- 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.


