Inception <spoilers present>

[Marv]

Cobb's subconcious could have quite easily and accurately aged his kids.

[Loredoctor]

This is impossible in nested dreams, because there is no real body in the van, for instance, to feel the movement. Sure, while they are in the van dream, they could experience the illusion of inertia. But they would have to be aware of this illusion in order for it to be an illusion at all. Once they leave that dream, there is no longer any awareness of it, and no cues traveling through your body independently of the dream (like we experience in real life).

You are talking as though you know how the dream system really works. Where in our reality does it say that if we dream on multiple levels it has to be otherwise? Nolan's internal logic works, and we shouldn't apply what think happens to dreaming when none of us have experienced what Cobb's crew went through. I admit that the gravity situation is odd, but who says it has to go down multiple levels?

It cracks me up that people keep bringing up the fact that different child actors were used in different scenes as if that proves something internal to the film's logic. That's like saying that a stunt double proves something about the character he's playing. It completely ignores the fact that movies take time to shoot, children age quickly, or sometimes children aren't always available for a shot (they have strict limits on how much time they can spend behind the camera).

Hold on, the designer admitted this was deliberate, as was Nolan's decision to have the spinning totem wobbling as though about to fall before the cut. What's wrong with using these clues to reach a conclusion? Haven't you done the same by citing the mirror scene? I'm not saying you are wrong, or right, but at least people are debating the ending - just what Nolan intended - by looking at cleverly laid clues.

Personally, I think that Cobb was still dreaming. I think the different clothes and older children are just part of the dream (so that it seems real).

[Zarathustra]

You are talking as though you know how the dream system really works. Where in our reality does it say that if we dream on multiple levels it has to be otherwise? Nolan's internal logic works, and we shouldn't apply what think happens to dreaming when none of us have experienced what Cobb's crew went through. I admit that the gravity situation is odd, but who says it has to go down multiple levels?

I'm not pretending to be an expert on dreams. I just think the concept sounds impossible. I understand that input from your sleeping body can cause you to dream certain things (like the rain/having to pee). We've all experienced this; we don't need to be experts. There is a legitimate source for the dream effects: an external source of input from our body. But if you're already in a dream, where is the external source of input for a nested dream? There is no mechanism, not even a proposed one by Nolan. If he has an explanation, he didn't give it. And I can't think of one that's based in reality.

I don't know about you, but I've had "nested" dreams. It's fairly common for people to think they have woken up but they are still dreaming. So the first dream feels like it was "inside" the next dream, because you feel like you're awake at that point. This "dream within a dream" may trick us into thinking that it's "nested," but in reality it's just sequential. There is no sense in which a dream can be inside another one, and dependent upon a dream body, much less its movements.

But then again, we're talking about a movie where people share dreams. It's pure fantasy. So perhaps we should give Nolan some leeway. And I would do so if he was consistent with his own rules. But he's not. His internal logic doesn't work, because what happens on one level is completely ignored on another level. I don't see how you can view this as consistent. Sure, he can make up his own rules and say that physics effects don't go down multiple levels, but if he's going to violate a rule he set up for one level, he should at least tell us why, or acknowledge that he's doing this intentionally. Otherwise, it's just an inconsistency.

Hold on, the designer admitted this was deliberate

Okay, fair enough. If he says it's deliberate, I have no reason to doubt him. However, the effect is so subtle, I have trouble believing that anything conclusive can be inferred from this difference in clothing. I can see how it would infuse the last scene with a little ambiguity (much like the split-second sound of the totem beginning to wobble), but to say that this definitively proves Cobb is in the real world is going too far.

[CovenantJr]

I agree that I have some issues with a few aspects of the film. Something that bothered me while I was watching was why the turbulence in the van didn't snap them out of the snow fortress. Cobb (I think) says explicitly at one point that each level of dream is less stable than the last - he tells the van driver to give them a gentle ride for that exact reason. Yet in practice it seemed like each level was more stable than the last.

I also wonder why kicks have to be administered level by level. Even if you're ten levels of dreaming down, surely if your real body wakes up the dreams stop. All you really need is one kick to be administered to your real body. Of course, that would take a lot of the tension out of the film and I thought it was otherwise clever enough and enjoyable enough that I'm willing to let things like that slide. I'd be interested in hearing possible explanations though.

[Zarathustra]

...I thought it was otherwise clever enough and enjoyable enough that I'm willing to let things like that slide.

I agree. I haven't praised this film enough. I really, really liked it. I wouldn't spend so much time analyzing the details if I didn't think it was worth my time.

I thought it was one of the most original and clever films I've seen. The way Nolan succeeded in melding the con/heist action drama with an existential mindfuck was very gratifying. It was like the first time watching the first Matrix, except even more thought provoking.

These inconsistencies don't have to be inconsistencies if *all* of it is a dream, which I think is the case. Cobb's paranoid mind could have concocted a list of rules which don't really apply or aren't illustrated consistently by his own mind. Dreams do that sometimes. They include paradox.

Actually, my main complaint was character development. I could forgive Nolan the 2-d secondary characters if they are all products of Cobb's subconsciousness. But Cobb himself didn't engage me emotionally. Maybe that was Dicaprio's fault. He has come a long way since Titanic, but still not one of my favorite actors.

[Loredoctor]

If he says it's deliberate, I have no reason to doubt him. However, the effect is so subtle, I have trouble believing that anything conclusive can be inferred from this difference in clothing. I can see how it would infuse the last scene with a little ambiguity (much like the split-second sound of the totem beginning to wobble), but to say that this definitively proves Cobb is in the real world is going too far.

I absolutely agree with you.

[Usivius]

If he says it's deliberate, I have no reason to doubt him. However, the effect is so subtle, I have trouble believing that anything conclusive can be inferred from this difference in clothing. I can see how it would infuse the last scene with a little ambiguity (much like the split-second sound of the totem beginning to wobble), but to say that this definitively proves Cobb is in the real world is going too far.

I absolutely agree with you.

I agree as well, and like others have said, this is done deliberately by Nolan to promote discussion. It's great!

I have another little bit for us to think about too ... Cobb's wedding ring.
Another clue or hint that mat give us insight on the dreaming/reality discussion ... Cobb is only seen wearing his wedding ring while in a dream. And, MAN! Nolan does a good job at making sure DiCaprio is shot in a particular way to make sure you rarely see his left hand in dream sequences. But, there it is... inevitably you will see that in every dream sequence he is wearing the ring (a symbol of his guilt I assume) and in reality, he does not wear a wedding ring ....
Ooooooo...

[Cagliostro]

Okay, I saw this at the drive-in Sunday night. As for problems with following it, I'd say the drive-in with a constantly waking baby and full bladder with the movie starting past your normal bed time is the hardest way to follow the movie, and for the most part I did. There were little bits and pieces and the majority of visual subtleties missed. It was especially hard at the beginning, but it was supposed to be then. There were quite a few cars that left within the first 20 minutes of this movie starting.
I finally had to relieve my bladder around the time Michael Caine came into the picture, so I never quite knew what was going on with him. But at the beginning of the movie, do we see an older version of the Ken Watanabe character (Seito?), or did I imagine it later as I was busy dealing with getting my 15 month kid to fall asleep again? I'd say I got a little lost near the end when Cobb is in the sinking van, and then he is rescuing Seito. Can anyone explain what happened, or is that a bit debatable?

Something that struck me early on when dealing with the kids was that Cobb had to remind his kids that their mom was no longer alive. Was that reality or was that the 1st level of the dream?
I'll have to see this movie again to fill in all the holes in my viewing.

My last comment is a complaint that seems to be becoming a staple with Christopher Nolan is an excess of action and trying to force the tension. I think it was that we were trying to keep the baby asleep, I had to pee and I was getting especially ready for bed, but good LORD the time before all the kicks went off took an excrutiatingly long time; especially the blowing up of the snowy Bond fortress thingy.

I really wish they would have had Inception first and Scott Pilgrim Vs The World last, as that was much less taxing on the brain, and I really wanted to keep watching that movie once it was over.

[Cail]

Every single moment of Inception is a dream.

[SerScot]

Cail,

I made a similar argument to my wife this weekend. I suppose that means Mol was never in the dream with Cobb, so, she wasn't there to wake him up afterwards.

Hmmmm...

[Usivius]

its a pretty cool idea, but thinking how Nolan is not an extraneous story-teller, it brings in to question a number of aspects if we are to take this theory as reality...
(Firstly, let me just say, once again, that the openess of the film's interpretation/s is deliberate by Nolan... he wants people to talk about it and (over)analyse it, quite possibly making up new ideas about it that may not have been thought about. So, in essence, there is possibly no "right" answer ... it is an aspect of great art and artists)

Ok having said that, for me the idea that the whole movie is a dream is very intriguing, but ultimately does not seem to fit Nolan's way of making a film (despite what the linked writer thought). One part is that it makes a number of elements of the story a little "fatty" ... meaning not serving a 'real' purpose. Fischer's character suddenly becomes an overwrought McGuffin. The point of a McGuffin is to keep it as colourless as possible, avoiding extraneous detail. There was way too much detail and effort put in to that character to merely serve as a means of giving Cobb a mission to clear his name.
And then you suddenly have all these other extraneous visuals and 'clues', as mentioned earlier that suddenly become devoid of meaning or at least their inpact is lessened (such as the use of the wedding ring).

It comes down to one of two positions the viewer will take: Do you accept the inicial premice of the opening scene or do you simply say its is all a dream and go along with the metaphorical ride of Cobb's psyche.
I guess either way a truth is found, much in the same way that ends the movie 'Brazil'...

(great discussion guys...)

[Usivius]

oh, and i found an interesting article to support my 'reality' of "Inception" (tee hee)
thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/07/the_ultimate_explanation_of_in.html

[[Syl]]

While I'm also of the opinion that the whole thing is a dream (and agree that it being so does not invalidate the movie, along Covenant-esque lines), I reject the rationale. The movie as a representation of Nolan's take on film making may be a valid interpretation, but it holds little value to me as a moviegoer. Good art speaks of what it means to be human, and I think Inception was too good to have such a narrow focus.

[Usivius]

LOL... to stoke the fires, and really, it doesn't mean anything unless Nolan comes out, but Michael Caine, in a two hour interview, recently said that the top stops spinning and it is reality at the end. Apparently he sites some clues (something to do with whats on his blackboard in the class scene).
Hmmmmmmm....

[Zarathustra]

After watching this again on Blu-ray, I realize I was wrong. My entire theory depended on one split-second image of Mel in the window while Cobb was in the bathroom after trying out the dreaming drug. I figured if the dead girl is in the picture, it ain't real. But after seeing it again, I think this was a split-second memory, and not really supposed to be in the window at that moment.

So there goes my theory. I no longer have any idea what is real and what is not in this movie. But I've realized that it doesn't matter ... and not in the Thomas Covenant kind of way. In fact, just the opposite: it doesn't matter because I don't care. This movie doesn't hold up well to a second viewing.

[Hiro]

After watching this again on Blu-ray, I realize I was wrong. My entire theory depended on one split-second image of Mel in the window while Cobb was in the bathroom after trying out the dreaming drug. I figured if the dead girl is in the picture, it ain't real. But after seeing it again, I think this was a split-second memory, and not really supposed to be in the window at that moment.

So there goes my theory. I no longer have any idea what is real and what is not in this movie. But I've realized that it doesn't matter ... and not in the Thomas Covenant kind of way. In fact, just the opposite: it doesn't matter because I don't care. This movie doesn't hold up well to a second viewing.

Indeed. I've seen 'Inception' twice at the cinema, but the second time I was bored. And it confirmed that in it's first viewing I had seen all there is to be seen. The second time around I wasn't able to find any subtext, layers or complications.

While I admire the audacity of making this film, and I am fond of the cutting between parallel worlds, it's more of an illustrated idea than a fully realized film.

[Cail]

I said as much in another thread. It's downright boring upon a second viewing.

[Loredoctor]

Each to their own opinion. I watched it the second time, and loved it as much as the first. It's not as perfect as some claim it to be, but it's clearly (to me) intelligent, complex, compelling and original.

[Usivius]

I saw it twice in the theatre (not done since first Matrix) and seen again on Blu-ray.
Still love it.

[Cambo]

LOL... to stoke the fires, and really, it doesn't mean anything unless Nolan comes out, but Michael Caine, in a two hour interview, recently said that the top stops spinning and it is reality at the end. Apparently he sites some clues (something to do with whats on his blackboard in the class scene).
Hmmmmmmm....

When I saw Inception at the cinema, I was in a packed theatre, and it took us ages to get out. That was lucky, because in the middle of the credits the music cut out, and we heard the spinning top finally rattle on the table and stop, implying that it was reality. Not sure if this is canon, though, it may be an alternate ending/easter egg type thing. Anyone whose got it on DVD noticed this?