Inception

[jakobnicholas]

 

In the link I attached above, the writer thinks the movie was a dream. I don't think I can agree with that, but he makes good points.

 

Many times in "reality", Nolan gives clues that Cobb is in a dream. Like, Michael Caine's character tells Cobb to wake up and get back to reality. When Cobb is chased, he runs down an alleyway that seems to narrow on him (very dreamlike)...then amazingly, Saito pulls up in a car to rescue him...also something that might happen only in a dream. Another scenario posed by a reader is that Cobb's wife suicided, and Cobb hasn't told his kids and is on a business flight home. He has the long dream before waking up to passengers staring at him. They seem to acknowledge something, but really don't. Page's character may simply find Cobb attractive. Or maybe they're all businees acquaintances. If it's reality after an executed inception, they don't want to be obvious to Fischer. If it's reality after a Cobb dream, we can't really infer anything 'cause Nolan skips over any interaction and plays the powerful homecoming soundtrack.

 

To me, Nolan clearly put things in the film to make us a little confused. And he supposedly has many nods to old movies (the ski scene was a nod to James Bond's "On Her Jasesty's Secret Service) and various historicalcharacters from the past (Page's Adriande is named after a Greek goddess who guided Theseus in victory over some beast.)

 

Has Nolan given any interviews that suggest exactly what his intent was? Regardless, I found the movie very entertaining. All the "post-game talk" and thinking back on seeing it makes it even better.

 

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Follow me into the great rectangle of information:

 

I like the idea, but it seems like a copout for the audience. It sounds like something my dad would say if he saw the film and didn't want to buy into the sci-fi dream heist world that Nolan beautifully creates. "it was just a dream right?"

 

Well, if you want to play that game then how do you explain the looks that everyone gives each other on the plane? You mean to tell me that these people all flew 1st class and slept the whole way. What a fucking waste! "Stewardess, I need you to massage my hand because I hurt it while lugging around my luggage. Pierre my assistant had a touch of the cold." You don't spend that type of money to fly 1st class and sleep and not take advantage of the freebies.

 

Plus, each character has a look that fully backs up what went on during the dream heist. Levitt gives Leo the hunter's nod, Page has this really perplexed look on her face and so does Watanabe. Maybe by avoiding the reality that Nolan creates, you are leaving yourself susceptible to a loop that he has created for you: ok..the whole thing was a dream and everyone else on the flight in 1st class had a similar dream. Did they share a dream collectively? Isn't that a bit odd? I've seen tons of beautiful women and haven't been able to dream about them at all. So I don't know how each one of them would dream about everyone else in that tight proximity after allegedly seeing each other for the 1st time.

 

If Nolan only showed Leo waking up and then cut to the scene where he walks out to meet Caine and saw all of the people on the flight and doesn't say bye, then I could buy into this theory more. Although, it is kind of mischievous why there are no shown goodbyes. Only glances and nods in that silent scene. It doesn't mean that a formal goodbye didn't happen before all of that and Nolan decided to NOT show it.

 

 

 

All the allegorical stuff is interesting and compelling...but the movie also works if you take everything at face value. THAT is the beauty and the ultimate mark of success of this film.

[Winston Legthigh]

Follow me into the great rectangle of information:

 

I like the idea, but it seems like a copout for the audience. It sounds like something my dad would say if he saw the film and didn't want to buy into the sci-fi dream heist world that Nolan beautifully creates. "it was just a dream right?"

 

Well, if you want to play that game then how do you explain the looks that everyone gives each other on the plane? You mean to tell me that these people all flew 1st class and slept the whole way. What a fucking waste! "Stewardess, I need you to massage my hand because I hurt it while lugging around my luggage. Pierre my assistant had a touch of the cold." You don't spend that type of money to fly 1st class and sleep and not take advantage of the freebies.

 

Plus, each character has a look that fully backs up what went on during the dream heist. Levitt gives Leo the hunter's nod, Page has this really perplexed look on her face and so does Watanabe. Maybe by avoiding the reality that Nolan creates, you are leaving yourself susceptible to a loop that he has created for you: ok..the whole thing was a dream and everyone else on the flight in 1st class had a similar dream. Did they share a dream collectively? Isn't that a bit odd? I've seen tons of beautiful women and haven't been able to dream about them at all. So I don't know how each one of them would dream about everyone else in that tight proximity after allegedly seeing each other for the 1st time.

 

If Nolan only showed Leo waking up and then cut to the scene where he walks out to meet Caine and saw all of the people on the flight and doesn't say bye, then I could buy into this theory more. Although, it is kind of mischievous why there are no shown goodbyes. Only glances and nods in that silent scene. It doesn't mean that a formal goodbye didn't happen before all of that and Nolan decided to NOT show it.

 

 

So you're saying you've never flown a 14 hour flight first class...

[u2roolz]

So you're saying you've never flown a 14 hour flight first class...

 

I wouldn't rush to judgment on that until all the facts are in....

[u2roolz]

All the allegorical stuff is interesting and compelling...but the movie also works if you take everything at face value. THAT is the beauty and the ultimate mark of success of this film.

 

I fully agree with this statement and said something similar in one of my many Spoiler commentaries in regards to defending the film to a friend who fell asleep and bashed it saying "it tried too hard to be smart" and ultimately didn't like it because it was "convoluted & repetitive".

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I fully agree with this statement and said something similar in one of my many Spoiler commentaries in regards to defending the film to a friend who fell asleep and bashed it saying "it tried too hard to be smart" and ultimately didn't like it because it was "convoluted & repetitive".

 

I always love the anti-intellectual arguements. Stupid is the once and future cool. I called out an old friend on it the other day.

[Synthesizer Patel]

I always love the anti-intellectual arguements. Stupid is the once and future cool. I called out an old friend on it the other day.

 

trying too hard to be smart and actually being smart are two different things.

[u2roolz]

trying too hard to be smart and actually being smart are two different things.

 

Sadly, that's in the eye of the beholder. While I praise/d Inception for "actually being smart", my friend said the opposite and there's nothing I can do to change that perception. This isn't the only case. I'm sure that it happens a lot in discussions like this. Sure, Inception is "actually smart", but if the audience doesn't understand the film then they usually don't like the film or dismiss it as "trying too hard to be smart". Of course though at the end of the day and in my eyes I know that I am right. I mean, I have Christopher Nolan and his resume on my side in this one. So while I kind of agree with your response, I think that in this case and many others pieces of art can be viewed as both simultaneously.

 

Edit: Most importantly the film connected to me and obviously lots of others on an emotional level. Films can be "smart" all they want, but if they don't connect on some relatable emotional level then it is tough to really enjoy it and/or appreciate it.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

trying too hard to be smart and actually being smart are two different things.

 

Have you seen it yet?

 

What is your take on it?

[Beltmann]

Films can be "smart" all they want, but if they don't connect on some relatable emotional level then it is tough to really enjoy it and/or appreciate it.

Well, I'm not sure how "smart" Inception is beyond its ingenious construction--it flatters the audience by saying, "See, I knew you could keep up!," but it doesn't really give the audience much to chew on in terms of deeper ideas. That's not intended as criticism; after all, the movie is designed as a big-budget summer entertainment, and on that level it succeeds wildly. We would be very fortunate if every blockbuster action movie was so well-crafted.

 

I agree that many movies benefit from connecting to the viewer on some relatable emotional level, but for me that didn't really happen at Inception. Yes, I loved "keeping up" with the complex and nifty narrative, and yes, I found a few scenes near the end moderately touching. Still, I must confess that I didn't feel invested at all in the inception mission; while I was interested in piecing together the puzzle, I can't say I was too interested in whether the crew pulled off the heist or not.

Likewise, I wasn't especially emotionally attached to the crew's need to escape, nor Leo's need to return to his kids, nor his inability to let go of his wife, nor his guilt associated with her death.

 

 

It's a mesmerizing puzzle, yes, but for me I felt that the experience would have been so much greater had there been something more at stake. I'm nitpicking a bit, I know, and concede that my qualms are relatively minor. There's a lot to love about the movie, and clearly Nolan has given us one of the most original and innovative movies of the summer. Still, I think it suffers from the same problem that plagued Memento: While truly great films arouse contemplation about their ideas and our own lives, all Inception gets us thinking about is itself. Is it a fun brainteaser? You bet. Is it more than that? Well, perhaps multiple viewings will persuade me there's more there.

 

One area that I want to think more about, and that might give us something substantial to chew on: To what degree does the movie examine how movies are a cousin to our dreams and fantasies? In that sense, Nolan's fairly literal conception of the dreamworld as a version of a Hollywood action sequence might carry metaphorical weight.

[u2roolz]

While truly great films arouse contemplation about their ideas and our own lives, all Inception gets us thinking about is itself. Is it a fun brainteaser? You bet. Is it more than that? Well, perhaps multiple viewings will persuade me there's more there.

 

One area that I want to think more about, and that might give us something substantial to chew on: To what degree does the movie examine how movies are a cousin to our dreams and fantasies? In that sense, Nolan's fairly literal conception of the dreamworld as a version of a Hollywood action sequence might carry metaphorical weight.

 

I truly disagree with that. It got me thinking about who I would want to reconnect with in my dream state. Would it be someone I lost that is still alive? Would it be a fantasy woman that I could control? Would it be a dead relative? Or would I just want to create awesome dreamscapes?

 

Leo's story is completely believable in its' own right. Not only does it deal with the concept of memories, but it kind of deals with the concept of souls. These people were so in love that he could just conjure her up in his dream state is quit a romantic idea. I'm not saying that everything was peaches n' cream for them as a couple, but even in the dream state he could feel his guilt for her death through his projected vision of her and her actions which were actually his. (Edit: Not to mention the idea of living in one's dreams is quite an obvious point to delusional behavior. Although, making your dreams realized isn't that bad of a thing depending on your dream and how realistic that dream is.) Also, if we keep someone's memories alive in our subconscious isn't that some form of imprisonment for that person's soul?

 

I think if you see the film a 2nd time before it leaves theaters, you'll find it more emotionally rewarding as I did. It's a tough juggling act of keeping up with the plot. Leo's story with Marion kind of takes a backseat in the 1st viewing, but on the 2nd it is front and center because you don't have to focus as much on the puzzle of the plot. I was more heartbroken the 2nd time around, even though I don't like the idea of spending your life in your fantasies with the one that you love/d.

 

I think it's a pretty obvious metaphor for creativity. I think the whole film is a subconscious or conscious reaction to everything that Nolan has ingested in his life. I'm not talking about narcotics either. I also think that any film that has ever come out is like that. For every love story there has been some man or woman responsible for it being written. In fact, films are a pretty good representation of our experiences for other beings to watch and learn from. The interesting part is if humans have to watch films to learn how to act. No pun intended.

 

in closing I will leave you with something that I told my Communication Media Chairman in one of his Media Criticism classes that just came to me in the moment. I said films are a lot of like dreams because when we experience them collectively in a theater the lights are dim, we are sitting down and the projector is allowing the film to be shown at a rate of 24 frames per second which is a lot like rapid eye movement, if you think about it.

 

Edit: I don't think that Inception is truly a summer blockbuster in the traditional sense of the term. I think it is masquerading around as one. In fact, the action in the film is essential to the plot to move the characters and story forward. Not the other way around, as in say Prince Of Persia where there was 90% action and a pencil thin plot that was really pedestrian. And it took that movie 2 hours to get from point A to point B. The action ended up being completely uninteresting because it felt like the filmmakers kept relying on that to make up for the piss poor storyline.

 

I think that in 5 years we won't view this as a "summer blockbuster" and just view it as it is and what it has become to be known as. Although, it will be interesting to see what gets the greenlight from studios to try and get the next Inception out there. I don't think that films will look exactly like it, but moreso the complexity of the storyline will tried to be replicated to a certain degree. At least studios can now trust in an audience's intellect on a much grander scale.

 

Finally, Kudos to Warner Bros. for putting out some of the best films in the past 5 or so years: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, Watchmen & The Box.

[Synthesizer Patel]

Have you seen it yet?

 

What is your take on it?

 

no not yet. i was just pointing out that someone saying something is trying too hard to be smart is not actually the same as saying they prefer "anti-intellectual" things instead.

 

i did toy with going to see it, but now i've read beltmann's view, it does seem like it's not my cup of tea:

 

"Well, I'm not sure how "smart" Inception is beyond its ingenious construction--it flatters the audience by saying, "See, I knew you could keep up!," but it doesn't really give the audience much to chew on in terms of deeper ideas. That's not intended as criticism; after all, the movie is designed as a big-budget summer entertainment, and on that level it succeeds wildly. We would be very fortunate if every blockbuster action movie was so well-crafted."

 

i just don't like that kind of "smart" either.

 

Beltmann - you can tell me, is it better than Dreamscape?

[u2roolz]

I agree that many movies benefit from connecting to the viewer on some relatable emotional level, but for me that didn't really happen at Inception. Yes, I loved "keeping up" with the complex and nifty narrative, and yes, I found a few scenes near the end moderately touching. Still, I must confess that I didn't feel invested at all in the inception mission; while I was interested in piecing together the puzzle, I can't say I was too interested in whether the crew pulled off the heist or not.

Likewise, I wasn't especially emotionally attached to the crew's need to escape, nor Leo's need to return to his kids, nor his inability to let go of his wife, nor his guilt associated with her death.

 

 

It's a mesmerizing puzzle, yes, but for me I felt that the experience would have been so much greater had there been something more at stake. I'm nitpicking a bit, I know, and concede that my qualms are relatively minor. There's a lot to love about the movie, and clearly Nolan has given us one of the most original and innovative movies of the summer. Still, I think it suffers from the same problem that plagued Memento

 

I really think you should see the film again and I can guarantee you that you will feel that something is much greater at stake than on 1st viewing. I'll admit I kind of felt the same way to a certain degree and it made me think up my theory which is on page 1. On the 2nd viewing the Inception, Murphy's coming to terms with his father, & Leo's letting go of Mal all hit harder in such a satisfying way. I think maybe the film is too dense for even the most aware viewers on 1st watch.

 

no not yet. i was just pointing out that someone saying something is trying too hard to be smart is not actually the same as saying they prefer "anti-intellectual" things instead.

 

i did toy with going to see it, but now i've read beltmann's view, it does seem like it's not my cup of tea:

 

i just don't like that kind of "smart" either.

 

Beltmann - you can tell me, is it better than Dreamscape?

 

Wow! I didn't realize that Beltmann was your God to your Moses on the mountain? You can do what you want about seeing the film, but I have a sore spot when it comes to people letting other people's tastes decide what they should watch. It is fucking frustrating. I have personal experiences where I can give a film a glowing recommendation/review, but that person won't see it until it gets a similar glowing review from someone else. I don't really see the big risk for you if you see it and end up not liking it. At least you would have given it a fair shot and can comment on it from a 1st hand perspective instead of relying on other's thoughts on the film that you want to subscribe to.

 

Edit: (You seem curious enough to find out if if it indeed better than Dreamscape. You also seem curious enough to read every spoiler on here. I don't get it. Do you want to come into the film already hating it? Are people in your circle of friends discussing the film and you're coming here for the Cliff Notes version? If it's a money thing or a time thing, then I can fully understand that. It just sounds like to me that you're discussing yourself out of seeing it. Edit Part Troix: It's a bad way to miss out on things. I tend to see anything and everything and end up finding a film that I am surprised at liking. I'll usually read a few reviews after I've seen the movie just to see what's been said which most of the time doesn't change my viewing experience one way or the other.)

 

I'll tell this story again: I raved about Curb Your Enthusiasm to fans of Seinfeld (people who still watch the show religiously on syndication and know every little thing about each episode) and they were like "Eh". At a certain point (about 5 years after my recommendation) one of them rented Season 1 from the library and loved it then lent the other friend of mine the show and that person loved it. Of course, they never bring up when I actually told them about the show all the way back in 2004. I think in this case it boils down to that immature place of "acting like you discovered" a certain thing which is completely immature and foolish. (I guess to them I "discovered" it and they feared that? I only told them about the show, so that they could enjoy it and we could discuss it instead of Seinfeld which has been over for 12 years.) Or it's a fear of liking something as much as you love right now and trying to balance both things or only feeling that you have enough room for one thing to truly love. I don't know. End of rant.

 

While I'm at it I'll ask if Blood On The Tracks is better than Darkness On The Edge Of Town?

[Synthesizer Patel]

ha ha.

well, i don't know what to say to any of that without being rude.

[u2roolz]

ha ha.

well, i don't know what to say to any of that without being rude.

 

I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just trying to figure you out.

 

It's like if in 6 months time I came into a Black Swan (the next Darren Arronofsky film which is supposed to be a mind bender) thread and was curious about it and didn't want to see it because I didn't like what people were saying about it. I would expect people to tell me to go see it.

[Synthesizer Patel]

i'm not saying you were rude. it's just if i try and explain why i don't now think i want to see it after reading what's been said in here it will probably come across as rude.

 

as for why i'm here, i just like reading some threads - i occassionally get involved in some american politics threads, and i'm english - doesn't mean i want to move to america or anything.

[u2roolz]

i'm not saying you were rude. it's just if i try and explain why i don't now think i want to see it after reading what's been said in here it will probably come across as rude.

 

Alright, then's that cool.

 

Although, it would have been interesting if you saw it after reading that review in your local newspaper and then came on here to read what people had to say.

 

Edit: What I ultimately want and I'm sure others on here want is more people to chime in on their thoughts to challenge the film and discuss it. That's what I have in stake for you to watch it. I stay the F away from IMDB which is full of trolls and tweens dissing each other on their limited film knowledge. LOL

[Beltmann]

Beltmann - you can tell me, is it better than Dreamscape?

Unfortunately, I have never seen Dreamscape.

 

I really think you should see the film again and I can guarantee you that you will feel that something is much greater at stake than on 1st viewing.

Well, I hope so.

 

It got me thinking about who I would want to reconnect with in my dream state. Would it be someone I lost that is still alive? Would it be a fantasy woman that I could control? Would it be a dead relative? Or would I just want to create awesome dreamscapes?

Of course Inception, like all movies, inspires thought of some kind. (Heck, Tommy Boy made me contemplate the prospect of losing my father, but I'm not sure that qualifies it as a masterpiece.) I'm unconvinced that Nolan is interested in seriously examining any sophisticated notions about dreams and the subconscious, which might explain why the film lacked both emotional and cerebral suspense (at least for me). I spent the movie thinking, Man, this is so damn cool! instead of Oh my god, I hope they get out of there in time! I never felt any kind of investment in or anxiety about any of the plot strands, and I'll admit complete indifference regarding whether the "inception" worked or not. The closest the movie came to absorbing me emotionally or providing a kind of catharsis was Leo's final scene with Mal, but even then I never quite felt an overpowering sense of loss. I guess what I'm saying is that the movie felt like a really long way to go for the size of its payoff. Hopefully you are right and a second viewing will change that.

 

Again, I don't want to overstate my case. Overall, the movie is an original, impressive achievement that I'd like to see again.

[Magnetized]

I'll tell this story again: I raved about Curb Your Enthusiasm to fans of Seinfeld (people who still watch the show religiously on syndication and know every little thing about each episode) and they were like "Eh". At a certain point (about 5 years after my recommendation) one of them rented Season 1 from the library and loved it then lent the other friend of mine the show and that person loved it. Of course, they never bring up when I actually told them about the show all the way back in 2004.

 

Ha! this made me laugh, because it sounds like exactly the same frustration I feel when I make recommendations to friends and family. It's like you don't get no respect from the people closest to you. Inevitably they come around, but usually only after someone else has validated what I said in the first place. Sometimes I feel like the Holly Hunter character in Broadcast News, when some exec says to her, sarcastically, "It must be great to think you're always the smartest person in the room" and she says, "No, it's horrible!"

[Beltmann]

I'm never frustrated when someone doesn't share my enthusiasm. People have to come to things in their own way and in their own time. Since my tastes trend non-mainstream, I rarely make recommendations to family and friends. After all, I know what I like and why, but that doesn't mean anyone else will like it or like it for the same reasons. When asked, I just talk about things and describe my own reaction to it, and then let people make up their own mind about whether that's something that might interest them.

[Magnetized]

I'm never frustrated when someone doesn't share my enthusiasm. People have to come to things in their own way and in their own time. Since my tastes trend non-mainstream, I rarely make recommendations to family and friends. After all, I know what I like and why, but that doesn't mean anyone else will like it or like it for the same reasons. When asked, I just talk about things and describe my own reaction to it, and then let people make up their own mind about whether that's something that might interest them.

 

That's way better than my bludgeoning style. Perhaps I should take a hint, zen master! (And i don't mean that sarcastically.) It would be entirely more productive in the long run. But since there's nothing else particularly mellow about me, I suspect this will be yet another in a long line of unattainable goals and I will continue trying to impose my worldview on my long-suffering friends and family.

 

BTW, I'm going to see Inception tonight. If I have any flashes of insight I will share on here.

[willywoody]

I liked the movie a lot but hated the fact that it is louder than A Place To Bury Strangers concert. Consider bringing earplugs, seriously. The action scenes near the end go on too long for me, would be my biggest quibble. Their tedium was exacerbated by how freakin' loud they were.

 

The movie gets you thinking in a lot of directions, though. I look forward to seeing it again on DVD or maybe I'll even have a Blu-ray player by then.

[Winston Legthigh]

For those who have seen Inception, this article and the reader comments afterwards add great fuel to the fire of debate...

 

http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html

That's a nice essay, and accounts for the problems I had with the movie:

1. Why someone shouldn't use another person's totem wasn't explained

2. Why did Cobb use Mal's totem?

3. The narrow alleyway

4. Who was Cobol Enterprises? (never explained - fits in with the "how did we get here?" dream rule.)

5. Ariadne seems to have been purposely named because she was helpful in leading Leo out of his own labyrinth (and it seems that was her only "real" purpose). The fact that Cobb's "wife" (I'm not even convinced she was ever real) was named "Mal" should be a huge clue - she's "bad".

 

So, I buy the whole "it was all a dream" theory.

 

Some quibbles: I thought the action was a snore - because since the sequences were all within a dream, there were no consequences. If you die in a dream, you wake up, or you go to limbo. If you die in limbo you wake up.

 

Didn't understand how the Escher staircases worked... They were an infinite staircase one second, and an illusion the next...

[u2roolz]

1. Why someone shouldn't use another person's totem wasn't explained

2. Why did Cobb use Mal's totem?

3. The narrow alleyway

4. Who was Cobol Enterprises? (never explained - fits in with the "how did we get here?" dream rule.)

5. Ariadne seems to have been purposely named because she was helpful in leading Leo out of his own labyrinth (and it seems that was her only "real" purpose). The fact that Cobb's "wife" (I'm not even convinced she was ever real) was named "Mal" should be a huge clue - she's "bad".

 

1. I think that 1 & 2 are closely connected, obviously. It was explained in the film: you should use your own totem that you are familiar with the weight and properties of, so that if you are in a dream you can do what you need to do to see if you are in a dream. Much like the top spinning. If you take someone else's totem, are you doing that in reality or in a dream state? I think it boils down to trying to control your subconscious with an item of your own distinction rather than relying on someone else's. Which leads us to...

 

2. This is something that intrigued me and it works for me because A) Cobb wanted to keep a little memento (no pun intended) of Mal to remind him of her and that subsequently lead to her flooding his dreams probably by his constant spinning of it to gauge where he was. Bee) Remember Art tells Ariadne that she should have learned by now that Cobb doesn't exactly do what he says. This could explain why Cobb's dreams were all fucked up and being ruined by Mal. Side Note: It's also interesting to note that all of the totems were parts of games: spin top, chess piece, loaded dice. Also, Cillian Murphy's character was named Robert Fischer or Bobby Fischer chess prodigy.

 

3. This was very dreamlike, but you never know maybe he picked the worst possible place to run out of and he just so happened to be picked up by Saito. Again, I think Nolan is fucking with our perceptions of what is reality & dreams much like Cobb & Mal.

 

4. I don't really think this matters. Do you expect a PowerPoint presentation in the middle of the film amidst all of the "rules" of the dream heists to explain their mission statement? I know that Saito & Fischer's company were involved in Energy. If you will, perhaps Cobol Enterprises just represents "BIg Brother" or any other watchdog in our society. It's probably just another manifestation of Cobb's guilt in his dreams.

 

5. She was only "bad" because her appearance & actions were completely (almost) born out of Cobb's guilt. She was only a projection of herself in Cobb's dreams. If he never took her damn totem, there probably wouldn't have been a story there to tell.

 

Edit: This doesn't take away from your dream theory. I subscribe to that and the reality version simultaneously. That's the beauty of the film, as others and myself have said. If you think not explaining Cobol Enterprises is lazy screenwriting in the reality version, then you're focusing too much on the wrong thing. Perhaps it is left vague deliberately (as I mentioned above), so that you can fill in the blanks on that one.

[Winston Legthigh]

 

 

Edit: This doesn't take away from your dream theory. I subscribe to that and the reality version simultaneously. That's the beauty of the film, as others and myself have said. If you think not explaining Cobol Enterprises is lazy screenwriting in the reality version, then you're focusing too much on the wrong thing. Perhaps it is left vague deliberately (as I mentioned above), so that you can fill in the blanks on that one.

Well, it IS lazy screenwriting if you adhere to the Chekov's Gun theory: If you introduce a gun in Act I, it better go off in Act III. Likewise, why introduce the dangerous obstacle of Cobol Enterprise in Act I if you're not going to have resolution in Act III? (or any resolution at all, for that matter?) Unless of course, Cobol is just part of Cobb's ever-changing dream, which then makes sense. Dreams meander.

 

The script even says that if you introduce unrealistic features into the dream, the dreamer becomes distracted and then knows he is dreaming, and things start to unravel. This fits into the CHUD writer's analysis of films being analogous of dreams. If the viewer becomes distracted (like I did), then the film starts to unravel.

 

Another quibble: Cobb says he can't be the architect anymore because Mal would know his plans. Yet, it doesn't matter what Cobb's role is, because Mal intervenes regardless.

 

Why is Ariadne the only team member concerned with Cobb and his inability to control Mal?