CBR: Permanent Damage - Aug 4, 2010

[the heckler]

great theory and original too.. i disagree tho, my interpretation is that his team, heist and ending was real.. the spinning top, the kid's clothes, and others are simply red herrings by Nolan so we keep us guessing and doing what we're doing now. but i think you've found some extras that he had planted that no one else has caught, so bravo.

[shwa96]

great theory and original too.. i disagree tho, my interpretation is that his team, heist and ending was real.. the spinning top, the kid's clothes, and others are simply red herrings by Nolan so we keep us guessing and doing what we're doing now. but i think you've found some extras that he had planted that no one else has caught, so bravo.

Actually, the only way the ending could possibly be real is if the rest of the movie is a dream. If you believe the heist was real, then there is no interpretation other than that at the end he's still in the dream. There's a very simple reason. The age of his children.

Early on in the movie, he talks to his children on the phone, and they sound considersably older than what they are in the dream image of the last time he saw them. In fact, if you look at the credits, there are two actors cast for each one of the children. His son age 20 months and then his son age 3. His daughter age 3 and his daughter age 5. Clearly from both observation and from the credit list, it's implied that his kids have aged two years since he last saw them. But when he sees them at the end, who does he see? He sees his kids as a 3 year old and a 1 1/2 year old toddler again.

He must be dreaming.

The fact that we don't see Ken Watanabe's character make the decision to come out coupled with the fact that he's dreaming the final scene, it's a pretty clear indication to me that his attempt to save Saito was unsuccessful. Rather than returning to the real world where he faces prison without Saito there to make the call, Cobb stays in the dream where he at least has some semblance of his family.

I think that interpretation is viable whether the rest of the movie is a dream or not. If the rest is real, it is the only logical explanation. If the rest isn't real, then all that matters is that Cobb still thought it was, and his failure to save Saito only made him retreat even further into the dream.

[Retro315]

Which is why, for me, the caper is the truth. I'd be less than satisfied otherwise. I'd have spent hours getting to know characters (people) that are not at all real leaving me feeling cheated.

Aren't we all cheated by our dreams, on a nightly basis?

You're right about to get your dream girl ... you get woken up. (Or, if things take a lurid turn, it all seems kind of blurry and lacking in explicit detail) You're right about to climb Everest or get back at the bully from school or something. You get woken up. Or the dream transitions into a new scene on the fly.

[Retro315]

His accomplices were not constructs, they choose to appear that way because of their roles. How would a pick-pocket appear? The chemist certainly doesn't fit an archetype that i can recall.

Nothing random about it ... but if Nolan was that interested in procedure ... wouldn't we have learned HOW the "Briefcase Dream Machine" works? They never give it a moment of mention. It's a deus ex machina device. It just works because it works. And that seems like dream logic.

But the chemist fits plenty of archetypes. He's The Alchemist, or The Mad Scientist. His potions, and indeed the fact that he's one of only two non-white people in Cobb's subconscious could indicate the concept that drugs/potions are something "exotic and foreign in nature".

And the people chasing Cobb in the real world? That "mysterious organization" that also never gets any explanation? Immediately they bring to mind the "anti-intrusion" projections of the subconscious, turning on whoever doesn't belong in the dream. People are trying to kill him ... because it's his own mind trying to get him to wake up.

Now, I think whether the final scene is a dream or not is up for interpretation. The fact that it's the most dreamlike is kind of strange in a movie where the dreams themselves are fairly realistic, down-to-earth places (on purpose, to make them believable for the dreamer). That could indicate that it's Cobb's pure dreaming, with nobody else from the "group session" in there (except maybe Miles) to ground it in realism. And the fact is - the totem, whether it's his or Mal's - did falter. It was about to skip around and fall down. So while he never wakes up for us, it's implied that he IS about to wake up, and he'll be whole again without the guilt (and can look his children in their faces, finally). It doesn't invalidate the catharsis, I don't think, for those who read way deeper into it. It just shifts the weight of it.

I've got little else to go on about regarding Inception. I think my two posts cover it. It's actually a pretty straightforward movie for Nolan - what makes it "better, in some ways" than some of his previous films for me, is the cast. Because between DiCaprio, Gordon-Levitt, Page and Hardy, we really are looking at "the future of great actors, today". (Then there's that pang where you're like ... hell, Ledger would've been counted in that group, too).

[babydave]

Aren't we all cheated by our dreams, on a nightly basis?

I was talking about the film not a dream. You don't pay $16 for an IMAX dream.

On another note, you don't see the kids' faces until the end which is another device used to imply that it's the real world. Cobb himself said that he chose to remember them that way (facing away) rather than call out to see their faces, and they were called away before he could reconsider.

Please refrain from "you're wrong about____" and other similar statements. It doesn't prove you're smarter than the rest of us. Use things like "the way I see it" and "what I think is." For example, I think we're not supposed to know the one truth or that there even is one.

Also, it is a little bit annoying that Cobb and Saito went from limbo back to "reality" without hitting the dreams in between. This is also obviously intentional to create ambiguity. It wouldn't have been difficult to put those scenes in the film.

One way to find out the truth about the kids is to figure out which actors are on screen at the end of the film. The boys are played by two different people, but the girls are played by sisters. Then again, it's possible that for financial reasons they chose not to put the two voice actors on screen at the end of the film.

Another thing is if it's all a dream except for the end, why does Mal not show up in the scenes that are not obviously dream scenes? She should be invading all dream levels, yet she doesn't.

[babydave]

And the people chasing Cobb in the real world? That "mysterious organization" that also never gets any explanation? Immediately they bring to mind the "anti-intrusion" projections of the subconscious, turning on whoever doesn't belong in the dream. People are trying to kill him ... because it's his own mind trying to get him to wake up.

They're not mysterious. They're his unhappy previous employer. The ones that hired him to steal from Saito. He states that failure is not an option with these people, so they're looking for him.

Projections never turned against the one creating them during the entire movie. Why would Cobb's? The projections fight what's out of place. He's not out of place in his own dream.

[Steven Grant]

Do you mean you didn't see any representation what-so-ever from the "adult" entertainment industry at comic con this year... or just not from Vivid?

Outside of a few porn comics here and there, no, none. I think some company may have sponsored an after-hours party, but I wasn't at one. On the con floor, no presence that I can recall. But Comic-Con and the porn industry aren't really a good match. (They always hold the AVN show parallel to CES every January here in Las Vegas, though.)

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

If it's not a dream at the end, why do his kids appear exactly as they have throughout the film?

They don't, but even if they are, why assume a long period of time has take place since his wife's suicide? If the world he inhabits as "the real world" in the film is a dream plane - and it is - a much longer period of time passes there than in the actual real world. When he speaks to them on the phone, he's speaking not to his children but to what his dream tells him his children must be then. The fact that the children haven't much changed in the last scene actually reinforces my thesis.

Where is Mal?

She's dead. She killed herself, due to the idea he accidentally implanted in her that she couldn't let go of. That's the point. That's the event that sends him "fleeing" into a state of being trapped by guilt, as illustrated on the dream plane of him having deteriorated into a thief and criminal constantly hunted by the police and by enemies. Her death is what drives him to that state, because he feels he did kill her, by "incepting" the idea that got them out of the limbo plane. All that's in the movie.

Why would it be Miles instead of her?

'cause she's kinda dead, and Miles isn't.

The top doesn't really matter, except that since it's about to fall, it's being worked on by gravity. It doesn't need a witness. (Though it has one: us.)

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Nah....its pretty clear that its not all a dream.

I would have claimed the end was a dream, but Grant's take on the film works - why would you cast Michael Caine in that role, and why would he agree, if you didn't want special focus on the character?
That part had been annoying the heck out of me, but with Grant's take, it makes perfect sense.

All your "evidence" was not presented on the screen. Miles was not conducting the dreams, we clearly see the device used for inception on Saito and Fisher and Ariadne. Cobb really is a mind thief. He really does put together a heist team. Saito really does hire him.
He really defeats Mal and is able to finish the job. He wins in the dream world and then wins in the real world.

So even ignoring the theory that it's all a dream, you then believe that the ending is set in reality?
Which is exactly like his memory of the last time he saw them?

If it's not all in a dream, with the last part either being reality, or at least a representation of his return to happiness, then he must still be trapped in the dream.

His accomplices were not constructs, they choose to appear that way because of their roles. How would a pick-pocket appear? The chemist certainly doesn't fit an archetype that i can recall.

Weird they have no lives outside of their assigned roles in the film.

The impact/theme of the film lies solely on the concept of conscious and subconscious. And our ability to traverse and control and explore and shape the dream side. Remove one and it all falls apart.

But Grant's take doesn't remove anything - it fits right in to that.

There is no point of showing 98% dream and 2% reality.

Don't tell that to David Lynch.

Or to Christopher Nolan, who lists Lost Highway in his personal list of top ten thrillers, mainly because it all feels realistic whilst you watch it, but when you try and remember it, it's like trying to remember a dream.
(That's from an Empire magazine article from around the time of Insomnia - not sure where online).

One other thing. The dreams are not like our dreams because they are controlled and shaped by the dreamnaut. The easier to accomplish the mission.

You don't think that the logic of dreams there doesn't sound like dream logic?

Again, go back to Lynch if you like - the first half of Muholland Drive feels much more real in the way it's presented, yet it's the dream, and the trippy second part is the reality.

Nolan is far more interested in procedure rather than fancy or randomness.

Well, Steven's take isn't really fancy or randomness, it clearly follows the logic laid out in the film.
On top of that, I'm not quite sure what in his films would give you the idea Nolan is interested in 'procedure'.
Besides Batman, all of his films are more than their plots.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The fact that the children haven't much changed in the last scene actually reinforces my thesis.
- Grant

Well, the children are exactly the same.
Same age, clothes and positioning as when he last remembers seeing them.
I'd say following your take, there is no reality in the film, he's gone back to where he was happy, and is now ready to wake up.

[jgrant]

Analyzing it too much takes away from the movie. There's nothing to figure out, it's pretty simple no matter which way you look at it. Looking at from one side can be less appealing than others. Some people like the depth of the "it's all a dream" take, while other find that confusing and ultimately futile and kind of stupid. Others like it as a heist film. Some people prefer to think the top fell, others like to think it spun.

I talked about this movie with my friend and what probably would have been midway through if I had continued, I realized this is stupid. This movie is built to misdirect and keep you guessing and thinking while realizing at least the bare bones of it, so why debate it? That only takes away the point of it. The point is for everyone to be able to watch this and be able to think on it in their own way.

[therealmccoy]

I'm not saying you're wrong about him being in a dream and the others being constructs, but I do think you're wrong about the ending. He's still dreaming at the end. Two questions for you.

If it's not a dream at the end, why do his kids appear exactly as they have throughout the film? And I'm not just talking about the fact that they haven't aged (though they're clearly older when he speaks with them on the phone), but you see them exactly as he's seen them in the dream all along except that this time they turn and he sees their faces.

Where is Mal? If she was right and her suicide was her escaping the dream, then shouldn't she be alive at the end alongside Miles and the children? More importantly, why isn't she coming back into the dream to get him? Why would it be Miles instead of her?

You assert that the top is most certainly about to fall, but what does that matter? As you yourself pointed out, it's not actually his anyway. He has no anchor, so whether or not it falls means nothing. It's just a clever place for Nolan to cut to credits.

The way I see it, there's nothing about the final scene that indicates he's back in reality.

I agree with all the statements are above. The ending is not real and he is lost in limbo. The end has a bit of a Mullhulland Drive feel to it.

[harrylike]

Well, the children are exactly the same.
Same age, clothes and positioning as when he last remembers seeing them.
I'd say following your take, there is no reality in the film, he's gone back to where he was happy, and is now ready to wake up.

I havn't re-watched it myself to see, but apparently the children have aged and are played by different actors in the last seen.

Whilst my interpritation of the film would be the same as the articles, I do wish people would stop posting like there is a definitive way of looking at it. It's quite obviously meant to be ambiguous and open to discussion, nobody is right or wrong. Saying "Anyone who puts their mind to it can fit the pieces together." seems ridiculous because plenty of people are putting their minds to it and coming up with different ideas to yourself.

[Retro315]

Projections never turned against the one creating them during the entire movie. Why would Cobb's? The projections fight what's out of place. He's not out of place in his own dream.

No, but he could be out of place in Miles' dream (if the elaborate scenario was constructed as a means of getting Cobb to exorcise his demons and guilt over his wife) by a clearly much more clever Miles, since Miles literally "invented the subject" and would have the most convoluted, outrageous methods of getting his results.

Still, I think Steven Grant's explanation suffices. The mysterious corporation chasing him aren't very realistic. The "gap in the wall" that ended up being smaller thanks to forced perception is a concept we see in dreams all the time (How did this hallway get so tiny?)

I do wish people would stop posting like there is a definitive way of looking at it. It's quite obviously meant to be ambiguous and open to discussion, nobody is right or wrong.

Here, here. It's all just think, thought, thunk. I'm sure repeated viewings, director's commentary, and deleted scenes may shed light on the shadows ... we're all just forming conjecture from memory (And Memento showed us all how trusty memory is ...). It'll bear repeat viewing before I form any absolutes.

I'll say this though - I don't believe the whole thing being from Cobb's mind invalidates any of the heist aspects. Depending on if there really is shared dreaming involved and the "cast" are say, students of Miles ... each character's role is important still. Or if they're just figments of Cobb's imagination, or faces of people he knows in the real-world glued onto cliched "caper characters" ... his plan (which I guess I'm considering a "plan within a plan") is still crafted wonderfully and has a fan-freaking-tastic payoff with the pinwheel in the vault.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Analyzing it too much takes away from the movie.

In what possible way is that true?

There's nothing to figure out, it's pretty simple no matter which way you look at it.

Why did he cast Michael Caine in a two minute role if he wasn't more important than he appears?

Looking at from one side can be less appealing than others. Some people like the depth of the "it's all a dream" take, while other find that confusing and ultimately futile and kind of stupid. Others like it as a heist film. Some people prefer to think the top fell, others like to think it spun.

The film having a 'below the surface' depth doesn't in anyway take away from it being a heist film.

But if it's just a heist film, what's the point?

The point is for everyone to be able to watch this and be able to think on it in their own way.

Obviously everyone can view their entertainment anyway they want, but it would be odd for Christopher Nolan to suddenly make a film that's completely open to interpretation.
Also very unlike him to make a completely surface level movie - even the Batman films have deeper themes and philosophies than most Hollywood films.

Whilst my interpritation of the film would be the same as the articles, I do wish people would stop posting like there is a definitive way of looking at it. It's quite obviously meant to be ambiguous and open to discussion, nobody is right or wrong. Saying "Anyone who puts their mind to it can fit the pieces together." seems ridiculous because plenty of people are putting their minds to it and coming up with different ideas to yourself.

The thing is, that end is over-the-top blatantly ambiguous.
If that was all there was to the film, I doubt the last shot would have been so apparent - that's ambiguity for people who have never seen anything ambiguous before in their lives.
Why, right at the end of the film, would he pick up a red flag and start waving it shouting 'look over here - it's ambiguous!!!'.
If you take the film as presented, there's nothing to discuss - either the end is a dream or it isn't.
Scratch the surface, see more that's going on beneath it, and you've got some meat.

I'm just not getting why people want to sell the film short - there's nothing wrong with not getting a film the first time, or seeing new layers once they are pointed out.