeds you clues (that could be mere coincidence). But because the abtract thought has been "planted" in you, you take in the clues and it furthers your belief.
This implies the movie as a whole isn't one big dream, although of course, it would be impossible to state otherwise. The basic idea of the movie would not work without an element of doubt.
Apart from the basic premise, i don't believe the movie has any real meaning. It's designed in such a way, that the original abstract thought will be grown in different ways depending on the viewer.
I'm sure Mr. Nolan is laughing at us all.
Comment #158 (Posted by Michael R)
First, LOVED this piece. Thank you for a great analysis. Second, although I haven't read all the comments (or even close to all), I have to respond to an early comment (#3?) suggesting it makes a "perverse kind of sense" that Mal would rent out the room across the street. I get that argument, but then why did Cobb always gesture for her to come in through HIS window -- as though she could! If you watch it closely, his gestures are awkward for the physical scene, but totally believable for the way a dream would work: He is both on the ledge and separately watching her on the ledge at the same time. Third, I have another argument connecting the world of filmmaking with the dream world as presented in this film: According to the movie, a rule for knowing if you are in a dream is that you will realize you don't know how you got to the current moment; i.e. you're at a cafe but you can't remember coming to the cafe. This is also a fundamental rule of screenwriting: begin scenes in the middle, where the important stuff is. Nobody has time or interest in watching people arrive at the cafe, or be seated by the hostess, or ask for water, etc. Again, movies play like dreams (at least, like dreams as they've been conceived of in Inception). I've even seem some misread this connection as it relates to this movie: I've read a few people arguing that the movie is all a dream (which I agree with) and they use the fact that scenes always start in the middle as evidence of the dream. No, virtually ALL movies have the scenes start in the middle. The fact that the movie makes this explicit in the dreamworld is simply another fun (and telling) indicator that your analysis is on the money.
Comment #159 (Posted by Kevin Sasek)
I love this interepretation and believe it could be 100% correct however the only thing that remains to puzzle me about the movie then is why when Mal kills herself if it is a dream would she not give Cobb a kick to wake him up from his dream? If she was truly right that he is living in a dream and is so in love with him and wants to grow old with him why would she not wake him up?
Comment #160 (Posted by Nate B)
Some say that evidence in the movie points to the "it's all a dream" theory. Others say evidence points to the "some of it is reality" theory. In other words, some people see the staircase that perpetually goes upward, while others see the staircase that perpetually goes downward. It's not a contradiction - it's an elegant illusion. Instead of marching endlessly one way or the other on those stairs, step back and see that the conflicting evidence can all be accepted simultaneously. Why does Ariadne push the huge mirrors into place in Dom's dream, until their reflections extend to infinity? Because it's a beautiful illusion - no other reason. I felt like everyone in the theater with me simultaneously 'saw' the illusion at the moment the top wobbled in the final scene, and we all shared a moment of wonder.
Comment #161 (Posted by Holden Twin)
I think that this is a great interpretation, and I surely agree almost completely. Although I do believe it is that, an interpretation. Nolan has done something refreshing by giving room in this movie for interpretation, and we must not take this away from him. I think that this will be a widely accepted interpretation, but I also think that the magic of the movie is that other interpretations can be thought, and we can give evidence for them. In the movie, both Mal (or her projection) and Leo make interpretations on which world is truly real. I agree that Leo was confused - that it is all a dream world, and that Mal probably was correct, and probably still alive, but more important than what world was real is how it is interpreted, and this is the magic that Nolan has put into Inception. Leo believes at the end that he's returned to the real world, and whether or not this is true (and I agree that it is not) it is his feeling that is real and that matters, just like Ariadne says when she's describing her dream-training in Paris. Great interpretation, and I hope that other people are able to come up with others that are as equally well thought out and encompassing as this.
Comment #162 (Posted by Nancy)
I REALLY did not want to believe the entire movie was a dream...but this analysis is too dead on. Good job,
Comment #163 (Posted by SMK)
While at first I didn't think the whole thing was a dream, but one scene has me wondering if it was all a dream. The phone call with the kids. I might have missed heard it, but the voice difference between a more grown up sounding kid and James, the youngest, is too much. I feel like the more mature voice - that said something about how grandma was shaking her head or something like that - was different than the original voice we heard of Philippa. But I'm not sure if I misheard it or not. This just makes me want to go watch again! Haha.
Comment #164 (Posted by an unknown user)
Great analysis, and i completely agree. The only thing you did not get right was that if you look closely the children at the end ARE wearing DIFFERENT clothes. It is very similar, but a DIFFERENT pattern.
Comment #165 (Posted by nikki)
did anyone else pick up the fact that you are not to let anyone else touch your totem? and at the beginning of the movie with Cobb and Saito (as old man) that Saito touches Cobb's totem? which sets the whole movie up to be a dream?
Comment #166 (Posted by Eldy)
Whats really real about this movie is that it was purposefully designed to be seen more than once. Very smart from a box office revenue perspective. It was somewhat similar to how the movie Space odyssey 2001 left the viewers wondering. My guess is Inception II will be "the awakening" with his wife coming to his rescue.
Comment #167 (Posted by chickenrex)
Devin, sorry, but...have to join the 'disagree' column. I think Nolan pulled a string of godlike "I'm the director and I'm screwing with you" stunts--like the very end, when the spin-top juuuust starts to wobble and fall when the screen goes black--and you fell for them.
I believe if he spent ten years writing this screenplay, he wanted there to be some real stakes and consequences for for the characters; at least, he wanted Cobb's children to exist for him to return to. So, unless the top 'layer' was actually reality, they wouldn't.
Nolan was playing with many subtexts here, one of which was the unbreakable link between our dreams and our desires, which is what the ending was really about.
Also, you're forgetting that, in this movie as in real life, logic always falls apart within dreams (that's what the architects are for), and if this whole film were a dream, at some point its rules would have fallen apart...but they didn't. In the film, Nolan's technical 'rules' of dream navigation are wristwatch-precise, and are never broken. I believe he was making a point with that, and I think, as tempting as it was, doing the 'it was ALL a dream' thing would have drained the blood out of the story.
Comment #168 (Posted by Mr Fantastic)
Just got back from seeing the movie and had this article bookmarked so I wouldn't spoil it for myself. I totally thought the whole thing was a dream, earlier on in the film than the end. At one point Cobb is explaining something to Ariadne about his kids and says something about getting back to reality. And this is supposed to be in the 'real world'. Regardless, from a guy who doesn't particularly like either of Nolan's Batman films - still don't get the Dark Knight love - and thought the Prestige was good but too long... I loved this film. Wife did too, and she hasn't liked a Nolan film since Memento.
Comment #169 (Posted by whatever)
If the movie is all just a dream and a reflection of the movie making process, then I wish it would've been the vision of a director other than Christopher Nolan. Maybe a director whose films aren't so chronically emotionless and ugly looking, and who knows how to shoot an action sequence. It's a crafty script, but what was up on screen didn't impress me.
Comment #170 (Posted by asdf)
Terrific analytical work, Devin.
Comment #171 (Posted by Jenny)
a very well written piece, i'll give you that. It opened my memory up to some parts during the movie that i didn't quite understand at the time but now make a little sense.
I think everyone is going to go crazy about this movie...whether Cobb was dreaming it all or not. Nolan needs to set this ending straight or it might just get ugly
Comment #172 (Posted by Michael Chwe)
Would anyone have answers to the following inconsistencies?
1. If you reach limbo by going to the 4th level, then it seems that you can always tell whether you are dreaming or not by going down levels until you reach limbo, and then count how many levels you went down. If you had to go down 4, then you started out in real life. This contradicts the spirit of the movie, which is that you cannot tell whether you are dreaming or not without some device like a totem.
In other words, the movie makes it seem like the only way to figure out what level you are on is to go up (by killing yourself for example) until you reach the top (but you might go a step too far, and kill yourself in reality). But if there is a "lower bound" on how low you can go (i.e. limbo) then you can find out where you are by going downward.
2. For Cobb to incept Mal while they are in limbo, Cobb would I think have to go into a level or two lower than limbo (as they did with Fischer). But it seems impossible to go lower than limbo.
3. When you play music in a dreaming person on level n, then the person in level n+1 hears it. But since time is moving more slowly by a factor of 12, then the tempo and pitch of the music should be 12 times slower. But in the movie the music does not change tempo or pitch from one level to the next.
4. If one person has to stay behind for every level you go down, how could Cobb and Mal, just the two of them, go down several levels?
5. Before going from level n to n+1, it seems that you can always protect yourself from confusion by listening to a radio station on headphones before dreaming. It seems that there are two possibilities for how the music will transfer from level n to level n+1. The first is that the music's tempo does not change (as in the movie); in this case, you can tell that you are down a level because you can hear time proceeding in level n (i.e. you hear level n's news programs on the radio and know that time in your level is proceeding at a different rate). The second is that the music's tempo does change, in which case you can obviously tell you are down a level. Either way, you have a reference.
Thanks for any comments!
Comment #173 (Posted by Dirk)
You're reaching on the gap outside the hotel window. I just figured their room was a suite that included areas on both sides of that gap. See the Paris apartment in "Taken" for a similar setup.
Comment #174 (Posted by Patrick)
Has anyone else realized that David Lynch did Inception years ago when he released Mulholland Dr ? The whole dream/wake ambiguity, characters being analogous to Hollywood... Dunno just didn't seem That unique is all. Your analysis was wonderful by the way.
Comment #175 (Posted by cokebaby)
This is a good theory, Devin. I started considering the same theory, about the day after I saw the movie. The right-after-movie theory I had was that everybody else woke up to the kicks. But we followed Cobb into a continuous dream, and the spinning top in the end reveals that he IS still in a dream. But YOUR theory is very interesting and something I DO consider too. I kept thinking about these two things: 1) If Cobb and his wife "grew old together" in limbo, why were they young again in the train scene? Right before waking up. 2) The airport ending...Someone beside Cobb's father held a big sign saying "Fischer". If Fischer is some really big shot, he'd be recognized and have a bodyguard waiting or something. Why was he being waited on by someone with a big sign saying his name? ...The second thing really kinda made me start thinking...Then it just got creepier and creepier towards the end...The kids wearing the same clothes, and are in the same spot, etc...Building up until the spinning totem and the fade-out. Then I was like, "He's dreaming!" ...I think the beauty of the movie is that it left each of us with how we see or choose to see it. Like the "leap of faith" phrase in the movie. It leaves us with the choice to be either Cobb or Mal - to either believe it's reality or dream. We as the audience became a real part of the movie... We keep guessing, we keep wondering - what is it? Nolan powerfully took us in. Devin, your views using the incidents with the wife also make sense. That the wife could be in reality already - is also a nice theory... The story has extended itself to the audience. In the end, we are all left with something of our own to believe in :)
Comment #176 (Posted by Mungo)
The trouble with Devin's analysis is that, if it's true, it makes the whole movie a big pile of wankery. So it's about how movies are important, and that catharsis in a movie is as important in a movie's fake life as catharsis in real life is? If Nolan really believes that, why not actually MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT A CATHARSIS without all this distracting bullshit about dreams within dreams? Shouldn't a movie be ABOUT something, not about how movies are important IF they are about something? If this is really what Nolan is going on about (and I'm not sure he is) it's incredibly narcissistic and pointless. It might be what Nolan is doing, navel gazing at his own film-making abilities and how important they are, instead of looking outward into life and conveying some insight from life by his film-making. Devin, I suspect, is in love with this interpretation because it validates his own habit as a movie critic of abandoning real life for fantasy, and, as his career becomes more "embedded" within the industry, more about the inner mechanics of film-making than anything valuable a film might say.
Comment #177 (Posted by Ashok)
Nolan performed inception on all of our minds. He placed an idea into our minds and it has been running wild ever since.
Comment #178 (Posted by Ron)
Well-written and very thorough. My only beef:"Every single moment of Inception is a dream. I think that in a couple of years this will become the accepted reading of the film, and differing interpretations will have to be skillfully argued to be even remotely considered"
For a film based on the ambiguous nature of dreams, any kind of 'definitive' statement is presumptuous at best. There have been plenty of intelligent points and counterpoints for either side and I certainly wouldn't dismiss any of them. The ending is wide-open (much like this discussion) for the audience and I love that.
Let me add this has been the most intelligent and thoughtful I've seen the comments section...well, ever. So thanks for getting the ball rolling on such intelligent discourse.
Comment #179 (Posted by Galen)
Wow. This is all really interesting. I'm not entirely sold on the "it was all a dream" in the conventional sense of the word dream because then you just have an Alice in Wonderland situation, where the "reality" of Wonderland is still just a fabrication of a little girl's mind (I think Nolan is a good amount more complex than Alice). However, I do buy into the idea that the play is an allegory for Nolan's vision for the film-making process (it is important to differentiate dream from vision). As others have said, each character can be seen as an archetypal representative of one of the necessary elements of any creative narrative (Cobb = director; Arthur = producer; Ariadne = set design, etc.) and the "catharsis" (all the critics absolutely love that word) that Cobb experiences is analogous to the dual catharsis the director and audience experiences when the "idea" (aka- the philosophical underpinning of the film) comes across and is instilled beyond the point of "waking up" (aka- the movie ending).
That said, I see this as a deeper parallel interpretation of the movie, not the only interpretation. I think that you can leave the movie understanding the space where Mal jumps and where the team is originally assembled as "literal reality" (despite the "dream logic" that runs throughout it) and all the levels of dream space that the team goes into as "literal dreams." Bottom line, setting aside the "autobiographical" piece doesn't detract from the value of the film; I was just as excited about the movie when I was taking all of it at face value as I am now, when I see the connections, metaphors, and allegories incorporated into my overall interpretation.
This article doesn't make me change my grading of the movie from a '9' to a '10', but it sure as hell makes me appreciate it more. The deliberate nature of Mal and Cobb's placement on opposite ledges in the hotel and the walls closing in when he's in Mumbassa make a lot more sense with this reading.
One other point- names. I don't see the significance of Dom Cobb, but here are some nice choices:
- Ariadne: Greek goddess, considered to be "utterly pure." She's also associated with Arachne, who is famous for her thread-spinning ability (Ariadne makes the dreams just as her Greek goddess namesake spins webs)
- Mal: the Latin prefix for 'evil'. Take this choice, which is definitely negatively charged, for what you will, but I think that it speaks to Nolan's view of the character he creates.
Comment #180 (Posted by Suryenot)
Oh boy. Couple of quick points. If Mal went through the act of filing a letter with a lawyer and having three different psychologist declare her sane, just to trap Cobb into suicide, I don't think renting a second hotel room is that hard to swallow.
And the reason the entire film is not a dream? The dream sequences were small, finite worlds. A few city blocks, a hotel, a lone base isolated in the mountains. Cobb explains this to Ariadne towards the beginning of the film. He also explains that dreams shouldn't be real places, or constructed from memories because that will alert the dreamer he/she is dreaming.
All of the "reality" scenes in the film were shot in Africa, Paris, Japan, etc. We see the Eiffel Tower, the Bullet Trains, LAX, etc. In fact Inception was shot in 6 different countries. I believe Nolan did this on purpose to create a clear divide between the dream worlds and reality.
Do you mean in a more allegorical sense that everything was a dream? I mean, if so, yes it was a work of fiction.
But there was clearly meant to be a difference between the reality scenes in this picture and the dream sequences. If you are claiming they were all just part of the same big dream, than I have to disagree with you, unless of course the dream you are referring to is the individual audience member sitting in the theater.
Comment #181 (Posted by mei)
first of all great writing! u cannot believe how thrilled i am after reading your article. because i shared the same argument and sentiments after watching the movie yesterday. i was honestly disturbed by how everyone was trying to decipher it being a dream or not, and the discussion about reality vs dreams, while what struck me really strongly was the metaphorical of dreams being movie. the film to me was about nolan and his movie and movie making! i was trying to piece everything together, how each characters represented the film production crew. how dream is an apt metaphor of movie, being fiction, being able to build and create something that is unreal, how director, or nolan himself instills a certain idea to the viewers. im thrilled really thrilled to see someone sharing the same argument as me! :) i cldnt stop scribbling my thoughts when i got home last night. and honesty disturbed if im the only one who saw this side of the film. thank you for the splendid piece of writing. i wouldn't have been able to convey whatever you did. good work , keep writing!
Comment #182 (Posted by tonyd)
why was there a random guy shwoing up with plane tickets and why could he not go say goodbye to his kids when he was leaving?
Comment #183 (Posted by Spark)
Mal sitting on the opposite ledge was done on purpose to keep the dream/reality paradox in tact. The scene mirrors Ellen Page's architect's folding city and, literally, her mirrors, a key scene that says in an instant what the movie's theme is. So does Cobb's beckoning of her to "come in" (with an upturned arm, pulled back toward him) rather than a plea for her to "go back" inside (which would be a pushing gesture, away from him).
Devin, you have written a wonderful analysis of the film, but it's meant to be taken both ways. It's a paradox, as Arthur both shows and then quips. The totem does too at the film's conclusion.
Both theories are correct, and that's why I love the hell out of Inception. Nolan made two movies in one, either as great as the other.
As I said to a friend and I'm sure you'd agree, there are movies that people claim work on so many levels, but Inception works on so many levels.
What a fantastic, cerebral, meta, cliche-destroying film.
I must be dreaming.
Spot on about the filmmaking aspect, great analysis on the all-a-dream aspect, but the whole point of the movie is that it's a paradox. It's both, and more.
Like a dream within a dream, within a dream.
Comment #184 (Posted by jrr)
what about the penrose staircases? I think there is a definite link between the architectural stairs, the emergency stairs in the hotel, and the fact that the dreams began and ended in Saito's house, could have possibly gone around again in an endless loop.
Comment #185 (Posted by JohnQ)
Another thing I thought was odd about the hotel scene is that even though she was sitting on a ledge across the way, he kept asking her to come back off the ledge and motioning toward himself. That would not make sense since she would need to go back off the ledge away from him (going toward him would have been to jump). First, it is one of those things that suggests dream logic because it doesn't make sense once you think about it. Second, it looks more like a metaphor for him wanting her to come back to him than to not jump, which would make sense in a metaphorical world.
Such a great movie. The more I think about it, the more I love it. Thanks, Nolan!
Comment #186 (Posted by Nut_IX)
Very Nice. I had no clue what was going on when I was in the theatre. I was thinking so har I had a fucking panic attack. Great Job on this piece. It really cleared things up.
Comment #187 (Posted by Al)
Your opinions make sense but I dont think their is a definitive answer. The way the film was cut, we jump into each scene like a dream, meaning a dream could have begun at any time. Also, the top at the end was wobbling, it was going to fall, but Nolan choose to end it a mere few frames before that. By doing so he planted an idea inside our heads to question the end reality. (inception) Thats just my idea, there is so many out there that all could make sense.
Comment #188 (Posted by jc)
@ Dirk (#173), that's exactly what I was thinking. The apartment is an entire floor in a U-shaped building. And Glenn also provided a plausible alternate explanation for the gap - that Mol set it up so that Dom would have no choice but to join her. Why else would the room be completely trashed? If she went to all that trouble, it would make just as much sense for her to have rented the opposite room. If she tried to jump from a window in the same room it would have been too easy for him to stop her, and then what would be the point?
Well written article, but there are too many holes and inconsistencies as pointed out by many commenters above. I believe soopergee and Glenn pointed out the most glaring of them.
Oh, and I've never read your articles before, but *BARF* - "I think that in a couple of years this will become the accepted reading of the film, and differing interpretations will have to be skillfully argued to be even remotely considered." Wow.
Comment #189 (Posted by The Great Destro)
hought it was about escapism. I thought mal took the kids and moved out because Cobb was doing drug or maybe even having an affair (that whole scene with ellen page in their hotel room). Cobb keeps living out some drug induced dream of being an extractor and dealing with the fact that he has to live without his wife and kids.
Comment #190 (Posted by zer0ed77)
Well written piece, Devin, but unfortunately, a piece of shit in a three piece is still a piece of shit.
The whole dream theory crap has grown out of control and I am not a fan of that scenario. asically, he says that the biggest problem with the dream theory is...
that in order for the dream theory to work, like you said, you have to use anti-evidence to create it. Chris Nolan does not work this way. In fact, when he created Memento, he made it clear in interviews he would not leave his film open ended with multi ending possibilities. You have to basically discuss a character that you never meet on film
because if he is always dreaming, then we never see the real Cobb
so you are talking about a story that takes place before and after the film we see. This is why the dream crap does not work.
Who better to prove this than some one who actually stared in the film!!! http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html
I am sure you guys will try to subject bull and say he didn't write it so he doesn't know. But even Chris Nolan has gone on record saying it is a heist and action film first, with the job being carried out in dreams by the characters trained in that art.
Flame away, idiots.
Comment #191 (Posted by Captain Obvious)
I was hoping for more.
Maybe I've seen too many movies at this point, but the moment the infinitely spinning top was introduced - I knew that was going to be the final scene of the movie.
I guess I stopped being impressed by the "the whole thing was a dream" ending in grade school.
The frustrating part of watching a movie you know is made up of dreams is that it allows the film-maker to be as sloppy as they want to be portraying real life, because it's really all a dream. There's no way to know whether that inconsistency, incompleteness, miscommunication, illogic was intentional or just poor story-telling. It's TOO open for interpretation.
Sure, you may have it exactly as the story-teller intended, that it's about making movies. Frankly, I think they just left out the scene where he awakes from a coma and all the players in the movie are just people at the hospital.
Knowing that the whole thing I was watching was probably a dream, didn't make it more enjoyable - just kind of pointless.
However, I would be impressed if I woke up now and found out they somehow made me dream the whole movie up to this point... Nope, that wouldn't impress me either. That happens every night... :)
Comment #192 (Posted by James G)
Like the best storytellers, Nolan created a world where the viewer gets to decide what the story means to them. All great stories should be pliable to a certain extent; in that way, you guarantee your story will cause almost everyone to consider their own beliefs and that those beliefs fit neatly into the story they've just experienced. To try and cram a story like Inception into any one interpretation and say "This is the way it is" is completely missing the point. Coming up with interpretations is fine and is what Nolan wants, but to say that any one interpretation is right or wrong is not the point of the exercise.
Comment #193 (Posted by Dontblnk)
But if there is no "dream sharing technology" is your assumption that the whole movie is a dream during a normal night's sleep?
Comment #194 (Posted by Richard Wilkerson)
I feel the film needs to have both waking and dream states to work, just as in life.
We can posit that it is all a dream, but this really just makes the term dream meaningless. I don't mean to degrade dreaming, I work for an organization that researchers dreams. It is just that saying ~everthing~ is a dream makes the word itself non-relevant. If we say everything is a dream, then there is a level of dreaming where no matter what you do, you just can't shake the way it imitates waking life, and so yes it too may be a dream, but it doesn't matter, as it won't ever be dream-like, and so we might as well call that level of dreaming what we always do, waking.
Well, you can say the whole film is a dream and that explains everything - and in a sense of course this IS true, is IS a film after all, and a completely imaginal story.
But referring to it as such, calling it all a dream, is kind of like playing monopoly or chess and shouting every 5 minutes, "It's just a game!"
I think Hegel explores this problem in desire and consciousness. We, as humans, are not just conscious and desiring of objects like animals, (don't mean to degrade animal consciousness, just following Hegel here) but that as humans we desire and are conscious of other people's desire... we don't just want the crown or badge or trophy, but a socially constructed desire of a desire, the thing the object represents to us through what it represents to others.
We want both dream and waking reality, and we seek these out in dreams and waking reality - dreaming in waking life, waking life in dreams... this is what produces the meaning and value of the event.
Granted, you will always find those who wish to collapse one into the other, but I would say that this desire cannot be fulfilled unless they start with both... ie destructive people need these things to destroy.
I find in Inception an exploration or display of how we find what is important in the contrast of real and not-real, waking reality and dreamng, consensus reality and subjective experience... or at least a lot of openings to this dialectic.
I'm still glad you said it (that it was all a dream) somebody needs to take up that exteme for a good dialogue around it to occur.
Thanks, RC
Comment #195 (Posted by Anonymous)
Comment #27 is all anyone needs to know. Your theory is your theory. It is by no means the "accepted reading" of the film.
Comment #196 (Posted by Great Rebuil)
This was easily the best thing I have read in a long time. Well done.
Comment #197 (Posted by This is an alius)
Well, if you noticed at the very end of the movie, the totem wobbled a bit while spinning. That means it wasn't perfectly balanced. I think that he was trying to throw us off by having it spin for a long time aswell as having it falter (faulter?). That left me thinking he was not in a dream the whole time. Although, that is only my opinion.
Comment #198 (Posted by Dave B)
A lot has been said about this already in the comments above and I do appreciate your interpretation of the film. I would like to present an argument to you though. It hinges on the fact that you almost imply that the totem is meaningless in the film. It doesn't matter whether it falls or not if the whole movie is a dream, and furthermore a dream imagined by a person that isn't even given a moment of screen time (which makes the movie kind of hollow to me). I prefer the idea that Nolan foresaw the entire debate that we are now having. He is a very intelligent (and talented) filmmaker and I believe he intended for this movie to work on multiple levels, hence the "does it fall or not" ending. On one level he is creating a movie that can be interpreted exactly the way you have. The problem with your interpretation though is that the majority of the audience will not have the same views about the artistry of film that you and Nolan do. To them, a movie that is commenting on movies doesn't really matter to them because they won't be as inherently familiar with the subject matter. This will probably lead to them feeling cheated by the fact that the main character, in a sense, is never really even in the film. You have no idea why the dreamer is having this dream, why it plays out the way it does, exactly what he's trying to resolve, etc. If the whole thing is just a dream, the whole thing can literally be about anything, it doesn't even necessarily have to be about a wife who has recently died, or simply left. So, in reality I feel that Nolan has created a movie that can work literally as well as metaphorically. A film that allows a layman to walk out of the theater and say without a doubt that the top fell; but also a movie that can still make a select few stand up and say, "this movie was for us and the entire movie was simply a commentary on the artform that we are most passionate about."
Comment #199 (Posted by fightnight14)
Someone remembers the line Cobb said about "Idea"? About idea is like a virus, its highly contagious? Then, look at we now. We're extracting ideas like its a virus! Theres been an idea outbreak!
Comment #200 (Posted by an unknown user)
This is total bullshit. Wether or not it's cobbs dream is not the point. you are trying to see deeper but you're digging at something that isn't there. the whole movie was themed around Nolan getting you to question your reality as the viewer, thus presenting you with the question in the end in the form of the top.
Comment #201 (Posted by Jon)
IM PRETTY FAR DOWN THE LIST, SO IM BOLDING THIS TO STAND OUT. I LIKE THE ARTICLE YOU WROTE, I EVEN THOUGHT THIS IN THE FIRST 30 MINUTES OF THE MOVIE. BUT AS I WATCHED IT BOTH THE FIRST AND SECOND TIME, I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH MY FIRST INSTINCT AND YOUR ARTICLE. ALTHOUGH YOU GO THROUGH GREAT LENGTHS TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF, YOU ARE ULTIMATELY WRONG. IM NOT GOING TO LIST THE 100 REASONS WHY THE REALITY WAS REALITY, OR WHY HE WASNT DREAMING IN THE END, I WILL SAY THAT I LIKE YOUR ARTICLE, LOVED THE MOVIE, AND AM EXCITED TO SEE EVERYONE THAT IT HAS INSPIRED TO THINK, AND TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL ENCOURAGE CHRIS NOLAN TO DO A FOLLOW UP, THERE ARE INFINITE POSSIBILITIES WITH THIS PLATFORM AND I CANT WAIT TO EXPLORE THE IDEA FURTHER. NOW IF YOU DO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE AWAKE DURING THE REALITY, YOU WILL SEE THAT HE IS AWAKE AT THE END. THE SHORT ANSWER IS, THAT AFTER ALL THE KICKS, LEO DOESNT WAKE UP, AND SAITO HAS ALREADY DIED. LEO ENDS UP DIEING BY DROWNING ON THE FIRST LEVEL IN THE VAN, THUS MAKING HIM FALL INTO LIMBO. BUT THIS IS AFTER SAITO HAS ALREADY DIED. BETWEEN SAITO DIEING AND LEO DIEING SAITO HAS AGED (OBVIOUSLY) DUE TO THE TIME DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THEIR DEATHS. BY THE TIME LEO GETS TOO HIM HE HAS ALREADY LIVED THE FULL LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE DREAM WOULD HAVE LASTED IN THE REAL WORLD, SO BY KILLING THEM SELVES THEY WOULD WAKE UP, BECAUSE THE SEDATION HAS ALREADY WORN OFF IN THE REAL WORLD. AND EVERYTHING FROM THERE IS REAL. THE TOP FALLS, IT SHOWS BY ITS WABBLE, WHICH IT NEVER DID IN ANY DREAM, CHRIS NOLAN JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO THINK ABOUT THE MOVIE FURTHER. IF HE REALLY WANTED YOU TO NEVER KNOW HE COULD HAVE JUST HAD LEOS DAD PICK IT UP UNKNOWINGLY. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUEMENT THAT THE KIDS NEVER AGE OR HE DOESNT CARE ABOUT THE TOP CAUSE HE DOESNT CARE IF HES DREAMING IN THE END, BUT ITS JUST SIMPLE EMOTION WITH THE TOP, HES SO OVERWHELMED BY SEEING THEIR FACE THATS ALL HES THINKING OF, AND AS FAR AS THE KIDS NOT AGING, THEY NEVER GAVE A TIMELINE FOR HOW LONG HE WAS GONE, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN AWAY FROM A LOVED ONE, EVEN A MONTH FEELS LIKE AN ETERNITY, SO NO ONE KNOWS, HIS FEELINGS ABOUT HIS WIFE ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY REAL AND RAW, SO TO ME THAT SAYS HE MAY NOT HAVE HAD A LONG TIME TO COME TO GRIPS WITH HER DEATH. ANYWAYS THATS FAR MORE THAN I PLANNED ON SAYING. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING EVERYONES RESPONSES.
Comment #202 (Posted by steve)
I think the major thematic stance Nolan was trying to convey was this: Everyone tries to make their dream a reality, but in the end, our reality may just become our dream. This is backed by Cobb's incessant need to justify Mal's death and recreate a reality with her within his dream. In the end, he comes home to his reality, the one that is waiting for him when he awakes, yet his dream has purged him of the guilt of his wife's suicide. Therefore, the reality that once tormented him so is now a dream come true, for he has excepted the life he was given, allowing it in essence to become more like a dream, and truly be the father he's been incapable of being since his wife committed suicide (assuming the entire movie is a dream, you must infer that Mal in fact killed herself and Cobb blames himself. The how, why, and when become superfluous due to the ingenious way the story itself is set). There's a proper reasoning for considering that Nolan's intention was to make the puzzle itself unsolvable, because art, which I'd have to deem this movie worthy of taking that title, is purely subjective, meant to by autonomous from the artist (who in this case would be Nolan, although movies enter that wonderful grey area of who the true artist is with technicians, actors, producers, etc.) so that the viewer can actually obtain a cathartic experience. Ego is the detriment to true art. Dreams may be our only true form of therapy. And movies that are nothing but dreams may be the best way to invoke thought, emotion, disparity, and excitement, which in fact is what we want from our movies. Wonderfully done.
Comment #203 (Posted by an unknown user)
It's not uncommon for buildings in Europe to be close enough to safely jump from edge to edge. I don't remember the initial chase scene well enough to say for sure, but I remember the people that were chasing him also getting stuck in the same alleyway, though there were more people in front). I agree that there are similarities between the dream crew and the film crew and that there are similarities between dreams and films. The similarities are intrinsic in all sorts of creation. After the points about the ledge and the thin alley (incidentally the thin alley explains the ledge, at least in the existence of small spaces between buildings) all you really have is speculation.
Comment #204 (Posted by Taylor Reiner)
I disagree. Your points tend to derive out of your logic that a majority of what is said in the movie is null and void because of what you believe the movie is, a dream, and anything said in a dream is not true. However, isn't this circular logic? You say something said in the movie isn't true because the movie is a dream. This logic doesn't work nor does it make any sense. Also, your inherent 'cockyness' at the start of this article with the statement "I think that in a couple of years this will become the accepted reading of the film, and differing interpretations will have to be skillfully argued to be even remotely considered." is a bit off-putting and prematurely and undeservedly bragging. However, the "it's all a dream" theory has valid points and I cannot argue certain logic with you. But, you need to understand that this take on the movie is far from absolute.
Comment #205 (Posted by Daryl)
This is an amazing analysis. The ending of the movie was like the ending of the Sopranos, where we have to realize that the movie itself is fake and that there is no true ending, only what is there. While I took a literal (and unimaginative) approach to interpreting the movie, it actually accentuates your belief that the movie was about making movies. The audience still does not realize that the story is a dream, so they debate the "truth" of the ending with their friends. Very trippy.
Comment #206 (Posted by joe)
The thing about these open-ended piece of film, and the argument that I come back to every time I run into this discussion, is this; Because it was left open-ended, and because there was no specific ending, means that the director/writer himself never actually decided how the movie ended. It's open to interpretation, and while this is a good interpretation, and even if Nolan intended the similarities to filmmaking/the plot, doesn't neccesarily mean that the entire thing was a dream. The only comment that bugged me about this review was that "it would be the accepted interpretation in years to come." Like it's going to take mankind years to figure this out? It was a great, complex movie, but either of the main theories about it, in my opinion, are just as likely to be true as the other. I will say the fact that dream sharing was never explained was the primary thing bugging me too, but that can be dismissed with just the fact that it's set in a world where you can share dreams with people you're sleeping next to. Good review, though.
Comment #207 (Posted by susbielle)
This is a very simple explanation. And if we follow Ockham's razor, the simpler explanation should prevail.
The whole movie is a dream.
DoCaprio's character is a man whose wife suicided. He hasn’t told his kids yet, and cannot face them as he feels guilty about it. His father in law (Caine) takes care of them. He is haunted by the wife’s death and wished there were a form of psychotherapy so he could return to a more normal life.
He is on a business trip and flies back home. In the plane, he falls asleep (maybe after watching David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive?), and ... starts dreaming.
The whole movie is his dream.
All the passengers around him are assigned a role in the dream, including his father in law. Except Ariadne who is the exact equivalent of DiCaprio in Titanic, an angel that disappears at the end. The dream/movie is an introspection job into the deepest layers of his mind to get rid of the guilt feeling. And it works!
When the plane lands, he wakes up and stares at his neighbors who do not acknowledge him as they don't know him.
He returns home and for the first time, he can face his kids. He is healed.
If you thought the film was real, it means you also can’t tell the difference between dream and reality, and Christopher Nolan has succeeded his Inception in millions of minds around the globe.
JF Susbielle (jf@paris.com)
Comment #208 (Posted by an unknown user)
While your article may have held my interest for a little while, I found it hard to read past 'Every single moment of Inception is a dream. I think that in a couple of years this will become the accepted reading of the film, and differing interpretations will have to be skillfully argued to be even remotely considered' just a repugnant way to begin an article - I mean really, could you get any more full of yourself?
'it's all a dream' just short changes what was a brilliantly nuanced film.
Too simple a conclusion, a boring and unoriginal idea. Yeah, it is a copout, actually. regardless of the outcomes of the supposed dream, because everything that Cobb deals with in this 'dream' could be dealt with if the film deals with reality as well. Meh. Thus, no dream.
You're too hung up on the details and missing the point at large that Nolan makes. Too busy trying to prove yourself right; trying to back up such a big statement.
Honestly, I couldn't be bothered writing down the 'proof' of why you're wrong, with such a big attitude problem when I'm sure you wouldn't be bothered to hear it.
Comment #209 (Posted by JMS)
Explanation of the ending. The movie describes how they go about pulling off an INCEPTION :"planting an idea in someone's head". By not showing us if the top falls or not, this plants ideas in the audiences head. Nolan has pulled off his inception on US.
Comment #210 (Posted by Karen Quinn)
Several points to make:
1. The film doesn't have a definite 'start' to the story, and things aren't explained up front -we find out about the purpose of the totem/who Mal is later on in the film. -This supports the 'dream' theory.
2. Cobb says 'I've found a way home' -that has been going through my mind whilst reading this -it's never explained how Saito has the authority to wiaver a murder charge -simply makes a call -from a plane- and hey presto Cobb walks through immigration? Dream logic?
Best film I've ever seen.
Comment #211 (Posted by Jon Strong)
Just saw it a second time. Realized that Ariadne is actually Mal with a different face, trying to awake her love from his self-induced coma (as he is still in one of the lower levels).
She fails at planting the inception. Watch the way Nolan cuts to her, for instance, during the scene where Leo is confessing to (dream) Mal that he did an inception on her. Ariadne reacts emotionally surprised.
Ariadne is part of a greek myth -- she aided Theseus as he fought the minotaur, she went after him to lead him home with a red string, out of the Minotaur's labyrinth. (Thank you wikipedia).
This would also explain why Ariadne was immediately good at changing the world. And is always next to Cobb throughout the whole movie, leading him.
Lastly, and this is just a theory: after my second viewing, I'm pretty certain that we never actually see the Cobb's spinning thing ever fall. If I am correct, Nolan uses misdirection every time it should fall (early in the film, when he has the gun to his head and he spins it, his kids call).
If this is true, Nolan is freaking brilliant, using our minds against us.
Comment #212 (Posted by Jack Grace)
#50 - @soopergee
Is 100% dead on. If you disagree, read or listen to Nolan talk about the movie.
While Devin presents a nicely packaged film school thesis analysis, soopergee has exactly the same thoughts I have.
Nolan could have easily just kept the camera panned up to Leo walking away, but since the film going experience is similar to the shared dream experience, one could associate the bottom of our subconscious with the very final scene of a movie, our emotional high/low point, the last scene before it ends. And with 1 second of film, 24 frames, cut to black, he is able to have a little wink at the audience to say "see, inception can work, I've just made you question what you just sat through for 2.5 hours". Your reality; your interpretation of reality, and more importantly, your perception of the relationship between your reality and your dreams. The movie you see in front of you or the vision locked in the directors mind.
And in terms of it being all about filmmaking. I think the quotes from Inception's press reveal that, thinking about it in terms of it being a metaphor for filmmaking is just one of the ways to interpret what we all saw.
Leo compares the movie more to 8 1/2 than the matrix because -
"As Guido struggles half-heartedly to work on the film, a series of flashbacks and dreams delve into his memories and fantasies; they are frequently interwoven with reality." 8 1/2
That is what the movie is about, and that is what Inception deals with, except it's about professional mercenaries known as Extractors. Not necessarily Nolan trying to make a movie.
"As Cobb struggles to return to return home to his children and deal with the loss of his wife, a series of flashbacks and dreams delve into his memories and fantasies: they are frequently interwoven with reality." - Inception
Also, another 8 1/2 comparison would be that Inception is very ambitious film and essentially could have presented Nolan with the same problems that faced Guido, especially since Nolan has claimed to be a lucid dream since the age of 16. This could have been a movie that spun out of control, causing Nolan to question whether or not it is worth it. Also it could have tanked because the concept was too grand. While Guido suffers 'directors block' and Nolan might have had an "understanding block"; the similarities are there.
The relationship to 8 1/2 is definitely present, and thank you for leading me to that point, but the relationship is not necessarily a literal one, but more of a subjective one.
And Dicaprio based the role on Nolan, because Cobb is Nolan, not because he represents a director, which the comparison can be made, but because the movie came from Nolan's brain. A lot of people had a hard time understanding this movie during the conception/pitch stage, but after a certain point everyone had to take a "leap of faith", a common thread in the movie, that Nolan knew what he was doing. Almost the same way Cobb had to take a leap of faith to trust Saito and the supporting cast had to take a leap of faith that Cobb and company could pull this job off. So what better way for an actor to anchor his role about a guy who is a dream extractor, than basing it on a director who essentially could be consider a dream extractor. A visionary if you will. (this can work in favour of it being about filmmaking, but I still think that's a very specific way to look at a non specific movie)
Again, none of what I say, or you say is set in stone. That's, as many have said, is the best part of this movie. We are all allowed to experience it and interpret it anyway we choose. Hence why Nolan has never come out and said "Yes it's all a dream; No it's not a dream; Yes it's about filmmaking" - He keeps his comments to the basis of what the film is to allow the audience, us, to have our own thoughts. He is very respectful of the audience and would never want to take that away from us. "Inception is an action adventure heist film set in the architecture of the human mind": Discuss.
Perhaps I'm an idiot. What can you do.
My only other comment on this piece is: Devin, you are one of the good guys, and you will get better as they go, but watch the all-knowing god like statements at the start of the piece, very off putting to some. Other than that, nice analysis!
If you guys want to hear a cool podcast with Nolan about Inception check out:
The Treatment w/ Elvis Mitchell that he did with Nolan a week or so ago.
Comment #213 (Posted by Bothazar)
Great article, (mostly) great comments! Quick thought, it doesn't really matter if the childrens clothes change or whether his wedding band is on or not. Slight differences in appearance would be completely understandable to keep him from realizing he is actually dreaming. Notice how the outfits might didn't change much at all. Could he be tricking himself? Also, I agree that his totem is untrustworthy. It was Mal's and it has been handled by others, which was very stressed as being important for the totem to do it's job. I find Michael Caine's character and Ellen Paige's character to be very intriguing! What's their role, really? And I am still trying to make sense of the pinwheel and it's symmetry with the spinning top. Great movie!!! Going for a second viewing this weekend, and am probably more excited this time.
Comment #214 (Posted by Ex)
I really enjoyed reading your theory. I think it's the best one I've read yet. Thanks for making my incepted mind a tad more at ease :)
Comment #215 (Posted by HonEbaby)
Although I do agree that there are a lot of different interpretations that can be made with this film, I can't help but take the information that has been given in the movie to create a synopsis based on fact as opposed to delusion (or... a dream).
There is a massive amount of imagination in the idea of "creating" or "extracting" from the dream world of another. I can't justify how Cobb came up with this in one dream - let alone his wife suiciding for some other reason and he simply blaming himself in his mind by creating another scenario as to why in his dream. It's too far-fetched if you're going to grasp at those straws.
As I watched the movie, Nolan puts tons of emphasis on the idea of the "totem" - something that one uses to decipher reality from non-reality. In the beginning of the movie, the first person to spin Cobb's totem is someone else (and it falls as any top would). Knowing what Cobb states about totems in the movie, one should never allow another to touch it or to be used by another. So we already have the set up that the movie will be driven by this early antagonist.
Second, throughout the movie Cobb continues to spin this totem to grasp his way through his own reality. In a dream-like state, there are many levels (although maybe not necessarily as Nolan emphasizes IMO). But in these states, people hide things. The idea that another could extract or incept onto someone else's mind is a dangerous and powerful tool. If one mingles in other people's minds long enough, the subconscious states of another will mingle with ones' own. I think that's the point Cobb's whole character was displaying all throughout the movie. He was losing his own thoughts by being caught up in other's - and it's portrayed in the beginning middle and end (with different characters).
Third, the end is indecisive, but I think Nolan gives us just enough information to find an answer to what exactly happens. I don't think we need to see the top drop or continue to spin, because that top is what is judging where Cobb wants to be... what he can WILL to be his reality - even if in a dream. And to keep constant dibs on who's mind we're in does play a role in the ending. Where the driver of the van continues in the lower level dream, there's another in the second level guiding that dream, and so on. The very last tier is Cobb's dream. He brings back Fisher just as was discussed, but then he never returns - and if I remember correctly, in the rest of the "dream levels," he doesn't wake up. And the one guy who was important enough to help him out does not wake up either.
But he DOES wake up on the plane to find that everything he set out to accomplish worked just fine. To me, he's finally in his own limbo at this point - but he's satisfied with living in this dream-like state. It's not limbo to him... his dream became his reality finally, and there is so much evidence to point to the idea that he wants to be in that dream like state (i.e. constantly sedating himself to be back with his wife again).
I took away from the movie the idea that failure is not okay... no matter how pleasant it is, it's not right. I did not like Cobb at the end of the movie. He was so wrapped up in other people's worlds that he couldn't let go of his past and instead held onto it.
This is just another interpretation though, but I do want to see the movie again to decide if this is how I feel about it overall. :)
Comment #216 (Posted by Neej)
Spot on. Especially your point about Cobb=Nolan and bringing something of himself into his dream sequences. Nolan is a huge Bond fan and he has cited "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" as one of his top films. No doubt the snowmobile action at the end was more than just an homage, but relevant to the grand theme.
Comment #217 (Posted by Jacki)
Great article. You've perfectly put together so many ideas that were rolling around in my head.
Comment #218 (Posted by Jedinate)
#158 - "Nobody has time or interest in watching people arrive at the cafe"
Please watch the long take in Goodfellas and tell me you still think that.
Comment #219 (Posted by Kathy)
Great take. But I think an important element is the Penrose staircase. This movie is a puzzle that has no solution. An endless loop. And that's why the content will be debated for years to come.
Comment #220 (Posted by jmill)
I'm still working on a lot of the details of my own theory, but here's what I've got so far: watch the opening scene again. Cobb opens his eyes, SEES HIS KIDS, then closes his eyes...The way I see it, from this point on, everything is a dream. Later in the movie when they show Cobb washed up on shore again, his eyes remain closed and his head moves as if he is deep in thought - *he is still dreaming* Note that water is a constant throughout the movie, which would be caused by the physical feeling of water while he's washed up on shore. Also note the sky throughout the movie: except for night scenes, it's always bright without much detail, just like the sky in the opening scene. Seeing his kids ends up being his inception - his one idea that his own mind expands on and evolves from in his dream. Once you go by this logic, you can assume that all the characters are his own projections and he is therefore, always talking to himself. Pay attention to the conversations he has with everyone: many revolve around the idea that he needs to get back to his kids. (it's the entire motive behind taking the job for Saito) He always tells Mal that he needs to get back to his kids and the "real world." I particularly noticed the conversation with Eames earlier on. They discuss how to perform inception on Fischer and that the idea has to be so simple, and that it should deal with the "relationship with the father" (Cobb and his kids). *Also just saying, Fischer could perhaps be symbolic of a "fisherman", trying to pull Cobb out of the ocean(limbo)? - just another crazy thought* But anyway that's why he keeps seeing his kids throughout. It's his mind's constant reminder of who he needs to get back to. The one image of his kids on the beach reminds him of a world he once knew and turns into his own catharsis that he doesn't need to grow old alone filled with regret. Regret about what, I'm still undecided. So what does this all mean? You could go a ton of directions from here, but I think he is stuck in limbo, and someone planted the image of his kids to help him escape. I still haven't decided if I think he makes it out of limbo when he wakes up on the plane, or if he's still stuck there and waking up on the plane is still part of his dream.
Comment #221 (Posted by jesse)
Thank you for your article. I loved the move and now am obsessed with the genius of it. This might be a stretch, but I thought of another aspect now as I'm re-dreaming the movie in my mind. It has to do with the actual length of the movie itself. My wife and I watched the movie at 10:40 at night and were worried about seeing a movie that late that was 2:40 minutes long. After we couldn't believe how fast the movie went. Could this in it self be another metaphorical connection between a dream and the actual movie. Time seemed to go much faster than reality during the movie. I know it's kind of a stretch but it makes me wonder if it was another aspect Nolan came up with.
Comment #222 (Posted by Tomas)
"The problem here is that the top wasn't always Cobb's totem - he got it from his wife, who killed herself because she believed that they were still living in a dream. There's more than a slim chance that she's right - note that when Cobb remembers her suicide she is, bizarrely, sitting on a ledge opposite the room they rented. You could do the logical gymnastics required to claim that Mal simply rented another room across the alleyway, but the more realistic notion here is that it's a dream, with the gap between the two lovers being a metaphorical one made literal. When Mal jumps she leaves behind the top, and if she was right about the world being a dream, the fact that it spins or doesn't spin is meaningless. It's a dream construct anyway. There's no way to use the top as a proof of reality. "
Only the totem functions for Cobb since he was "half of a whole" with Mal. I'm pretty sure we'll all heard the words stating that lovers are "two people who join to become one", which was reiterated in the basement scene with Mal and Ariadne as well. What was Mal's is Cobbs, thats why the totem still functions for Cobb in reality.
Comment #223 (Posted by uki)
thanks for the analysis. While many readers have pointed out that the conclusions made (as to whether it is a dream or not) are hard to refute, it is also equal parts hard to affirm. But this I think is besides the point in discussing the film, actually.
My opinion of the film has always been that Inception was quite blase, and that was because I was not impressed by the use of the dream/reality device. Meta-meanings aside (about filmmaking and cinema and whatnot), as a piece of dramatic cinema, it failed to engage, and was laboring to ensure the audience did not have time to rest and just go with scenarios.
Importantly, I did not for one second feel Cobb's devotion to Mal, which I think is the key fault of the film. She is his guilty conscience, the main antagonist, his ex-lover. Nolan did not do a good enough job in delivering Cobb's state of mind towards his wife, except for rather simplistic, "I can't forget about you, I'm pained"-type of sentiment.
Two options, it as 1) a dream or 2) not.
1) If it was all a dream in Cobb's head, then the film did not in any depth portray Cobb psychologically, which is what it would have to do to justify the audience sitting through a dream.
2)If it was not a dream, then the film, (not minding the narrative and logic gaps) was made of simplistic, functional characters, with dreamscape stuff thrown in for razzle-dazzle
Because of this, it had very little power on me, to say whatever little it had to say.
The Dark Knight was way, way, way better. I was quite disappointed.
Comment #224 (Posted by td)
Congratulations you wrote a some what of an interesting in-depth but inaccurate review on one of the shitiest films to ever be made, and calling it an actual film is an is giving it way to much credit, more like hollywood entertaining piece of trash.
Comment #225 (Posted by Bob)
HAHA! This was actually my reading of the film while watching it--that it was about movie making.
Comment #226 (Posted by Bert)
Actually my first thought too was that it was all a dream from the start. However, this opinion could still change ;)
Current proof for the "it's all a dream" theory I spotted while watching last night:
- Different characters repeat the same sentences, basically meaning that they are just projecting the opinion of the dreamer (Saito and Mal both say "take a leap of faith" for instance)
- In many scenes we do not know how "they" got there: they just start in "the middle". Actually, the whole movie "just starts"... why do Arthur and Cobb need to steal stuff from Saito's mind in the first place?
- In "reality" many weird, dream-like happenings occur, for example the buildings in Africa nearly crushing Cobb. Or the dreamtech for that matter, which is never really explained, not even half-witted: it's just "there"
- In Mumbassa, Cobb spins his little top, and it gets out of balance. If I recall correctly, this actually hapens after visiting the dreamcellar and being subjected to Yusuf's stuff... so maybe Cobb just starts dreaming from that moment on... however, the whole dreamcellar thing was quite weird and dreamlike in itself so maybe is could also be part of the dream.
Hmm I should definitely watch it again :)
Comment #227 (Posted by Hurting)
Read through the article and every comment up until this one. I have a couple of questions if anyone can answer them:
What is the significance of showing the beach/old Saito scene in the beginning of the movie? Cobb hasn't experienced that particular limbo until the near-end of the movie. Was it just foreshadowing without narrative, or does it support the whole-movie-dream argument?
Also, does anyone else recall hearing Cobb say that Mal got pregnant with his kids while they were in limbo? That doesn't make much sense to me. She gave birth to the dream-kids while in limbo as well?
Comment #228 (Posted by Joe Rollerfan)
Interesting analysis -- it would never have occurred to me that Inception might represent the creation of a movie. However, I agree that the whole movie is a dream, and I posit that the only inception is Cobb tricking *himself* into believing that the dream is real. This is the same question that Nolan explored in Memento: is it possible to trick yourself so completely that you don't realize it (or remember it)? It's a fascinating question, and it wasn't until the final credits that I realized Nolan had essentially remade Memento.
Now if Cobb represents Nolan, what does this say about the moviemaking process? Is Nolan asking whether it's possible for a director to trick himself into thinking his movie is real?
Comment #229 (Posted by MattS)
I read it similarly. I thought that all of the other people were involved in an elaborate plan to commit Inception on Cobb, in order to get him over his guilt at committing it on his wife in a way that ended badly. I read it as a group of people helping Cobb find peace by acting out a story in his dreams. I got this feeling especially as the team entered the airport after waking up.
Ellen Page's character seemed designed to tell Cobb things, while he was fooled into believing that she was a novice. This deception enabled her to make observations that Cobb's father could have easily made. Her character makes little sense except as a part of a Cobb-rehabilitation project.
Comment #230 (Posted by Brad N)
This is a good analysis. But what is missing is that the notion of "dream creation" in Inception is not at all utopian. Cillian Murphy may reach some emotional catharsis, but the reality of the situation is that he is being manipulated by larger corporate forces. So for me at least, the film is calling for a demystification of fantasy (in film, in reality) because its only when we decipher the cracks in our reality that we are truly empowered (as an audience, as people living in the material world).
Comment #231 (Posted by Agarwel)
I i almost agree with you that whole movie was the dream. Even the real world parts. Except the ending. In my opinion the Cobb was going back to his children in the 1st class on the plane. And whole movie is a dream he has during this flight. Filled with the protagonists that are the passangers form the same flight (he see them just before falling asleep, so they are projected into the crazy dream about dream sharing). In real world the Cobb, Saito, Fisher etc are traveling on the same plane, but they dont know each other and there is no crime.
So at the end, when the Cobb wakes up (without any logic from the previous dreams - he has no kick, nothing. He simply wakes) it is to the real world, he gets home and go meet his children. That part is real world.
The indication why I think its real is the change in the behaviour. The Cobb is at the end little confused. And all other just act like they dont know each other, they dont care what happned in his dream, if he is ok etc. They just nod their heads saying "bye" to random person that shared same flight.
So in my opinion last few minutes are real world. Rest is a dream of one person during standart flight.
Comment #232 (Posted by Laurie)
Comment #110 is correct. I noticed the left hand in my first viewing. Went a second time specifically to confirm it. And yes, it is accurate in every sequence. And the argument could be made that it is his totem. On your next viewing pay careful attention to his left hand. It confirms what is a dream and what is reality.
Comment #233 (Posted by Kevin)
Very interesting opinion on the meaning of the movie. The beauty of it is that the meaning can be personal. I think you are wrong for saying "I think that in a couple of years this will become the accepted reading of the film, and differing interpretations will have to be skillfully argued to be even remotely considered." Holes in your theory: I don't know if you have been to Africa or the middle east, but TONS of alleys/spaces between building end in tight angles. There was a ledge outside of the hotel window, and lots of city hotels have windows facing windows due to repeated right angles. Good theory, but don't get cocky. The meaning of the movie is what you want it to be, so don't try to force yours on us, but thanks for SHARING it.
Comment #234 (Posted by Wilson)
Sorry it's a crappy piece of article that defies logic specially when the writer claimed that the whole movie is just a dream.
If the whole movie is just a dream, then who is the dreamer? Dont tell me its DiCaprio. For all we know, it can be Saitos dream in his perspective or any other charactters in the movie.
Considering that there is no dreamer, then how can we conclude that the movie is a dream. If the movie is not a dream, then we are watching void crap that Nolan has thrown to us.
Thats why I dont agree that the entire movie is a dream.
Comment #235 (Posted by Lorcan)
I don't buy that it's all a dream but you can think that if you want. For me that's jumping to conclusions with only fragments of evidence to back it up. I believe the main theme of the film is the uncertainty of reality. While there are some strange things to note about the "reality" that is presented to us (such as the faceless corporations chasing cobb, the narrow alley, his childrens clothes etc.) it is a stretch to assume that these are proof that it is all a dream. For me it seems like Nolan put them there to make the audience doubt this apparent reality. Just because these things are unlikely doesn't mean they aren't possible.
However, saying that, the evidence that the "reality" presented to us is genuine can also be said to be not as difinitive as we would require to form any conclusions from it. The scene where cobb puts the gun to his head, spins the top and then puts the gun down when it comes to a stop comes to mind. In dreams you can literally bend cities so why couldn't Cobb be so convinced that he is truly in reality that his subconscious causes the top to fall. As he says himself, "It's my subconscious, I can't control it". And as you say, the spinning top was never his totem to begin with so why should it work for him.
So it could be a dream and it could be real but we're not supposed to know. That's the point. This is summed up perfectly in the end scene with the spinning top. Does it topple or not? We never see. This reflects our own uncertainty with our own reality. It is a commentary on the nature of existance. However, I do really like the themes of creativity that you mention. When you think about it, inception itself is the truest form of creativity; an idea from nothing.
Comment #236 (Posted by igor)
omg. i was just re watching inception and figured it out.
I support this theory 100%.
which vaguely stated that inception was all a dream. And while re-watching I found indisputable proof. Ok here is it:
I noticed this after the dream in a dream and after the train scene. Its when Cobb is in a hotel room by himself in what seems to us to be the real world for the rest of the movie but in fact is a dream because in the scene where Cobb is alone in a hotel room and then takes out this totem for the first time and begins to spin it. What happens to the totem is proof that the real world we believe in the movie is a dream. ok here is it:
Cobb spins the totem and it spins counter clockwise then as it slows down naturally and begins to spin on its side it suddenly changes rotation and spins the other way and then the scene cuts. It hardly noticeably the first I watched it.
-Igor
P.S someone needs to make a youtube video of this scene.
Comment #237 (Posted by Jamie)
If Mal is correct and she kills herself to get back to reality (or the next, shallower level), why doesn't she just kill Cobb as well to bring him with her (as Cobb did to Arthur in the first sequence)? Why does she have to try to convince him to do it himself?
Comment #238 (Posted by Rodney Evans)
That's Hot
Comment #239 (Posted by brooklish)
amazing.
Comment #240 (Posted by Hala Zabaneh)
Thank you so much for such a fantastic analysis. I haven't been boiling this egg till it burned. I sensed and all the bits you mentioned, and my mind has been battling to piece the whole movie together, but i couldn't do it by myself. Then you came along and explain it in such a way. Wow. Standing ovation for you sir. I have posted your analysis on facebook for my movie friends to see. Thank you again!!
Comment #241 (Posted by Jonah)
Upon first seeing the movie, I was convinced that the top layer was indeed reality, and that after his long struggle, Cobb returned to his children. However, upon reading this article and others on the net, my doubts are growing larger.
The one thing that seems to push the idea that it's all a dream is Cobb's relationship with his father-in-law. Unless Cobb made an extremely convincing argument to him, I just can't see the father of the woman that your son-in-law allegedly killed being so supportive and helpful. There does seem to be evidence that the father-in-law (call him Michael to make things easy) knew about entering dreams, etc., because he could compare Cobb's skills to Ariadne. So possibly, Michael could understand how his daughter became extremely confused after spending a lifetime within a dream.
Nonetheless, a true honest reaction is to have a seed of doubt, to think that Cobb could have played a part, no matter how small, in the death of his daughter, and thus, not be as supportive and helpful (to the point of giving him an architect to enable Cobb to return home, and even by meeting him at the airport). So, in dream logic, maybe I could see the turn of events that would lead a father-figure like Michael to assist Cobb.
The thing is, if Michael really does believe in Cobb and helps him, Michael could easily arrange for a trip with his grandchildren to meet Cobb in Europe. The grandchildren are not prisoners in the US, and even with arrest warrants out for Cobb, the children would be allowed to travel. Well, the argument could be said that Mel's mother does blame Cobb for her death (we can detect that the woman on the phone, probably Mel's mother, is somewhat cold/hostile towards Cobb), and as such, would like condone that. However, I still believe that if Michael was totally on Cobb's side, some kind of deal could be made where even the mother-in-law would accompany the children to ensure that they return to the US. This would be much easier and practical than risking a crazy 3 layer deep dream that few have attempted.
Comment #242 (Posted by Jason)
Agreed that the film is a dream. But while considering the reason why Cobb is having this dream, a few possibilities occurred to me -
1) that Cobb is not an extractor (as mentioned in the review), that he's come up with this with his own imagination to help him achieve catharsis. In other words - our brains create the details of the dream that are needed to convince us we're actually experiencing something, and therefore achieve an emotional reaction.
2) that someone else is using the inception process on Cobb - someone else has created the "maze" that he's in - to help him achieve catharsis. He's had someone create an adventure that he has to complete, just as he did to Fischer. Someone else has "incepted" him.
But whatever the reasoning or explanation might be, it ultimately doesn't matter because it's clear that part of the film's point is to make the audience question their own reality, which undoubtedly happens to every viewer, at least for a moment.
Comment #243 (Posted by an unknown user)
This is an excellent analysis of the film. Well done!
Comment #244 (Posted by Martin)
I think Nolan would get a chuckle out of your long winded, conspiracy theory like view of his movie.
Comment #245 (Posted by strand)
you can't tell people what to believe. that's the beauty of a movie well done. anything can be right. it's what the audience takes out of it that matters.
Comment #246 (Posted by tony)
Parts of the movie that are supposed to be real Cobb is not wearing his wedding ring, parts in the dream world he is wearing it...when he spins the totem at the end he does not have his wedding ring...so the end is real and it is not a dream - easy as that people!!!
Comment #247 (Posted by notmine)
I believe the overwhelming majority of the movie is a dream. It's just a matter of when it started. Arthur told Ariadne she couldn't touch his totem because only he knew the balance and weight of it. Saito touched the thimble at the beginning of the movie and much like the switcheroo that Cobb played with Saito's documents, the thimble was no longer his. The thimble fell over because it was no longer calibrated correctly. If the totem couldn't be touched because it was the only thing of theirs that allowed them to know they were not in someones dream and Saito touched it, what were the ramification of that? He was no longer able to tell whether or not he was in someones dream. Cobb tells Ariadne when you are in a dream you just come into the middle of it. Watch every scene of the movie after Saito spins the thimble. Everything Cobb did to Fischer was done to him. Cobb used Fischer's uncle to start opening Fischer's safe. Cobb's father (likely a projection) was used to introduce him to Ariadne, who was able to get into Cobb's safe of memories. (She knew too much too fast about creating those worlds). On the second level Cobb had to destroy the uncle's relationship with Fischer, much the way Ariadne had to begin to destroy the relationship between Cobb and Mal. Eames tells Cobb at the casino "you have to start with the basics, the relationship with the father". Cobb's was the relationship with Mal. There are way to many references that double back on one another to mention in 350 words, but I will leave you with this last one. Just before they go to level 2 When Cobb suggests using Mr Charles, Arthur says it won't work because the subject realized he was dreaming and his subconscious tore us to pieces. Cobb says "then we have to create a distraction". At the end when Cobb spins the thimble his father distracts him by telling the kids their father is back. Obviously he now has the real thimble.
Comment #248 (Posted by kurtmd1)
this theory can't be true because if it was all cobb's dream, he would have to be in the entire movie. the scenes without him are proof that some of it is reality. dreams do not exclude the dreamer.
Comment #249 (Posted by brundlefly)
Yeah, I'm with kurtmd1. If Nolan intended the entire movie to be a dream, he was pretty sloppy with the POV. TOO sloppy for a director like Nolan. I think he was definitely dreaming at the end, but I'm not sold on anything beyond that. This kind of speculation is probably unavoidable with this type of film, and Nolan certainly drops a few hints to lead you in that direction, but I don't think it comes together. As an aside, I think the bizarre geography of Mal's suicide has more to do the inconsistency and maleability of memory than with dream.
Comment #250 (Posted by johnsmith)
Really interesting analysis, Devin. I'm just wondering if the whole story is not, rather than a dream, just a meta-fiction, playing on the analogy between movies and dreams. Having that in mind, i went to see the movie a second time and noticed 3 more things (don't know if any other comment talks about these things, i didn't read them all) : 1) in Mombasa, the conversation Cobb and Eames have about inception ("it's not impossible, just bloody difficult"), then about Arthur and Yusuf, just looks like an enormous wink telling the audience "we're talking about film-making, do you get it ?". 2) in Mombasa again, during the chase, someone asks Cobb if he's dreaming. 3) still in Mombasa, in Yusuf's basement / dreaming room, the old man tells three things that made me think "okay, that HAS to mean something". he says something like "They come here to be woken up. Dreams have become their reality. Who are you to say otherwise?". Well, he's telling Cobb something important. But i can't choose if it means "You're dreaming, Cobb" or just "You're in a movie, Cobb". One other thing confused me, it's the gravity problem Skip talks about in comment #86. I can't find a satisfying answer about that, but i'm not really sure it is really important for the understanding of what is meant in the movie.
Comment #251 (Posted by Tim H.)
Excellent analysis of film. May be the best one too... I do agree that the right answer may be there is no answer. Your own interpretation is the answer. Having said that I will make these argument's questioning point's made that the film is a dream. #1 Caine getting to LA before Leo. Last time Caine spoke to Leo in London it was indicated to be at least many day's before. Caine's wife was with kid's in LA. So Caine went to LA day's before with Leo later telling him about the plan on plane. That's why Caine was there to pick Leo up. #2 As for the kid's at the end in same clothe's etc... I realize it may be a stretch. BUT Caine knew how bad Leo missed the kid's and Leo may have told him how he last remembered them. So Caine had Grandma Caine dress the kid's as Leo Last remmebered them and where he last saw them. Outside playing in back yard. As I said it's a stretch but my point is I just explained that it's possible...
Comment #252 (Posted by dtank)
You are all retarded if you dont get that the whole movie was a dream, the only interpretation you can make is whether or not Leonardo is a real person or is this just someones random dream like Christopher. The totem isnt even his so it doesnt matter whether it sppined forever or fell. His kids were in the same position he always dreamt, Throughout the whole movie he only showed up in places even in the supposed real world. He just showed up at his dads school he just showed up in a bar to talk to the guy he just showed up in the plain to Kidnap the guy he just showed up in the airport never getting off the plane he just showed up home never going in a taxi. Also when running in his supposed real world he almost got trapped in a shrinking wall space (dream). Bottom line is the tale of him telling his wife to wake up as well as the asian guy who is his own identity hes trying to tell himself to wake up but he doesnt want to cus hes selfish and wants to live that life. This is my interpretation starting now its possible he is old and his kids are grown up or dead doesnt matter and he jsut wants to relive those good moments over and over again but his wife like a real mother cant stand to relive a fake reality without her REAL childeren. Bottom line whole movie was a dream only interpretation you can make is whether or not Leonardo character is real or if it is actually a random person dreaming. BUT BOTTOM LINE THE WHOLE MOVIE WAS A DREAM.
Comment #253 (Posted by e)
Has anyone brought up the physical likeness of Di Caprio and Nolan? I mean, it's pretty obvious. Goes further to support the writing...
Comment #254 (Posted by AnitialD)
About the credits having 2 sets of children 2 yrs apart.....I think that the younger set was just 4 the beach scene when they were playin in the sand and Cobb got off the elevator with Ariadne still in it. But when they were in the grass during the whole movie they were the same age(2 yrs older). Questions: I wanna know why every1 believed Cobb that he didnt kill Mal, especially the Father-in-law(Mal's real father) as well as Arthur. Also when he told Ariadne y he cudnt go back to the US, he said "thanks 4 not askin if I did it or not", was that sarastic or serious? At the beginning his kids called him in the hotel room which I found odd, then Arthur knocks and says "our rides on the roof". Y was Saito the ride? While in limbo, why didnt they have kids and she was so happy without them for 50yrs, but then in "reality" she was like these aren't our kids I can tell their projections like she cared about them? Cobb told Ariadne when they get down to the lower levels the pain would be less intense for Saito so I apply that to the gravity as well for the different levels
Comment #255 (Posted by SHIT MOVIE!)
That totally was the worst movie i seen in a while...
bunch of crap ideas strung together and such predictable actions....
Dont watch it if u havnt seen it yet.
waste of cash, every cent of it
Comment #256 (Posted by Epic film)
I agree with your analysis of the points but not with your conclusion that it had to have been a dream. Firstly there is no proof either way, unlike with the definate dreams where things were definately wrong, in the 'realityu' scenes things are merely unlikely at worst.
But my main reason is that the film is far more powerful if it is ambiguous. People don't like to be told they are wrong, this is a fundamental fact. If you tell the audiencethat reality is false they wont listen because they instinctivly know that reakity is real. But if you instead ask 'How can you prove reality is NOT false?'...Well nobody can answer that. Your interpretation tells the audience they are wrong, mine asks the audience if they are right, sowing the doubt and challenging their perception of reality in a more powerful way.
There are two sides, either reality is real or reality is false. Similarly Cobb is sure reality is real, while his wife is sure reality is false. And as much as it may look like thigns are strange so it must be a dream, or things are logical so it must be real, the fact is you cannot tell them apart. The ONLY way to knwo for certain is the spinning top, but we don't get to see the answer, so we simply do know and cannot prove it one way or another. That sort of doubt fits in with the premise of nto being able to tell what is real, far better than being told it isn't real.
Also with regards to the ledge, I instantly and with no mental gymnastics assumed it was logical for her to be on the opposite ledge because then he would not be able to stop her from jumping. It also symbolises the gap as you said, but it could just be symbolism.
Similarly the whole movie-making thing is to me simply another layer of meaning, rather than evidence one way or another.
Comment #257 (Posted by Rich)
Could Fischer be a MacGuffin? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin
He is the 'plot'
Comment #258 (Posted by JErry)
I thought he was keeping his wife imprisoned. Her attempted murder of Cobbs Colleagues was an attempt to liberate them.
Comment #259 (Posted by Dara)
You hit it on the nail, Devin. I feel sad for those who watched the movie and have no understanding of metaphor in film and how powerful it can be. I highly suggest "Cinema & Psyche: A Journal of Archetype and Culture" for those interested in learning more about this.
Comment #260 (Posted by Bradley Elmswood)
Hope other people have told you how much of an idiot you are, and how arrogant you are to assume this is not only the one true interpretation, but that people would revert to a more meaningless analysis from one with presumably more substance (with actual intrinsic evidence to support it - as opposed to this interpretation which has you claiming the evidence is in the film) years from now, when this summer blockbuster is all but forgotten.
This piece reads like a high school English essay what with all the 'seeing what you want to see' going on. No. Oh god, no!
Comment #261 (Posted by Jon)
In the very first scene, Ken Watanabe's character (when he is old) gives the line about a half remembered dream. When that scene is replayed at the end of the film, Cobb delivers that line. Why would that instance be a half remembered dream to him? Why would that event have happened twice in the movie? The inconsistency of the initial scene with the replica final flashback scene between Cobb and Watanabe's character is throwing me for a loop. good analysis!
Comment #262 (Posted by Westernatfivefifteen)
I'm not sure if this needs to be said again, but thanks for an amazing article on a film that I suspect will haunt me for a long time. I have to say that after seeing the film I was eager to buy into the 'ending was real - the heist really occurred' theory because after all - who doesn't love a happy ending where the widowed, tortured husband gets reunited with his children at his beautiful home? But then I thought if a movie is going to delve into the concepts of reality and fantasy/dreams, and if that movie wants to suggest any bit of 'reality' is in fact real, then there can't be any ambiguities during the so-called 'reality' points... and there are plenty of ambiguities as you've pointed out here and as audience members can catch on to. What is this corporate assignment Cobb gets against Saito? If it is really a type of fake scenario 'job interview' of Saito's to determine whether Cobb and his team could handle his inception mission, then why is Cobb still being chased by the 'corporate goons' in Mombasa after Saito has hired him? How was it that Saito was magically to the rescue to pick up Cobb after he slipped between the walls? (Which did seem like they were closing). What is this dream technology, when was it invented (is this film supposed to take place in the future? All cars, weapons and buildings seemed very present-time) how do they determine whose dream they're going to be in, and if the world is actually in the midst of dream-inducing technology, why are the only instances we see it in (for the heist and the underground dream-chamber in Mombasa) always portraying it in an illegal or underground light? Also, lets not forget, how on earth would Saito have the power to single-handedly waive any American law enforcement from pursuing Cobb for his wife's death with a phone call? If Cobb's arrival in the USA on such a risky mission was so uncertain and likely subject to being taken into police custody if Saito didn't pull through, how was his father ready and waiting at LAX for him? And his children happen to be playing in the same spot of his backyard as they were when he had to flee the country after Mal's death? How are they even at his house with Mal being 'dead' and Cobb being out of town? Shouldn't the children be at his parents' home or in child services? I know this isn't an exhaustive list, and I may be reading too much into some of this, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable here by saying that as the movie audience we have to make a lot of leaps of logic and accept many facts here as mere coincidences and dismiss any suspicions in favor of reaching our hoped-for conclusion that Cobb's happy ending is a 'reality.' I think Nolan presents us with the framework of the dream in the form of this film, and we as guests in the dream project our own perceptions on the otherwise incomplete framework. I'm still trying to swallow 'Inception' as a film -making allegory - which is fascinating - but I think you hit the nail on the head with the entire movie being a dream, Cobb's or not. You don't spend several years on a script and tackle themes like reality v. dream fantasy and stretch reason and logic for two and a half hours to end on a 'these events were 'real'" note. I encourage anyone here with a 'come on, Cobb was back in the real world and reunited with his his family' view to ask whether that's what they saw or what they wanted to see.
Comment #263 (Posted by Michael Johnson)
Oh my goodness, this movie was so obvious near the end. The top spinning at the end on the table is proof the entire movie was a dream. The scene near the end where he tells his wife they grew old together shows the only shot of reality. He is likely the man dying, Fisher is his son and Ariadne is his daughter. The movie is an old dying man's dream with memories of his deceased wife and his children when they were young.
Comment #264 (Posted by reimar)
As I was reading through various analyses viewers, critics and experts have made on Nolan's work of art, I am swerved multiple directions. I am almost certain anyone who does the same experiences the exact thing - how firm one is or could be is out of the question.
With this, I submit that the movie was designed not to have a definitive interpretation of what is reality and what is a dream. Nolan left it to the viewers to make that decision. Hence, it would be pointless to prove whether the last scene (or the entire movie) was a dream or reality. We would all have our individualistic take on the movie (or its scenes).
What is ultimately established as we continue to talk about the movie in whatever venue (or avenue) is that Nolan has successfully "incepted" the very simple idea that the movie is great in us. While his movie talks about inception being an extremely complex process, he did not disclose that there are other ways of doing it besides entering one's subconscious. He toyed with something that is dream like which he is an expert on - movies.
When we made the decision to watch his movie, we succumbed to his call to "open our minds" and "share the dream" with him.
We have entered Nolan's masterpiece and we would be "stared at" and "attacked" by everyone who has watched the film (and is still trying to figure out the logic in it) if we start to "deconstruct" the world that he created - a world wherein the movie is the greatest ever made.
I would not contest that idea. At this point, Nolan's sedative might not have worn off on me. Yet.
Comment #265 (Posted by CLos)
I believe that the movie was the Father In Law's Dream. He is the one that planted the ideas of dreaming and controlling dreams. Moreover, the Females in the dreams are the variables. Each female played a definitive role in changing the course of the "Dream".
Comment #266 (Posted by Fredrik)
I totally agree with comment #263. Exactly what I thought after have been seeing the film.
Comment #267 (Posted by Laurie )
It will be interesting to hear the various theories once people figure out the significance of Dom's wedding ring. In scenes that we are lead to believe are reality (including the ending with the children) he is NOT wearing a wedding ring. In scenes that we are lead to believe are dreams or memories, he IS wearing a wedding ring. This is consistent throughout the film. This had to be intentional by Nolan. Please, if you have thoughts on how this impacts your thinking, I would very much like to hear them.
Comment #268 (Posted by bitwise)
Great analysis, I'd like to add that I also believe the whole movie is Cobbs dream. It seems that the team assembled by Cobb is actually a team already there in his dream attempting to free Cobb from the idea that his dream is real. I.e. they are going into Cobb's dream world in order to make Cobb himself wake up. Ariadne plays a key role infiltrating his dream. Notice how it's she who sneaks into the lift and presses the basement level to get to more of Cobbs carefully guarded thoughts. Its also Ariadne who goes with Cobb all the way to the last level and pulls the trigger on the gun to kill Mal (that Cobb himself cannot do). The agents chasing them through multiple levels are actually Cobbs subconscious defenses trying to stop them getting to Mal and killing the idea that his dream is his reality. Finally note at the end how they all watch Cobb because *he* has been their mark all along.
Comment #269 (Posted by John Sarradet)
Concur that Devin wrote a great piece on the film. I want to throw in that the ambiguous ending reminds me of Total Recall. There the characters question Arnold if he really believes there was a massive plot to convince a laborer that he was a hero of some twisted insurgency?
The music that poured thru their headphones (and into "dream sequences") was also telling. It was Edith Piaf "No, I have no regrets". Well chosen.
Fantastic movie. I left the movie much like the characters in the plane when they landed. Lights came on, climbing out of a comfortable chair and heading for the exit. All shared a dream in the plane, and my fellow audience members shared INCEPTION and internalized it, projecting our own feelings into the experience. Now I gotta see it again.
Still thinking about the numbers - specifically 528.
Comment #270 (Posted by Ru_Haya)
After seeing Inception once and reading many of the comments here I find myself with many questions and theories to consider. The film as a whole is dense, subtle and well layered; I, like many others believe that I as a member of the audience have been the target of inception. The line between the real and unreal has at least for the moment become slightly hazy. I tend to lean (for now) towards taking the movie at face value: the first scene (at 1 or more levels deep) foreshadows Cobb's need to rescue Saito from remaining in limbo, the constant visions of Cobbs children are subconscious manifestations of his mcguffin (the desire to return to reality and his children) ,his wife killed herself in reality and in the end his totem falls. It's somewhat difficult to truly stand by the "face value" scenario though because my mind doesn't remember certain details (I must see it two more times). As far as questions I have many. If in the real world an accomplice has never handled your totem wouldn't it display different properties if they handled it within a dream....or would it display YOUR specific knowledge of it's properties? Why were there no projections Cobb's and Mal's shared dreamworld/limbo? As far as Eames, it seems he is not a projection, otherwise what would motivate the misc pursuers (cobol, militarized projections) to kill them in Mombasa; why would a projection want harm another projection ie: Saito and Eames? I think turning the whole film into a layers of dreams with no reality would null many of their rules. If the heist crew were projections why not have an army of them...or wouldn't projected team-members also turn on you once they grew suspicious of any manipulation? If these were all in fact dream levels/layers and none of it was consciously constructed, could Cobb have been alone in the dream or limbo? If Mal is somehow alive, couldn't she just nudge Cobb to wake him or find a medical procedure to negate any sedative/sleep-state? Can anyone imagine 7 people in a permanent comatose state being found in an airplane? Like I said..so many theories to juggle (some are mine, many are not) and many questions. I somewhat suspect it's all one clever manipulation (near-flawlessly cohesive or not) to pull an inception on audiences all over the world. The virus is spreading!
Comment #271 (Posted by Paulette)
One question that's bothering me is if this is all a dream, including his life in limbo with Mal, he would've had to have been unconscious for a long, long time. If so, how would he be asleep for that long naturally without any dream sharing technology? Unless he's in a coma I guess
Comment #272 (Posted by Kelly)
Well stated. There is a question of whether life is this way...which is why people are relating the movie to the matrix. what is really real? if we are moved, sparked or enlightened by something..does it really have to have texture or spatial mass? if we found out it was a dream, but we were able to make a leap in our individual character development, or realize a hidden truth, then does that still make it worthless because it is not technically 'real' in our definition of real? The people that say yes, that it is worthless...I think are coming from the point of view that brilliance takes justification from another party...that genuine beauty is something that is shared. So if it's only in your mind, even if it's the most brilliant mozart composition that you created...at some point, it seems to mean nothing if it was only in your head, and not truly shared or experienced with someone else.
Comment #273 (Posted by Taylor)
I appreciate this review, but I think a lot of folks are giving Nolan WAAAAAY too much credit. In several interviews he's said this was his outlet to make a "James Bond" movie and that he's had this fun idea about dreams since he was a kid.
Over-analyzing isn't a bad thing, but lets keep it in perspective.
Comment #274 (Posted by Rich)
The inception is happening to Cob and the seed is him returning home to his children. These are the dreams inside his dream of persecution.
Comment #275 (Posted by namehere)
More than "its all a dream", the fact that "its just a movie" makes it impossible to nail down. The problem with analyzing this film properly is not knowing what constitutes the typical vicissitudes and 'suspension of disbelief' of Hollywood cinema (unlikely coincidences, last-minute saves, plot holes, scene jumps etc) and what is intentionally done to explicitly show dream state.
Comment #276 (Posted by RahKa)
I appreciate and accept your interpretation on the film, I was thinking along these lines
before I even watched the theater and in fact a similar line of reasoning is what piqued my
interest in the film in the first place. This doesn't change the fact that I was incredibly
disappointed when I left the theater. In fact, I now feel that Inception is also an incredibly
pretentious, ego-stroking and premature in-joke as well as being an unimaginative and
uninspired film. It's apparent that Chris Nolan is thoroughly convinced of his own greatness.
The way I see it, all film makers that have tackled the dream realm (and many who have not)
have, consciously or unconsciously, given a nod to the parallels between dreams and film. The
existence of the medium itself is fractal resonance. The Matrix is another excellent example of
this, we can call The Architect the producers, The Agents...well, the agents, Neo the star, the
Hero. Morpheus the director. Trinity the cinematographer. The residents of Zion the audience
and the critics, the sleepers the extras, the ships the trailers, Apoc and Mouse the special
effects team, etc, so forth and so on. In fact, I believe that all films share this basic
structure, being that we live in a fractal universe.
I'm now even more convinced that Nolan is unimaginative. Don't get me wrong, Inception was a
good movie, a Hollywood blockbuster with a solid soundtrack and crew. It just fell flat on too
many levels for me.
I had no problem following the logic throughout the film, so I have no need to watch it twice.
I even left the theater to look for my sunglasses and have a smoke, and when I returned I had
no issue picking up the thread.
I understood it perfectly, but I still found it to be, conceptually, one of the most boring
interpretations of embedded dream realms since Vanilla Sky. I've had more convoluted day dreams
than anything this film offered. It was simple. There were four known levels of dreaming. The
film hinted at a fifth, and thus a potentially infinite amount of dream worlds, all of them
equally 'real' (and, apparently, all of them quite mundane). In other words, it explicitly
hinted that it was all a dream, 'real' life and dream-life. This is nothing new to physicists
or mystics, or those who study their work.
A major problem area: Nolan's idea of manipulating reality in dreams seems confined to making
things blow up, and playing with perspective and gravity. I think The Matrix did a much better
job at this; while it didn't manipulate perspective in the same manner as Inception's sole
geometrical paradox, and I say sole because the city folding in on itself and the infinite
staircase are far too similar to be considered as unrelated, it definitely made better use of
gravity-defying stunts and temporal perspective, including the phenomenon of deja-vu. While I
totally understand the arguably weak premise that too much manipulation will attract the
subconscious denizens malevolent attentions there is zero explanation as to why, once they are
already attacking with full force and the dreamer already knows he is dreaming, the dream realm
can't be manipulated further, and in far more drastic ways. What is the point in keeping the
pretense of reality when all involved parties know it is a dream? I understand that basic idea
for the primary levels of dreaming, but the secondary and tertiary levels? I also understand
this in the context that it is a metaphor for not taking the audience out of the movie. Yet he
does this in the beginning of the film by not even attempting an explanation at how the dream
technology works. In the Prestige, an excellent Nolan film not surprisingly based on a novel he
didn't write, the unbelievable was a central component. Why was there none of this imagination
evident in Inception?
And why was Leo and his wife's dream realm so BORING? There were plenty of skyscrapers where
they came from, why not build crystal palaces or alien environments? I certainly would. My
dream world would probably bear very little resemblance to the 'real' world. Video game
designers show more imagination. Avatar showed more imagination, even though that movie wasn't
very original.
Further, are that many people really so gullible as to accept the premise of a mappable dream-
time scale and the notion that any such scale, even if it could exist, would have any relevance
in a secondary or tertiary dream? I think Inceptions major contribution to cinema was providing
us with the longest and most drawn out falling vehicle scene in film history.
It was nothing more than a superficial commentary on the nature of the medium of film, and a
pompous and manipulative one at that.
When will we wake up and stop believing the hype?
Comment #277 (Posted by RahKa)
Further, I wanted to point out that his wife being on the opposite ledge is indeed due to the fact that she had planned for Cobb to be unable to stop her. She trashed her room and had her sanity declared in advance in an attempt to force him to jump with her, knowing he would face arrest and be separated from his children even if he did not.
Further, if you go to IMDB.com you'll find that there two sets of actors listed for the roles of Cobb's children. And there clothes were similar, but not the same.
Also, Ghost in the Shell, Paprika, and indeed a host of other animes and Japanese and Korean films have handled this subject, far more elegantly, in the past. And it's not confined to Asia, either. These are just the most readily available examples in my conscious mind.
I'm not Asian, but it is obvious to me that the west has been leeching ideas from Asian cinema for a good while now.
And Americans just swallow it hook, line and sinker. They're even going to remake Akira with *drumroll* Leonardo DiCaprio as...Kaneda? Wait, how does that work? Isn't Kaneda Japanese?
It's going to set in New Manhattan, completely obliterating the films validity because it was about post-nuclear Japan (who actually had the bomb dropped on them).
They might as well call it Alex, change Kaneda to Kenneth, and thoroughly destroy Akira.
At least Nolan isn't directing it, but the Hughes bros are. I can only hope they don't do what they did to 'From Hell'. Maybe if they shoot in the same vein as 'The Book of Eli'...what am I saying? I'm not paying to watch that crap anyway...
Oh well. Wake up people. You've been had. You've been bamboozled. You've been hoodwinked.
We didn't land on Inception! Inception landed in us!!!
Comment #278 (Posted by RahKa)
Further, I wanted to point out that his wife being on the opposite ledge is indeed due to the fact that she had planned for Cobb to be unable to stop her. She trashed her room and had her sanity declared in advance in an attempt to force him to jump with her, knowing he would face arrest and be separated from his children even if he did not.
Further, if you go to IMDB.com you'll find that there two sets of actors listed for the roles of Cobb's children. And there clothes were similar, but not the same.
Also, Ghost in the Shell, Paprika, and indeed a host of other animes and Japanese and Korean films have handled this subject, far more elegantly, in the past. And it's not confined to Asia, either. These are just the most readily available examples in my conscious mind.
I'm not Asian, but it is obvious to me that the west has been leeching ideas from Asian cinema for a good while now.
And Americans just swallow it hook, line and sinker. They're even going to remake Akira with *drumroll* Leonardo DiCaprio as...Kaneda? Wait, how does that work? Isn't Kaneda Japanese?
It's going to set in New Manhattan, completely obliterating the films validity because it was about post-nuclear Japan (who actually had the bomb dropped on them).
They might as well call it Alex, change Kaneda to Kenneth, and thoroughly destroy Akira.
At least Nolan isn't directing it, but the Hughes bros are. I can only hope they don't do what they did to 'From Hell'. Maybe if they shoot in the same vein as 'The Book of Eli'...what am I saying? I'm not paying to watch that crap anyway...
Oh well. Wake up people. You've been had. You've been bamboozled. You've been hoodwinked.
We didn't land on Inception! Inception landed in us!!!
Comment #279 (Posted by Kristin)
ahh the "it's all a dream" analysis. You saw the movie, it's unclear whether or not the top falls. You think, "It's a dream!" And you really thought this was an original idea. Inception is possible. I see this as a commentary on how movies and media perform inception on a daily basis. We are presented information in a way that makes us believe that others' ideas are our own. Thus the dream team as film-makers analagy. We are so convinced that the "it's all a dream" theory is OUR idea (as opposed to what Nolan WANTS us to believe) that we seek evidence to support it and ignore evidence to the contrary. Nolan, just like Cobb with Fischer, was successful in making us believe that we figured out a truth that may or may not be false. We all "figured it out" because he planted that idea when the camera cut away. Not because we really figured it out. It was fed to us by the final shot. It makes us ignore the other aspects of the film that discredit the theory- some of which have been mentioned in comments. The wedding ring. The children's clothes are similar, but different. Leo refuses to look at his kids' faces when dreaming. He had been adamant that his number one priority is to get home to them- even at the cost of placing his team members in real danger. That he would just give up and not care at the end is entirely implausible- he would find a way out to get home to them if he were still in a dream. The point of this is that the "it's a dream" theory was incepted in our minds without our even knowing it- can you tell the difference between your own original thoughts and what you have been manipulated to think are your own original thoughts? Apparently, most people cannot. Thus is the problem with our society today.
Comment #280 (Posted by jmill)
EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS!!!!! I FINALLY FIGURED THIS MOVIE OUT!!!! Expanding on my earlier comment (#220), here goes: Inception is about Dom Cobb stuck in purgatory. God (Michael Caine) with the assistance of Angels (Ariadne, Arthur, Eames, Saito, Yusuf) perform Inception on Cobb so that he may have emotional Catharsis and accept his faith once again. So basically, Cobb is in purgatory, has a dream, then wakes up on a plane to heaven with the angels. He is greeted at the gate by a guard (St. Peter) who says “Welcome Home.” God then escorts him to his children. There is so much evidence of all this throughout the movie, it’s almost hard to believe I missed it all at first. Caine’s character is simply seen as a father figure-it is never stated whether he is Mal’s Father, or Cobb’s. He is also a teacher, so: Teacher+Father to all=God. I mentioned in my earlier comment that Eames and Cobb were talking about how to perform inception. Cobb says its possible, and Eames agrees saying “It’s definitely possible, just bloody difficult.” He then says that they need to start with the “relationship with the Father” (Cobb’s faith and relationship with God). Go see the movie again and you’ll realize that there are piles and piles of evidence that support this theory, and every single question gets answered. That’s why Cobb isn’t with his kids, because children get a pass from Purgatory. The only thing I’m still not sure about is whether or not Mal is a real person, or if she is just a symbol of Cobb’s broken faith. I haven’t seen the film since making this connection, so I will look into it when I see the movie next. Bravo Christopher Nolan for creating such a difficult and fun mind puzzle, that when put together reveals a beautiful message that seems to be more and more lost.
Comment #281 (Posted by Nathan Angleton)
Mal asks us (the audience) to take a leap of faith. We (the audience) are in a dream, we refuse to believe it is all a dream...
Comment #282 (Posted by Croupier)
This article only veers from its argument when it claims that the film is powerful and effective. If your dream is just a big, dumb action movie, filled with characters that I've no investment in or pity for, then a movie based on your dream is still something I have no interest in seeing. Perhaps the end of the film should have Cobb awakening for a final time, only to surrender to Saito's corporate machine, because Nolan has failed to deliver anything other than more overly-expository action slop for the masses.
Comment #283 (Posted by Owen )
Great, great article. It may have been already said in the hundreds of comments, sorry for not reading them all, but the central premise of 'Cobb wants to get back to his children' is yet another example of 'Cobb as Nolan'. What is it that most film-makers hate about shooting any picture, "I miss my family".
Comment #284 (Posted by Reepicheepi)
So we were all made to think it was all a dream by Nolan - he planted the idea in our heads throughout the movie and finalised it with the last shot of the totem that did not completely fall... hmmm Nolan you are a genius...
Comment #285 (Posted by Robin)
Great piece and (I'm pleased to say!) this mirrored much of my reading of the film, too.
Two other observations I had, which I've not related back to my reading of the story yet, simply a couple of things I thought it might be interesting to question;
1) Mal lays down on the tracks and 'dies' with Dom - she shows she's prepared to leave that world they've created together, for him. When she asks him to do the same for her (on the ledges) he won't.
2) Fischer's 'daddy' story (the moral of which is 'be your own man')...how does that play against Cobb's relationship with his father? It seems that Cobb has followed his father's footsteps and it's only led him to a life of crime and trouble. Perhaps the Fischer and father characters are part of an inception to help Cobb form his own ideas as to how he should lead his life?
Comment #286 (Posted by Lisa G.)
Thank you for framing this so well for me Devin. You articulated many of the thoughts I had brewing in a more coherent form, and introduced some new ones that deepened my appreciation for the film. My buddhist teacher has, for years, used movies as a way to demonstrate how we construct our realities. We go to the theater and fully believe everything we are experiencing as real when we are absorbed in it. And at any moment we have the opportunity to stand up and walk out of the theater - a metaphor for "waking up". I loved this film for demonstrating this metaphor to me anew, at so many rich levels.
Comment #287 (Posted by Jon W)
The ending was a dream, but not the whole movie. Cobbs children never grew up and always wore the same clothes, but when he spoke on the phone, the daughter sounded like a teenager.
Comment #288 (Posted by Edward J. Cunningham)
I don't believe that the ENTIRE film is a dream, but I think Nolan deliberately filmed the ending in such a way that it could be interpreted that Cobb is still in limbo, or he finally made it home. If he's still in limbo, I think he did the opposite of what he did to his wife. Just as we see Fischer ultimately tell HIMSELF the truth he now wants to believe in the guise of the projection of his father, it could be that Cobb is doing the same thing in the Japanese fortress where old Saito is a projection. The idea he gave Mal was that the world she lived in was fake. The idea he gives himself is that the dream world is real. For this to work, he has to finally forgive himself and let go of the memory of his wife. That's what the final scene with the top means. It's not as important as whether or not the top falls as it is that Cobb LETS the top go.
However---I like to believe that Cobb actually DID arrive in L.A., and it may just be that he has spent so long in dream world that reality actually seams like a dream to him.
Comment #289 (Posted by Legacyrealmz)
I actually made a rant similar to this a few days ago. Except I didn't take the film as a metaphor for filming, but I do believe the 'heist' situation is a vehicle for Cobb to work through his grief over his wife's death.
Each of the members of the Heist team, I believed were pieces of Cobb's subconscious. I think that's why each of them have such distinct personalities, but yet they still fit perfectly as a team. It's also why each of them only have a credited with one name, not full name like Dominic Cobb is. They're different pieces of the same whole.
Comment #290 (Posted by luke electric)
the movie is based on the cat in a box thoery that it is the cat is dead and alive at the same time. he is dreaming and not dreaming from our perspective just as from our perspective the cat covered in the box is both dead and alive. figure it out if you like but he has woven so there is no conclusive answer.
Comment #291 (Posted by Richard Barrett)
I had made the connection between Cobb and Nolan because of the line about Cobb and Mal "working together". Who is Nolan's wife? Emma Thomas, his producer.
We see too much from the perspective of other characters for me to 100% buy the "it was ALL a dream" idea, however. Strictly speaking, yes, of course it was all a dream, in the sense that it's a movie and none of it is real. Any discussion about what is "reality" and what is "dream" is already presupposing a layer of distance from "real" reality.
Richard
Comment #292 (Posted by Joe)
Was the pinwheel in the safe fishers dad's totem?
Comment #293 (Posted by an unknown user)
The movie itself is Nolan's totem. Only he really knows.
Comment #294 (Posted by jmill)
...following up with my previous comment #280 (read it if you haven't yet!), I saw the movie again and I can now conclude that Mal is the devil. Cobb has real memories of Mal, so when he talks about her killing herself, that really happened (that's why she cannot go to Heaven and why she is not present there at the end of the film - suicide is considered an unforgivable sin). Satan took the form of Mal so that Cobb would think she was his own projection, and then uses temptation to try and convince Cobb to stay in limbo. Instead, because he was able to reach his emotional catharsis, he no longer blamed himself for her death, and instead of choosing to stay with Mal in limbo, he chose to take his leap of faith and find Saito. This was all part of Ariadne, Arthur, Eames, Saito, and Yusef's plan - allow Cobb to forgive himself, (thus cleansing him of his sin), and convince him to take his leap of faith that he had not been able to do. For anyone who is confused by, or doesn't agree with my analysis of Inception, feel free to ask any questions. If it doesn't already show, I'm dying to share my thoughts!
Comment #295 (Posted by johnsmith)
LIMBO ?!? Well, i went to see the movie for the third time last evening, and Ellen Page saying "LIMBO ?!?" is definitely the most ridiculous moment in the whole film. Just one thing to add to my previous post (#250 or so) : i don't really see the point in putting a comic entitled "The Cobol Job" on the movie website if this Cobol thing is just some creation of Cobb's mind. After 3 times seeing the movie, i begin to think there is no great unique hidden meaning to unsolve, and that Nolan just had fun leaving the movie ambiguous enough. Still a well-crafted spectacle anyway. Oh and one more thing, i actually live in Paris, just two minutes away from this "real bridge" Ariadne creates, so it was quite fun seeing it on the screen the first time. It's called Bir Hakeim bridge, if anyone's interested.
Comment #296 (Posted by Raamy)
I have read a lot of the comments on this site and i just wanted to point out something no one has yet.
The people (faceless corporate goons) chasing him were doing so because as leo stated at the begining of the film he failed his mission against the japanese guy and thus they had to hide so they dont get killed.
Comment #297 (Posted by mo)
I agree with alot of what you say and disagree with some. thats what ur gonna get w inception. its christopher nolans style not to leave a cliff hanger but to have the audiance conclude the story which will obviously end in debate.
ugh i just have one critism that i cant help ignore. in inglorious basterds q.t didnt do that movie to say how "film can change the world." he was suprisingly accurate. cinema played as huge role during the rein of hitler. lenni refenstol (spelled incorrectly) who did trimpth of the will had so much contreversy when portrayoing hitler the way she did. keni provada, the chem in film, and actions happened historically pretty much in the order portrayed. q.t gets alot of his inspiration from old newsreels, books, and old movies.
wow shoulda been talking about inception but that would tak hrs
Comment #298 (Posted by antoine)
I understand that novels are just ink on a page and that movies are just images on a screen, but this doesn't imply any parabasis or metaphysical explanation. As Alfred Hitchcock once said: "It's just a movie."
P.S. Someone's been watching too much David Lynch by way of Fellini.
Comment #299 (Posted by Terry)
To the people saying it can't be a dream because every seen doesn't have Cobb (or anyone else), my wife is never herself in dreams; after we saw it she asked why everyone was always themselves in their dreams in the movie, because she rarely appears as herself. Other people have said the same thing to me as well.
Comment #300 (Posted by Kate)
Wow. WOW. I feel so totally mindfucked right now. I got goosebumps from reading that, because there were so many things right in front of my face that should have given it away -- yet it never even crossed my mind, but apparently that's what was MEANT to happen. Like, when watching films was described as being in a "dreamlike state" (or something along those lines) where you lose touch with reality and you're completely immersed in the movie until SOMETHING gives it away (such as the given examples; a bad line, etc.) that snaps you back to reality. In Inception, Edith Piaf's "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien" was used to sort of bring awareness back to a higher level of consciousness (thus closer to reality) because I think it was Arthur that had some sort of close familiarity with the song. Well, I felt like it sort of operated in the same way for the people in the audience who had seen La Vie en Rose (which makes sense, considering the film is about films themselves), who upon hearing the song thought of Marion Cotillard, Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose, are suddenly snapped back to reality and thrown out of their dreamlike state by realizing that Mal is actually a real life actress. That was an absolutely brilliant tool to me; the song not only served its purpose in the film, but it worked on ME and other people who recognized Marion Cotillard from La Vie en Rose. Amazing. So inventive and profound!
Also, going back to what Cobb said about seeing strange, impossible things in dreams that we don't even realize was strange until we've woken up... All of those things that SHOULD have been completely obvious signs in the film (narrowing alleyway, etc.) during the "reality" scenes didn't even flutter across my mind, because I was in that "dreamlike state" and I just accepted it as reality. I think the only thing that I found even slightly odd was Mal being on the opposite ledge, and that thought only flashed in my mind for not even a second and never entered my mind after that, because I just accepted it. I can't believe my mind was manipulated like that... by a MOVIE. But then that just validates every point of this analysis.
All these things considered, when I first left the movie I wasn't able to fully appreciate it because I didn't understand. But after reading this article, I think I now respect Inception more than any other movie I've ever seen. Not for entertainment value, but because no other movie has ever had such an effect on me. This is fucking crazy. I need to see it again!
Comment #301 (Posted by V)
I think I'm confused on one (major) detail of the movie:
Is it a dream if the top falls over, or is it reality?
Comment #302 (Posted by Mark Gregory)
I do appreciate Devin's article as I had not interpreted the movie as "deconstruction of filmmaking" and I enjoy watching someone make those connections even if it wasn't my viewing reality. The fun of a move like this or The Fountain or Dellamorte Dellamore (Cemetery Man) is that the action of this film is open to interpretation to allow for a more personal experience of the themes of the film. When a filmmaker can do this successfully the film itself becomes a dream (or possible nightmare in D. D.'s case) for the viewer rather than a strictly narrative piece going from A to B to C. A very rare occurrence requiring immense talent to pull off. Congrats to Nolan on a wonderful film.
And on learning how to film a fight sequence that didn't give me seizures from the poor staging/editing.
Comment #303 (Posted by Zoe)
I believe that the purpose of starting the film with the scene of Cobb and old Saito is to envelope the first part of the film; everything that occurs before Cobb wakes up on the plane. Thus we have the film split into two very unequal pieces, which gives rise to four possibilities:
1) Both the beginning (except the obvious dream scenes) and the ending were real, so he really went home to his kids after having this adventure (The face-value interpretation)
2) The beginning was real, but the ending is a dream, so he's still stuck in limbo and only thinks that he's woken up.
3) The beginning was all a dream, and the ending is real. So he dreamed the whole thing on the plane, had a rather adventurous dream (in which he obviously is the hero) which teaches him the importance of his children to him. This could be a guilt dream about leaving his kids to go away on a business trip.
4) It was all a dream. Not the most popular interpretation, but a logically valid possibility, if you can accept that (1) to (3) are all possible.
Personally I think that all four interpretations are perfectly possible within the logic of the story. One of the main themes in this film is not knowing what is real and what is fiction (or a dream). So the film is postmodern in that the film itself illustrates that we can't reliably say one way or the other what is dream and what is real. (Like onomatopia for an entire film rather than just a word) This is a theme that I've encountered repeatedly before in Kazuo Ishiguro's novels, where the reader is constantly forced to challenge the validity of what the narrator is saying. For me, this is storytelling genius.
Comment #304 (Posted by Umi)
It was all a dream and he's still sleeping. Didn't any of you stay after the credits? It cuts to a hospital room with Cobb tied up to a bunch of tubes (presumably in a coma) and Mal sitting by his side looking at him with sadness and concern.
Comment #305 (Posted by Mal)
I agree with you 100%. Also thought the meaning of the name Ariadne was interesting and very...relevant. "The girl's name Ariadne is of Greek origin, and the meaning of Ariadne is "most holy". Mythology: Ariadne, daughter of Cretan king Minos, helped Theseus escape from the Cretan labyrinth."
Comment #306 (Posted by sheepman)
sorry dude, this article nonsense. without knowing some little bit about dreamer in "real" life, without a frame of reference, whether or not IT WAS ALL A DREAM is completely pointless. you could say the same thing about any movie or director. only difference is that this one happens to be about dreams.
Comment #307 (Posted by Jeff)
My take is that it was all a dream up until the point where he wakes up on the plane. At that moment, he see's everyone as his accomplice... Then he realizes that it was all a dream. This is why when he gets back home, he doesn't care if the totem stops spinning... At that point, he realized that it was all just a dream.
Comment #308 (Posted by Emma B.)
Best thing I've read about this film. Thanks.
Comment #309 (Posted by Tassie)
Further support for the production team theory.
1.Script-writers are told to not accidentally slip in to autobiographical writing.
2.Time is extended in films of course ( this seems obvious, so sorry if I'm repeating it).
Now for my additional theory:
THE TWO ENDINGS
After the film most people walk out with the same feeling they had after Existenz, a kind of shock and dislocation. Cobb maybe or may not be a in dream and there's a lot of evidence ( and intent from Nolan, I would say) to sway that argument either way. Then we lean forward to see how much the top wobbles as the movie ends. There is a story ending AND a film ending (bear with me here!). Every film has both but Nolan is underlining the latter by contrasting it with a story stacked with analogies.
Where your focus lies is dependent on whether you cared for Cobb (and whether he was in a dream, or was, dreaming) or whether you were freaked out as you became the protagonist when the camera locked on your point of view and pointed out the artifice of the movie.
Or maybe there's an amplification of sorts as you feel both endings at the same time. Discuss....
*ducks*
Comment #310 (Posted by Greg)
Interesting, but the truth is it doesn't matter. The main thesis of the film is that a simple idea can change everything, can cause someone to question their very reality. What does the last scene of the film do if not that? It plants an idea, one that can't be proven or refuted absolutely, and it's up to us to decide what to do with it.
Comment #311 (Posted by Ty)
There is a single line in the film which completely confirms your theory Devin. And I thought only a director could catch it...
Comment #312 (Posted by Ryan)
This may have been answered above, but I didn't see it. Why do you think Saito is so much older than Dom in the beginning/end? Is it that in limbo seconds = years or whatever? Or is it something else?
Comment #313 (Posted by an unknown user)
Incredible. I myself actually argued this point the other day, but this proved what I felt to me and went on even farther to completely respect Inception as one of the best movies of all time.
Comment #314 (Posted by Alexandra)
You truly and sincerely understand cinema and how to express it in words. You've made me see this movie in ways that I couldn't have been able to catch in a lifetime. This is the best thing I have read about this film, and everything you have written is beautifully thought out and in my opinion the most legitimate analysis of the film.
Comment #315 (Posted by JB)
Excellent article. I don't know if anyone brought it up, but I think one of the most obvious clues about Inception's dreams being a metaphore of the art of filmmaking is that, at the end of the end credits, we hear again Edith Piaf's "Non je ne regrette rien". This is our own "kick". The lights come on and we can go back to reality. (By the way: very good point by Kate in comment #300 about the Marion Cotillard/Edith Piaf parallel)
Comment #316 (Posted by Chris)
Devin, you really nailed it. I didn't even consider that Saito's arriving when he did was dream logic, because I'm so accustomed to movies shoehorning weak plots together like that. Inception is the movie that The Matrix could have been, if the Wachowski brothers had not wasted so much time on all the kung fu. Just imagine, if Neo had not died at the end, but had returned to Zion to a hero's welcome. Then the final conversation between the Oracle and the Architect would have gone something like this.
Oracle: Well, Neo has fulfilled his quest,
Architect: So now he believes that he has saved Humanity from the evil machines, has he?
Oracle: Don't be so cynical, it's unbecoming of one of your status.
Architect: It seems you're overly fond of this one. He very nearly figured out what we were doing on more than one occasion. Did he perhaps have help in that direction?
Oracle: I was just playing with him. It does get repetitive, and with the number of them that reject the programming increasing, the workload is wearing me down.
Architect: Well, we need to keep drawing them into the Messiah fantasy until we find a more efficient way to deal with this particular problem.
Comment #317 (Posted by Stephen Kanaris)
This is off the mark. Nolan isn't lame enough to say it is all a dream. a misunderstanding of the narrative has lead you to believe it must all be a dream. the film is an action fantasy thriller that draws you into a simple open ending... is Cobb dreaming or is he awake. to suggest he was alluding to a constant dream state is undermining his brilliant script and ironic ending. the film doesn't work unless there are moments of reality and there is simply no evidence that was all a dream. and thank god, because that would be lame and juvenile.
Comment #318 (Posted by ZNElders)
There are some citations of early characters played by Marion Cotillard too. I.e. themes and scenes from Jeux d'Enfants (the song La vie en Rose plays an important role in the plot) are adopted, especially the quite similar scene in which an alternative reality of growing old together is showed. (Possibly her look in Nine and in Un Long Dimanche de Fiançailles is copied too, not sure though.)
Comment #319 (Posted by Stephen Kanaris)
Dude,
Your analysis is very off and it is quite clear you were lost early in the narrative or just generally overly obsess with the symbolism, character and overall meaning. Here are some of your sadder faults...
1. "There's more than a slim chance Cobb's wife is right..." It is his sub conscience but it his subconscience telling him that reality is no different, stay in the dream (through his wifes words) . Michael Caine tells him to stay in reality as well. Reason?? Because the author is creating the conflict that Cobb has, which is to stay in the memories/dreams of his missing love or stay in reality. And his wife is trying to say there is no difference.
2. "the totem was his in reality but the only other person to own it was his wife, who is now dead, so no one else can manipulate it in his dream accept his wife, who he knows is dead anyway.
3. "The film's 'reality' sequences are filled with moments that, on retrospect, seem strange or unlikely or unexplained. Even the basics of the dream sharing technology is unbelievably vague, and I don't think that's just because Nolan wants to keep things streamlined." -this is how fantasy films work, think of the matrix, they can't read the universe on 3 screens with green lihts flying every where. It's called verisimilitude - it's cleverly set up by the filmmaker so the absurd events that follow seem real in that world - IT IS FANTASY.
Lastly, the filmmaker is far too intelligent to make a film about dreams that is really just a dream. it is very lame and juvenile. The film is far more human and personal, it is a fantasy film, yes. But it works because it is about a human deciding to live beyond the trauma and accept reality, to leave his dreams behid or not. Any good script wrtier will tell you that an ultimate ordeal is necasssery, and Cobb's is this... Do i accept the illusion of love and hapiness that a constant dream state gives me? Or do i move back into reality and loe her forever. Sad and poetic for a blockbuster.
Does he do it? it's supposed to be an open ending, with the top spinning, but I don't recall a moment when Cobb actually moves through the dream lyers and back to reality, this is left out becausse Nolan wants us to decide for ourselves, but the giveaway is that the kids do indeed look like they do in all his dreams, accept their faces turn to him. It is fair to say that if time had moved on, they would be slightly different in dress etc. He may have chosen ignorance, definitely touches on the matrix.
He also uses the usual devices filmmakers use to allow the audience to accept the proposterous notions of dream travel. the film starts in a dream, so we accept the nature of he film straight away. Leads plug into people and he says they control the part of the brain that dreams... we buy it of course. And the Indian guy's potions, all part of the easy solutions needed for fantasy writing, and that's what it is. A fantasy film about a guy that goes into dreams, but does a deal so he can deal with his heartache. a great dilemma. Thanksfully, we don't wake up and realise it's all a dream.. the very worst kind of writing, well done Nolan.
Comment #320 (Posted by DrMorisset)
It makes sense.
Comment #321 (Posted by matt)
How did Cobb get to Saito at the end....he died in the van, he drowned. So, how did Cobb and Mal wake up from their dream, hit by train. Seems Cobb and Mal would have gone to limbo themselves? Right? My theory is that Cobb had it all figured out. He knew his way in and out of the dream levels...even limbo.
Comment #322 (Posted by an unknown user)
You blew my mind, sir. Although I have nothing important to contribute, I just want to say you're part of this whole process, too. You can't reap all the benefits without someone showing you how.
Comment #323 (Posted by Michael)
First off, I don't think the point of the movie is whether or not Leo is dreaming at the end. Fact of the matter is, Leo could care less if he is or not. When he spun his totem he walked away to signify that the only thing that mattered was that he was with his children again. Seeing his children was his goal from the beginning of the movie and he accepted his fate as soon as he saw their faces.
If you ask me there is evidence to support the fact that Leo was incepted. Leo met up with Michael Caine in France and he told Leo to stop his foolishness and return to his children, to accept his reality that they need their father. Leo explains he only needs one last job to set everything straight and asks for help in finding an Architect. Except this new architect is chosen by Michael.
Ariadne the architect saw Leo's darkest secrets when she jumped in on his memories. Is it that hard for anyone here to believe that she could recreate figures and moments from his memories for use against him? I think the inception comes when Leo finally lets go of Mal so that he can return to reality where his children are waiting. Whether or not the last scene is reality is of no importance.
Comment #324 (Posted by Dana)
A lot of people seem to be hung up on the idea that it cannot all be a dream because Cobb isn't present throughout, as a dreamer generally is.
However, if this is film as a metaphor for dream as a metaphor for film, as Devin illustrates, then it makes perfect sense. In filmmaking, as in the dream extraction business, the main players share dreams. So while the head extractor (i.e. director) is the main character, his perspective alone does not get to control the dream, film, narrative. Other people can, and often do, take control. So let's clarify that it's not all "just a dream"... it's a shared dream.
I'm confused by the people who think the "all a dream" theorists are fishing and forcing the theory. Look at it. Ariadne (named after the Greek "Mistress of the Labryinth") just so happens to be good at mazes and uses a chess piece as her pawn while guiding Bobby Fischer through a dream world? It's more logical that all of those characters were part of a larger subconscious creation than Nolan was just being cheeky with names in a movie that coincidentally is about bending reality. He left little clues that, like in dreams, prove you aren't in a real world but you don't notice until after you wake up ... or leave the theater.
I like the idea though that even if you want to believe that parts of the movie were in a "reality" that the overarching point is still that none of it is reality at all because Nolan and Co. created it ... cheeky names and all ... to plant seeds of ideas in all of our heads.
Great film. Great review. I'll be thinking about this film for years to come.
Comment #325 (Posted by Mark)
Seriously, you should be conferred an honorary degree here. Well done sir!
Comment #326 (Posted by Wendy)
Not only is the Piaf song played during the closing credits, but it's gradually distorted *just as it was as heard by the people at lower and lower dream levels in the movie.* I have no idea whether that was supposed to imply that the whole movie was a dream, or whether Zimmer and Nolan were just having a bit of fun, but I laughed when I heard it. Clever touch.
Comment #327 (Posted by Thom)
Might anyone consider the possibiliity that this film is fundamentally flawed in a way that the above article unwittingly highlights? The thesis appears to me to say that Inception is emotionally affecting despite its being only a dream. Yet, dreams are the only area of human experience where empathy is impossible; my dream cannot affect you unless I bring it to reality. When I interpret my dream or any other introspective imagining for the purpose of later sharing I impose my own real-world frame of understanding upon it to make any sense of it at all. Then when I come to recant it to friends I place further constraints upon it in order for it to be understandable and enoyable for others, thus compensating for the social context (the intersubjectivity of meaning and emotion). If the film is taken to be the retelling of the dream then it is fundamentally flawed because it does not keep one's (my) attention as a pure case of storytelling; it is not affecting because it portrays the dream too closely to how a dream is without grouding it: it is for this reason that I say if Nolan's aim is to say that dreams are still affecting then he fails. This is most easily illustrated by the fact that the big moment when the idea is planted in Fisher's mind has no impact upon the audience whatsoever because we couldn't care less about him. He is a creation of Cobb's dream and just a shadow of a real character (like Cobb says about his wife) and therefore not very charismatic or likeable. The film seemed constantly caught between telling the story and obfuscating it for the dream effect but never getting the balance right. To my mind either the characters are hollow and don't need their story told or they are not and they do. Nolan never quite decided on that one.
A good movie but could have been great if they'd cut out needless action sequences and characters (I'm thinking Michael Caine and the Indian dude) and spent more time just exploring and expanding some of their good ideas and asking some real questions about the nature of dreams (which, after all, only have 'meaning' when considered next to reality!!)
Comment #328 (Posted by tpbeta)
Well nailed. I would add that the three constructed dream levels were modelled on movie clichés on purpose. Level 3 being 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' Level 2 Ocean's 11 (with shades of 2001) and Level 1 was Reservoir Dogs with shades of some car chase film I can't quite put my finger on. Quite a few others mixed in I suppose.
Limbo was 'I Am Legend' of course.
Comment #329 (Posted by an unknown user)
I have to disagree with this! I believe everything Nolan presented was right there for everyone to see. Cobb was not dreaming when he came home with his father because he saw his kids faces - that was the clue it was reality right there. It doesn't matter that the top didn't fall because he saw his kids faces and he didn't care anymore either.
By the way, for those of you who didn't realize, Michael Caine played Leo's father, NOT father-in-law. How hard is that to realize people.
Comment #330 (Posted by thefreak07)
i have to agree with Ben comment 61, it can go either way depending on how you want to make the connections...just leave it be, it was an awesome movie :)
Comment #331 (Posted by battlepanda2)
My comment was cut short before, here's the full version:
Well reasoned, but ultimately flawed theory. A couple of things that I will highlight: The closing walls that Cobb finds himself stuck in are simply allusions and parallels. They don't signify that Cobb is dreaming, and this isn't the point of the film. The film shows us how dreams and reality are so closely connected, that the subconscious can alter perceptions of reality just as outside stimulus can alter dream states.
Satio showing up in the nick of time is simply a common device used to heighten tension. Almost every action film emplys this kind of tactic, and is nothing conclulsive in the slightest.
Overall, though, it's a good theory, but unless nolan himself comes out and tells us what he intended specifically it will remain just that.
The reality theory can be argued just as well, and can counter all the points you raise here. Should you wish me to do so then please mail my username at IMDB and I'll do jsut that.
IMDB Username: uponapyre
Comment #332 (Posted by Ted)
Devin Faraci makes some good points, and some of his arguments crossed my mind as I watched the movie for the second time. But, if he's right that the whole movie should be understood as a dream, then Christopher Nolan is guilty of deliberately misleading the audience with the totem rule.
To dismiss the totem rule, which Nolan seems to underline again and again throughout the film, as a mere "dream construct" seems like a cop-out to me. Faraci is right that Cobb's totem didn't always belong to him, but that fact would only matter if Mal were still alive. Assuming she's really dead, she wouldn't be around to construct a projection of the totem in an effort to infiltrate Cobb's dream(s). Admittedly, it's possible that she is still alive and has entered Cobb's dream, but, in that case, I would think her projection of the totem would still act the same way it did in her own dreams--it would never fall. (I could be wrong about that, but that's what I think). Either way, if Mal is alive and has infiltrated Cobb's big dream, at least some of his flashbacks would have to have been real, and, contrary to Faraci's assertion, dream extraction would remain an integral part of the story.
Anyway, if the whole thing is a dream, why bother introducing the totem rule at all? Why would it even matter if the totem used to belong to someone else...in another part of the same big dream? Either the rule matters, or Nolan is purposely deceiving us with arcane rules that aren't really rules--or at least rules that aren't explained thoroughly enough. If the latter is true, it's bullshit--worse than the corniest kind of deus ex machina. "But it was all just a dream!" Wink, wink. If that's really the case, then you could argue that you can't take anything said or done in the entire movie seriously--it wouldn't be a self-contained, internally consistent plot--and you'd need to base your interpretive arguments not on the "rules" of the film, but on the way the real world (outside the film) works.
In fact, Faraci does base some of his arguments on real world experiences when he talks about how some of the scenes in the movie are just like dreams in real life. In some cases he's right, but, personally, I don't think that it's very realistic to have dreams within dreams within dreams all in the same big dream. The comparison to real life will only get you so far in this movie. And, I don't think that pain and catharsis in dreams feel as real as they do during waking life. Anyway, the pain/catharsis rule is outlined in the movie, so maybe Faraci should just dismiss it as a "dream construct" too. He seems to pick and choose what rules from the movie to take seriously.
In conclusion, if Faraci's right, then Nolan's a prick for creating such a deliberately misleading and potentially inconsistent plot device.
Comment #333 (Posted by Tanker J.D.)
A totem is not there to let the dreamer know when he's awake. The weight and feel of the tote...m lets you know you are in your own mind, whether awake or asleep. No other person, like an architect, can exactly replicate the totem's feel, because no other person has ever felt it. So when you are dreaming, and uncertain whether you are in your subconcious or someone else's, you just check for the feel of the totem in that conciousness. But you can still dream your own totem.
Accordingly, whether the top falls or not at the end is irrelevant to whether Cobb is still dreaming. He can dream a top that falls as well as he can dream a top that keeps going forever.
Just needed to set that straight....
Comment #334 (Posted by Kyle)
If anyone paid close enough attention, Cobb's wedding ring is on his hand in all the scenes presented as dreams, and is absent in the scenes presented as reality. Regardless of what the movie's saying through its structure and ideas, this minute detail makes a hard-fought case for it NOT being a constant dream.
Comment #335 (Posted by Spyan)
Still spoyling!!
I watched this movie knowing it was all dream throughout. It felt like a Jacob's Ladder kinda movie, when even the "real parts" still lack reality and are questionnable.
The end definitely confirms this point of view.
Awesome among awesome movie nonetheless.
Comment #336 (Posted by Brian)
I have to disagree.. the film was made so that you don't know. everything that happened during the "awake" portions has an explanation. I'm sure I could over-analyze it, and give reasons why it's reality - if I actually went to movies with notepads.
Comment #337 (Posted by Zach)
I haven't read all the comments so this may have been said, but for me the most glaring clue that you are 100% completely correct was the repetitive commentary about this being "An old man, full of regret"'s dream.
Think of when Cobb and Mal lived in Limbo together; when they laid their heads on the tracks and left limbo via their death, they were young, right?
So what is the anomalous scene with Cobb and Mal walking in old age together? And what about the comment Cobb makes at one point that he "already grew old with [her] once."
Cobb was never old in Limbo! That was real life. The scene with Old Cobb and Old Mal is the key to the entire movie, because it's the only scene that takes place in the real world.
Mal is dead, but of old age. Cobb is simply pining for her and inventing a very convoluted world in which he can be with her again. He may well have regrets about his marriage, and Mal might even have killed herself, but she didn't do it by jumping out the opposite window. (Look behind her, too; I am pretty sure the room inside is a mirror reflection of the room Cobb is sitting in, with bedding strewn around, etc.)
Comment #338 (Posted by Sean)
Wonderful commentary all the way up to the last footnote, which I find to be the most important and totally agree with. The film is the story of a broken relationship, as real as it gets. The overriding emotion felt by Cobb is guilt. He has either done something to make Mal leave him or thinks didn't do enough to stop her from falling out of love with him. Anyone who has been in love knows her affection for him in the movie is as far from any real relationship as it gets. And though it sounds bad, I think that one who feels the guilt of driving the one they love away actually fantasizes that it would be better if she were dead, because then she would still be in love with him and the loss is not his fault. And like a dream, in the time things are going wrong in the relationship and still can be fixed, everything feels real and normal, only later does one think back and see how strange he acted.
Comment #339 (Posted by TIYUE)
I agree with you thats its a dream but the totem was to check if you were in someone elses dream. Cobb is stuck in someone elses dream not just his own. The point of the totem is to make aure you are the person dreaming. . .
Comment #340 (Posted by llpeas)
what was the event/memory which caused Mal to require inception in the first place? how does Mal's finding of the top (place/time/space) relate to her inception?
Comment #341 (Posted by RyanH)
I would have agreed with you about the entire movie being a dream until I heard about the missing wedding ring in the 'reality' scenes. I had thought the kids were the same age and in the same postion with the same clothes also but after seeing on IMDB that they actually had two different sets of actors playing the kids, I've changed my tune on that as well.
Comment #342 (Posted by Ryan S)
The great thing about this is, just like in the movie, we (the audience) cannot definitively figure out whether we were witnessing a dream or reality. Like so many commenters have stated, there are very convincing clues and arguments for either conclusion. It's almost as if Nolan wanted us all to come away in limbo.
Oh and speaking of "limbo" I love how this movie has given us a whole new "dream" vocabulary that seemingly everyone understands already. I feel like I studied dreams in college and when I discuss Inception with others it's like a technical discussion with classmates about "totems", "limbo", "kicks", etc .
Comment #343 (Posted by dodzi lithur)
i have to agree the point cited in the analysis are valid.However in my opinion fisher is created by cobb to deminish his guilt.His inception lead to the loss of his wife in his "reality" however in fishers reality (which he aided) fisher discovers his trueself.This is not obviuos ofcourse hes being payed or forced to do so in order to see his children but its all part of his great architecture of a dream which is connected to all the other factors of his dream,like real life :)
Comment #344 (Posted by MarcoM)
Sean: (comment #338) that was a beautifully written comment and nice coda to the Devin's analysis. One thing i thought about after seeing the film for the first time last night was whether Cobb killed Mel and that was the source of his guilt. We are privy to the scene of Mel committing suicide because Cobb is sharing his past with Ariadne(?). That scene is a flashback told from the Cobb's perspective. (maybe Cobb is lying? or he's insane? or he's buried this painful "secret" so deep in the recesses of his mind that he can't bear to face the reality of it so he really believes that she committed suicide?). So what if she didn't commit suicide but was killed? Anyway, obviously my idea wasn't as well thought out and sophisticated as your analysis. it's a beautiful idea that the movie is about a broken relationship. Doesn't every movie have a story about love?
Comment #345 (Posted by Emma)
I think your theory that the whole film is a dream is interesting, but I almost feel you disprove yourself when you argue how the team is a film crew (which is definitely true, by the way). But if this is all just Cobb's dream, then Arthur, Ariadne, Saito and Fischer Jr aren't real people. They're just projections in Cobb's dream. So yes, it removes the stakes somewhat. And what should it matter how Fischer Jr reacts to the play they've put on, if really they're all just parts of Cobb anyhow. And if even the process of shared dreaming isn't real, then what led Cobb to be in this proposed prolonged dream-state? The scene where Mal jumped out the window was definitely confusing, but I thought maybe it was just a very large suite they had rented and the building wrapped around that way.
Truthfully, I need to watch it again. It's certainly an interesting and well-formulated theory, but I don't think I can agree. Honestly, you had me convinced for a minute, but when you brought back up the other characters and the film metaphor, it just talked me right back out of it. Because while all of it being a dream may not detract from the movie as a whole, it certainly detracts from the filmmaking metaphor. Because where they're making the movie has to be reality, otherwise none of it makes sense.
Comment #346 (Posted by Jusitn)
I agree with this article for the most part and it is very well written. I won't comment on all the reasons this is true since they have been mentioned several hundred times. I hope no one has asked this question but something in the movie doesn't fit this senerio. The scenes in the movie where Cobb isn't there...well if this is his dream how is that possible? Anytime I have dreamed I was always there, either looking down at myself or looking from my eyes. If he had no idea what was going on in his own dream (for instance that Ariadne was coming down the elevator to see Cobb's wife) how could this be Cobb's dream?
Comment #347 (Posted by Jacob)
And yet Devin still hates how Lost ended...
Comment #348 (Posted by John)
So the prequel comic was a dream too? As nice as "it was all a dream" sounds, I don't think it holds up.
Comment #349 (Posted by stephanie)
i think this would be a excellent movie if one character was present in all of the dreams. it would have been a masterpeice is cobb was in all of them, but there were many dreams in which it was just one other person, so it blows the whole feeling of it being cobb dreaming up everything, so it has to be that everyone was dreaming, and that part was real when they woke up on the airplane. but when he came back to his children, it just felt like the author just wanted to make it as complicated as possible, with sacrificing a good story with shock and intrigue. it would have been a amazing movie if all of the scenes had cobb in it. but it didnt so i dont like it.
Comment #350 (Posted by Mark)
it wasn't nolan's dream it was his movie it's all fake its just a good movie, this critic just keeps repeating himself about film making, no offense if film making is what your into but you don't have to turn your entire review into film making. All film's are the result of someone's dreams or thoughts, and they are called writers.
Comment #351 (Posted by Russ)
Someone may have said this before but I didn't want to slog through 300+ comments.
I believe the author is correct, the whole movie is a dream but the most important point missed is it is fashioned in the dreamworld that Mal and he created. In other words, Mal was right they were both still stuck in the dream they had created in order to get out she killed herself. Cobb is still stuck there, doesn't believe it's a dream and as such can't get out. He is still dreaming in real life and can't wake up until he dies in the dream.
I mean comeon, despite being shot at 100+ times in the supposed real world by hired killers he never gets so much as a scratch. His subconscious knows if he dies he will wake up and as such will not allow this to happen.
I plan on going to see it again viewing the movie through this lens. I'm sure I'll find more instances of the same.
Comment #352 (Posted by Mike)
I completely disagree - I think that 1) if this movie was all a dream, it DOES completely remove the stakes of the movie and make it meaningless. The whole idea of performing extraction and inception becomes this superfluous idea that has no necessity in the movie. 2) a lot of your evidence is extremely strained: the wall closing in, Saito being "dream-logically" there. It just seems like you are grasping in the dark for evidence to support a weak thesis.
Comment #353 (Posted by Kivi)
I havn't bothered to read all 350 or so previous comments, so I may be repeating things others have said. If so I apologise :P
Firstly, I found your comparison between Inception and Nolan fascinating. It really adds a whole new dimension to the film and makes it even more complex and multi-layered than before. Well done for that.
However, it irkes me somewhat that you consider your interpretation, that the entire movie is all a dream, to be the "accepted reading of the film". That, in my opinion, completely misses the point. The fact that it can be interpreted either way is, I think, Nolan's message. The message being; that it is doesnt matter what reality truly is, it's what we choose to believe that creates our reality, makes it real. This message is repeated continually, throughout the film.
The first example we see of this is when Dom is introduced to Yusuf the chemist. In that scene, Yusuf demonstrates his individual creation of the compound, in the dreaming figures sleeping in the rooms below. There, Yusuf's old assistant quips, "The dream has become their reality. Who are you to say otherwise?" Here is a clear example of people choosing to believe a reality and thus making it real.
Another indicator is the fact that Mol made Limbo her reality. To her it was the real world. The truth she had locked deep inside and chosen to forget, the one that Dom discovered, was that she was not living in the real world. While the false reality of Limbo may have been troubling to Dom, to her it became the real world because that is what she chose to believe. She only changed her mind on this through Inception, which has the power to alter our perceived reality, or, "Change everything about us".
Another example is in Fischer and his "catharsis". Fischer senior is dead(in the real world or the "real world" depending on which theory), so the resolution Fischer junior finds in his own mind, that his father truly loved him, may or may not be actually true. However, to Fischer junior it becomes the truth. His catharsis, as you Devin, pointed out, is no less real. He comes to believe his father loved him, so this becomes his reality.
Finally, the fact that Dom doesn't look to see whether the totem lands or keeps spinning at the end of the film is Nolan's clearest indicator to this point. This is because to Dom, it doesn't matter anymore. He has decided, he believes, that his world is real, that his children are real and this therefore becomes his reality.(Toward the beginning of the film, when arguing with his father, Dom says something like, "Those children need their father. That's my reality.")
In that respect, whether the totem falls down or not, whether it is a dream or not, is irrelevant. Because to Dom it's not a dream, it's his truth. And that's exactly Nolan's point. As a viewer, we will all choose to believe our own reality of the film. There are arguments for both sides. And that is because both sides can be correct, it just depends on what we choose to believe. The reality is what we accept to be true.
The same can be seen in life. Every day, people convince themselves of realities that others believe to be completely false. Nolan, through "Inception", is commenting on our unique ability as humans to take information from the surrounding world, process and then use that information to perceive the world in the best way we can. This becomes our reality, this becomes our truth.
Comment #354 (Posted by Hal)
Nolan's a smart enough filmmaker that he could tell a straightforward heist film while still using elements of dream logic to simply keep us off center the whole time. DiCaprio may make the 8 1/2 association, but Dileep Rao (Yusef) is firmly in the "It was real Nolan wouldn't be ambiguous like that with his narrative" camp. At least include the dissenting opinion among actors.
Comment #355 (Posted by Jackie)
Fischer, in being part of his subconscious, mean Cobb does have Daddy issues. Everything within a dream is on purpose, like advertising or movies, nothing is there by chance.
His issues with his "wife" may also parallel/mirror his issues in other areas. Miles isn't his father, as far we know.
I'm not sure, but the child Fischer in the picture sort of looked like Cobb's son as well.
Awesome write up.
Comment #356 (Posted by Pedroia)
I think the essay above is well thought out and I think the film analogy is spot on. Nolan himself admitted as much however, so I'm not sure the author of the essay should consider it quite as brilliantly discovered as he seems to.
I myself leaned towards the whole film being a dream for a while after seeing the film, but after some thought and a second viewing I think its highly unlikely. The ending of course seems open to debate as to whether or not he is still dreaming but I think its quite obvious that the film ends not with him still dreaming, not with it all having been a dream, but with Cobb getting his dream. The kids are dressed similarly, but they are two years older. (They are played by different actors.) The top spinning or not spinning most likely actually means something. It is more likely that Nolan actually placed these clues in the story to help his audience navigate the narrative. The fact that we are shown the top spinning and stopping twice before the attempt at inception shows us there is a difference. You say the top spinning and stopping means nothing as it is all a dream, but then why should it mean anything when it doesn't stop spinning. On top of that we are also shown the dream versions of events in Cobb's past and the real versions. They are shot differently, happen differently and seem distinctly more real.
Comment #357 (Posted by Same)
Ha! Your theory is false.
1. The movie is not about film making, it's a movie about Lucid Dreaming which Nolan studied for the making of the film.
2. You have no genuine evidence to back this up as I will go on to explain.
Throughout the movie, if you payed attention, he is wearing a wedding ring while dreaming and not wearing one when he is awake. People are tearing this up and adding rediculous ideas and stretches to the film. Here are my exact notes I took while watching it for third time...
you can not enter a dream of his own subconscious. His subconscious would not be able to change "his" dream world. Totem proves you are not in someone elses dream. His subconscious would not ever turn on him if he is the dreamer. If Cobb is dreaming the whole movie he would be in every scene. There could be no interaction of subconscious without him. Could not dream inside a dream about a dream outside of that dream. Totem trumps entire movie. Totem proves your not in someone elses dream. Therefore if it keeps spinning at the end he would have to be in someone elses dream. If it topples he could still be in his dream tho. Stated in movie: nothing is in limbo except for things left over from someone else sharing the dream. Fischer's subconscious is still active in previous states of sleep? Death in a dream could have woken them up from one level of the dream which would mean Mal killing herself by jumping was to get out of the last level of the dream. They got out of limbo with Fischer by jumping which brought them back one level. After the kick why did everyone wake up to the first dream? (first dream cobbs? Still in limbo leaves everyone in 1st dream?) possibly not because fischer is the dreamer due to subconscious attacking Cobb and others. Answer: still time left on the machine and none of them died. Example: being dunked in the tub to be woken up to that dream, not fully awake.
After reading my notes if you believe at any point anything is a dream the only arguable fact would be that Mal killed herself from the dream they were still in after getting out of limbo. Therefore the movie "could" be a dream. However the wedding ring still trumps the idea. Done!
Comment #358 (Posted by Salami)
This article is so self-indulgent, it's almost painful to read. Comparing dreamweaving to a Hollywood set? You can compare it to any corporation as well. It would make sense that Nolan would draw inspiration from his own profession, and that's all you can take away from it.
In the end, your impossibly ridiculous theorizing doesn't even matter. All that matters is the revelation Cobb's character achieves. That's why he's able to see the faces of his children (who are visibly older, played by different actors and wearing different shoes) and equally doesn't care if the top finishes spinning.
THAT...is the REAL interpretation.
Comment #359 (Posted by Lauren)
I like to think that the film's ending, where you don't know whether it's all a dream or not, is a comment on our own reality; we don't really know how we got here so how do we know if our own world is "real"? What if our world is someone else's dream? Or that if it is real, what happens to us when we die? Do we wake up to an afterlife? I love the fact this film doesn't have a definitive answer, it really makes you wonder.
Comment #360 (Posted by an unknown user)
This article is acceptable but I don't think it's skillfully argued to be even remotely considered.
Comment #361 (Posted by Dana)
#357 and all the others who so fervently defend the rules of the totem. Cobb's totem trumps nothing.
So many on here seem adamant that if Nolan set up rules about the totem that they must be adhered to or what was the point of introducing them.
Yet they aren't acknowledging one of the rules Nolan also set up, which is YOU CAN'T USE SOMEONE ELSE'S TOTEM. We have no idea what Cobb's totem is because he is using his wife's the whole time, which Nolan tells us, if we are to take these rules as gospel, is worthless for defining anything. You aren't even supposed to touch someone else's totem, let alone use it as your own.
I am intrigued by the wedding ring theme throughout, though. I'll have to watch for that upon next viewing.
Comment #362 (Posted by Derek)
Very good analysis, but with some holes. I'd have to watch the film again to argue against him. Nonetheless, great read and a very good interpretation of Nolan's movie. I agree with most of his argument, but I think Nolan's main point of Inception was that dreams DO leave an impact in your waking life and play a fundamental role in your actuality -- hence the cliffhanger ending with the top; it doesn't matter if the film was all a dream or real, the point of the film was to show audiences that dreams affect you whether you remember them or not.
I've been meaning to write a paper about Inception, thanks for re-sparking my interest. I guess this is just a short snippet into what I would focus my writing about.
Comment #363 (Posted by steve)
YO DAWG WE HEARD YOU NEED TO PERFORM INCEPTION SO WE PUT A DREAM IN YO DREAM SO YOU CAN DREAM WHILE DREAM ABOUT YO DREAM ! -xzhibit
does that sum it up for ya?
Comment #364 (Posted by James)
This has the potential to be a great article explaining inception AS A MOVIE, but instead it dwells too much in convincing us that Inception = movie about film making. I look forward to your follow up after watching the movie again.
Comment #365 (Posted by Thomas Someone)
I was convinced about it being a dream as well, until I watched it the second time today. Here's a few point: The clue with the wedding ring anchoring reality really pushed me back to it not being a dream. As far as the two rooms, the room that Mal is in the window of is NOT disheveled, so it is apparent that she staged the suicide so that Cobb could not stop her. Also, I tried to follow the dream logic in various "reality" scenes, and Nolan does a fine job answering why things are happening (the double tails, the corporation, the military engineered shared dreaming, etc). And finally, I believe that the totem stops spinning at the end, but the point is that IT DOESN'T MATTER. Cobb got back to his kids (who look older to me), and can see their faces like he wanted. He TURNED HIS BACK on the totem. That's on purpose. He turned back to his life, as that is what he was fighting for. Great comments from all, though. Just my opinion.
Comment #366 (Posted by Charlie Shine)
I think you are spot on. Why not make a film about the creative process? Notice Cobb dresses like Nolan, added evidence that Cobb is Nolan. Why people don't want to accept this, I don't know. I think films that are not based in 'reality' frighten people. YOu can watch a film, take it in, try and understand it, but get frightened by the thought that the person making it is smarter than you are and can manipulate you in such a way. This is a wonderful movie!
Comment #367 (Posted by Blackbeard)
*applause*
flawless analysis :D
Comment #368 (Posted by Tommy Bewley)
This is interesting. My friends and I had the same argument. Although you make some pretty good points and point out some clues in the movie, I still don't think this is correct. There are quite a few things I can point out that would make this impossible. But I am not going to write it all down. Watch the movie multiple times and you will see that Nolan wasn't trying to trick anyone, and there was an actual reality in the movie. The part you mention about the totem being his wifes so its irrelevant when it falls doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter who touches it, which is why he tells her not to let anyone else examine it. if they knew the characteristics they would be able to see when its a dream or not. When Saito spins it at the beginning and end of the film, it keeps spinning. It will work regardless of who makes it or uses it, that is why you are supposed to keep it to yourself. So that isn't really a good argument.
Comment #369 (Posted by Teacher13)
I think all of the comments are great and I appreciate all of the ideas presented as they take me back and forth through the movie.
I do have a couple of questions that I can't figure out and was hoping for some help:
*1) Why can Cobb and Ariadne enter limbo if they go to sleep with the dream machine in the snow fortress? Wouldn't that just put them in a 5th layer of dreaming? Wouldn't they have to kill themselves to get into limbo?
*2) What's the deal with Mal stabbing Cobb in limbo? If he died from that then wouldn't he just wake up? or if that is really just a 5th layer of dreaming, his death would explain him waking up in limbo at Saito's fortress.
*3) At the beginning of the movie and towards the end there is a similar scene where Cobb arrives at old Saito's fortress. I thought this was supposed to be the same scene, but why is the dialogue different?
*4) Isn't it the case that Cobb and Ariadne enter limbo before Saito actually dies? Then how do they know he is in limbo someplace and Cobb needs to find him?
In furthering my theory of the movie it would really help if someone could shed some light on these questions.
Comment #370 (Posted by Robert)
#361 - Dana
Something you're not considering about the totem. Yes, it was Mal's totem. Yes, Cobb said to use your own and let no one else interact with it. The reason for that is because the totem is unique. It's something that you control, so no one can trick you in a dream with a fake totem. So yeah, Mal had it. Mal is dead and lives on in Cobb's head. As such, even if Mal never had it before she died, the Mal in Cobb's head knows everything Cobb knows.
The totem being Mal's is irrelevant.
Comment #371 (Posted by Shadow16nh)
Ahem!...Did anyone else notice that the two "Old Saito" scenes which bookend the film aren't the same? They differ in that in the first, Saito speaks most or all of the dialogue about half-remembered dreams and such, while in the second they actually take turns finishing each other's sentences? What is the significance of this? Please e-mail me @ shadow16nh@hotmail.com if you have any thoughts; the length of this talkback is getting ridiculous.
Comment #372 (Posted by DreamWeaver)
To me, real life can seem like a dream, just as a dream can seem like real life. I think that's the point of the movie: to emphasize this dichotomy. Everyone who has posted on this blog has seen the movie, and I think we can all agree that it felt like somewhat of a dream. But when it ended we all still had to validate our parking. REALITY=DREAM and vice versa.
Comment #373 (Posted by Robyn)
You hit the nail on the head. I thought this movie was as close to perfection as a movie can be, and much of it reminded me of Hitchcock. The only weakness for me was the lack of a message, but your essay really persuades me. Inception is a great metaphor for movie making, and as a viewer I was very satisfied.
Comment #374 (Posted by Vegan Mikey)
Something that i havent seen anyone address yet, is the central theme of the actual INCEPTION itself. I think its important to look at when Cobb starts to tell Fischer that it is a dream in order to further his cathartic state. It seems rudimentary and not very central to the story WHY the importance of the inception is on Fischer. Because of a power struggle that doesnt relate much to the central theme? I think that was intentional, because I think the entire inception was for Cobb, not fischer, all along.
Comment #375 (Posted by Silent Rocco)
Wow. Some great thoughts in here.
After watching this brilliant film yesterday, we had the same thoughts afterwards, the ones about the different roles in a movie production. That is really very obvious. Again, great article! (and some funny comments....)
Comment #376 (Posted by Conscious Observer)
Right, so the question is whether Inception is a fictional dream or a fictional reality containing a dream in it, and in addition whether it also is a self-referential metaphor for the movie making process itself.
If such ponderings are your cup of tea then perhaps you'd like to direct these questions at reality itself. Before you even consider clicking on this link keep in mind that the truth is not compatible with illusion:
www.teleologicalevolution.com
Comment #377 (Posted by Isa)
in the 4th world, leo told his wife that he misses her more than he can dare. I really feel moving about this part. And he always felt guilty about her suicide, in the 4th world, he had remembered that they ever held each others' hands until the end of their lives. This is the part of warm in this film.
Once the film finished, I still feel the film is on. I even cannot stand up.
This film is excellent. worth to watch.
Comment #378 (Posted by an unknown user)
You are a terrible writer. It's like you have read the spark notes but not the book. Watch the movie again, please. Some people are probably buying this garbage.
Comment #379 (Posted by Michael R)
I buy this 100%. The simplest theories are often the truest. HOWEVER, the movie still did NOT move me, in any way shape or form ("when a movie moves you, it truly moves you"). Whatever the interpretation, and this one fits to to a tee, it's still a film that fails to have much impact or relevance, choosing the easy way out in most cases. choosing gimmick over substance. For a beautiful, well-executed, poetic movie about dreams, I refer you to Terry Gilliam's masterpiece, Brazil. It was not critically acclaimed in the US and Canada upon release (neither was 8 1/2), which to me is the first clue that it has substance and beauty and is not simply about manipulating the emotions of the audience (the main reason mainstream North America goes to the movies in the first place -- to be manipulated). To misquote Lloyd Bentsen once again: "I know Federico Fellini, I've watched Federico Fellini, Federico Fellini is my hero. Mr. Nolan, you are no Federico Fellini."
Comment #380 (Posted by Aazza)
i didnt read the article, i dont think i need to, your first sentence said it wass all a dream, it wasnt. There are clues throughout the film, wedding ring is one of them. Also the top doesnt faulter when hes dreaming. Stop pretending like you think you know, when you obviously have'nt done much research.
Comment #381 (Posted by Matrixjr)
Heres my take…its going to be black or white…reality or dream. In the real world, people walk, planes fly, dogs bark and there is no such technology that allows people to enter into dreams. (The setting seems like present times, not futuristic). However, in the dream world, people can float and fight, buildings fold over, stairs can disappear and there is a crazy technology out there that can allow people to enter someone’s dreams. Therefore, everything about inception is all a dream. So Cobb’s ability to go into people’s dream..its all a dream…because, no one can do that in real life. Had the movie stated that in took place in the distant feature, then I would be more incline to believe people can do this (futuristic technology)…but, it looked like our current present time…cars/vans/clothes are all current times…..therefore, Inception is a figment of the dreamer’s imagination…doesn’t exist…The whole movie is all a dream.
Comment #382 (Posted by Neil )
then do u think that his wife is really dead if it was just a dream?
Comment #383 (Posted by Newt)
And as, I think, we all now know the Inception "theme" music is just a veeerrry slowed down version of "non, je ne regrette rien." And here is a loose translation of the song... quite interesting:
"No, nothing at all
I do not regret anything at all (x2)
Either the good that has been done to me
or the evil
everything is equal to me
no, nothing at all, no...
everything is paid, swept away, forgotten
I don't care about the past!
With my memories I lit the fire
My pains, my pleasures,
I don't need them anymore
My love stories are swept away
with their tremolos (--> I don't know how to translate it : is it the same word in english???)
swept away for ever
I'm starting on new bases
no, nothing at all etc...
Because my life, my happiness, today everything begins with you!"
(sorry for the mistakes in english...)
Comment #384 (Posted by Totem)
Definitely a dream. The characters are all Leo's subconscious who is the architect. His dream is a mixture of fantasy and painful memories that he can't block out. His wife is dead. His subconscious or "characters" are telling him to take a leap of faith which is to commit suicide like she did or die as an old man living with regret and memories. Leo's constantly given this ultimatum throughout the movie in different forms. He makes his choice at the end. Him being old at the end, "honoring his arrangement" to live and face the consequences on the run or reuniting with his family to die and live in limbo forever. The airport is a slick metaphor for him arriving home which is death. That's why everybody's staring at him in the end. The movie making analogy is clever too which leads me to believe that Leo's a film maker and the Michael Cain character helped mold his talent.
Comment #385 (Posted by Mike)
Just saw the film again, and I enjoyed it more upon second viewing. I agree with you dream logic as movie logic thesis, but I think it ultimately hurts the film as a work of dramatic narrative as Nolan becomes so mired in communicating the logic and rules of his world that it leaves no time for any real connections between the audience and the characters.
It's only Cobb's loss of Mal that has any emotional gravity, and even that is undermined by the catharsis, as the film clearly suggests one meaning to the conclusion over the other upon subsequent viewing... or at least that's what I thought.
I also think the film is constructed in such a way as to reinforce people's initial perceptions of the author's intent when viewed more than once.
My personal theory (spoiler alert!) is that the only real inception that takes place in the film is from Nolan to his audience, and that Cobb was never successful at doing it. He never woke up, and Mal and his children are waiting for him to do so. The catharsis he achieves is false, and because of this false revelation he will likely remain in limbo forever.
Comment #386 (Posted by an unknown user)
I do agree with your interpretation. However, one thing that might be telling us that it's not a dream is how they cut to other characters throughout the film. When you are dreaming, you never cut to someone else's point of view.
Comment #387 (Posted by Samuel Damman)
Dear,
It's just a thought ...
Fischer, doing what his father did.
Cobb, doing what his father did.
Cobb, doing what his father did, but in his own way.
Fischer, doing what his father did, copying his father.
Cobb reflecting this "achievement" of his into the dream, the achievement of 'freeing' himself from his father, still doing what his father did yet in his own way. He wants to Fischer do the same, the same as Cobb himself did. He wants Fischer to continue doing what his father, yet in his own way. A dream is a reflection of your sub-conscious/desires/longings/etc. He is reliving what he (Cobb) did in the dream, yet in another setting, another reality, another story.
Hope this is of any use to you.
Sam
Comment #388 (Posted by mike)
It is not all a dream! It does show his totem fall in the movie. I have, however pin-pointed where the rest of the movie could've been a dream. When he visits the new chemist and tries the sleep inducing drug. It doesn't show his totem fall at all after he supposedly wakes from the new drug.
Comment #389 (Posted by David)
If it's a dream (I agree up until he wakes up on the plane - and realizes he's been dreaming about his seatmates) then Mal may not be dead and may not have left him. Perhaps there is some marital strife, or no meaning at all (common in my random screwy dreams).
Maybe Mal doesn't even exist in his life but is some other random woman he'd passed in the airport earlier that day.
Comment #390 (Posted by Brandon)
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but at the same time, my perceptions when I first saw the movie was that the beginning, he was awake. Everything about the job was real, up until they went and met the guy who did the sedation. I just wanted to say (and only because i haven't seen this brought up anywhere else), that you never actually know if he really wakes up from the "nap" he had when he was trying out the sedatives. He lies down with all the people who are sleeping, and when he wakes up, he goes to the bathroom. While in the bathroom, (and i know you said the top is irrelevant, but both times i watched this, i couldn't help but notice) he splashes water on his face, and tries to spin the top. As the top leaves his hand, he is startled, and drops it on the floor, never actually spinning it. After this point, you never see it spun again unless it is a part of the movie where the audience knows for certainty that he is asleep. I couldn't help but notice this, and wanted another opinion on it. Did anyone else notice that? I'm not saying that he was awake prior to that point, I'm just saying that because of that, it is irrefutable (at least in my eyes) that he was awake after that point.
Comment #391 (Posted by an unknown user)
To discount the arguement that he isn't in every scene- Cobb is in every scene... he's just asleep in some of them.
Comment #392 (Posted by Intense Insight)
totem - helps you check if you are in some other person's dream. How does it work. The weight and feel of it only known to you. You can spin it and you know if is the way it spins. In someones dream since its someone else subconscious mind it is not aware of the projection of this totem and it does not feel the same. Since your subconscious has entered his dream your subconscious mind knows the feel of it. Since it is being projected by the other person it does not follow the same dynamics as you think it does in his dream. Also note that he "tells" this to her. This implies that he should not have told the truth to anyone. He is smart u know that in the other scene when he says not to give that to anyone. His intention is to only tell that its useful to find out if its a dream world. Mal - Again this is a narration given by Cobb, similar to totem story told to the cutie-architect. So from Cobb's narration a visual interpretation of the same is done. Similar to a flash back. She was sitting on the other side of hotel room. Yes these flashbacks visualization cannot be considered as the exact picturisation. if somebody narrates to you an incident then your mind picturises it. So here the opposite side of the room can be totally the cutie's perception or visualization of what cobb narrated. Again the totem was a narration. If you remember the totem fell only in narration and picturization. Note that this was narrated by another guy to the cutie architect. So again this cutie architect - she imagined some grand hotel in the case of MAL and a drastically falling totem in the second. So mel standing on the other side and totem falling immediately are either the cutie-archi's perception or the audience perception as visualized by the director/script writer. This does not prove that they were in a dream. In any case in the final the top was spinning but, to me such a top can spin for nearly a minute. Its just that he decided to tease the audience by cutting the scene. It is similar to the evil dead's movie where the ghost is still alive and shows a red eye to the audience just when you think it got killed and movie is over. The first layer is not a dream. There are just too many incidents that prove that what Cobb came back to is a reality!
Comment #393 (Posted by Blank)
Please stop cheapening cinema by giving such thought and create to a good idea gone bad by indulging in a mediocre script and over hyped special effects (except for the absent gravity scene, that wa ace... Even if the logic for it didn't follow through to thennext level.)
Comment #394 (Posted by lazyburners)
There are no opening credits or opening title of the movie. It just goes directly to the story. Thus, the audience cannot remember how it started (thus being a dream).
The Edit Piaf song being played during the end credits are the kick for the audience to wake up from the dream.
I have a theory that I don't think anyone has picked up on yet.
I have the theory that Cobb is a dream junkie and his wife was trying to get him to come back to reality. When she committed suicide by jumping off the ledge, she made it so that he couldn't see his kids if he stayed there by getting herself declared sane by 3 different doctors and writing a letter to her attorney telling him that Cobb had threatened to kill her.
Notice that Ariadne catches him using the dream machine by himself, which he doesn't want the others to know about.
When Yusuf takes him to the dream basement (Den), he is the first to sit down and try it out without hesitation.
The old man who runs the den has intuition to provide some wisdom to Cobb. Insinuating that Cobb has a thing to learn about dreaming.
The place looked like an opium Den where people come for 3 hours a day to get back to "their reality."
It could be argued that Ariadne was actually Mal who was using a disguise like Eames did when he acted like the god father of Fischer.
and the reason why she was doing this is to incept the idea to Cobb to come out of his self induced addiction to re-living memories through dreams.
This might explain why he doesn't want to look at his children's faces, but he wants nothing more than to get back to them.
It might also explain why the guy shows up out of nowhere with the plane tickets - a methaphor that Cobb was escaping from reality by staying away from his kids.
The father (or father-in-law) told him to go back to his kids and reality.
In the last scene with Mal, she asks him if he thinks this is his reality getting chased around by corporate goons, being on the run, etc. In other words, asking him if this was his idea of a good time.
The Totem was Mal's idea. So the concept of the Totem and thus the ability to determine whether you were in reality or not could be her inception to Cobb.
Of course, another theory that resonates is that his wife has committed suicide while he is on a business trip and he is flying home to see his kids, and his father-in-law picks him up at the airport. On the flight, he dreams the movie. The characters in the dream are also on the flight, but that's the only reason why they are in the dream. Notice that when they are in the airport, they don't seem to know each other, and there is a guy holding a sign for "Fischer" - but if he was such a well known, wealthy tycoon, he would be known and probably have his own security detail pick him up, especially if he makes the flight every two weeks.
Comment #395 (Posted by Simon)
Just in reference to the Hotel scene. I thought it was interesting that we had these two mirrored hotel rooms. One with Mal, the other with Cob. For me that was a defining moment about reality mirroring the dream. I completely agree with the authors analysis of this film. Whilst I don't consider myself some sort of superior intellect I did, at the hotel suicide scene, suddenly realise and accept that the entire story was a dream and Cobb at no point was in reality. The mirrored hotel room for me, was confirmation that this world was not real and just a mirror of your subconscious. It wasn't the intention of the story or Mal to make that statement. Her motivations were clear for why an opposite hotel room was booked but the subtext to it was fairly evident I thought.
Comment #396 (Posted by BanrionTine)
I don't disagree with the 'it's all a dream' theory - but I disagree with the points about the top. You still have to explain why the top *consistently* (not 'sometimes' as stated in the article) drops before they go into Fischer's dream, and doesn't only after Cobb has gone after Saito. You have to remember two things: the top only spun endlessly when you were in *someone else's* dream - not if you were in your own. And how much Saito knew about the dream from the very beginning. Saito didn't know enough to do inception himself - but he certainly knew enough to trap Cobb in a dream of his (Saito's) making once Cobb had gone to rescue him. So yeah, maybe Cobb is in his own dream at the beginning, maybe he's not. But at the end, it's definitely Saito's. It was the only way Saito could keep his end of the bargain.
Comment #397 (Posted by TareX)
1) Mal on the opposite side of the building:
She rented the room after wrecking the other opposite one to make it look like a fight, then waited for him in the other room. She couldn't stay in the second room because then he can hold her back. She needs to have a face-2-face conversation with him.
2) Mumbasa buildings
Like any 3rd world country, it's common for anyone to build anywhere, as long as he owned the land, for maximum profit. There is no architectural "plan", nor is there a design standard everyone should adhere to. Acutely narrowing alleys are aplenty there, and I've seen many of those.
3) Siato in Mumbasa
Siato has been eyeing Cobb ever since he let him go on that roof. He tells Cobb, who -unlike in a dream- was surprised to find him there, "I need to protect my investments (him, Cobb)"
3) "Get back to reality, Cobb."
- He was just telling him to quit getting in and out of dreams and just find a way to see his children and deal with his problems in reality. Also, noteworthy: In dreams, you don't tell yourself to wake up.
Comment #398 (Posted by Bon Nob)
My only problem is the "dream logic" you talk about is also the same as "movie logic". Certain things being too perfect are not a quality of a dream necessarily, but plot devices. They move the story along and save the main character at the height of the climax of the scene. It happens in every movie ever at least once.
Comment #399 (Posted by Bobby)
This is an excellent article and I find your interpretation to be fascinating. I also think that if Nolan reads this than he will be forever in your debt for giving this film more depth than he himself is actually capable of creating. I'm sorry but judging by his previous works and by what I saw in the theater myself the other day, I struggle to believe that Nolan had the 81/2 angle in mind when he made this, and I also doubt that he puts as much thought into his own films as the general public would like to believe. All of his films are better than average Hollywood fare with a gimmick thrown in to trick people into thinking that the movie is deeper than it actually is. And if Leo said the things that you quoted above, than he is also trying to convince himself that the movie is more than your typical Schwarzenegger film in a dream. I also believe that the gimmick at the end of the movie is simply meant as a final joke, nothing more. Inception was a fun movie, but far from the thinker that most are claiming it is, in my opinion.
Comment #400 (Posted by Nate )
I like this theory and I have officially adopted it, but I just have a few questions.
Who is doing the dreaming? I dream I am someone else all the time. I think it irresposible to spend so much time proving the movie is a dream and then just assuming who the dreamer is.
The truth is there is no way of knowing. These people in the dream/movie could be the dream of anyone metally capable of thinking in complex ways.
Why do you assume Cobb is the dreamer? Because he is the lead role? That doesn't make sense. You can't combine the fiction aspect of the film with the non-fiction aspect. That violates all the laws of film making.
Comment #401 (Posted by kris)
Excellent piece, good analysis and insides on Fellini's 8 and a 1/2 and filmmaking. I thought so too that it was ALL a dream, Cobb's dream. For example nobody mentions that in the scene in Mogadishu everybody wears clothes from the 1950s, even Eammes. Why if it is not a dream and the dreamer's subconscious made it that way? And the final scene is clearly a dream, if Cobb said that he spent with his wife 50 years dreaming, even if it makes only 1 year in real life, plus he was then chased out of the US etc., it had to be a few years between he saw his kids the last time and now, then why they have not grown older at all and he sees them exactly as imagined before? The only plausible explanation is that it is ALL a dream consisting of several stages.
Comment #402 (Posted by Wouter)
THE ANSWER
Everything is a dream till HE WOKE UP IN THE PLAIN.
Why:
1. There are no strings attached to the everybody (in the first scene there is a proove that it is impossible)
2. They tell you you never know the beginning of the dream. All scenes starting halfway - except the airplane scene
3. After he woke up, they don't know each other.
4. At the end he is walking away from his totem. In any other situation he is stressed out and curious if he is dreaming or not. Now, he knows he is in reality.
6. Relativity in time: every dream hasthe same time connection. Except the plane. For instance: when the bus drops (let's say 30 sec), that means 1 sec in the plane. But the plane is for hours.
7. What else? All the movie he is wearing a wedding ring. Except in the plane and after. In the dreams he is married.
If you look it this way, everything falls in place.
Comment #403 (Posted by CJ)
Sorry sir, but you are incorrect.
The entire film is NOT a dream.
NOR is it a reality.
And I say this because there will never be a definitive answer to that question. Certain elements were purposely put into the film for the viewer to decide what's real and what's not. That's the flat out fact of it.
"Analysts" can blog about whatever they think, but that's exactly what's supposed to happen. You take from it what you will. That's the point of the movie.
Comment #404 (Posted by somethoughts)
@Comment #388 (Posted by mike)
The totem never worked as it belong to Mal.
@Comment #403 (Posted by CJ)
The evidence is there, the entire movie is a dream. There are clues in each and every scene.
Comment #405 (Posted by dangle)
Multiperplexed…
CN’s grand illusion seems to have many hoodwinked…
CN likes films where the audience’s experience of watching the film is like navigating their way through a maze. In Inception CN (as architect/screenwriter) designed a complex maze/plot with some parts barely signposted, a number of optical illusions and, seemingly, a few ambiguities (and possibly one or two holes?). To continue with the maze analogy, sometimes we can misread or read too much into a signpost in the maze if it is vague or unclear. If our reading of signpost leads us to a completely different maze all together rather than helping us navigate through the one we were in, then it should be clear that we misread the signpost. What I’m saying is that one’s interpretation of the film should be based on everything we see in the film, in its entirety, not just certain bits of it, e.g. in one interpretation someone suggested that Mal is alive in the reality and is trying to wake Cobb up – it’s conceivable, sure, but really, where is the evidence for this when the film is taken as a whole? As for ambiguities -- it is our natural impulse to try and resolve these, but this process will no doubt make our navigating through the maze that much more troublesome than if we just let them be. Additionally CN elaborates his maze with various “optical illusion” moments e.g. the final scene closely resembles one of Cobb’s previous dreams/experiences which may cause us to question whether we have gone back into the maze, so to speak, and Cobb is still dreaming (perhaps he’s in limbo). Also the two scenes with Cobb and Saito in limbo that bookend the main section of the film are like the penrose stairs -- an endless loop. The point, I think, is that if we look hard enough we see that actually the two scenes with Cobb and Saito are not identical and at the end the kids are in slightly different clothes etc – that they are identical to before is an illusion; the penrose stairs could not exist in reality after all.
So I am saying that some of the interpretations I have read (including that it is all a dream) are the result of our impulse to resolve an ambiguity, our falling foul of one of the Nolan’s illusions, or simply our misreading of something that may or may not have been deliberately left vague or unclear. So yes I have some sympathy with the idea that Nolan deliberately set up the movie so that one’s own interpretation of the movie becomes the reality of the movie (a comment on relativism?) but equally I think the film works perfectly well when read “straight”, as it were. I do like the idea that the film is Cobb’s dream until he wakes up on the plane at the end but for that interpretation you have to add things in that aren’t presented to us in the film so may be that’s more illusion.
The other thing CN did was to bring these themes of relativism vs. realism and illusion vs reality into the subject matter of the film (a relationship that is symbolised by the endless mirror) which on reflection I think is quite a clever idea although I guess it has been done before?
Props to devin for highlighting the other big metaphors/subtexts present in the film, that I had not picked up on after one viewing i.e. the relationship between movies and dreams (movies as shared dreams) and the whole heist as the process of filmmaking (more evidence?: Saito, the exec producer, or big studio money man takes a “hit” when the action scenes of the heist begin). I enjoyed the film but I don’t think it was as original as Memento. A lot of the action scenes were actually nothing special. Visually, it had some good moments but on the whole I felt this was a big missed opportunity (why was limbo so visually dull? and why wasn’t there more of the “creating the dream world on the fly” stuff). Emotionally it had me engaged but I felt it was often a little off the mark (esp. the scenes between Mal and Cobb), but then again, I wasn’t expecting a rich emotional element from this film. As a multi-layered puzzle or maze I’d give it 5 stars, but at it’s core it is an action-adventure movie not a puzzle and on that basis I’d give it 4 stars.
Comment #406 (Posted by dave)
I actually just saw this movie and wanted some quick analysis. this was a lot more than i had bargained for. very well done, id like to think that i wouldve come to the same conclusion but i guess ill never know now. but i do want to go back and watch the begining again. i kept noticing ticking sounds after a character said something like "secured" or "protected" especially during the scene where ariadne flips the city on to itself. there was also a theme with the music that had a lot of ticking sounds in it. again ill have to watch it again. maybe cobbs totem is a watch?
Comment #407 (Posted by aburtch)
Fantastic perspective and insight. We create and perceive dreams and movies simultaneously.
Comment #408 (Posted by kostas)
Detailed analisys..nice and i think you spent too much time wathcing again and again the movie. I have a quetion for you though..What is the reality of the movie? Cause we know that once you wake up from you dream, you're back in your REALITY..right? So, once again..What is the REALITY of the movie (dream) ?
Comment #409 (Posted by Adrian Humm)
The "Instant Classic" epithet is well-deserved I feel. Now I'm wondering how much input Nolan will have into the DVD release. Will he use this to add more layers to the film-making metaphor? Could we get a truly "classic" DVD release?
Comment #410 (Posted by nathan)
the problem with the whole thing being cobb's dream is that the dreamer cannot leave the level of their dream. yusef couldn't go to the 2nd level, arthur couldn't go to the 3rd level, and eames couldn't go to the 4th level. like it shows in the beginning when arthur was shot and left his dream, the dreamworld collapses. cobb would be stuck at the first level of his dream if he were the dreamer. of course, he could have dreamed up the whole technology and the rules, so i guess it's possible that it was all his dream...
at any rate, this is an excellent review. continuing with the movie analogy, the first level is the yusef, the technical stuff. the second level is the producer. the third level is the actor, and the fourth is the director. you would think that the roles progressive get more deep. special effects are pretty shallow; the producer adds a little more; actors can add emotion and some depth, but directors are the key in providing the depth of a movie.
Comment #411 (Posted by Vito)
THIS IS A PURE ACTION MOVIE!!
THE WHOLE DREAM SEQUENCE IS TO KEEP THINGS INTERESTING. you are not suppose to figure anything out. its an action movie just like batman. why is everyone thinking so hard. Its not matrix, its not "the game" its not shutter island".
Comment #412 (Posted by Nicholas Croft)
Any 'creative' industry's hierarchy could be grafted onto this story: Architects, software development, orchestra/conductor/composer/opera house, in fact any endeavour that requires some 'vision' and the resources to achieve it.
Comment #413 (Posted by low cowboy)
For those of you arguing that it can't all be a dream because dreams are self-centered and Cobb is not in every scene: you are missing the point that ALL characters in a dream are different manifestations of a single individual's subconscious. Cobb may be the truest overall aspect of that personality, but the other characters are clear representations of distinct subconscious urges: the rational, the nurturer, the guilt, etc. So the entire movie could indeed be from a dreamlike, self-centered POV, just with varying versions of self.
Also, to those who noticed that the "top" layer (the one the movie initially accepts as reality) contains clues that differentiates it from the other layers (wearing wedding ring, kids slightly different, etc).: it is clear that different layers of dreams operate by different rules, so noting any differences doesn't necessarily mean one layer is dream and another isn't. The storyline become more and more implausible the deeper you go, starting with a relatively realistic con and decending to the point that they are all a team of super-commandos blitzing a fortress straight out of James Bond. If Cobb believes that top level is reality, his mind would certainly interpret it more realistically. And if his wife is gone on that level, it would be plausible for him to contruct it accordingly by not wearing a wedding ring, kids aging, etc. Doesn't make it reality though - plenty of other evidence that the top level is still a dream, particularly the Mombassa chase scene. Not just the walls closing-in, but also Saito showing up, the waiter yelling at him incessantly for no reason, they way the chase ended exaclty where it needed to back at the bar, the nifty superman move he uses to get over the car blocking his way... Nothing in Cobb's "real" past to suggest he would be capable of amazing feats of gymnastics. Dream on.
Comment #414 (Posted by zhypher33)
i really need to watch the movie again, actually i might watch it for 3rd or 4th time to fully understand this film... First time that i watched it i told to myself, now this is something new! BTW good job sir!
Comment #415 (Posted by comothan)
Cobb was in someone else's dream; the audience's. That is why we hear and see the top getting ready to tumble at the end the end of the film... and then we wake up.
Comment #416 (Posted by Katharine)
I've just got home from inception and still working out what I think. You convincingly argue that Inception is an allegory of film making, but one doesn't necessarily have to conclude from this that it is all a dream. Nolan's use of the totem I think, is key. I'm not convinced (yet) by your argument that it doesn't matter whether it falls or not. If it does fall before Saito provides him with the (unrealistic) only option to see his children again, could Nolan be suggesting this is the point where Cobb begins dreaming? Incidently, whether you believe the whole thing is a dream or not - Mal may not even be a real person, simply the darker edge of Cobb's sub-conscious - as the name suggests.
Comment #417 (Posted by Nicolas)
This is perfect, exactly many of my thoughts. Amazing job...
Comment #418 (Posted by Franco)
Interesting points Devin. I searched a number of website's with interviews with Leonardo DeCaprio and Chris Nolan to gleen any clues about what happened in Inception and found the Hollywood Reporter website, DeCaprio stated in the intervview (fair use excerpt) "So for me, it was a matter of sitting dow with Chris and being able to really form the backbone of a character that had a real cathartic journey and really had almost - create a scenario where it became like a giant therapy session. At the end of the day, these different layers of the dream do represent a psychoanalysis, him getting deeper and deeper and closer to the truth of what he needs to understand about himself." Quite a revealing statement!
Comment #419 (Posted by Mykels56)
THE WHOLE MOVIE IS NOT A DREAM.
In certain parts of the movie his totem falls meaning that he was not dreaming and was in the real world at the start of the movie. To say that the totem theory is meaningless could mean that other rules are meaningless and if so would not have much point to it, so the totem theory is real. Now did he ever wake up from limbo in the end of the movie? It never showed him get a kick to wake up, as they would say in the movie, how did he get there? The top at the end is meant to leave the viewers with did he wake up from limbo in the end or not. This is the basic layout of the moive ending.
Comment #420 (Posted by Hannah)
Perhaps while it WAS his dream, the others in the film were Incepting HIM... Putting the idea in his mind that he was not to blame for his wife's death to help him get over it.... and while it did not wake him up, it send him to a new level.. a happier one.
We think it's him with the power to change someone's idea & the whole time, it's the other players in the game who are incepting his thoughts.. Love it
Comment #421 (Posted by Elodie)
This is so beautifully written!! Thank you! I do believe Cobb is in a dream the whole time.. Most probably.. That chase in the market, closing walls, it all looked very surreal... But there is more to think about.. Great movies make you think!! This article and thus discussion is def a sign of a great movie!
Comment #422 (Posted by Zach L.)
I have read several theories about the movie, and none of them have satisfied my own theories or sense of logic. until now that is. I love your analysis is so deep that it simplifies the whole movie, while still keeping the themes complex.
Bravo Sir you have answered my questions without stifling my quest for answers.
Comment #423 (Posted by jekar)
What about if the solution of dream or not dream, expressed in form of a picture, is the scene when Ariadne pulls the two mirrors against each another with the result (we were fascinated from this effect when we were children, right? ) of an impression of infiniteness?
Comment #424 (Posted by K. Lightning)
I really enjoyed this film, but I thought it'd be a good idea to go high.... Nope. I wanna go back and see it again sober and try to catch onto all these little things.
Comment #425 (Posted by The Walrus)
After reading this review (after admittedly not having the patience (life span for the miles of comments (he's doing something right) I feel a little dumber I don't want to stand up here (especially, because there is no courage in hiding behind this text) and I respect anyone who performs, who opens it up, who says "this is what I stand for." Unfortunately, he seems a little more mentally geared towards doing tax returns (sorry) take me some place, give me some depth, make me forget where I am. Don't just hand me, what I have already been given.
Comment #426 (Posted by Tim H)
There seems to be a major problem with the "it's all a dream" theory and I'd be curious if people can comment on this.
Cobb and Mal in their past somehow obtain a dreaming machine in the past for their original 50 year shared dream.
It would not seem logically possible for Cobb to be stuck in a dream, or for the whole film to be a dream, without the existence of the dreaming machine.
If there is a dreaming machine, then it makes sense that hired hit-men and Inception would be based in real life, being the set up for this movie's reality.
Also, as others have stated, if Mal was right and it was a dream, she could wake Cobb up once she killed herself.
Personally I find it a little disturbing to think that the suicidal Mal is right, and that the protagonist should heed her advice and commit suicide in a situation that is much more obviously reality. The story tellers of the film would basically be saying the suicidal person that has lost her mind is really correct, and the more stable Cobb was wrong. Seems like a very poor message to send, otherwise I think the main protagonist would be Mal (the one who is correct, and the whole plot would be reversed.)
To me, the story is much more satisfying when we realize that Cobb and Mal were in real life after they woke up once, and that was why it was all the more tragic. He planted a seed in her mind that grew in the dream world and stayed in the real world.
This was so thoroughly explained that it would contradict the whole premise of the movie: an idea once planted in the mind will remain real whether you are dreaming or not.
I think Mal's "seeds of doubt" were just that: seeds of doubt to make us question whether Cobb is really dreaming. They are like the demons in our own mind that we have to fight.
Think about the analogy with suicide. If you have a demon in your mind saying, "life isn't worth living, kill yourself," do you listen to that voice or do you fight it?
The internal conflict of resisting one's personal doubts (which was personified by the fictitious versions of Mal in Cobb's dreams) makes for great drama, and seems to be the reason I would have Mal's character say what she does.
Last, Nolan cut the end of the movie before it fell to tease us and give us more to think about.
The fact that the children were still roughly the same age is peculiar and dream like, but it seems like this was Nolan's attempt to add more ambiguity.
Nolan clearly wanted the film to be open to interpretation, yet the weight of Mal's tragic suicide and Cobb's guilt for causing it (the primary arc of the film) would be lost if it wasn't supposed to be real life (in the film) Ahhh soo meta, : )
Comment #427 (Posted by Laurent)
Well, I like this beautifully crafted theory. The only MAJOR flaw in it is the way the action is shown to us. If everythin is a dream that belongs to Cobb, then the all second dream level doesn't work for example. In this one we follow Arthur only while Cobb is asleep. We all know that in dreams we are always the centre of what takes place - so following Arthur as the only character awake in this level does not fit with the Cobb is dreaming it all version.
We could still argue that Nolan has to use such tricks to have a more interesting storytelling but considering how well crafted his script is, it seems like a stretch.
That was the same problem with Total recall by the way. There were some scenes where the character played by Arnold was not here at all- like when the baddies talked together- and that couldn't happen if it were his own dream.
Comment #428 (Posted by Knave Murdok)
The people in Yusuf's shop, who used hiw most powerful sedative, and come back every day to "share the dream." That's us, the movie-going audience.
Comment #429 (Posted by I am Sathan)
Holy textwall batman!
Comment #430 (Posted by Gilles)
Another dreamlike element: the name of the new architect, maker of mazes - Ariadne - is directly from Greek mythology. She is the girl who helps Theseus defeat the Minotaur and get out of the maze.
Comment #431 (Posted by an unknown user)
This is an absolutely amazing critique of this movie. It gives me chills how fitting this analysis is. There is no other way that an idea can catch hold in our minds than by such a seamless plant--one that we don't even know has occurred.
Comment #432 (Posted by Tiptoes)
Quick thought re: inception as film crew - Mel (Mal) could be short for Melpomene, the Greek muse of tragedy who carries a sword/knife in one hand. She was the singing muse before she became the muse of tragedy. The actress who played Mal previously played songstress edith piaf, whose song is featured in the film (where she plays a tragic figure).
Comment #433 (Posted by Amanda)
For those of you asking what the kick was at the end of the film to get Dom out of limbo, Saito reaches for the gun, and then it cuts to the airplane scene. Could he have shot them both to kick them awake? The sedative would have worn off by then I think. And Saito touching his top at the beginning wouldn't set up the whole movie to be a dream, since that sequence actually happened at the end.
My only question is why was the scene at the beginning with old Saito necessary?
Comment #434 (Posted by smith)
Nice piece.
But i think you over thought this most desperate attempt at originality. The movie should not be analyzed, as there is NOTHING worth analyzing.
It is self indulgent, pompous, and ultimately pointless.
That said, I agree with you that the movie only makes sense from the perspective of it all being a dream. And you are right, the Africa chase scene should clinch it for everyone.
The two building closing in on a person simply doesn't happen in real life. And the magical appearance of Saito can only be justified with dream logic.
Comment #435 (Posted by Eric S)
The scene with old Saito in the beginning and the end I feel could be a metaphor for the penrose stairs?
Comment #436 (Posted by betterwriter)
Although this analysis is fairly well thought out, I believe it to be very far from the truth of the matter. If the entire movie were to have taken place in a dream state, then there would be no need for the cutoff ending that leaves the audience questioning whether or not Cobb came back to reality.
PS. To all those who claim this post was beautifully written, GO BACK TO SCHOOL!! The writing is amateur at best.
Comment #437 (Posted by Dialoguista)
Una amiga me dio una traduccion de este articulo. Es genial!!!
Comment #438 (Posted by an unknown user)
Everything in this i have the exact same theory, but also could you not also think about the idea of limbo. I believe he might in fact still be in his limbo throughout the film, and everything happening around him is his judgment. At the end he has been judged and is able to go to his so called "hire place" after life. Which is being with his children exactly how he left them and able to be back in his home.
Comment #439 (Posted by Impheatus)
Thanks for this wonderful article.
Because of movies like Inception and the emotions it creates that result in writings like this is why I find cinema my biggest passion.
Comment #440 (Posted by Impheatus)
Thanks for this wonderful article.
Because of movies like Inception and the emotions it creates that result in writings like this is why I find cinema my biggest passion.
Comment #441 (Posted by Wake Up, Now)
All movies are designed to implant ideas in your head and make you think that the ideas are your own. (Pop songs, too.) Hollywood is a propaganda center for social engineering. Please remember Cobb when you watch movies, even a corny old black and white movie. Movie makers are not ethical people because they have not been invited by you to tamper with your subconscious but they use movies to deliberately do this very thing. If you think movies are some kind of gift to you, please know there is a reason for the gift, and if you knew the reason, to program you with other peoples values, you wouldn't think you are so lucky to have a vital movie industry in this country.
Comment #442 (Posted by Kuik)
I watched some of interviews that the movie team did, and its clear that your vision is close to theirs, especially when you are talking about this kind of metaphor.
WATCH THEESE INTERVIEWS AND YOU WILL SEE THAT HE IS MOST OF THE TIME TRYNG TO APPROPRIATE THE VISION OF CHRISTOPHER NOLAN AND THE MOVIE TEAM.
Comment #443 (Posted by CaptainPerson)
I'd like to add that in the 'suicide' scene, both Cobb and Mal are sitting outside of identical hotel rooms. Not just similar, they are the exact same.
I also have my own interpretation of the ending, that Cobb walks away from the top as he accepts that world as his reality, whether it is real or not; he's put too much into it to abandon it at all.
Comment #444 (Posted by Carlos151)
To argue that 8 1/2 is ultimately about movie making or Fellini's life is absurd. Film is the medium, and, while by its very nature as spectacle, it embodies a self-reflexive dynamic, it is not in or of itself the end to which it aims. People who work in "the industry" will consciously and unconsciously use the matter at their disposal, whether that matter may reflect habits recognizable in scouting a location, a psychological recurrence of a more personal nature, a longing for one's mother, or anything else that comes to mind from imagination, memory, dreams or experience. In some sense, because of the nature of the dream factory culture in which the movie industry functions, Inception reflects the womb from which it issues, BUT that is not its meaning. It plays on the dreaming fantasy of movie culture. It can pander to, frustrate, energize or dispel the expectations and desires of its audience. But like all other forms of narrative, it tells a story. And while part of that story may be about itself, it is, like the stories that Odysseus tells, about much more than either the storyteller or the audience is aware.
Comment #445 (Posted by HK)
Gr8 job!! In Memento, it also had a debatable and confusing end. Hans Zimmer helped make the movie amazing, like he does over and over again. My 2 cents: why is everyone so bent up on 'choosing to do what's right and go to reality' for Cobb, but in their own life they will choose the fake world of the 'matrix' (movies, etc.), vacation islands (to get away from reality), ignore the injustices of the world, etc. Most of us would 'stay in the dream world where we can do what we want'. Thank God for everything He has given us, the reality of dreams and the world.
Comment #446 (Posted by Ron)
I agree completely with your analysis of the situation.
I would like to suggest one level further:
During all of the dream sequences in the movie (assuming you categorize the various dreams as sequences) Mal is the person that is trying to either kill people or convince them to kill themselves.
As well, she is portrayed as the only "dead" person in the movie that is participating in the dreams.
What this tells me is that she may be the person injecting herself into Cobb's dream, and trying to get him shot or killed so he wakes up!
I could imagine this happening if something traumatic happened to someone, and they couldn't wake up - for instance a coma.
Mal could very well be doing all of this convincing because she is in the "real world" trying to wake up Cobb who is constructing all of these dream sequences thinking that in the first dream sequence he is alive, and the rest of the sequences are underlying dreams.
It could very well be that he was in a vehicle accident and floated away onto a beach, and Mal is trying to convince him to wake up throughout the entire movie.
I'm going to watch it again with this hypothesis in mind... I think it might explain everything, including the fact that the Top is Mal's totem and he is using it.
Either that, or all of the dream sequences are Mal's, but I haven't thought that scenario all the way through.
Comment #447 (Posted by Sarah)
I thought the pinwheel in the safe was a nod to Leo's environmental rallying, and that the energy corporation that Murphy was taking over would be turned into a sustainable energy. Did anyone else get that message?
Comment #448 (Posted by Moloko)
Here's the flawlessness at work: Suspension of disbelief is key to movie success as it is to dreams. If you think about it as a dream, everything does not make sense--- which makes sense for dreams. If you think about it as reality, that makes sense--- for we suspend our disbelief to enjoy film.
Now the third and indisputable theory is... It is all bullshit! It is just a movie! Don't buy any of it! :)
Comment #449 (Posted by Nishtha)
every time i think abt inception, i feel i was in a dream when i watch the movie or/and perhaps i m still dreaming........mindblowing direction.......i wish i would miss the ending...and keep on beleiving that everything was reality.....anyways kudos to devin very nice elucidation....
Comment #450 (Posted by Rachel)
I'd like to add that when the author talks of what a good movie does, the same could be said of any other type of art form. He says that a great movie leaves you thinking differently; so does a great theatre production, a great dance, a great painting, a great poem, a great song, a great book.....
Comment #451 (Posted by Asplanchna)
If it's all a dream, what on earth would be the point of the movie?
Comment #452 (Posted by Alana)
I didn't buy the dream exploration plot either. I agree that the entire movie is Cobb's dream. The maze is a poignant metaphor; Cobb seems to meander through some kind of subconsdcious labyrith from which he can't escape; the apartment, the Japanese room, the hotel suite all represent chambers within the labyrinth that confines him. It's as if he's stuck in an continuous feedback loop in his own subconscious.
I agree that the explanation on dream technology is deliberately flimsy; in your dreams you are never concerned with constructing a plausible reality; it doesn't arouses susicion when, for instance, your father morphs into your brother.
Likewise, it's never really clear who actually designs the dreams. We are told that Ariadne is the "architect" but Cobb leaves his signature all over the dreamscape; the children keep reappearing, as does the freight train. In the Paris artelier, we get a brief glimpse of the dreamscape that Ariadne has designed - an architedcts model of sky scrapers. It bears a striking resemblannce to the crumbling city which, we are told, Cobb and Mal created during their 50 years in limbo. At that point, Ariadne didn't even know that this deep level existed, so how could she reproduced it so faithfuly?
I saw the film as Cobb's exploration of his significant relationships. Fischer was merely a vehicle in that journey; Cobb clearly had unresolved issues with his father, felt disconnected to his children, and was grappling with opposing feelings of love and hatred towards his wife.
Maybe, in the real world she did commit suicide and he was playing out feelings of guilt and anger. She comes across as both a victim and a perpetrator; she rages, plants traps and assassinates his projections, yet, she is also his beloved wife, whom he grows old with.
Deep in Cobb's subconscious world, we see the French chateau in which Mal was raised. It's run down and creepy, and carries a secret which was unlocked at great expense. There's a suggestion that something happened to her in that house that contributed to her suicide
As for the spinning top, that was Mal's totem, not Cobb's. He never had a totem of his own, and was therefore ill-equipped to decipher dreams from reality.
Comment #453 (Posted by Laurian)
It all makes sense to me now, thanks for the great article and for putting together so many pieces of the puzzle.
The ending is BRILLIANT in this context, the totem being meant for US, the audience. It starts whobbling because the movie/dream is almost finished - the credits start rolling!
After that we can hear the totem falling down, as if telling us "thanks for watching, the dream is over, you can go home now."
Chris Nolan is one brilliant S.O.B.
Comment #454 (Posted by Paul)
I relate to your interpretation. I felt extremely moved after watching Inception, and a friend said i looked "more abnormal than usual" after we left the theater. We asked each other, did it topple? Whether it did or not is irrelevant when you know anything can happen in a dream.
Comment #455 (Posted by Josephine)
there's one more thing that underlines your statement! ( i love the article btw)
in the end of the movie, just when Michael Caine picks up the kids, the little boy says:
We're building a house on the mountain, and he points in the distance where, if u look closely, u can see a house.
This reminds us of the fact that in Limbo, u can create everything.
Just another piece of info that might help u verify your theorie!
Comment #456 (Posted by Sean)
For me, the-whole-movie-is-a-dream is the least interesting interpretation, in that it's the most obvious. I was really hoping the movie didn't end that way explicitly and was glad when it didn't.
I like the whole "this is a movie about filmmaking" take though.
Comment #457 (Posted by an unknown user)
Any movie that provokes this much theorizing, meaning-making, and *sharing* is a success, in my opinion. I've never heard an audience say "aah" aloud at the end of a movie before, as I did last night in the theater. I was immediately struck by the fun of the puzzle pieces left for us to analyze and I felt so smart after reading your analysis and seeing that your interpretation matched and fleshed out my own. The totem was Mal's not Cobb's, so there was no proof that the final scene was real. It occurs to me that Cobb might have chosen to stay in limbo forever because it was better than real life; like committing suicide and hoping to go to heaven or at least be released from the pain of real life, but ending up in limbo for the all eternity (if not hell). However, that reading doesn't explain the unrealityof the beginning scenes being presented as reality. I'll have to watch it a second time to evaluate the theory that the whole thing is a dream.
What if the point of the film is to show us how tempting it is to lose ourselves in fantasy, whether by playing video games, watching movies, reading, exploring the internet, or posting blogs and getting nothing done all day, as I have done for the last several hours! Thank goodness I met my goals of writing, exercising, and eating, before I sat down to do some research and got distracted by indulging my fascination with this film. Now I must "wake up" as Cobb must do and get back to real living and creating instead of passively dreaming and debating, with nothing real to show for it. But why? When the fictional world is so intensely pleasurable, why would anyone want to live in the real world? Oh yeah! So we can sustain ourselves by producing the means for survival. If we can afford to lie around the house in dreamland for days on end, someone else is probably supporting us (I'm a teacher and have summers off, so there are exceptions as well as vacations), which makes us parasites. That is not a flattering metaphor.
Comment #458 (Posted by Jacelya)
Genius. Incisive analysis. Now I can't wait to see the movie again - because it's a remarkable sample of filmmaking and also to see if I see what you perceive...or something else, upon a second viewing. Right now I feel as if you are embarrassingly more insightful than me, several steps ahead of me :-) Great article.
Comment #459 (Posted by Rosie)
This article is brilliant...for it truelly described the movie in detail in a way I undersatnd even better than I did from the first time I watched it. The film itself is mindblowing...one that even until this every moment still has the wheels of my mind turning trying to figure out if I missed anything that would make the movie any more clearer than it already is. Thank you for sharing this article. For those who have yet to watch Inception, go watch it. It's truelly worth seeing.
Comment #460 (Posted by Lady P )
AMAZING article, I completely agree....I think I need to watch that movie again
Comment #461 (Posted by an unknown user)
ooohhhh shit. depth and meaning..(that isn't really there to being with)
Comment #462 (Posted by [A])
Good read!
Comment #463 (Posted by John)
if the actual movie is the dream hypothesis, how many years did I spend watching it? thanks for the article, nice read, and agree wholeheartedly.
Comment #464 (Posted by Jason)
I have to say, that this whole analogy to a movie production really DOES make sense (ie- Saito representing Sony in their involvment in US movie productions). BUT, I do think that the last scene after he wakes up on the plane is the only Level 0 or "reality" scene in the whole movie. I think you can make an argument that he dreamt the whole thing until he woke up on the plane. The way his team was staring at him on the plane is just the way people would stare at you when you wake up like that on the plane near you. And the way they looked at him in the baggage claim area is the way somebody would acknowledge you after sitting next to you on the plane....with just a slight smile of knowing. He could have saw or even interacted with everybody sitting next to him prior to falling asleep..which is why there were all in the dream (similar to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz and her relatives).
Comment #465 (Posted by Meme Pool)
The most convincing evidence, to me, of Devin's thesis, is found in exploding the figurative paradoxical staircase that opens the movie. We see Cobb, washed up on a beach, and we have no idea how he got there. As the dream unwinds and he "wakes up", we slowly realize that he's still in another layer. Once we get to what the film lays out as reality, where Saito has conducted an 'audition' for the job. But the sequence is repeated again, identically, with the exception that this time Saito is being rescued. Which is how that Inception is accomplished, by having us believe that the paradox is resolved, and it was our idea.
I also love the notion that the ending scene is a 'kick' for the audience, and has that effect. The collective response was one of the best I've ever witnessed, and really makes the collective viewing experience so much more enjoyable. Especially given that even the gasp can be interpreted in so many different ways.
Besides the Matrix, two other movies I'd like to compare it to are: "Synecdoche" and one of my favorites, "Waking Life". I am surprised by how many people seemed offended by the infinite dream idea in the Matrix analysis, in juxtaposition of how many above are accepting of this notion in this analysis.
Comment #466 (Posted by Johanna)
I would like to add something concerning the song "je ne regrette rien", which we can hear several times in the movie. i've just thought about the text, and I found another link between the name "Mal" (which indeed sounds very curious to me, and I come from germany - so btw, sorry for my english!!) and the whole plot: edith piaf sings: "no, je ne regrette rien, ni le bien, qu'on m'a fait, ni le MAL, tout ca m'est bien égal!". This means: I don't regret anything, neither te good (things) that people did to me, nor the BAD (ones), it all doesn't matter to me". I guess that's what Cobb's supposed to do: he has to forget his past, has to accept that his wife is dead and he doesn't have to regret her death. that's the inception happening to Cobb. If he does so, he can wake up, as this is exactly how the song works fpr the rest of the team. It says all the time: "don't regret anything about MAL", in a very obvious way. In my opinion, this parallel is no chance!
Comment #467 (Posted by Steve Johnson)
My question is, do we ever find out how they got to Sydney to start this whole process? This does not strike me as the kind of detail they would just leave out as unimportant.
As stated in the beginning, you never remember how you got where you are in a dream, so is this a clear sign that the flight from Sydney-LAX was a dream? or am I missing something?
Comment #468 (Posted by Brooke)
I definitely see how this movie is compared to film production. But I really don't think that it's ALL a dream. I think your argument is kind of week on that one. I think Mol rented the room across to frame Cobb for murder, that makes plenty more sense. Also Saito's random appearance in Mombasa is a typical hollywood trick, i think you're reading into that too much. I have a different theory. I think that, at least in the end scene, Cobb is in his father, Michael Caine's dream. Think about it, he taught him everything he knew, and he wanted him to find a way to get home. What better way than to take him there in a dream? Maybe it's a stupid theory, but this is only a movie, so I'm not going to think about it for too much longer. Just throwing that out there.
Comment #469 (Posted by Marianthe Bezzerides)
I don't know if the whole movie was a dream, but a telling moment, however short it was, was in the end with the top. Yes, we're left with it spinning, but if you look very closely, the top was beginning to lose its balance and was going to topple over. If it in fact was supposed to spin endlessly, it would never even have a sliver of instability as it was seen in other scenes in the movie.
Comment #470 (Posted by Amy)
It's fun to see how seriously everyone takes their interpretations, the proving of them, and the refuting of others. Like many people, I think it is obvious that there is no correct answer and while I personally feel it is beside the point, not to mention futile, many still do enjoy trying to untangle the 'true' meaning of the film. Which is precisely why I love it. Because it is contentious, and contestable, everyone becomes a film critic, and this is a very good thing.
I'm definitely a dreamer myself, I love to zone out and escape reality, and I think that all people who love a good story are too. I can't make myself look for all the tiny clues and evidence to suggest the 'real' meaning because its too enjoyable to be taken along for the ride, to loose yourself in the wonderful dream world Nolan creates. I am, however, completely taken with your interpretation Devin; its excellent, and if I was to take a side it would easily be yours.
I like the idea that it doesn't matter if its a dream or if its real - as long as you have an EXPERIENCE. If you are moved, changed or simply enjoy it in some way, that's the point and it shouldn't matter what place it comes from. Isn't that what life is all about? Getting some sort of meaning or enjoyment out of all of this confusing mess? It's a mess which none of us really understands anyway, so how real can that be?
Nolan is challenging us. I see a relationship between Nolan's dream-reality and the magic-reality of the genre of magical realism, where all that appears real is magic and what at first seems like magic is actually real. We, the audience, are left not knowing what to believe - an approach which encourages us to really THINK. Get up off our bums, challenge our ideas of what we thought we knew and try and make some sense of it for ourselves.
So I applaud all those involved in this amazing film: Inception has gotten us all away from the everyday beat of our normal lives for just a second, and dared us to dream. For what indeed, would our lives be like without them??
Comment #471 (Posted by Matt)
Some friends and I have discussed the parallels between Mal and Heath Ledger (Cobb/Nolan "kept pushing" to find new boundaries, planted the seed of the totally off the deep end Joker character in Ledger's mind, etc), and I think it's right on the money. If Inception is indeed all a dream (and I think it is) and a metaphor for artistic creation, specifically movies, then it makes perfect sense that Nolan would use it to do a little navel gazing about his possible role in Heath Ledger's death.
Comment #472 (Posted by Intense Insight)
To me this is the conclusion!
I think the last totem spinning was the inception. He just planted some idea in our head and its growing even after we come out…..
See that is what is inception! He just planted an idea in our head deep enough. He took us 3 layers down and planted it…that all this could be a dream…using the totem(similar to that flying wind mill toy that his father used). Even when we came out of the movie we are not able to decide whether it’s a dream or a reality!
Now we can either become like Mal who tried to kill herself arguing it’s a dream or choose to be Codd and say not it is not a dream!
But the truth is if you become Codd and if u think it’s a dream then Mal is sure to haunt you by trying to convince you that it’s a dream!
Comment #473 (Posted by Jason Bourne)
wrong
Comment #474 (Posted by Andy)
I agree that the whole thing was probably a dream but i would like to offer a reason for the two hotel rooms. i think it was so he couldn't physically stop her from jumping
Comment #475 (Posted by Brunni)
I disagree with your interpretation.
Stick that in your post-structuralist pipe and smoke it.
Comment #476 (Posted by Stephen Jones)
There are two things in particular that i want to express my opinion about, firstly when codd goes to the potion guy who supplies the sedative he insists he tries it, my belief was this was when he entered the dream state, to which for the rest of the film he never awoke and what played out was his attempt at sorting his sub conscious out due to being so deep into a sleep. secondly when the spinning top appears as if he is going to fall over this could represent he is loosing a grip on his own reality in the dream state and that when it will inevitably stop spinning he will no lnger be able to determine what is real and what is a dream
Comment #477 (Posted by an unknown user)
"Every single moment of Inception is a dream"!?!
You must be DREAMING!! Why don't you just say we are in the "Matrix" world that the movie was made by a machine by the name of Nolan!!!
You can watch as many times as you want, but it doesn't mean you understand it! Just pls.. just try not to be clever.. because you are NOT!
Comment #478 (Posted by an unknown user)
INCEPTION IS ALL A DREAM
Comment #479 (Posted by wiseguy)
Cobb and Cobal Corporation both mean Leo's character, the inception to dissolve the company is no different than to dissolve cobbs dream. Mal is trying to rescue Cobb through inception.
Comment #480 (Posted by fan)
Deleted first scene---Cobb getting on plane. Falls asleep. Movie starts, whole movie goes by, with paranoia and logic/illogic and made sense when happening but not when waking up. Cobb wakes up. Goes home. Sees his kids, HIS "TOTEM" is that he sees the faces. Never sees them while dreaming. Refuses to see them while dreaming.
Comment #481 (Posted by Torri)
My analysis:
Your analysis is great, but I dont COMPLETELY agree. I believe the entire movie was a dream up until a certain point- where he wakes up on the plane.
You never see the beginning of the movie because the movie STARTS in a dream just like most dreams do. (The movie even says to "try and think back to the beginning of a dream". Try to think back to the beginning of the movie- it starts in a dream). But that doesnt mean that it doesnt end in reality.
In reality, he doesn't know Ariadne, Eames, Yusuf, Arthur, or Fischer, and Fischer isnt a rich guy with an inheritance from his rich dead father.
Cobb starts his dream on a plane, then wakes up when the plane lands.
He saw them all when he got on the plane with him and put random strangers into his random dream world.
They're all just strangers who fell asleep on a boring plane ride and woke up at the same time because the plane landed (the kick that woke them all up at the same time).
Proof of this: after they wake up they act like strangers- they don't say anything to each other or really interact with each other, besides looking at each other while they're waking up after a long plane ride.
This also alludes to the feeling you get when you barely wake up from an INTENSE dream. For example if you were mad at a friend in a dream, you wake up still mad at them. Cobb woke up and felt like he was still dreaming. Same with the audience (us) we were still in Cobb's dream state so we ASSUMED everything was real and they were looking at each other because they knew each other when they were really all strangers.
Maybe his father-in-law DID work in Paris, and maybe Mal was associated with Paris in some way too (she had some kind of an accent probably French). Maybe he was flying to his wife's funeral, or was spreading her ashes or maybe she was just away and he was visiting her or something and didnt want to take the kids on the trip.
Either way, the motif of loss is repeated a lot in the movie, and possibly the story of Fischer was there to help Cobb move on with his own loss - his wife that he missed.
The fact that Cobb never had his OWN totem COMPLETELY bothered me. Until I read the post above me saying that his totem was his children. This I can believe. Which makes the spinning top a little irrelevant. Unless he kept it around in reality because he was always afraid of being stuck in a dream world. But even then, a spinning top is a children's toy, and could have belonged to his kids and not his wife. To anyone else its pretty much a piece of junk- he could have kept it around to remember his kids at home. (Or maybe it actually was for what it was said to be for- to help him determine if he was awake of not)
The ending is left a little open for interpretation in this way.
You could either believe the top was going to wobble and fall, or Cobb just tricked himself into waking up into another dream again- this time with his kids.
In reality, I believe he woke up when he got off of the plane. However, the movie I'm presuming wants you to think he's in a dream still because of the motif of the "parasite" the "idea" that is fed to you (the audience) subconsciously, inadvertently, the entire time.
Comment #482 (Posted by Carol)
Just seen the movie - brilliant! But what if none of it is real? What if the real beauty of this film is that director has used the concept of INCEPTION, to plant the thought in everyone who views the film, that there must be a solution, therefore, we search our own imaginations (awake dreams) to give closure to something that NEVER existed?
Comment #483 (Posted by Pamela)
Robert F. Boyle, art director/production designer, passed away. The obituary contains information relevant to this discussion, I think: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/movies/04boyle.html?hpw.
For example:
"A movie, he said, 'starts with the locale, with the environment that people live in, how they move within that environment.' Sometimes that environment has to be built.
'I’m all for construction, because we’re dealing with the magic of movies,' he told Variety in 2008. 'And I always feel that if you build it, you build it for the dream rather than the actuality. We make up our own truth.'"
Comment #484 (Posted by jalsta)
You are looking into it too much. Although an interesting theory I don't think the movie is a representation of Chris Nolan and movie making process.
Comment #485 (Posted by Patrick)
My immediate reaction walking out of the theatre is that the true "Inception" - the try idea plant - was not in Fischer's mind, but in Cobb's. That all the action we saw was a team trying to plant an idea in Cobb's mind, namely to leave "limbo" and return to his family. In the end, I don't think he "woke up", but re-united with his family in some sort of spiritual sense, whether it be an endless dream or "heaven".
Comment #486 (Posted by indy4)
I think that ultimately it is false for one reason: the point of view of the film shifts from many different people. If it truly is entirely a dream and Cobb is the only one that exists in reality, then people/places should cease to exist as soon as Cobb leaves them, because when we dream we only know our own perspective. But rather, we get shots of Arthur alone in the hotel, Seito and the British guy alone in an elevator, Seito alone in the snowy place. . . . Once Cobb moves on to another layer, or even another part of the same dream, everything else should vanish until he returns to those parts. But that is clearly not the case.
But still, it's an interesting theory and a well argued one.
Comment #487 (Posted by gary)
although your article was an interesting read, i dont think that the idea it was a dream will become "the accepted reading of the film". you seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that this film is meant to be one way or another, however being the artist he is, nolan has created something that will ALWAYS have two readings of the film, there is no way you can say it will be the accepted way based on your views. nolan created this so we wont ever know, he has perfectly balanced it with arguments "for a dream" and "reality". with the catharsis they had in the dream world, having such a profound effect that it affected their real world, we are shown that even emotion and choices in a dream, are just as real as those in the real world. i think this is one of the main ideas nolan has protrayed. again i liked your article, however, its unbalanced towards the dream idea, and hasnt focused at all on the reality, the purpose of the film is to be ambiguous and there wont be any accepted reading of the film because its such a well balanced, and excellent film.
Comment #488 (Posted by _jvdh)
I can't believe anyone will ever scroll down long enough to read the 485th comment but I have to agree with and commend this perfect analysis of the film
Comment #489 (Posted by Bob Cooley)
Interesting insights that make good sense. Unfortunately for me, the film felt cold. I never much cared about Dom's pain, because I never really felt it. On top of that, the imagery was less than mind-blowing. The best imagery occurred not in context with the meat of the story, but as an exercise the characters engaged in. The tour of the 4th level world Mal and Dom created, with it's monuments to Mel's past, would have been an excellent opportunity to tie emotion to the plot, but it was wasted. The action scenes felt forced in by studio executives who feared the film would be too static (which suits your premise nicely, but doesn't change their lack of impact). All in all, an intellectual exercise devoid of feeling. I left the theater somewhat impressed, but not very engaged.
Comment #490 (Posted by Trick McKaha)
Excellent writeup. I'd like to add that the very idea of sharing a dream is the most romantic existential wish possible. Dreams are our most extreme isolation, so if another could join us in a dream, then full union in love would be a cinch. Inception is about our wish to not be isolated. The characters in the movie are not fully developed because they are figments. Inception is a brilliant movie, and Devin Faraci's exposition is the first best explanation why.
Comment #491 (Posted by ProgFusionRoman)
I think all the reviews above have missed a crucial element.
Consider:
a) The "dream within a dream" concept
b) "breaking into someone's subconscious" concept
c) "the person must believe the idea came from them not from someone else" (hence the rejection of changes by the person's subconscious you are in) concept.
d) the purpose of stopping the movie just before the spinning top falls over (which it will, you can hear it starting)
Purpose:
a) You are dreaming watching the movie.
b) it is your subconscious that is being broken into
c) this purpose is never stated to you, instead you believe another mind is being broken into same as the "rich guy" character believes (try to remember the exact second what you thought when the rich guy "worked it out" - you thought about YOU didn't you?!)
d) by stopping the movie YOU question and YOU come up with the idea - not to dream of past losses (dead wife) not to try to achieve future gains only (rich guy with company), to live carefree in the moment like the boy with the windmill.
INCEPTION - happened to you!
I believe that the characters (Di Caprio, architect et al) relate to the jobs involved in making a movie (director, producer et al) - they are breaking into YOU!
eg one guy was an actor so he appeared to be the old guy assistant to the rich guy.
Recommended - The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle
Comment #492 (Posted by ProgFusionRoman)
I think all the reviews above have missed a crucial element.
Consider:
a) The "dream within a dream" concept
b) "breaking into someone's subconscious" concept
c) "the person must believe the idea came from them not from someone else" (hence the rejection of changes by the person's subconscious you are in) concept.
d) the purpose of stopping the movie just before the spinning top falls over (which it will, you can hear it starting)
Purpose:
a) You are dreaming watching the movie.
b) it is your subconscious that is being broken into
c) this purpose is never stated to you, instead you believe another mind is being broken into same as the "rich guy" character believes (try to remember the exact second what you thought when the rich guy "worked it out" - you thought about YOU didn't you?!)
d) by stopping the movie YOU question and YOU come up with the idea - not to dream of past losses (dead wife) not to try to achieve future gains only (rich guy with company), to live carefree in the moment like the boy with the windmill.
INCEPTION - happened to you!
I believe that the characters (Di Caprio, architect et al) relate to the jobs involved in making a movie (director, producer et al) - they are breaking into YOU!
eg one guy was an actor so he appeared to be the old guy assistant to the rich guy.
Recommended - The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle
Comment #493 (Posted by History)
Watch Abre Los Ojos people. Or, at the very least, the American remake Vanilla Sky, although I recommend the former hands down. If you want to see a movie that tests the boundary between dreaming in reality that's the one, not Inception.
Comment #494 (Posted by Walter)
You nailed it! Great read
Comment #495 (Posted by Steve)
Never mind that there is an official prequel comic called "The Cobol Job" that tells us why Cobb and the team were breaking into Saito's head in the first place.
Please don't confuse allegory for plot.
Comment #496 (Posted by Sarastro7)
Fischer Jr. (and Sr.) is capitalism, my friend. Capitalism. Being influenced to stop exploiting the world for financial gain. Saito represents science; the rationalism that is going to have to replace capitalism. The movie is about social transformation.
Comment #497 (Posted by johne)
> "For Cobb there's a deeper meaning to it all. While Cobb doesn't have daddy issues (that we know of)" ......
Actually, I think Cobb has HUGE daddy issues. In the movie, we are explicitly told that Cobbs father (played by Cain) is or was some kind of mentor for Cobbs talent/skill to enter peoples dreams. "Something happened" and he was forced to use this talent/skill in a way that his father explicitly doesn't approve of. At about the same point in the movie, Saito begins to describe what he needs his Inception to be: He is the head of a company, and the "competition" is a father and son pair, and the son will soon inherit his fathers empire. "The world needs Fischer to not follow in his fathers footsteps". Is it really a coincidence that this is pretty much exactly what Cobb needs to do in order to free himself?
There's even more clues: Just after Saito is shot and Ariadne and Cobb are having their heart to heart (which, in retrospect, has a curiously unhurried quality to it considering both of them know that seconds count because "trained" men with very big guns with every intent to use them are actively looking for them), Ariadne says the following: "And the truth is that the deeper we go in to Fischer, we're also going deeper in to you." Then, the first few words of the "Ski / Snow" dream: "(Ariadne) Cobb? Cobb? What's down there? (Cobb) Fully the truth we want Fischer to learn. (Ariadne) I mean, what's down there for you? (Pause, cut to jumping up and down through multiple levels of the dream)"
In retrospect, why would Ariadne even ask such a question? She knows exactly what's down there, every little detail- she's the architect of it after all. It's also VERY important to note that Ariadne is even there. Why? When Cobb meets with his father, his father asks him "What are you doing here, Dom (Cobb)?
(Cobb) [...] I think I've found a way home [...], but I need your help.
(Cobbs Father) You're here to corrupt one of my brightest and best.
(Cobb) You know what I'm offering, you have to let them decide for themselves.
[back and forth about what such a person would do]
(Cobbs Father) So you want me to let someone else follow you in to your fantasy?
(Cobb) They don't actually come in to the dream, they just design the levels and teach them to the dreamers, that's all."
Again, where is Ariadne? In the dream. Following him in to his fantasy. Cobb has corrupted her, got her addicted to the very thing he is trying to break free of.... this is something most people would feel pretty damn guilty about, in my opinion (hint, hint)....
Additionally, the "top level" that we are obviously meant to assume is "reality" is very clearly a dream, and that's established in the first few minutes (screen time) of that "level". When Cobb goes up to the roof to catch his helicopter ride, who's there? Saito. Why? Because one of his team has "sold him out" to Saito. Now think about this in retrospect: What benefit is there to "selling out" to Saito? What is Saito going to give them in return for "selling out"? The supposed "expansion plans" they need to give to Cobol? When you think about it logically, this is either a giant, gaping plot hole you could drive the sun itself through, or it's got that weird "dream logic" that makes perfect sense at the time... but it's only after the fact that you realize how absurd it is.
When Cobb goes to visit Eams, you're given another clue at the very start that it's a dream: Eams is gambling when Cobb shows up, and they speak briefly. When Eams gets up, he goes to cash in some chips. Cobb picks one up to examine it and remarks "I see your spelling hasn't improved." This is Cobb bluntly pointing out that a detail in this "reality" is wrong, and he (Cobb) is aware of it. Most people point to the circumstantial evidence that this part of the movie is a dream: The "maze like" quality to it, the narrow passage, the fact that Saito curiously shows up at just the right time... but the fact is, you're told right at the start, so quickly, and so subtly, that it slips right by without you even noticing.
Then there's the totems... we never learn what Cobbs totem is. At least, we're not explicitly told what it is, unlike the loaded die or chess piece. We're lead to assume, and I think much more importantly, "fill in the details after the fact like it was our idea all along", that the spinning top is Cobbs totem. We're told by Cobb whose totem it is: It's Mals. This isn't a minor detail to be glossed over. There's another very important detail about this totem that stands out: Cobb explains how it works: "No, this one is hers. She'd spin it in a dream and it would never topple." Yet we're told over and over again about how you need to create a totem in the real world with some detail that you, and only you, knows about.
And yet, here we have Mals totem, and it works exactly the opposite: It's a totem created in the dream world, one that Mal created to spin endlessly. This is actually far more powerful: If you're in someone elses dream, and they're forced to fill in the details, they're going to go out of their way to make it work like reality. If you carve off a piece of that reality and make it function in an "impossible" way, say, for example, a forever spinning top.. Well, as long as you don't let that detail out, you can always tell when someone else is filling in the details of your dream world. You can tell if this is actually YOUR dream or someone elses.
So here's Cobb, who knows the details of how Mals totem works. If it's spinning endlessly, then according to Cobb, we're in Mals dream.
When Cobb spins the top, he's not hoping that it topples. He wants it, desperately wants it to keep spinning. Why? Because, if we follow the literal logic of the totem, this can only happen in Mals dream. And, filling in the details... the only way this could be Mals dream is if Mal is alive. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that Cobb is in some way responsible for Mals endlessly spinning top, or at least is intertwined with its genesis. And I think it's no accident that in the scene where Mal kills herself (oddly from a different building than the one Cobb is in), the first thing that Cobb finds is Mals top. It's almost as if Mal is giving him the key to tell if this is actually a dream that she is killing herself to wake up from... If Cobb would have spun that top right after Mal killed herself, and it kept on spinning... he would have known whether or not this was Mals dream, and whether or not it he should have jumped with her.
Instead, he misses this opportunity and we're dragged along for the ride. And at the end of the movie, he spins the top... which we're lead to believe keeps on spinning. He doesn't check though- he sees his kids faces. He's very happy about this and ignores the top. Why? Well, I think the that Cobbs kids are his totem. If he sees his kids, he knows hes in a dream, because Cobb doesn't have any kids. And to have both his kids and a spinning top would mean that he's dreaming, and he's inside Mals dream.... and he knows that he's finally found his way back to reality after he leaves this "level".
Comment #498 (Posted by Matt)
I agree with the whole explanation of the movie with him still dreaming, BUT there is one problem. If Mal was right and actually went to reality when she killed herself, when she woke up why couldn’t she just wake Cob up by giving him the falling sensation? It makes no sense.....any answers?
Comment #499 (Posted by Jake)
Matt, that's a good question. I have another question about that interpretation too. If Cobb is in Mal's dream still, and she has woken up, the dream should have collapsed on Cobb, right? And if a dream collapses on you, isn't that supposed to wake you up? Here's another interesting detail that the movie doesn't give any evidence of: Throughout the story, never is there a depiction of any of the characters actually taking part in a natural sleep. And every time Cobb meets with his colleagues, the audience doesn't see how they all got there. First they're in a warehouse, then Cobb meets his father in his classroom, then he's in Africa, but we never get to see the physical traveling he is supposedly doing. Cobb even makes it clear to Ariadne that the best way to know if you are in a dream is to try and remember how you got to the location you are at, something Cobb naively fails to take notice of for himself.
Comment #500 (Posted by Hannah)
Is it possible that the name Cobb is a reference to one of Nolan's earlier characters- one named Cobb in his second film, Following? I think it's too much of a coincidence to ignore, although I'd have to watch that film again to fully understand it.
Comment #501 (Posted by Steve Parkes)
Hey Devin,
Great essay. I ultimately don't agree, but that's a great critique.
I had this to say on IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/board/nest/167117372?p=4
Wow, that's another really good article. A great try at the 'it's all a dream' angle. There still seem to be flaws. (The following quotes are from the article linked to by mail-for-james-smith, not quotes from IMDb comments.) ...
" I believe that Inception is a dream to the point where even the dream-sharing stuff is a dream. Dom Cobb isn't an extractor. ... Michael Caine's character implores Cobb to return to reality, to wake up. "
Erm, in the dream? If it's all a dream, who is this person, why is he dreaming this, why is a character within the dream telling him to come back to reality? The character is a dream image. He doesn't know it's a dream; he doesn't know anything. He is Cobb - and Cobb doesn't know it's a dream.
" When he finally pulls himself free he finds Ken Watanabe's character waiting for him, against all logic. "
It could reasonably be argued that it was 'against probability' - i.e. unlikely (although the point was made that Saito would be tailing his investment). But "against all logic"? Nah.
" The end seems without a doubt to be a dream - from the dreamy way the film is shot and edited once Cobb wakes up on the plane all the way through to him coming home to find his two kids in the exact position and in the exact same clothes that he kept remembering them, it doesn't matter if the top falls, Cobb is dreaming."
But that's just it: they are definitely not in the exact same position or same clothes. This is empirically provable, yet it is the most common (maybe the only) 'conclusive' evidence of the 'it's all a dream' proponents.
" and it's all about an Italian director trying to overcome his block and make a movie (a science fiction movie, even). It's a film about filmmaking, and so is Inception."
I think what depresses me about this view is that it's so myopic. The film can be just as much about filmmaking with the "top" level being real (within the film's diegesis) as it can if the whole diegesis is a dream. If anything, the story not being 'all a dream' is a more interesting way to reflect on that theme."
The clearly deliberate mislead around Cobb's children at the end suggests that the inception may well be on the audience who end up convinced that it's all a dream.
" To be honest, I haven't quite solidified my thought on Fischer's place in the allegorical web, but what's important is that the breakthrough that Fischer has in the ski fortress is real. Despite the fact that his father is not there, despite the fact that the pinwheel was never by his father's bedside, the emotions that Fischer experiences are 100 percent genuine. It doesn't matter that the movie you're watching isn't a real story, that it's just highly paid people putting on a show - when a movie moves you, it truly moves you. The tears you cry during Up are totally real, even if absolutely nothing that you see on screen has ever existed in the physical world."
This is a wonderful point.
Comment #502 (Posted by Breaker J)
Great article. My only question would be if it's all a dream, how do you explain the scenes which don't feature Cobb? Like when the Girl From Juno is talking to the Dude From 3rd Rock from the Sun about how Cobb is a bit mental...how would that all be Cobb's dream? Can you dream about things that don't feature yourself?
Comment #503 (Posted by Cantwell Carson)
At ~500, this probably won't get read. That said, I see a psychological shortcoming with the top falling/not falling scenario. If the totem works, then he can just spin it again at some later point and deduce whether any of this is real and it doesn't matter what happens during the last few frames. If the totem doesn't work, then it doesn't matter what happens during the last few frames.
Notable is that, after Dom walks away from his totem at the end, Miles does not pocket it and remove Dom's ability to distinguish truth from fantasy. Thus, it does not seem that Dom is kept in a dreamlike state by other people, who would have a vested interest in ensuring his disbelief remains suspended.
Also, Nolan has had no problem in the past offering flimsy explanations for otherwise impossible things, c.f. Batman Returns, Prestige. If Nikola Tesla can build a self-replicating machine in 1900, then a dream-sharing machine in 2010 is trivial. Unless his previous movies were meant to be interpreted as dreams too, then the kooky technology, acrobatics, faceless goons, and outrageously rich and powerful characters are par for the course in the waking state.
Comment #504 (Posted by Stefan)
Just one thing which I thought this this morning: On the Top-Level, the "it's a movie and a dream by christopher nolan who wanted to incept the audience", the ending with the top fits perfect, because you see the top wobbling while the film - the dream - still can be seen. but we do not see the top stopping. so even if the top might have been falling in the movie, the movie ist not there anymore, because it ended. reality is there right in this moment. i think that's a big hint to the theory described here. and the edith-piaf-song in the credits, too. we wake up.
Comment #505 (Posted by marc)
Yes. So what & More. Below this box i am writing in are the 'verification' numbers-- 8338xd-- how is that possible? 33 is my personal number
(though i have them in 3s as well, example 333 for my birthday 3/30/1947[1947 becomes 3]). 8 is the other number I am personally working with as in 8 trigrams, 8 phase moon cycle [8/8/2008 was the Chinese Olympics for that reason]) and my new partner's ex was a Freemason of lodge 88. So how did 8338 appear as my verification number? Coincidence? It occurs synchronistically all the time. It is because Life Is A Dream-- which happens to be the name of Pedro Calderon's classic play written in the 17th Century. (Note: The Jehova Witness magazine-- AWAKE. The Awakening process of yoga and general metaphysics. The Holographic Conscious Universe -- Brahma's Dream-- Indra's Net, infinitely reflecting as in INCEPTION'S coool Mirror reflecting scene.) But making Films & Gobs of Money simultaneously by filling not merely one, but 3 dream levels with Hollywood Summer Blockbuster explosions and Patriarchal/Reptillian brain fight or flight Action sequences-- bringing Ancient truth about Reality/Illusion/Dream/Awakening/etc., even with New World Order Corporate Bad-guys (and Good-Guys?) doing this to and inside our (your?) minds? YIIIIKES! Yes, it's true! What Big Brother Can and does do! But what about putting Big Sister in charge? Hey, Yes we can REALLY Dream ourselves out of the Testosterone dominant Baaadasss Action Flick Hollywood Summer Blockbuster Real/Reel Holly/Holy World and Awaken to a 528 Solfeggio resonant collectively Dreamed/Envisioned New Planet Earth of Peace, Love & Gratitude by not seeing INCEPTION too many times (making who beside Christopher Nolan richer than all the people of Haiti combined?) in order to try and figure out stuff (scriptwriting devices?) of such vital import as-- Will the 'heart of the Universe' shaped top stop spinning? -- How does Solfeggio 528 resonance appear in a Hollywood movie [does Christopher Nolan read Len Horowitz? -- Who's dream is it anyhow?(the writer? Director? Producer? Collective consumer called the Audience? God? All of the above?) Yes. Of course Life is a Dream! Or is it? (And if it is-- how do we get those damn ballsy men to Stop Worrying & give up their Strangelove of Big-Bang Bombs and 'heart of the Universe' shaped tops {massed produced in (888?) China?}]
Comment #506 (Posted by Fenn)
Great writing & critique. Just to add: to fully analyze Inception, you must not think in terms of a linear model of reality --> dream --> reality.
But instead think in terms of a 2 dimensional PENROSE STAIRS. Thus, there is no reality or dreams, any level can reach the next level at any time, and also inter-dreaming from one person to the next in a spider web of stairs.
Now watch the movie again. And you will realize it is not Cobb that is dreaming, it is you ...
Comment #507 (Posted by Damien)
I love the interpretation, you have me convinced. I like the 480th comment too - all a dream on the plane returning home. The catharsis of the dream could certainly be his wife leaving or dying, with Cobb blaming himself as the cause and perhaps eventually letting go. I need to watch again to see if the Caine character says anything indicative upon his return. Also need to watch for the wedding ring as one commenter mentioned.
One perhaps original note - when Cobb first gets home he seems shocked how it looks - I have experienced this several times after long trips away from home: your own home is shocking in how it is exactly the same as when you left (while you've changed for a month or so experiencing new things).
Also, I have definitely had dreams where I was not in every scene - this may be rare but it occurs.
Can't wait for the sequel!
Comment #508 (Posted by paterthewonderdog)
although im not entirely sure what happened if anything, i feel like in a way you are reading between the lines a little to much with the begining part, the whole second thing with it being a movie and all was awesome a kinda blew my mind but i think the whole underlying point wasent to say it was a dream or anything like that but more that it was them trying to explain to cobb that his wife is gone and she isent coming back, and that it isent his fault that she did it the whole movie they talk about not wanting to become and old man filled with regret as cobb is kind of becoming in a sense, saito says it, the edith piaf song is about regret Non, je ne regrette rien means "no i regret nothing". so i feel that the whole point of the movie more likely was to have cobb "wake up" more metaphoricly in that he hasent forgiven himself, also that his whole "dream" maybe being away from his family and needing to go back. although i can see your points the most logical reasoning i see is the whole scene in mombasa seems more dream like then actual reality but i feel that that alone isent nearly enough to say the entire movie is a dream. logically i think there isent a way to say it is toatlly one or the other and in that i think is what christopher nolan really wanted to... show that regardless of what you percive everything in life could be a dream, but theres always the other chance that it isent at all and is totally realitly i know ive felt like i have some problems differentiating realitly from dreams or other things, but my guess is most of us do. honestly im not sure what it was but i think that is the whole point. kinda ramble i know but its pretty much how it came out of my head
Comment #509 (Posted by an unknown user)
while watching the movie, i was thinking that the whole movie must be a dream. and when they made the point of that no one can touch your toem, it was obvious that cobbs totem had no value. his wife had touched it before. and although she was dead, she was in his dreams and part of his subconcious. also, cobb says that when you are in a dream, you never start in the beginning, you always start in the middle of it all. they never show the beginning of his relationship with his wife. so i think that she could have possibly made him up in her dream because she did not have a husband in real life. and in her dream, she ended up going into the layers of her made-up husbands dreams. that way, she technically was only in the first layer of dreaming and simply dreamed about him dreaming further down. considering she dies in the movie while cobb says that if you die in a dream, you wake up but then changes it to the truth of what happens, i think that she may have dreamed about him from a layer below him. i really dont know what im talking about right now, but im just thinking. lastly, a thought i had during the movie is that what if cobb was in a totally different layer of her dream, what if there is the first layer of dreaming, then reality, then a layer somehow above reality? as i said, i have no idea what im talking about, im just saying my random thoughts.
Comment #510 (Posted by kumulus)
Interesting, thoughtful and pretty well-written article, however, to think that this is exactly and only what the movie means is arrogant. There are as many meanings and interpretations to Inception as there are people who see it. That's why it's an art-form. The fact that it took ten years to create this doesn't necessarily make it a good movie. Either everything was specifically and purposely done in the movie to intricately tie it all in, or it just became a muddled mess from being involved in it so long. Consequently, it was thrown out there for viewers to make it what they want it to be, with the director taking no responsibility because he couldn’t, or didn’t want to, figure it out himself. Unless the director puts out a detailed explanation of the movie at some point in the future years, I will tend to think it leans more to the latter. For something to be so loose and vague makes me start to think it is just rather sloppy. Or maybe this movie just thinks it is an art sculpture, an ink spot, or clouds, meaning it becomes what you perceive. And what you perceive tells you more about yourself than the object. So maybe if you think the movie is all a dream, you're more of a dreamer. If you think it encompasses some reality and everything must tie in, than you're a realist and more factual. There you go, how about that theory? At least this movie has created talk, tho. I didn't make any comments anywhere after seeing Shutter Island, which I liked, but I have for Inception. And it has probably created more revenue from people who want to pay to see it again to try to figure it out. I personally think movies should lean more to the entertainment side, rather than feeling like you have to take a notebook with you to take notes. But that's just me. I never like to leave during a movie for anything, but what I did like about this movie was that I was able to go out and get another Cosmo, come back in, and it didn't really matter. The only other movie during which I did that was Transformers, so there you go. And this movie was actually similar to Transformers, with streets folding up, and things seeming to be one thing, but transforming into something else. If you want to read some pretty hilarious comments about Inception, you should read the one-star reviews on IMDb. I'm not saying I didn't like Inception, because I sort of did. But people, remember, it wasn't all a dream, it was just a movie.
Comment #511 (Posted by Dan L)
There is a huge flaw in this analysis. The writer skillfully argues for the “its all a dream” interpretation. But if that is the case, and as the writer notes, the movie is subject to the criticism that it is a “cop out or a waste of time.” The writer defends against this criticism by claiming 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.” This claim is false and the movie itself refutes it.
The writer refers to Fischer’s catharsis in the fortress with his father and says Fischer’s “experiences are 100 percent genuine” and “when a movie moves you, it truly moves you.” But the audience is completely unmoved by Fischer’s catharsis because it knows the catharsis is a dream and not real. At this point in the film the audience is only wondering whether or not Fischer will be duped by the staged scene and no one is crying along with Fischer. Similarly, at the end, the audience does not share the joy of Cobb’s reunion with his children once it is apparent that it all may still be a dream.
The writer knows that for the movie to work the catharsis in a dream must be as meaningful as a catharsis in the “real” world. Its not the same, and this is where the movie fails. Nick Pinkerton’s negative review in the Village Voice is spot on: “It's obvious that Nolan either can't articulate or doesn't believe in a distinction between living feelings and dreams—and his barren Inception doesn't capture much of either.”
Comment #512 (Posted by Steve Parkes)
- 509 wrote: "while watching the movie, i was thinking that the whole movie must be a dream. and when they made the point of that no one can touch your toem, it was obvious that cobbs totem had no value. his wife had touched it before."
If it was all a dream then *any* rules about what's a dream and what isn't have no value. Anything about what the totem indicates is irrelevant. Think about it: if it's ALL a dream, then we can't use the 'rules' of the dream to judge whether or not it's a dream. The issue with the totem only has relevance if there are some parts of the film that aren't Cobb's dream.
- 511 wrote: "But the audience is completely unmoved by Fischer’s catharsis because it knows the catharsis is a dream and not real."
Nope. You were apparently completely unmoved, but "the audience" is not just you. Clearly some people in the audience (eg: Devin, myself) found some emotional resonance in that scene. That's the weird thing: part of me was being clinical, like you, and thinking 'why does this matter on a personal level? It's not real (not even within the diegesis of the film). It's just a con'. But another less cynical part of me felt that the character had achieved a kind of resolution, and that that was somewhat affecting. And who knows, like the broken watch being right twice, maybe the answer the inceptionors gave Fischer about his father's disappointment was right.
Comment #513 (Posted by Circus Baby)
Great read, I was too tired to read all the comments from looking for a site that might list and point out all the references to other films. But two things.. the film starts where it ends.. it folds over itself like the streetscape of Paris and it is a much used device for starting any story.. tell the end, then unravel the timeline. Somewhere else someone asked what was the pinwheel or said it was not on the dying man's table... my comment is, the joy Bobby Fisher (sic) would feel seeing that his Father had saved it (it was in the snapshot on the table and he was holding it. Obviously he made it as a child). And hey, why was her totem a bishop chess piece? And second when he took ithe pinwhellt of the safe my mind said "Rosebud" The omage (spelling) to 2001 was really good and made me for a moment feel like I understood that great sci-fi classic.. which I don't and don't mind saying so, I take great issue with the weapon/tool business after touching the Monolith, but that is for another day. But hey, was the Jupiter and Beyond sequence a dream of a man floating alone in space waiting to re-awaken to a new dream??? Love this movie, I love dreaming and I love talking about possibilities rather than hearing about us killing each other all over this planet!!
Comment #514 (Posted by Pinkster)
Thank you, very inspiring article and great discussion here. I just saw the film yesterday and the dream theorie makes perfectly sense to me. I did not read all comments, so not sure if it has been mentioned, but I can`t remember any opening credits. This would be another strong argument for "all is a dream" becaise the film would`n`t have - like a dream - not a (formal) beginning. But to be honest I am not a Cineast, may be leaving opening credits away is common today or Nolan`s trademakr.
Comment #515 (Posted by Roz)
I am really happy that I wasn't only one thinking that Dom never used his own totem throughout the entire film, thus we never know whether or not Dom was dreaming or not. I was trying to express what I had felt before, and Devon you put into words what I felt about Mal. It could be true that she never died, but Dom has lost her anyway. Albeit, I have only seen the movie once, this was the same interpretation I had and that it really doesn't matter if the top kept spinning or not, because it is not Dom's totem. My only concern is that, maybe this isn't even Dom's dream, that Nolan wanted it as a collective dream from the audience. We will never know and that's what I like best! Sorry for the late post, but this movie had just been released in Spain yesterday August 6th (and I saw it last night). I definitely wanted to wait and see this movies w/o knowing anything beforehand.
Comment #516 (Posted by Jess)
I love your analysis almost as much as I loved the film, also, did anyone else notice, that throughout the film ( whenever the music wasn't playing) you could hear the screeching of train tracks? Whether or not they were in "reality" or "dream world" or is it just me?
Comment #517 (Posted by L. Hansen)
I LOVE this movie. I had NO expectations, and it completly blew me away. I've been obssesing about it since. It's amazing that so many people are discussing it on so many levels (Nolan is laughing all the way to the bank). Level 1: The basic storyline (the "kicks", the zero gravity stuff and so on...) Level 2: Is it a dream? Who is dreaming? Why? Level 3: If it's not real, then what is - and what is this? Level 4: Tons of references to other movies and directors. Level 5: Tons of symbolism and dream analysis. It just goes on and on, from layer to layer, and back again - just like in the movie. Indeed you have planted a seed, mr. Nolan...
I think that the "It's-all-a-dream" theory is true - and I also kinda think that Leo is actually in limbo the whole time. He is reliving his personal nightmare (Allthough it IS a cool "nightmare" with lots of great action & acting - and a great, powerfull soundtrack) over and over again, waking up on a beach... Haunting.
Comment #518 (Posted by Rayn)
No! You forget. This is a movie! It is clear that cobb is in fact in a dream because he has his wedding ring on. When he is in reality it is not there. At the end of the film when he see's his kids they are: 1. older, 2. he has no ring, and 3. he see's there faces which he could never do in a dream. Perhaps they become his totems so it does not matter whether the top falls.
I think your article here, appeals to the narrow minded. This is a classic example of film snobbery and meta-analysis trying to post-"ironise" everything. I agree Nolan uses subtle techniques but get over it. The evidence is there!
Comment #519 (Posted by George)
Devin Faraci: Thank you for taking the time to dissect and analyze Chris Nolan's enigmatic but enthralling film. Descartes' Discourse on Method theory, "Cogito ergo sum" (or,I think therfore I am), remains tenuous at best.
enigmatic but enthralling film.
I hope Nadine, a stunningly beautiful woman I just met, and I get to see it again...But is she real or did I just dream of it this Saturday evening?
Comment #520 (Posted by D.Bennett)
Wonderful discussion and a landmark film. I have only read the the first 200 and the last 20 or so comments; forgive me if this has been repeated elsewhere. My belief is that the film's story represents the perpetual staircase used so effectively throughout. This is only significant for the viewer of the film the second time around when you re-enter the maze wondering if the spinning top fell over at the end of the first viewing. This makes you question what level of dream depth you are at when you sit back down with your popcorn and coke and opens your mind up to the more overtly symbolic items strewn throughout the dreamscapes and the story itself. It also allows you to read terrific threads like this one and re-enter the film with more questions than you had the first time around. Genius. I see the totems as a representation of the idea that you can make the dreamers subconscious more accessible and less prone to attack you if you trick it into thinking it might be awake - its like a planted idea or mini-inception. In the rules of dream logic, Cobb tells you that your totem is your personal touchstone of reality. If you spin it, toss it or knock it over and it does what you expect then you're in control and have nothing to fear. This allows Cobb to orchestrate the complexity required to keep everyone under and working effectively. Just a thought.
I totally agree that the film represents movie making and the characters and personel required to complete a modern project. That the movie is personal for Nolan is also quite clear; loss, regret, complexity, compassion and love all included in something so routinely considered to be fodder for the masses is a major feat.
Comment #521 (Posted by Stan)
I think what people should ask is this: Whose dream was it in the first place? Obviously it wasn't Cobb's, because nobody can dream oneself in third person. So whose dream was it? If we agree that most of it was a dream, the only question we have to asnwer is whose was it? That's all.
Comment #522 (Posted by Deeviant Music)
what about Mal having herself declared sane three times
what about when they held a mirror up to themselves in the dream and it smashed
what about mal being across the window...again a reflection?
what if you go down the creation/matrix route....that life is an inception and it is only when we battle with our subconcious and right our guilt/sins and acheve perfection that we will wake up from this dream (life) but its only when we wake up (through death to the afterllife and meet God/higher being) that we will realise that anything was strange and that life was a dream and its not actually the real life?????
Now theres an inception!
Comment #523 (Posted by jeff)
Originally, i liked the idea that the whole movie was a dream until the plane flight home. But my problem with that theory is, how can it be that when he arrives, he finds the kids in the same clothes, same position, and same activity, as in his dreams? One can't know ahead of time what others will be doing! Therefore, the whole movie must have been a dream. Is that point refutable?
Comment #524 (Posted by Zeph)
My thoughts when it ended was that Cobb was caught in dreamland, but what bothered me the most was that he *chose* a dream world to live that did not include his wife. That his wife indeed may be waiting in reality for him, but he has dreamt her out of existence, and has chosen to live in this new existence, this dream, without her. That really bothered me. Its like he purposefully uncoupled himself from his wife, absolved any responsibiltiy for that, and is content to live this new reality without her, even tho she may be desperately waiting for him on the other side. He often made her the villain in his dreamlayers. So he purposefully worked it out so that she died. I think mentally these concepts are just aweful. That was just my initial pov's, and I find these other pov's just as fascinating. I especially appreciated the god pov, I wondered how someone would interpret that (i'm not christian but I know many christians who interpret stories to fit their beliefs), as well as Cobb being Fischer's Dad who is really on his death bed and Fischer and Ariadne being his children. Has anyone stayed til the end of the credits to see the hospital scene? One guy said he did, but maybe he's just pulling a fast one - anyone confirm?
Comment #525 (Posted by Tim)
Why it’s not a dream…
Thanks for the wonderful article Devin. This was the first thing I read after watching the movie, and it really helped me start making sense of things. I completely agree with your theory about the allegory to filmmaking. And at first I was on board with the “it’s all a dream” theory, but the more I think about it, and read the perceptions of others, the more I question this. While I do believe it was Nolan’s intention to leave it up to the viewer to decide, and that there is no truly “correct” read, I’ll posit mine.
Dom wakes up to reality on the plane (from the Fischer Jr. extraction job, not from a whole-movie dream), plain and simple. Some of the red herrings have been debunked already, and I won’t claim credit. The kids are wearing different clothes at the end (just close enough to make you question it). Dom wears his wedding ring in the dream states, but not in reality. He and Saito die in the final limbo scene, which wakes them up on the plane. The others are already awake (and the suitcases stowed) because they were awakened earlier by the kick. The crew is happy to see them both awaken, because they were concerned they would be stuck in limbo.
Here’s my framework, for what it’s worth. The suitcase technology and dream architecture is real. This is a sci-fi movie, and Nolan doesn’t need to prove the science. The failed extraction of Saito was real. The chase scene in Mumbasa is real. The walls do not close in on him, they are simply converging due to poor architecture. Watch it again. Yes, Saito pulling up in the car is well-timed, but look at every heist movie, the Bourne series, Mission Impossible, Bond flicks, etc. It’s not that far fetched. Saito offers him a job, he takes it, assembles the crew, and the plot is set. Take it all at face value.
What needs (assumed) perspective is the timeline of events leading up to this. Dom shows you the key memories while riding the elevator - notably the hotel room and leaving his children. I think that things really happened as he describes. Dom and Mal lived a long life in the dream-state, and Mal had issues with it. Maybe the depression existed in reality already, and she wanted to stay in the dream state to escape it. Maybe the dreaming caused the depression, maybe the kids came before or after…the details don’t really matter. The point is that Dom feels responsible. Responsible for her depression, responsible for the inception, ultimately responsible for her death.
I see it like this: Mal commits suicide (the hotel was not a dream – keep in mind all the prep she did for her suicide…signs of struggle, meetings with a therapist, etc…renting an additional room to keep him from stopping her is not a big stretch), he rushes home, makes a call, and his confidant gets him a plane ticket leaving the next day. He is overseas for months, not years. Listen to the phone call with the kids – they are asking if he’s coming home, and if mommy is coming home. Chalk it up to my perception, but it didn’t come across as a conversation had with a father who has been away for years, or about a mother who has been dead for years. Too much urgency and curiosity in the kid’s voices.
Throughout the Fischer Jr. inception job, Dom is haunted by his guilt, not by Mal. She is just a manifestation of his subconscious, which he addresses near the end in limbo. “You are my creation, and just a shade of the real thing.” (or something along those lines) He finally finds his catharsis and forgives himself, and now feels like he can face his children.
The other red herring to address is the totem. Completely a non-issue, although a fun one. Keep in mind, the totem was never meant to indicate if you were in a dream or not; rather, it is to indicate if you are in YOUR OWN dream or not. It doesn’t play into the end question of whether it’s all a dream or not, period. It wobbles, which is enough to tell me that it will fall. But that’s not really the point, as others have noted. The point is that he walks away. He’s not unsure. He’s confident that he’s home.
The one nagging thing to me is how Saito could clear him with a single phone call. Still haven’t sorted that out, but I can suspend disbelief with the way everything else falls into place. So that’s my read. Feel free to comment or debunk. All I can say is that I LOVE the movies that make me think this deeply. :)
Comment #526 (Posted by Chuck D. D.)
My wife and I walked out of the theater wondering about what we had just seen.
Comment #527 (Posted by Andy)
My initial reading was that it was all Mal's dream. The totem only spins continuously in her dream.
Her dream is that Cobb lives on without her and has a cathactic moment through which he overcomes his guilt about her death.
Also I think the notion of inception is planted much earlier in the film. When he gives his spiel about parasitic ideas and leaves a different envelope in the safe in Japan.
There is also something going on with the numbers - six digit numbers for six team members and layers of the dream, the elvator buttons in multiple scenes - I'm just not sure what.
Love the film making allegory though I'm pretty sure your at least at the fourth level of possible interpretation ;)
Comment #528 (Posted by Seis)
Just one thing to add to Comment #525: In line with your reasoning, with which I totally agree (I've seen the film twice now) and about what's nagging you: Saito clearing Cobb with just one phone call: he did. some people ARE that powerful. remember he bought the entire airline to guarantee they could do the job.
So glad to have found this article and all your comments. Absolutely brilliant film and insightful comments. Thanks!
Comment #529 (Posted by Crimedog)
To comment 525 (Tim), you wrote my thoughts exactly. The one thing I will add is that Saito, a man so powerful he could buy an entire airline, could easily have people/bribes in place that one phone call would take care of Cobb's issues. Greta movie.
Comment #530 (Posted by Stephen Williams)
In response to people who point at the top falling throughout the movie as evidence that Cobb is awake:
There is a scene between Cobb and Mal where he asks her "if I'm still dreaming why can't I change things?" and she responds "because you don't believe it's a dream."
Cobb spins the top and then stares at it intently, willing it to fall and prove he's awake. Because he believes it will fall, it does fall. At the end of the movie he spins the top and stops paying attention to it, so it continues spinning without his force of will to stop it because he is, in fact, dreaming.
Comment #531 (Posted by Ross)
I fear that too many will blindly hitch their wagon to your theory just because you took the time to break down your thoughts. Sadly, it often happens that way when an individual doesn't grasp a concept themselves, and doesn't want to appear too dumb to explain what happened. I do not agree that it is all a dream, and your drawn out explanation does nothing but hinder the chance of me accepting the notion. The movie seems complex on the exterior, but in reality it is a simple idea that is well executed. There are too many reasons as to why it wasn't all a dream. Saito owned the second, if no the largest, energy company in the world. O.J. got away with murder, this guy could clear Cobb. If you fully believe you are in a dream, renting a room across the street with money that doesn't actually hold value in your mind isn't hard to believe. Just make sure you let people know that this is your theory and not to take it as fact.
Comment #532 (Posted by Laura)
Just so you know, the kids aren't in the same clothes... Phillipa at first (younger age) is using a beach like attire, a simple pinkish dress with sandals. In the end, Phillipa is wearing a dress made for running, kinda like a strap top with a shirt under her dress. She is also wearing converse like shoes. James also wears an outfit that looks a lot like the one he wore in the past. They wear the same colors, so it looks like they are wearing the same clothes.
Also, they are not in the same position. In the past, they both have their backs to Cobb. In the end, James has his back to Cobb but Phillipa is kneeling down in front of James, so she only has to lift her face and see her father.
Should there be any doubts, the credits have two sets of different actors for James and Philipa's different ages.
Comment #533 (Posted by Chris)
Comment #525.. I applaud you.
I agree 110% with your entire post. While this article is very well written and is quite interesting, the truth of the matter is: 2 and a half hours of something that didn't happen in reality is simply not something Nolan would do.
525... my thoughts exactly.
Comment #534 (Posted by Domino237)
Great article. However I believe it was reality. Cobb was an extractor did this huge last job and made it home. Even the costume designer of the movie said the kids were in different outfits in the last scene than they were in his dreams. Also the kids aged as well and the credits have Cobb's children played in two different ages. Also, in the "dreams" his totem top spins perfectly straight and the fact that it wobbled at the end shows its reality. Amazing movie though and I love how Nolan is the architect himself in this film creating something we can all interpret ourselves.
Comment #535 (Posted by Slaader)
An interesting analysis, but it ignores a very important bit of information - the ENTIRE narrative.
The narrative tells us there is a real world, and makes it clear (except for the end) when we are seeing the real world vs a dream world.
Someone above said "trust the art, not the artist". If Nolan were to say "the whole thing was fake, all a dream!" Then there is no gravity, no threat, and no narrative to connect the viewer too.
Comment #536 (Posted by Francesca)
I very much like your thoughts on the meaning of the work, in terms of showing that an imaginary event can bring mental / emotional catharsis and resolution. I initially felt like the weakness in the theory that the entire movie was a dream was in some of the points you raise. If the movie's all a dream, then there's no reason to believe any of the dreaming technology or dream rules exist outside Cobb's own mind. Also, unless we posit that he's in a coma in waking life, he WILL eventually wake up, to whatever exists for him in the "real world". If this is true, why does anything in the movie matter?
But I think I might buy that it does matter emotionally, if he's come to terms with his guilt over the end of his relationship with his wife, whether that was her death or some other exit.
Comment #537 (Posted by Dillan)
Are you serious... with that incredibly gimmicky ending, you think the plot is this deep? The top still spinning, does a few fakeouts, then cut to black? Perhaps even WORSE than the piss-poor "it was all a dream" ending is the goddamned top, which is tantemount to the director walking into the shot and standing there waving his arms and saying in a silly voice "or maybe it was alll a dreeeaaammm.... ooooohhh..."
The top totally invalidates the possibility this film was that deep. If it were, the director would feel no need to have it end on that gimmick.
Comment #538 (Posted by Dillan)
NOTE TO EVERYONE: TO MAKE CAPTCHA WORK, TYPE THE CODE IN ALL CAPS. Even though the sample is lowercase that DOESNT WORK in Firefox OR Internet Explorer.
Anyway, look at all these comments. There's hardly an original thought among you self-important sheep, all blathering "you stated my thoughts exactly" to each other to try and feel like you're part of a collective of geniuses who came to the same daring conclusion.
Listen to yourselves! "I first started to get me the idea that the whole film is a dream is when she tells him that everything is a dream". You haven't deduced anything! You haven't made an interpretation, you're being pulled along a string.
You're trying to find deep meaning or a twist in this film because you expected one and *there is none*!. Nothing about the film is surprising. He accidentally led to Mal's death isn't in the least bit unexpected; why the girl is so shocked is beyond me. That he performed inception on her is similarly not a real twist - it would have been better if he accidentally performed it on himself.
The details of his past are not as dramatic or startling as the film pretends; it is difficult to fathom that he would try to keep the details a secret from his team. So when all of these "twists" fail in any way to be twists, the film ends with you feeling disappointed because the film had no real depth, and so you latch onto the silly ending and run with a lame and half-thought interpretation
Comment #539 (Posted by Jordan)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one; I think the movie plays out exactly as it appears to, and that it both begins and ends in the real, physical world. Part of this is because I took away a different message from the picture--that dreams (both sleeping and waking) are wonderful, but they're also dangerous, and even a flawed life in reality is better than eternal bliss in a dreamland. For example, when you saw the transients who spend all day, every day, in a basement immersed in their dreams, did you envy them or pity them? I doubt if anybody looked at that and thought "I gotta get me some of that."
In the final analysis, though, it is ultimately unknowable, so I simply choose the alternative that is more comforting to me: that all those characters that I watched and identified with were real, flesh and blood humans, and not just figments of Cobb's imagination. Thinking that none of those personalities really existed would frankly ruin the movie for me. I know it's not an argument that would stand up to rational debate, but we're critiquing a film, not doing quantum physics.
Comment #540 (Posted by Chris)
i think it was all a dream..if you pay attention to the end, his children are wearing the exact thing he imagined them to be wearing and in the exact place too...too much of a coincidence
Comment #541 (Posted by Eugenio)
there´s one thing that is not explained, or at least we are not given the information to understand it. There is a machine (in reality) that makes the shared-dream possible. But how could we explain the use of this same machine in the dream to go to a lower layer in the subconscious?
In reality, this machine must have a functioning ruled by the laws of physics. But, in the dream; which rules would govern its functioning??
It may seem superficial.. but this thing made me believe it was all a dream.
by the way... Excellent article!!!!
Comment #542 (Posted by Johnny G)
You are correct. Although, Cobb would be both the screenwriter and director, while Ellen Page would be the Production Designer.
Comment #543 (Posted by an unknown user)
The allegory you discuss is very reasonable and clever, but I don't see how that means the film was all a dream. I can explain Mal's presence on the opposite ledge-- it was the same building, and that bit was shaped like |_| so she just circled round, so he wouldn't be able to grab her and stop her.
The shrinking hallway is the only bit that convinced me at all-- I'd have to rewatch that segment again.
Comment #544 (Posted by Jagger)
While i enjoyed the film, here are some problems. first off- i did not read the entire review, but that's cause i just thought it was a joke. eliviating all reality does make it pointless IMO. but my problems are these; 1- it was said in the movie that only the person who's dreaming can perfectt heir totem so having "your" totem wrong means it is not your dream. meaning, even if the top did fall at the end, it just means it was either HIS dream or reality, not that it was a dream or reality. the top at the end was useless.
2- please, someone, any director or anybody at all, PLEASE, FINISH A FUCKING MOVIE. i am sick of people purposefully leaving a cliff hanger ending, even if only slightly, for the purpose of a potential sequal. the ending was not deep, it was a money making option that they took. just once, make the end, the end.
3-the kids at the end were wearing the SAME SHIT a