Kevin's Watch

Cambo wrote: 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?

I just watched the entirety of the end credits on the BD and nothing of the sort occurred. Perhaps it was something they tested in limited markets (similar to how some films get alternate endins).

Perhaps. I wonder if it even happened at all the showings in NZ. I don't know many people who actually saw all the credits, so there's no way to tell.

Cambo wrote:

Usivius wrote: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?

Whether the top is spinning or not seems like a pointless question. Tops can't stop spinning in dreams?? Of course they can. I realize that this is the rule set up by the movie, but that rule violates common sense. It violates dreams. Therefore it's bullshit. (And Cobb isn't a reliable narrator, as Nolan himself pointed out.)

That's not the purpose of totems anyway. As explained by Cobb, the totem is only there as a personal item to let you know that you're not in someone else's dream. It's completely useless as a measure of whether or not you're in your own dream. (Actually, I think it would be useless in the role Cobb specificed, too. I mean, how many of you could distinguish tops of the same make and model while awake, much less in a dream? Your own mind could "smooth over" the discrepancies--if you could notice them in the first place--and trick you. It happens in dreams all the time.)

What about people who choose totems that don't spin? Is the chess piece or the dice supposed to spin forever in dreams, too? I think this is a red herring.

Zarathustra wrote:What about people who choose totems that don't spin? Is the chess piece or the dice supposed to spin forever in dreams, too? I think this is a red herring.

Because the die and the chess piece weren't spun at any point during the movie. The die was loaded, hence only the user could tell if he were in someone's dream; and the chess piece was weighted slightly to one side, and would fall over more easily if pushed in one direction.

As an aside, there is further evidence that Cobb was awake at the end. When he dreams, he's wearing a ring - he's not at the end.

Because the die and the chess piece weren't spun at any point during the movie.

So you're saying that if they were spun in a dream, they'd spin forever? If everything you spin in a dream spins forever, then how exactly are their weighted properties supposed to distinguish them from each other? If weight matters at all in a dream, then how does Cobb's totem spin forever inside one?

The die was loaded, hence only the user could tell if he were in someone's dream; and the chess piece was weighted slightly to one side, and would fall over more easily if pushed in one direction.

But there are only 6 ways that a die could be loaded, 6 ways it could fall. It wouldn't take very long to overcome this very limited complexity. Same with the chess piece. Weight and falling don't seem very distinctive ways to determine something as important as the nature of reality. [Well, unless you're Isaac Newton! ] The same weighted chess piece won't even fall the same way twice. It depends on how you tilt it, how it bounces, etc. Same with the die. Weighted dice don't always come up the same, do they? Isn't it more a matter of probability? Otherwise, you could spot weighted dice fairly quickly, and they'd be rendered useless after a couple rolls. My point is: if they didn't come up the same every time, then they'd be useless as a totem. The dreamer couldn't tell if it was his own die or not.

As an aside, there is further evidence that Cobb was awake at the end. When he dreams, he's wearing a ring - he's not at the end.

Because people can't take off their rings in dreams?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative (it comes naturally! ), I just don't see how one can call such things like this "evidence." It certainly wouldn't count as evidence in reality. Only in fiction, where we suspend disbelief. I think people are giving Nolan a little too much credit. [Edit: But! I must hastily add that it was one of the most original, creative, and thought-provoking movies of the year if not the decade. I really hope Hollywood keeps making movies in this direction.]

Zarathustra wrote:

Because the die and the chess piece weren't spun at any point during the movie.

So you're saying that if they were spun in a dream, they'd spin forever? If everything you spin in a dream spins forever, then how exactly are their weighted properties supposed to distinguish them from each other? If weight matters at all in a dream, then how does Cobb's totem spin forever inside one?

You're reading too much into my reply I'm saying that they weren't meant to spin, so arguing that a dice wouldn't spin forever isn't necessary. The characters - whose names escape me now (it's 7.30 am here) - would never use them like that. Sorry, I'm being pedantic.

Zarathustra wrote:Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative (it comes naturally! ), I just don't see how one can call such things like this "evidence." It certainly wouldn't count as evidence in reality. Only in fiction, where we suspend disbelief. I think people are giving Nolan a little too much credit.

You have to understand that Nolan attempted to set up the logic of the dream world. You seem to be arguing that Nolan's wrong because you are aware of dreams too. No one is saying that you can't, but are missing one big thing - we can't dispute the rules of his dream world when it's clear - to me - that the system they are using isn't really just people dreaming. They are using a machine, which they never attempt to explain. Therefore, it is entirely plausible that the rules we apply to dreams won't necessarily exist in the dream-machine system. Now if that weren't the case, I think nothing in the movie is knowable. Indeed, you could be correct that Cobb is suddenly not dreaming he's wearing a ring. But what evidence do we have that he is still dreaming? At least Nolan is giving us clues rather than boring exposition.

Anyway, we're doing what Nolan wanted us to do; explore the movie. I think it's cool we can have these debates.

Loremaster wrote:You're reading too much into my reply I'm saying that they weren't meant to spin, so arguing that a dice wouldn't spin forever isn't necessary.

Woops, sorry. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I see your point. However, I'm still bothered by weight being a distinctive factor for some totems (dice, chess pieces), but simultaneously unimportant when it comes to spinning tops. Seems like a plot hole. Which brings us back to the original point ... why should the top have a greater, additional significance than the die or chess piece? In other words, why does one totem have the ability to determine reality vs dream, while the other totems only tell if you're in someone else's dream? It just seems like an ad hoc layer of ambiguity, to keep us arguing on the Internet.

Loremaster wrote:You have to understand that Nolan attempted to set up the logic of the dream world. You seem to be arguing that Nolan's wrong because you are aware of dreams too.

Sure, that's part of it. Tops don't spin forever in my dreams. But there's also the issue of internal consistency of the rules Nolan set up for his movie. For instance, the contradiction between A) weighted objects acting "normally" (i.e. falling over predictably) as an indicator that you're in your own dream and not someone else's, vs B) tops falling over "normally" as an indicator of reality. He's using "normal" behavior to determine two different and contradictory things.

In addition, if all tops spin forever in dreams, then anyone could fool Cobb very easy because his totem doesn't distinguish his dream from another person's dream ... unless there was something "special" about Cobb's top that made it spin forever? I don't see how that's possible if weight matters in a dream (which is necessary for the other characters' totems to be useful).

Loremaster wrote:... Now if that weren't the case, I think nothing in the movie is knowable.

That's the conclusion I'm going with for now. Ambiguity for the sake of ambiguity. Nihilism and post-modern relativism.

Loremaster wrote:At least Nolan is giving us clues rather than boring exposition.

Clues ... or red herrings? Either way you're right: it's better than boring exposition.

Loremaster wrote:Anyway, we're doing what Nolan wanted us to do; explore the movie. I think it's cool we can have these debates.

I agree, which is why I added my edit (a little too late, apparently).

Zarathustra wrote:In addition, if all tops spin forever in dreams, then anyone could fool Cobb very easy because his totem doesn't distinguish his dream from another person's dream ... unless there was something "special" about Cobb's top that made it spin forever? I don't see how that's possible if weight matters in a dream (which is necessary for the other characters' totems to be useful).

Interesting point. It could have something to do with Cobb knowing how long it would take for a top to topple over, but that would imply Cobb knew every variable from initial spin to friction properties of dream surfaces . . .

Zarathustra wrote:That's the conclusion I'm going with for now. Ambiguity for the sake of ambiguity. Nihilism and post-modern relativism.

That's probably the best conclusion I've yet seen from anyone I spoken to.

I think you're both missing something. Cobb doesn't have a totem. The top is Mal's, and the rules that Nolan set up are that no one else can touch your totem otherwise it's corrupted. Whether or not the top spins forever or falls is entirely up to Cobb, and what he thinks is the top level (reality).

Every scene in the movie is a dream, Mal is alive and awake.

Cail wrote:I think you're both missing something. Cobb doesn't have a totem. The top is Mal's, and the rules that Nolan set up are that no one else can touch your totem otherwise it's corrupted. Whether or not the top spins forever or falls is entirely up to Cobb, and what he thinks is the top level (reality).

Every scene in the movie is a dream, Mal is alive and awake.

But who is to say that Cobb wouldn't have been inspired to make a similar totem? All he needed was to make it personal (that is, knowing its spin nature).

It's an interesting theory, but we know that Mal and Cobb both died in Limbo in their first excusion there. So, Mal would have woken up. As Mal was seen killing herself, that would imply either more limbo time or again waking. Besides, having Mal alive completely removes Cobb's pain, from the viewer's perspective. I think Nolan wanted us to despise him and feel sorry for him.

Still, I like your theory.

Loremaster wrote:

Cail wrote:I think you're both missing something. Cobb doesn't have a totem. The top is Mal's, and the rules that Nolan set up are that no one else can touch your totem otherwise it's corrupted. Whether or not the top spins forever or falls is entirely up to Cobb, and what he thinks is the top level (reality).

Every scene in the movie is a dream, Mal is alive and awake.

But who is to say that Cobb wouldn't have been inspired to make a similar totem? All he needed was to make it personal (that is, knowing its spin nature).

Cobb said it, quite clearly. It's not his totem, it's hers.

Loremaster wrote:It's an interesting theory, but we know that Mal and Cobb both died in Limbo in their first excusion there. So, Mal would have woken up. As Mal was seen killing herself, that would imply either more limbo time or again waking. Besides, having Mal alive completely removes Cobb's pain, from the viewer's perspective. I think Nolan wanted us to despise him and feel sorry for him.

Still, I like your theory.

I think you're still missing it. Mal killed herself in the dream (when she jumped out the window). That's what woke her up. Cobb says (I don't remember the exact words) that the more time you spend in the dreams, the more real it becomes. He believes that Mal is dead because he perceives the dream he's in as reality.

Which makes the ending that more f-ed up, because he's choosing to stay in the dream with his (dream) children rather than killing himself like Mal did, and waking up to spend real life with Mal and his real kids.

Remember what Cobb said, he can't be an architect, and he can't know what the design of the dream is, otherwise his subconscious begins taking over. That's what happens in the end. Rather than Mal intervening this time, his kids do, because that's what he wants.

Cail wrote:Cobb said it, quite clearly. It's not his totem, it's hers.

True, but the function of the totem was that it performed in a way only known to the owner. So, if Cobb knew how it worked, then it becomes his totem. Besides, if it is Mal's dream, then where is Cobb's totem? Why wouldn't he bring along his own?

Cail wrote:I think you're still missing it. Mal killed herself in the dream (when she jumped out the window). That's what woke her up. Cobb says (I don't remember the exact words) that the more time you spend in the dreams, the more real it becomes. He believes that Mal is dead because he perceives the dream he's in as reality.

However, Mal and Cobb still killed themselves in their Limbo. So they actually woke up. Which means Mal really did kill herself.

Loremaster wrote:

Cail wrote:Cobb said it, quite clearly. It's not his totem, it's hers.

True, but the function of the totem was that it performed in a way only known to the owner. So, if Cobb knew how it worked, then it becomes his totem. Besides, if it is Mal's dream, then where is Cobb's totem? Why wouldn't he bring along his own?

Because he believes he's awake at the beginning of the film, which means that he thinks that he can commandeer Mal's totem.

Loremaster wrote:

Cail wrote:I think you're still missing it. Mal killed herself in the dream (when she jumped out the window). That's what woke her up. Cobb says (I don't remember the exact words) that the more time you spend in the dreams, the more real it becomes. He believes that Mal is dead because he perceives the dream he's in as reality.

However, Mal and Cobb still killed themselves in their Limbo. So they actually woke up. Which means Mal really did kill herself.

Good point, but we're assuming that: they were actually in limbo (as defined in the film), and that if they did wake all the way up, that neither of them reentered the dream state.

Cobb's an addict, and so was Mal, so it's entirely possible that one of them got the other back into the dream (in the same way the kid form 3rd Rock got Juno in).

Cail wrote:Good point, but we're assuming that: they were actually in limbo (as defined in the film), and that if they did wake all the way up, that neither of them reentered the dream state.

I guess then we have to assume that they were never in limbo. Which means we question the veracity of everything. Again, I am not saying you are wrong, and I like your interpretation (very P.K.Dick).

I think everyone's missing one extremely salient point:

Despite being one of the best movies of the year, it's not really that great a movie. It's two greatest features are 1) the imagination behind it, and 2) it can be debated endlessly.

While it is a good movie, I primarily enjoyed it because there have been so few good movies lately.

Rigel wrote:I think everyone's missing one extremely salient point:

Despite being one of the best movies of the year, it's not really that great a movie.

That's hardly a salient point if it's entirely subjective (opinion). I don't think the movie is a masterpiece, but I do think it's great because it's intelligent and original, which are salient points .

Rigel, I tend to agree. It's more an idea than a story. Sure, there's a con/heist plot. But the characters are hardly more than their functions in the plot. Cobb is the only character that has a story, but unfortunately his story suffers the full burden of the plot's ambiguity. The relevance of him finding his kids depends entirely upon whether it was real--hence the significance and emotional payoff of his resolution is blurred by the very aspects which make the movie "intelligent."

It's the exact opposite of, for instance, Truman Show, where his entire character arc is resolved by ending the ambiguity of his existence, and making his life *more* real. That's not to say that you can't have a good character resolution with some ambiguity remaining ... the obvious example here being the Chronicles. But the ambiguity doesn't matter in Covenant's case because the things that really matter to him transcend the question of whether or not the Land is real. Cobb's kids don't transcend that question. It absolutely matters whether or not they are figments of his imagination, because if they are, presumably there are real children on the outside who don't have their father. This is one instance where the truth absolutely matters. But Nolan ignores that for an intellectual point.

Wow. The more I read along here, the less I think I like this movie... just kidding. I liked the movie, despite the DiCaprio quotient. (I liked Shutter Island, too, so that's two in a row now that defy my anti-DiCaprio rule).

Does the fact that we, the audience, are privy to more information than the characters have any weight on the discussion? We systematically learn the secrets of each of the totems for these characters, so we are in effect 'touching' them by watching the movie.

The characters in the movie don't have that advantage. Allowing us to see the top cease spinning is a deliberate move, but is it to convince us one way or the other, or just maintain the ambiguity?

dw

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Wow. The more I read along here, the less I think I like this movie... just kidding. I liked the movie, despite the DiCaprio quotient. (I liked Shutter Island, too, so that's two in a row now that defy my anti-DiCaprio rule).

Does the fact that we, the audience, are privy to more information than the characters have any weight on the discussion? We systematically learn the secrets of each of the totems for these characters, so we are in effect 'touching' them by watching the movie.

The characters in the movie don't have that advantage. Allowing us to see the top cease spinning is a deliberate move, but is it to convince us one way or the other, or just maintain the ambiguity?

dw

I'm getting uncomfortable with this discussion of totem touching. I need an adult.

An interesting view on the final scene:

However, Christopher Nolan also said, "I put that cut there at the end, imposing an ambiguity from outside the film. That always felt the right ending to me — it always felt like the appropriate 'kick' to me… The real point of the scene — and this is what I tell people — is that Cobb isn't looking at the top. He's looking at his kids. He's left it behind. That's the emotional significance of the thing."