SPOILERS!!! Discussion of Inception

POSTED BY: jewelstaitefan
UPDATED: Thursday, April 16, 2015 05:07
VIEWED: 15884
PAGE 7 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:25 PM

Something that I don't think was clearly pointed out, and I lost the train of thought a few times.

Cobb seems to imply that the concept of the token was his, and also that the concept of Inception was his as well.
Yet he seems to have not token.
He uses the top as if it is his token, however it is his wife's token, and it is explained that you cannot use somebody else's token, it will give you false indications.
The top is his wife's token, so SHE did HAVE a token.
Cobb apparently DOES NOT have a token.

Was the entire concept of token his wife's idea, and Cobb just tries to pass it off as his own?
Was the concept of Inception really his wife's idea, and he passes it off as his own?
If Cobb has no token, how does he know his wife did not return to reality?
If the only one of them who HAD a token was his wife, wouldn't SHE be the one who would KNOW they were not in a dream? Cobb is the one without a reference to reality/dream.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:46 PM

Reviewing the last few posts, looks like I forgot to post another point.
We were thinking about how to join 2 seperate dreams. But if Mal has already seeded the level Cobb thinks is reality (if it was one of the dreams they shared architure) with her team, then the architects of the levels below are not for Cobb (as he thinks) but are actaully planned from Mal's team above in reality. Since her team members are the architects, she can just join them, and avoid Cobb seeing her at the level he thinks is reality. They do the same hiding game with Fisher.
Adriane is, after all, introduced via Miles, who would reasonably be on Mal's team.

Didn't they say that Cobb cannot be the architect of the dreams, and give some lame excuse? If his "reality" is actually his level 1 dream, that would be the real reason he cannot architect a dream at the next level.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:10 PM

The concept of the totem might have been made up FOR the dream world.

The symbolism of a totem "falling" has some very specific meaning to me, if you look at the exact definition of the word. "anything serving as a distinctive, often venerated, emblem or symbol." "1. (in some societies, esp among North American Indians) an object, species of animal or plant, or natural phenomenon symbolizing a clan, family, etc, often having ritual associations
2. a representation of such an object"

A fallen totem would be one which is abandoned. An idea or thought, in this case, about what is reality, and what is a dream.

Much like the numbers presented to Fischer, first written down in response to random numbers he came up with, then the girl he's talking to giving it to him as a phone number (who then took his wallet), then room numbers, then the combination to a locked safe. The totem was something introduced in the beginning of the movie that planted an idea, and was later explained as something more than it seemed. Something personal.

One of the problematic points is whether dying is a kick that normally returns you to full wakefulness, or if it only takes you up one dream level. We're told at some parts of the movie that it normally takes you out completely, unless you're under heavy sedatives, in which case you go to limbo and don't wake up. But in order for him to still be dreaming after the train in limbo, this would have to be wrong.

It also raises a good question about how he and his wife got to limbo in the first place if they were just experimenting. Or that limbo and the subconscious do work that way.

Either, 1) he really does wake up in reality at the end, or 2) all of the rules discussed in the dream are arbitrary parts of the dream logic, and the whole movie, start to finish, with it's "flashbacks" in odd places is a dream sequence itself, in the order it's experienced by the dreamer.

Us.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:23 PM

Sidenote: I think Leonardo DiCapprio is not a good actor. >_> He can say a line, and say it with emotion, but he always plays the same character in every movie, personality wise.

Fortunately, it worked for Inception.

TWO

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Didn't they say that Cobb cannot be the architect of the dreams, and give some lame excuse? If his "reality" is actually his level 1 dream, that would be the real reason he cannot architect a dream at the next level.

That idea works well: imagine for the Inception collector's edition that the director adds a mirror to the final scene with five seconds of post-production magic. The mirror reflects Cobb sleeping in a hospital bed. His wife and children are visiting. Arthur, Ariadne, Eames, and Saito are doctor, nurse, and orderlies. The End.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:37 PM

Technically, I also agree that the presentation of the dream and the physics was both pretentious and un-dream-like, which is something that bothered me.

But the ending is fun to discuss, so I wanted to throw some ideas out there.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Something that I don't think was clearly pointed out, and I lost the train of thought a few times.

Cobb seems to imply that the concept of the token was his, and also that the concept of Inception was his as well.
Yet he seems to have not token.
He uses the top as if it is his token, however it is his wife's token, and it is explained that you cannot use somebody else's token, it will give you false indications.
The top is his wife's token, so SHE did HAVE a token.
Cobb apparently DOES NOT have a token.

Though most people still havn't caught this, Cobb did have a totem - it just wasn't the top. As you poi8nted out, it was his wife's, he never claimed it to be his. His totem was never mentioned or overtly pointed out, but it's there.

It's his wedding ring. It's on his hand in every in-dream sequence, and gone during all "real world" stuff (including the end). And every scene has at least one shot that prominently features his hand (so as to track whether or not he's wearing it).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:12 PM

I agree about the ring, it was actually something Mal4Prez mentioned up above. Within the frame of the movie, allowing that flashbacks and flashforwards are in fact flashbacks and flashforwards as opposed to sequential events, I think it's suggested he returned to reality.

But if people want to ask about the outcome or meaning of the movie, I think it's more meta then that. If you do take the entire movie as linear sequence, even including the flashbacks and flashforwards, there's enough (intentional) inconsistencies, particularly with the children and the supposed father in law, with reality in the movie itself, and things left unexplained, that it can be concluded the whole movie is a dream, and it's not the dream of anyone in the movie.

The totem falling/not-falling at the end is the symbol, it's the moment WE start questioning what's dream and reality. Then we wake up.

In this way, it's a very clever movie.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:34 PM

What inconsistancies with the children do you mean? I've seen many people who don't think the children age, but they do. In fact, they're played by different sets of actors in the relevant scenes, to reflect the change in age.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:04 PM

For example, if the father of the children isn't able to raise them... Why aren't they living with their next nearest relative, such as their grandfather?

I forget who the lady on the phone was who got the children to hang up on him and what her relationship was, maybe they are. Still. There's also the issue Mal4Prez brought up that we never see anything about the pregnancy or birth of the children in the flashbacks or dreams.

I read what was posted about the kids being played by two pairs, a younger and older, but they really do look shockingly alike still (especially because we never got to see the faces of the younger pair). And the way that their poses in all their appearances, with various changes, are meant to call back to each appearance. Which is intentional, to confuse whether it's dream or reality.

You'd have to see the movie several times to catch the differences, but I can guarantee everyone watching the movie the first time, when the protagonist is watching the children almost bated breath to see if they'll run off like in the dream, everyone in the audience is too. They look enough alike each time to make you question.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE