Inception (Home Release Necro'd edition)

[Metcarfre]

I will probably either listen to this on Monday on the ferry ride home, or on my way to work on Tuesday.

[MattAn]

SPOYLARZ
I was discussing both this thread's theories and the movie in general with my mother after we saw it.. One thing here in the thread really interested me, I think epcoalypse mentioned it. The fact that the spinning top was Mal's totem, not, to the rest of the team, Dom's. He stated to Ariadne (Arthur later mentioned it too), that no other person can/should touch the totem of another person because only they should know how it works and what it does for them.

True, we don't see Ariadne ever use her chess piece after making it, but every time Dom uses the top, it's usually during/after an altercation with Mal. This is probably to confirm to him that -she- is still dreaming, whether or not it is in his subconcious or not.

But the way Arthur reacts to Ariadne trying to take his weighted die, obviously that same situation should be the case with Mal's totem being taken/used by Dom. Sure, he used the inception technique on her so that may have altered things a little..

Either way, one thing was very clear.. What if the spinning top isn't Dom's totem at all, like I mentioned.. And it's not his wedding ring. (Although, that's a nice hypothesis..) In every dream state, he couldn't SEE his kids faces. Even in reality, he couldn't SEE his kids because he was running from US authorities. He was closed off from that, which caused the battle within his mind, against Mal (Mallorie, by the way.. Not Malaise, from what someone else said..) and against not seeing his children.

When they woke up on the plane (and remembered how they got ON the plane, because that was how Dom convinced Fischer he's not really in the hotel. If it's a dream, you don't actually know how you got there, but it takes part of your subconcious (or someone inside your mind) to convince you otherwise.

Anyway, they actually landed in LA, Saito called off the search for Dom, his father-in-law was there, because he was the sole guardian of the kids. He could enter and leave the US whenever. The first time Dom spoke to him, that was the college that Ariadne was at, obviously outside of the US. I believe the flight was from Sydney to Los Angeles, the longest flight path. Fischer sounded Australian too, so my guess is they started in Sydney(?).

Bottom line though, Dom spun the top as a last resort, A; try to confirm he is in fact awake and B; to confirm that Mal is in fact, gone from his subconcious.. Then he saw his children and they actually turned to look at him. He never saw them do that until that moment. So I believe that upon bringing Saito back and fighting off his own demons after his wife killed herself, he can finally be home with those kids. Seeing their faces is his personal totem.

..Or am I missing something else here?

[Evil Jim]

As stated earlier in the thread,the top was originally Mal's totem. But since she died, Dom kept it & used it as his own. He was probably the only person who knew exactly what the properties of Mal's totem were, tho' at one point he did state that for Mal, if she was in a dream the top would spin forever. It's implied that it holds similar properties for him, but we don't know precisely what it does.

I've been contemplating on whether to start a new thread for this next topic, or just bring it up here. But anyway,

What would your dream totem be? What sort of object would you keep with you, what would be its unique properties, either in our out of the dream world, etc. Yeah, yeah, you're never supposed to tell anyone in the world of Inception, but it should be fairly safe here.

[epocalypse]

As stated earlier in the thread,the top was originally Mal's totem. But since she died, Dom kept it & used it as his own. He was probably the only person who knew exactly what the properties of Mal's totem were, tho' at one point he did state that for Mal, if she was in a dream the top would spin forever. It's implied that it holds similar properties for him, but we don't know precisely what it does.

I've been contemplating on whether to start a new thread for this next topic, or just bring it up here. But anyway,

What would your dream totem be? What sort of object would you keep with you, what would be its unique properties, either in our out of the dream world, etc. Yeah, yeah, you're never supposed to tell anyone in the world of Inception, but it should be fairly safe here.

My necklace, made up of three very distinct components:

A solid silver chain.
A razor that can't cut.
A Carved up Portuguese coin that won't bend There are several quick, inconspicuous movements that let me really know it's mine.

[The Jester]

I watched it last night and just looked at the last couple of pages of thread here, so appologies if it's allready been pointed out, but Dom states while they're planning the job that he finds positive catharsis better than negative catharsis, so if the film is an alegory for filmmaking in general, I believe that Nolan wants the audience to believe it ends well for Dom, most likely by him being in reality with all his problems solved (for now, there's no doubt he'll have more problems arise in the future).

Anyway, that's my opinion, but then allways lean towards wanting protagionists to be happy in the end.

[epocalypse]

So, the sequel discussion keeps popping up online. Most people are like OMG, DO NAWT WANT! but I'd like to see more stories in this world. Not necessarily direct sequels or even films, but I think that it's a very rich kind of scifi landscape, with great characters and story potential beyond simply what we've seen. A great example, I think, is the point that there is much more to dreamshare tech than extraction and inception, like recreation, and addiction, and training, all of which are at least mentioned in the film. Those could warrant unique and interesting stories.

I feel that sequels, adaptation and remakes get a bad wrap now a days, because it's so easy to make mediocre ones. However, with out derivation, there is no art, and no storytelling, and there are many examples of very good sequels and adaptations. I'd point out, for instance, that Chris Nolan has only made 2 films not directly based on previously existing material, Inception and Following. and yet he has made 7 good films (and, in my book, at least 4 great ones). Similarly, almost Everything Kubrick did was adaptation. More directly going to sequels, however, we have examples like The Dark Knight, and the Godfather Part II (both of which also happen to be adaptations). In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we find examples of both adaptation and good sequels. Not only are most of the books fantastic, but the first book itself, probably the best version of the story, is an adaptation of the Radio Program, which was made first.

So my point of view on it basically comes to this: I'd like to see more work in the Inception world, but probably not direct sequels, something more like American Gods and Anansi Boys, different stories in the same world, and perhaps in things like comics or books rather than film. Also, if there ever was a film, I'd want it to not come out for a long long long time. Still, let us not all rag on explicitly derivative work for the high quantity of poor ones made.

[aeric90]

@Hileict
I never said that Mal's name was directly short for malaise, only that it was symbolically related to the word. She is Dom's pain both psychologically and in name as well.

[Evil Jim]

So my point of view on it basically comes to this: I'd like to see more work in the Inception world, but probably not direct sequels, something more like American Gods and Anansi Boys, different stories in the same world, and perhaps in things like comics or books rather than film.

I as well. The technology fascinates me & the number of stories you can tell in this manner is endless. They've only scratched the surface with Inception. Notice that most of the dreams were firmly based in reality. Imagine if they snuck into dreams where you can fly, create mythical creatures, do nothing but the impossible. Imagine, if you dare, sharing dreams with this gentleman!

If they do continue creating stories in the world of Inception, I hope with all my heart they do it right.

[Metcarfre]

(Giving up on spoilers from here on out.)

Indeed, I thought it was interesting that it was implied that Cobb, Mal, and Mal's father (Michael Caine)[EDIT; character's name was Miles] all appeared to be academic types initially - doing pure research in to the 'field' of dreams (heh). When Mal died, Cobb would have found the only application of his previous work was the illegal - but profitable - field of extraction. One wonders what other sort of 'applications' the technology would have.

Incidentally Jim, I think it was mentioned that shared dreams are naturally lucid - that is, based in reality. Of course there's no reason for some plot device that allows one to enter the more phenomenal dream images one could have, but it's something to consider.

On thing that would be interesting to see would be a film about a therapist that uses shared dreaming to explore a patient's psyche.

[epocalypse]

Also note that we haven't seen true dream invasion yet. Just dream masquerade and dream corruption. In fact, the film was really more about dream masquerading as reality rather than dreams themselves.

[The Jester]

Nobody was messing around with physics to any great degree either, which kinda bugged me. I know that playing around too much would gain you attention faster, but what I'm talking about is slowing time and doing other "magic" type stuff.

It's like in the matrix with Neo. He has complete control of the Matrix (at least, the first film makes it seem that way and that's what I'm going with) but the best he can manage is a bit of flight and some hyper fast fisticuffs.

Basically what I'm saying is WHERE ARE THE FIREBALLS PEOPLE?

[epocalypse]

*looks at Jester, raises one eye brow.*

[Evil Jim]

I think the main reason we didn't see any of the more fantastic dreams in the movie is it would have made it too complex. If you are invincible in your dream the standard method of forced awakening wouldn't apply.

[epocalypse]

In all honesty, though, I've never had a dream where I was invulnerable, per say, and I say this as an on again off again lucid dreamer. Feeling unnaturally powerful is possible, but I have never had the notion of being indestructible. Still, I think a huge part of it for the film is that they were trying to ground the dreams, to make them seem real to avoid detection and elimination. It's all about suspension of disbelief, ya dig?

Speaking of lucid dreams and dream recollection, my dream awareness has been going much higher up since seeing the film, as I've been thinking about dreaming and reality testing a lot, and I've had flashes and staying memories of some of my recent dreams, although usually it's been once out of them, later in day, having flashes of a memory and realizing that it must have been a dream. I had my first lucid dream in a while (a couple of months) last night. I can't remember the beginning of the dream very well, Mostly because I spent most of the lucidity doing something rather boring, practicing reading while in a dream (very hard, but not impossible). I was almost able to coalesce an entire page of understandable text before I woke up. I think this is also cause I'm currently packing up my room to move to my new apartment, and my room is the family's library, so I've been putting hundreds of books into boxes for days. Really, the least interesting dream I've had in a while, except from a technical stand point.

I think I'm going to start keeping a record again, could come in handy. Especially considering that I'm a writer and film maker guy and such, never throw out ideas.

Also, I think I've found a hole in the ending is a dream theory, or at least some versions of it which site the entire thing as a trick orchestrated by Saito: If Cobb didn't get out of Limbo, Saito would be stuck and brain boiled, too.

[Murakami]

Also, I think I've found a hole in the ending is a dream theory, or at least some versions of it which site the entire thing as a trick orchestrated by Saito: If Cobb didn't get out of Limbo, Saito would be stuck and brain boiled, too.

You have a point there.

Also, and this may be a dumb question, but are we sure of at least one point in the film to be 'real'?

[Metcarfre]

According to some, no.

According to others, yes.

All we can say for sure is that it is a movie.

Unless it isn't... what if this world isn't real... how would you prove it... you can't... OH GOD!!!

*explodes in a cloud of luminous aether that only exists because someone observed it*

[iamafish]

trouble is Met, you're all alone, so there's noone to see your cloud of luminous aether.

[epocalypse]

Or is he?

[Telaril]

I've never had flying dreams. What I have had is a lot of is low-gravity dreams, dreams where I could jump very high and would then float down slightly more slowly and with less impact. I've had these so often and so consistently that as a young kid I thought that the high jumping was something that I used to be able to do, but had somehow forgotten. It may be related to the fact that I took a lot of gymnastics between the ages of two and seven, and internalized the feeling of sort-of-flying at a young age.

Even now I have these dreams; the thing is, unlike flying dreams, the things I do when I have them are so subtle that they seem believable until I actually think about it. Jumping down an entire flight of stairs while guiding yourself with hands on both handrails? Impossible, but it's something that feels like it could be done. Some of the things I do are just impossible for me - I'm sure there's some great athlete or parkour person who could leap from my bed to my bookcase and land on top smoothly, but I can't.

This is the kind of thing I feel like they could have done more in the movie: things that are impossible but wouldn't seem that unrealistic to the subconscious - jumping six feet in the air, precision jumping from one lightpost to another, that kind of thing. I also don't know why people don't do more things that are pleasurable but realistic: if I were an architect I would be eating so many calorie-free cakes and sundaes.

One of my friends pointed out that Christopher Nolan can only make Christopher Nolan movies, and one of the definitive qualities of his movies is that everything in grimmer, darker, and more constrained than real life. So he couldn't have the logical messing around sequences, and gave us a sort of weird and absurd reason for why not.

[iamafish]

Jumping down an entire flight of stairs while guiding yourself with hands on both handrails? Impossible,

nope, just requires the core strength to hold yourself up on the handrails. I do this with short flights of stairs all the time. Sure with longer ones it would be harder, but not impossible.

[epocalypse]

One of my friends pointed out that Christopher Nolan can only make Christopher Nolan movies, and one of the definitive qualities of his movies is that everything in grimmer, darker, and more constrained than real life. So he couldn't have the logical messing around sequences, and gave us a sort of weird and absurd reason for why not.

I disagree. I'm not feeling the reasoning on either end because the whole point of the tech in the world is too fool people into believing dreams. Also, I'd totally disagree with calling Nolan's movies more constrained than the real world. Don't mean to bash you, man, but I'm just not seeing the reasoning holding up. I feel like it's if you looked at Escher or Magritte, and called them less successful at portraying surreal and dream like imagery than Dali for being frequently more subtle with their manipulation.

Not that there isn't the potential to tell stories like that in this kind of world or with these kinds of devices, just that they would have vitally not worked in the context of this film.

May I recommend the Japanese film Paprika as an excellent companion piece, with a more Dali like or Freudian Flair to compliment the Jungian, Magritte or Escherish world of Inception? Two great tastes that taste great together!

[Telaril]

I wasn't trying to imply that Nolan is less successful, just that his films have very specific structures and themes. If Memento, the Prestige, and Inception don't feel like the same kind of movie to you, what are the significant differences in feel? Do you disagree that Nolan likes structure?

All three movies I mentioned open with a scene that takes place late in the timeline, from which the majority of the movie is essentially a flashback. All three have a dead female love interest as the primary source of pathos. All three hinge the drama on a final mystery, twist, or reveal that is masterfully constructed throughout the movie. Nolan has a delicious recipe and some permanent demons, and they come together to produce strikingly similar movies based on very different and original ideas.

I don't think these are bad things, but I'd definitely contrast them to Satoshi Kon's entirely different sort of genius. One of the significant differences for me is color: even Kon's grimmest and most realistic settings (probably either Tokyo Godfathers or Perfect Blue) make infinitely more use of bright color than Nolan's and I find that extremely telling. Kon's dream worlds are more about emotion and chaos than Nolan's. They hearkened me back to my own dreams more, but it could be that other people dream differently than I do. And I suppose you could argue that Satoshi Kon is capable of making only Satoshi Kon movies, but I think you could find fewer constraints and structures, fewer rules of thumb you could attribute to all his movies.

Do you truly feel that, based on his past movies, Nolan would have been able to capture the chaotic, unconstrained nature of true dreaming if he had not been forced by plot to establish dreams as realistic? I don't think he would have, for one reason: when Cob and Mal were alone in limbo and could do anything they built the same dull cityscape that existed everywhere. No grand forests, no dragons. Even when they were free to do whatever they want, to make paradise, they made a Nolan world, a city of browns and grays. They walked instead of flew. It's never explained why they had to follow the laws of physics in Limbo, is it?

The rule that dreams must be realistic in order to avoid startling the dreamer is convenient to the story Nolan wants to tell, and the world he knows he is best at creating. That doesn't mean I find it sensible or logical. When I'm in a dream I'm less likely to be jarred out of it by simple physics issues (like weird gravity or otherworldly scenery) and more likely to be jarred out of it by extreme situations, like a gunfight or a murder threat. In fact, I find that being scared in dreams (like Fischer was when he was kidnapped) is more likely to make me realize I'm dreaming than completely absurd things like wandering a city made out of coils of concrete with a tall, auburn-haired philosopher, or jumping from tree to tree chasing after some kind jungle cat. I've also had profound ideas and feelings linger from dreams that were completely unrealistic, where I was wandering down hallways studded with silver-plated flowers. Nolan's rules are nothing like my experience from dreaming - they were necessary to the movie, though, because it was going to be a Nolan movie - he knew that he was going to fill it with grim, structured scenery and needed that to feel natural, needed a reason to force film-goers to not compare their dreaming experience to the one portrayed in the movie. It was a clever enough device.

I think Nolan knows what he's doing, and what he's good at. He knows how to make best movies he is capable of making, and he knows his strengths. I think he established rules and structure in the beginning of this movie that helped him avoid having to explore aspects of dreaming and life that are not his strengths. He knows how to make a good Christopher Nolan movie, so that's what he did.

[MattAn]

@Hileict
I never said that Mal's name was directly short for malaise, only that it was symbolically related to the word. She is Dom's pain both psychologically and in name as well.

Oh, I wasn't meaning to offend and all, just clarifying the name. I like the idea of the symbolism though!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to make gravity go boom and make with the floaty-hotel-scene madness. AWAY~!

[epocalypse]

I wasn't trying to imply that Nolan is less successful, just that his films have very specific structures and themes. If Memento, the Prestige, and Inception don't feel like the same kind of movie to you, what are the significant differences in feel? Do you disagree that Nolan likes structure?

All three movies I mentioned open with a scene that takes place late in the timeline, from which the majority of the movie is essentially a flashback. All three have a dead female love interest as the primary source of pathos. All three hinge the drama on a final mystery, twist, or reveal that is masterfully constructed throughout the movie. Nolan has a delicious recipe and some permanent demons, and they come together to produce strikingly similar movies based on very different and original ideas.

I don't think these are bad things, but I'd definitely contrast them to Satoshi Kon's entirely different sort of genius. One of the significant differences for me is color: even Kon's grimmest and most realistic settings (probably either Tokyo Godfathers or Perfect Blue) make infinitely more use of bright color than Nolan's and I find that extremely telling. Kon's dream worlds are more about emotion and chaos than Nolan's. They hearkened me back to my own dreams more, but it could be that other people dream differently than I do. And I suppose you could argue that Satoshi Kon is capable of making only Satoshi Kon movies, but I think you could find fewer constraints and structures, fewer rules of thumb you could attribute to all his movies.

Do you truly feel that, based on his past movies, Nolan would have been able to capture the chaotic, unconstrained nature of true dreaming if he had not been forced by plot to establish dreams as realistic? I don't think he would have, for one reason: when Cob and Mal were alone in limbo and could do anything they built the same dull cityscape that existed everywhere. No grand forests, no dragons. Even when they were free to do whatever they want, to make paradise, they made a Nolan world, a city of browns and grays. They walked instead of flew. It's never explained why they had to follow the laws of physics in Limbo, is it?

The rule that dreams must be realistic in order to avoid startling the dreamer is convenient to the story Nolan wants to tell, and the world he knows he is best at creating. That doesn't mean I find it sensible or logical. When I'm in a dream I'm less likely to be jarred out of it by simple physics issues (like weird gravity or otherworldly scenery) and more likely to be jarred out of it by extreme situations, like a gunfight or a murder threat. In fact, I find that being scared in dreams (like Fischer was when he was kidnapped) is more likely to make me realize I'm dreaming than completely absurd things like wandering a city made out of coils of concrete with a tall, auburn-haired philosopher, or jumping from tree to tree chasing after some kind jungle cat. I've also had profound ideas and feelings linger from dreams that were completely unrealistic, where I was wandering down hallways studded with silver-plated flowers. Nolan's rules are nothing like my experience from dreaming - they were necessary to the movie, though, because it was going to be a Nolan movie - he knew that he was going to fill it with grim, structured scenery and needed that to feel natural, needed a reason to force film-goers to not compare their dreaming experience to the one portrayed in the movie. It was a clever enough device.

I think Nolan knows what he's doing, and what he's good at. He knows how to make best movies he is capable of making, and he knows his strengths. I think he established rules and structure in the beginning of this movie that helped him avoid having to explore aspects of dreaming and life that are not his strengths. He knows how to make a good Christopher Nolan movie, so that's what he did.

All well thought out points, but I think that a key mistake, or perhaps misinterpretation, in my mind, in them is thinking that Nolan was making a film about "true dreaming", or dreaming at all for that matter. A huge amount of what I loved in this film is that it is an extended allegory for the creation of collaborative art forms, and film in particular. Film is often historically called a shared dream, and in fact the adage is more than 100 years old. The idea of dream stability and making things real is an extended feature of this allegory, taking on the important role of suspension of disbelief, vital to the art.

I do not, for instance, think it's reasonable to say that someone like Fischer would be less taken aback by death threats and mercenaries than he would by flying to a cloud city. Also note that the deeper we get into dreams, the more wild and unlikely they can get with out raising suspicion. He's a multinational CEO and has spent the rest of his life as a son of one, and clearly has real world protocols for such an events.

Personally, as someone who has lucid dreamed before, even once you know your dreaming, or perhaps even more so, maintaining structure and logic, even narrative motion is very important to actually keeping the dream from falling apart and your brain from waking up. The kinds of images you are talking about are the exact kinds of images we train ourselves to look for in the process of reality testing, the act which lends one the ability to know that their dreaming, gravity manipulation, physics manipulation, changing the unchangeable, and finding the unreasonable. These are far more obvious and reliable signs of dreaming than seeking danger. This doesn't necessarily mean the imagery is less surreal or anything to that effect, or that you can't have some variety of landscape, but it does speak to a truth about being able to immerse one's self in a world.

Also note that there are many kinds of dreams. Both Kon and Nolan appeal to my own personal sense of dreaming and surealism, for that matter (as I mentioned, Kon's dream aesthetic seems more influenced by artists like Dali, where as Nolan's is more similar to artists like Magritte and Escher, all three of my favorite artists, all known for surreal and impossible imagery of different kinds). Many of my other favorite filmmakers and films, Like Charlie Kauffman (Especially Eternal Sunshine and Synecdoche, NY), Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Fellini, Linklater and many others have a similar and varying takes to these kinds of dream and absurd to surrealist worlds. Now yes, while Nolan's use of color is decidedly understated and subtle, often excluding bright primaries, his use of color is expert (note how all dream levels have a unique color profile). However, I'd note that this films first dream setting (the Japanese Dream) Is both brightly and warmly colored, more so perhaps than any other setting he has used. So in this sense, I really think he already did, as not all dreams are this supposed unrestrained chaos. One reason, in particular, the dream rang true for me is that I once had a very memorable dream as a child, where most people I knew were trying to chase me down through an Escher like landscape of impossible architecture that had taken the place of my school.

The other thing that really gets me is that this movie gets me on a visceral emotional level, and has since my first screening of it. The film is about the surrendering of one's self to emotion, and to the things we try to trap with in different worlds and structures and mental mazes, to overcome. About positive release and catharsis, as the film so puts it. Now in all honesty, the progression of the characters through the movie really did get to me, especially Cobb, Saito and Fischer, who in my book have the most pronounced and meaningful arcs. I also loved the other characters, in particular Ariadne and Arthur, and I like the places they went.

Now yes, all that said, the vital point in which I agree is that Nolan is making a movie very true to his own voice and strengths. Not, however, for reasons of not being able to make another kind of movie, I think, but because he really wants to tell his story this way. I do, personally think he could create the other imagery you are talking about, though it might well be more difficult for him to rationalize into, in my opinion, a fully cohesive world.

And all that said, while clearly you and I disagree on many points (though I do think your reading's completely legit) there is one point with which I cannot disagree: Chris Nolan loves him a dead chick.

In fact, Ariadne is damn lucky she didn't end up all deady too.

[epocalypse]

I got new present for yous!

http://inception.deviantart.com/

It's a place to both read the prequel comic that they already did for free (I have not yet) and read the script for their second prequel comic challenge, which I'm no really tempted to try and take on eventually. I've got to be primarily working on my comic and work and such this week, but MAN, SO COOL IDEA!