Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

[Stagger Lee]

I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly,

Spoiler

that was a result of the specialized sedatives they were using...which took them much deeper into sleep and therefore did not work by the normal rules.

Spoiler

That's true; normally, when they are not sedated, they can simply die in the dream to wake themselves up. They could not kill Watanabe to extricate him. So why not "kick" him, if one is able to kick oneself awake from the same dream level, as Page's character appears to do from "limbo?" I suggest that she was perhaps not using that method but intending to kill herself awake, but in this case she should have awoken on the plane rather than in a nested dream.

Also, having seen "incept" twice now, I would like to submit "to inceive" as the correct infinitive form.

[John Cope]

Okay, a couple more responses. The first is a piece critiquing the film for its lack of political interest while the author perpetuates the recent debates about slow vs. fast cinema.

And Bilge Ebiri's assessment of a "hidden" inception, a piece rife with spoilers. This one I haven't read yet but thought those who have seen the film might want to consider his conclusions.

[Mr. Ned]

Spoiler

That's the major reason I prefer to take the ending as real- I think it makes a much stronger emotional arc for DiCaprio's character if he is a man trapped by guilt and tragedy, manages to let that go, and can return to a normal life as a result of that- if you make Cotillard's character correct, then DiCaprio is running away from reality rather than accepting it in that choice. That feels... hollow, to me.

If you look at Nolan's filmography, his characters are plagued by obsession- and the Prestige and Memento show the horrible emotional and physical damage obsession can cause. In Inception, you have a character who manages to let go of his obsession- it would seem out of place with Nolan's themes to conclude that it was the wrong choice.

Besides, if the ending really is DiCaprio retreating into his own head, the character arc is almost totally indistinguishable from Shutter Island.

Spoiler

I agree completely. It's pertinent to remember Cobb's admission to Mal that he needs to let her go before the interlocking kickbacks begin; Nolan is definitely evolving his trademark emphasis on monomania into something that surpasses it--I mention it and its cinematic foundations briefly in my massive black box on page 4--and I found that to be the most personally resonant part of the film for me. With all the juxtaposition between dreams and reality, obsession and inspiration, and the images one lives in (Mal's character is always linked with houses--childhood houses, dollhouses, home literally/figuratively--throughout the movie) it'd be a cruel punishment to the audience if Cobb's catharsis was just another retreat. I admit the ending was a bit of a (unavoidable) copout, but Nolan executes it in a way that can hardly be perceived as dismally as Shutter Island's. If anything, it's a cute wink to the dreaminess of cinema and the spectator's relationship to it; just as Cobb returns home renewed, so do we "return home" when the credits roll and the lights come up...a reminder that cinema itself is just a dream within a dream.

[matrixschmatrix]

Spoiler

I agree completely. It's pertinent to remember Cobb's admission to Mal that he needs to let her go before the interlocking kickbacks begin; Nolan is definitely evolving his trademark emphasis on monomania into something that surpasses it--I mention it and its cinematic foundations briefly in my massive black box on page 4--and I found that to be the most personally resonant part of the film for me. With all the juxtaposition between dreams and reality, obsession and inspiration, and the images one lives in (Mal's character is always linked with houses--childhood houses, dollhouses, home literally/figuratively--throughout the movie) it'd be a cruel punishment to the audience if Cobb's catharsis was just another retreat. I admit the ending was a bit of a (unavoidable) copout, but Nolan executes it in a way that can hardly be perceived as dismally as Shutter Island's. If anything, it's a cute wink to the dreaminess of cinema and the spectator's relationship to it; just as Cobb returns home renewed, so do we "return home" when the credits roll and the lights come up...a reminder that cinema itself is just a dream within a dream.

Spoiler

The house audience literally burst into laughter when the spinning top didn't resolve- the kind of nervous 'oh you caught us' laughter that seemed to acknowledge how well Nolan had gotten everyone caught up in whether an element in a fictional setting was fictional within the setting, and laughing at ourselves for getting so involved.

Someone said Nolan was a magician, and I think that's true- I think he's as much con artist as filmmaker, and that he enjoys suckering the audience as much as he enjoys satisfying them. That's not meant to be an insult- I admire the craft of it, and I'm not claiming his movies are entirely hollow, but it seems like there is a magician's delight in showing you where the dove isn't in that final shot.

[HistoryProf]

The more I think about it, the more that Jim Emerson review bugs me as completely missing the point and an awful lazy excuse to bash the film. His primary criticism is summarized by the spoilered quote from it:

Emerson Says

Objects and characters maintain their identities without randomly changing or melding, and nothing is ever more than one thing at a time (with the possible exception of a family home with a repetitive skyscraper view that's constructed like a Hannah-Barbera background loop). The emotional components of dreaming (not to mention the universal archetypes) are nowhere to be found. No shame, lust, embarrassment, exhilaration; no flying, nakedness in public, pop quizzes, "actor's nightmares," quicksand floors, teeth falling out... There are lots of guns, and even those aren't anything but... guns. Dream reality behaves predictably and reliably according to the rules of the experts who've figured out to a certainty exactly how The Human Subconscious works.

To which i'll respond in a big black box just in case....though there's nothing specific in my response beyond the most basic elements of the plot in the first 45 minutes or so....

Spoiler

But it completely ignores the essential point of the whole exercise as a "heist" genre picture by assembling the team: the most important person in which was, of course, the ARCHITECT WHO DESIGNS THE DREAMSCAPE AND CONTROLS THE DREAM. Of course their teeth aren't falling out, it's not that kind of dream (which is emoting anxiety), it's a dream that is completely constructed by someone else, so that the person's usual quirks in dreamland do not exist. It is such an obvious and basic element of the plot that I can't believe anyone is actually complaining about it. It's more than simply saying "He doesn't create a dreamworld like MY dreamworld!" It's ignoring the basic elements of the story itself, and thus nothing but lazy knee jerk bashing for the sake of it.

I guess it would have been cool to open a hotel room door and find a circus, or have the van fly away from the bad guys, or turn into a boat, or have their shoes turn into flamethrowers, etc etc....but frankly, I thought it was refreshing that Nolan didn't depend on gimmicks like that because then you turn into an endless game of one upping the last dream invention. the ONLY one is in the trailer with the guns where the one guy says "don't be afraid to dream a little bigger" - but if you run with that the whole thing falls apart as a dramatic piece and actually becomes the video game these critiques are complaining it is. They are calling it a video game, while complaining that it's not more of one....i.e. essentially wishing it were something different than it is intended to be, the hallmark of bad criticism.

[Mr. Ned]

Spoiler

The house audience literally burst into laughter when the spinning top didn't resolve- the kind of nervous 'oh you caught us' laughter that seemed to acknowledge how well Nolan had gotten everyone caught up in whether an element in a fictional setting was fictional within the setting, and laughing at ourselves for getting so involved.

Someone said Nolan was a magician, and I think that's true- I think he's as much con artist as filmmaker, and that he enjoys suckering the audience as much as he enjoys satisfying them. That's not meant to be an insult- I admire the craft of it, and I'm not claiming his movies are entirely hollow, but it seems like there is a magician's delight in showing you where the dove isn't in that final shot.

I agree again! I admittedly pay little attention to Hollywood nowadays outside of directors of note, some Oscar fodder and the occasional outrageous curiosity, so unless I've missed someone I think Nolan might be one of the most enjoyable mainstream directors to watch work in contemporary cinema, right up there with Soderbergh. Both of them are magicians at work, always prodding their audience with playfulness of some kind in their craft. They share little likeness to one another, but both are clinical in their own right. They like to fiddle around with genre aesthetics, visual metaphors and film language in a way that's so distanced it's got a likeness to mst3k-ing with them in the movie theater. Nolan is certainly the more brainy of the two (and his infatuation with blockbuster aesthetics has gotten dangerously close to pigeonholing him), but Soderbergh is a master technician and film historian. Look no further than the trunk scene in Out of Sight to see what I mean; that entire film exudes a confidence and self-assurance that harkens back to Breathless, not just because of the similar plot line of a doomed love affair between the law and the lawless, but with the awesome direction and the deliberate harkenings to great action movies of old (the trunk scene is the bedroom scene of Breathless, just with movies instead of literature). This "delight in the craft," as you call it, is part of both these guy's aesthetics, though I think Soderbergh is more immersed in craftmanship and Nolan more in content. Would that make S the confidence man and N the magician?

[cysiam]

Spoiler

That's the bit I'm struggling to recall. Did the reality testing ever "work?"

Now that you mention it, I don't remember myself. Domino seems to think so. I really do have to watch this again.

Spoiler

There is a scene where Leo is alone in a hotel room (where he speaks to his children on the phone) where he spins the top, and holds a gun to his head ready to kill himself/wake-up if it doesn't stop spinning. It does stop and topples over.

[Sloper]

I actually didn't mind Zimmer's Dark Knight score at all. Its propulsive bombast felt right to me. Subtlety would have been inappropriate. But come on, Sloper, you can't really want to dismiss Zimmer that easily. What about his Thin Red Line score (another absolute masterpiece)? The tone of his Nolan work, I suspect, was forged very much in direct collaboration with Nolan. In other words, it's what Nolan wanted.

Sorry, I'm just not a Zimmer fan. Looking over his filmography, the only score of his (and the only film he scored) I remember with affection is Thelma and Louise... As knives and flyonthewall say, his music is fine on its own. I remember looking forward to The Dark Knight after hearing some of the music beforehand, but was incredibly disappointed by the film; not just because of the music, of course, but I did think Zimmer contributed to the overall mediocrity. I'm all for a lack of subtlety - Julyan isn't always subtle, nor was Bernard Herrmann - but that score just felt like it was designed to make a big, cool noise in the cinema and sell CDs, rather than enhance the excitement and emotions of the film, such as they were. It didn't pull me into the story, it just made me involunatrily and lethargically nod my head in time to the beat.

I haven't seen Malick's last two films in a while, so I can't really comment on them in detail, but I'm pretty sure the reason I don't completely adore them is their use of music. The choice of James Horner to score The New World was an absolutely staggerling lapse in taste, and while Zimmer is obviously a far better composer than Horner, I still thought his accompaniment to The Thin Red Line was merely pretty, sentimental, conventional. It felt like the score to an ordinary Hollywood war movie, insensitive to the fact (or opinion, I guess) that Malick doesn't invite his audience to identify with the characters in any conventional way. Throughout both these films, I couldn't help thinking how much more clearly Malick's vision would have shone through, and in particular how much more effective the voiceover narrations would have been, if there had simply not been any music at all.

But then I'm picky (and not proud of it) about these things: other people seem to find it quite easy to enjoy a film despite the deficiencies of the music, whereas for me, 99% of the time, a bad score equals a bad film. That said, I'll go into Inception with an open mind, and shut up about it, and Zimmer, until I've done so!

[domino harvey]

Spoiler

I, uh, really liked the score? I thought it was bombastic and intrusive, but it worked for the film. The repetitive pounding whomps during the extended climax were starting to make me nauseous, but I thought that too was a nice touch

[Mr Sausage]

Spoiler

I, uh, really liked the score? I thought it was bombastic and intrusive, but it worked for the film. The repetitive pounding whomps during the extended climax were starting to make me nauseous, but I thought that too was a nice touch

I didn't mind the score for the action scenes, but I couldn't stand it during the relaxed conversation scenes. The music's incessant sense of forward movement made me feel like I was watching a montage of fragmented dialogue scenes even tho' those scenes obviously weren't constructed that way. It was a strange sense of being hurried through scenes that were not, themselves, hurrying. Made the film feel restless at the wrong moments.

There is a scene where Leo is alone in a hotel room (where he speaks to his children on the phone) where he spins the top, and holds a gun to his head ready to kill himself/wake-up if it doesn't stop spinning. It does stop and topples over.

That's right! I think I initially thought he was playing some kind of Russian roulette. This movie was made to be rewatched: there is no way to understand the significance of that moment on a first viewing.

[Highway 61]

Spoiler

I really don't have much to add that hasn't already been said. I will say that I fall into the camp that wants to believe it wasn't a dream, mostly because I assumed that Nolan would end it that way. To my eyes and ears, the top clearly began to wobble before the cut, so on one hand, I think the ending was real. On the other, using the same shot of the children seems to be a dead giveaway. Ultimately, I'll have to agree with the poster who said that Nolan simply wants to "incept" (or "inceive") uncertainty in the viewer, and we're left to admire how well he left us in the dark.

Like everyone else, I have many questions, of which this thread has answered many. But I still can't figure out why Ken Watanabe aged so much more than Leo in limbo. Anybody?

Also, re: Michael Caine: during the telephone conversation Cysiam and Mr. Sausage mention, Leo tells his daughter to go play with her grandmother, which implies to me that Caine normally lives there with his wife. Also, Joseph Gordon-Levitt asks Leo why he wants to go to Paris, which he surely would have been able to figure out on his own if Caine lived there normally.

[cdnchris]

Spoiler

Like everyone else, I have many questions, of which this thread has answered many. But I still can't figure out why Ken Watanabe aged so much more than Leo in limbo. Anybody?

I assumed it was because Watanabe was in limbo longer than Leo.

[Highway 61]

Spoiler

Like everyone else, I have many questions, of which this thread has answered many. But I still can't figure out why Ken Watanabe aged so much more than Leo in limbo. Anybody?

I assumed it was because Watanabe was in limbo longer than Leo.

Was he really though? As I recall, he doesn't fully "die" until after he dispatches with the projections in the snow labyrinth, and this, I believe, is after Leo and Page have made the decision to go into limbo.

[Brian C]

Spoiler

My question about the ending:

Let's stipulate that it is all a dream; how long does the top need to spin before we accept that it's not going to fall? If Nolan would have kept the length of that shot the same as it is, but faded to black instead of abruptly cutting away, would that have made it seem less ambiguous, in favor of it being a dream?

My point is, if it was a dream, we would expect it not to fall. And indeed, it doesn't fall. What about it makes it ambiguous? Is it simply our own desire for a happy ending, that we would resort to denial in order to keep the possibility alive that it will fall? Is it the tiny wobbles that we see and hear, leading to doubt? Or is it more practical, e.g., the shot simply isn't long enough to make a judgment either way (although to me, it stayed up for longer than I would have expected)?

I'm not interested so much in whether it is or isn't a dream. I'm interested in how the filmmaking led to such wide assumptions of ambiguity.

[Mr Sausage]

Spoiler

Like everyone else, I have many questions, of which this thread has answered many. But I still can't figure out why Ken Watanabe aged so much more than Leo in limbo. Anybody?

I assumed it was because Watanabe was in limbo longer than Leo.

Was he really though? As I recall, he doesn't fully "die" until after he dispatches with the projections in the snow labyrinth, and this, I believe, is after Leo and Page have made the decision to go into limbo.

Earlier in the thread it was speculated that knowing you're in limbo prevents you from aging.

I'm not interested so much in whether it is or isn't a dream. I'm interested in how the filmmaking led to such wide assumptions of ambiguity.

Because right before the cut the trinket makes a sound along with what appears to be the first sign of a wobble, as tho' it might be in the process of winding down. Hence the ambiguity.

[cdnchris]

Spoiler

As sausage said it's that wobble that makes it ambiguous. That wobble led my wife to believe it wasn't a dream. It was an ingenius touch, though, the wobble, as you could hear reactions from chuckles to gasps from the audience because they were indeed hoping for it to fall.

[mfunk9786]

I might see this fucker again with earplugs in. I feel like I'm on the outside looking into some huge club where serious film buffs and casual filmgoers agree that one movie is this monumental masterpiece and I just. can't. get. it.

[Kellen]

Just watched it. So much has been said in this thread so really I am almost at a loss for words. But here are some of my quick thoughts:

Spoiler

I'm in the camp that believes Cobb was still dreaming at the end given the way the children were pretty much in the same position that they were throughout the film and that they were wearing the same clothes. Also that last few shots just felt like they were meant to be a dream(it was probably the use of the slow mo) . I believe most of the time Cobb had no idea(like Mal) on what was and wasn't reality, Like someone else said on here the part where he puts the gun to his head while the top was spinning was telling to me that he wasn't sure on what was real anymore. I wasn't a huge fan of the score like some of you guys. I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised with Ellen Page and I was disappointed with JGL not because he is a bad actor it just seemed like his being there was pointless most of the time(except for a few scenes [elevator sequence]). I think that I'm going to check the film out again later in the week the film had a bunch of stuff going on and I want to try to sort some things out with another viewing.

[Mr Sausage]

I might see this fucker again with earplugs in. I feel like I'm on the outside looking into some huge club where serious film buffs and casual filmgoers agree that one movie is this monumental masterpiece and I just. can't. get. it.

Most of us do not think this is a monumental masterpiece. We've all been very vocal about the the film's weaknesses.

[HistoryProf]

Spoiler

That's the bit I'm struggling to recall. Did the reality testing ever "work?"

Now that you mention it, I don't remember myself. Domino seems to think so. I really do have to watch this again.

Spoiler

There is a scene where Leo is alone in a hotel room (where he speaks to his children on the phone) where he spins the top, and holds a gun to his head ready to kill himself/wake-up if it doesn't stop spinning. It does stop and topples over.

Spoiler

or when he went into the bathroom after the experience in the "opium den" and went to spin it on the sink...

[HistoryProf]

I might see this fucker again with earplugs in. I feel like I'm on the outside looking into some huge club where serious film buffs and casual filmgoers agree that one movie is this monumental masterpiece and I just. can't. get. it.

I don't think anyone but maybe a couple of diehard Nolan fans have called it a masterpiece...indeed, I see quite a bit of questioning mixed with praise for various actors and aspects of the composition of the film. I certainly don't think it's a masterpiece, but I certainly appreciated it's uniqueness and was very entertained by it all. For a summer blockbuster, it's got more brains than the rest of the crop put together and then some...I think what you are reading is more simple refreshment at Hollywood actually producing a big film that isn't a sequel or a retread but one with actual original ideas. which is kind of sad when you think about it.

[HistoryProf]

Another thought I meant to add to my initial post: did anyone else not recognize Tom Berenger initially and then have a "holy shit, that's Tom Berenger!" moment later on? It wasn't half the film or anything, but certainly took me a minute, and I was amazed at how old he is now. Strange to see him in the grandfatherly position type role. It was like seeing Spencer Tracy in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner the day after Northwest Passage without realizing the difference in time between them.

[John Cope]

Yeah, I finally saw it this afternoon and that may have been the biggest shock moment for me. I like Berenger a hell of a lot but he has remarkably aged and that just made me realize how long it's been since I've seen him on screen, any screen, chronologically speaking.

[flyonthewall2983]

It was a little shocking, but not too much. I actually spent the first 20 or so minutes figuring out where he would come in because his name in the cast stuck out a little bit because he's not done a lot of big films for the last decade or two and has been in a lot of straight-to-DVD or TV movies. I seem to remember he'd done a failed series on USA, Peacemakers which was a forensics show...set in the Wild West. I'm looking at his imdb page right now and it says it has jumped 450% in popularity.

The real surprise for me was how Marion Cotillard balanced her body language between being rather ominous in scenes and frail in others, and how it all gelled for her. Just the way she would move her head sometimes had me flinch in my seat.

[Svevan]

Dora explores the subconscious (via Emerson, actually)