Discussion in 'Community' started by Coruscant, Jul 14, 2010.
Also, the music was great.
I agree. Even if the top fell we have no way of knowing that Cobb is awake. For all we know, Mal was actually right all along, and she awoke in the real world while Cobb was still trapped in a dream he thought was real.
"There's really nothing to support that his assignment and all was a dream."
I wouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly, there were several scenes that I noticed things that were rather odd. Reminiscent of Blade Runner is he a replicant or not--there were several odd scenes, that made me think oh, maybe this isn't real--I'll have to watch it again to confirm it.
Something else I was thinking about was, paying attention to where the camera wasn't focusing--as in a dream...it gets murky around the edges--there were several motifs repeated throughout, in the background, and I was also trying to keep track of fun little things, like how many times you saw the same projection, rather than a new actor
Definitely meant to be viewed more than once, in my opinion, with an attention to detail akin to Blade Runner. And just because I was working on it recently--how the story is presented reminded me of Midsummer a bit--not in terms of plot but the "dream within a dream" thing that continues to the end and then, like Puck, says so long with that little top...I could phrase that better, but I'm too lazy right now.
Fantastic film--definitely will see it again.
EDIT: OMG Ok, so thinking about a dream within a dream reminded me of when Ellen Page's character looked into the mirrors that go on into infinity--there were so many references to reflections in this film and water (which also serves as a mirror)...so playing with different realities--different dreams, different points of view etc. AND I remembered an example of why it all may have still been a dream (how many levels did Leo's character really go down?)--there were multiple scenes, if I recall correctly, where the camera would cut from Leo to Ellen and when it cut back, sometimes he would have moved--and there was one point in particular where the camera didn't cut, but he had moved or something--it was quick and it was between ideas, and I'm still not sure if I saw it or not, but I think it was kind of like what he was talking about in reference to dreams--i.e. when you progress through various subjects or the "plot" of the dream, you tend to teleport a bit--which is great considering how films are told in the first place, i.e. scene by scene, shot by shot--a series of subjects or still images in succession and the brain plays the role of "editor"
In theatre you have the fourth wall--the world of the play on the stage told through the actors, and the then the audience on the other side--things get interesting when you break the fourth wall and then compound that by having, say, a play within a play (as in Midsummer, which has a "dream" and it's not certain if it is a dream or not as the fairies suggest, the real world outside the forest, and the play within a play--and at the end Puck talks to the audience)...I think to some extent, what Nolan was doing here, was taking film, which tends to be very realistic (in terms of acting--not just naturalistic)--and pushing the cinematic walls somewhat (or whatever you want to call it)--how does what you're being shown match up or fit together? How many levels were those characters in? How many reflections until it becomes real or even actual? K, now I'm going back into brainstorm land and am rambling...but...
wow, I love this movie. It sort of did what I was starting to play with in my senior project in college (which was experimental theatre dealing with the idea o
I think the only thing that makes me remotely question whether it could be a dream or not is that it's not *his* totem. It's explained that when you pick your totem, you're the only one who touches it and the only one who knows its exact weight. For someone else to hold it defeats its purpose. Now, with Mal's totem, it seems it had less to do with weight and more to do with whether it kept spinning or not. However, it seems like there still might be an opening there.
I just think it makes more sense for it not to be a dream. The biggest reason probably being that Mal doesn't appear at the end. If he is so obsessed with her, why wouldn't she and not just his children be there?
And yeah Asterix, I'm glad you felt the bits of Blade Runner connections, too.
EDIT: ran out of time to edit...
It sort of did what I was starting to play with in my senior project in college (which was experimental theatre dealing with the idea of multiple realities or in this case, dreams). We played with string theory and the concept involving possibility/multiple universes...
But this film sort of...put on the screen so much that I had in my head, just conceptually....something I did not achieve hardly at all with the thing I did in college, but that's because I'm not a director. Nolan is the man.
EDIT 2: and yeah, Rach the other odd thing was the top, how he got it, etc. I'd be curious to hear Dr. Cook's thoughts on this one. He loves a good "how do we know what we know" crisis.
sj: Because the whole reason he couldn't get back was his guilt/inability to let go, which he had externalized into being unable to enter the country. She couldn't be there at the end, that would defeat the point of why he couldn't get past her.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a dream. It just answers why she wouldn't be there if it was.
I suppose you could go with that, but I still prefer my interpretation.
Ahhh yeah Dr. Cook should definitely watch this movie. Why don't you e-mail him and tell him
I knew the ending was coming, and I STILL let out a sigh at the end. That makes it good in my book.
Unbelievable! Just saw it and am planning on going again tomorrow. I screamed out NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO at the very end. The audience all laughed.
Saw it this afternoon. It was fun to watch, but the lack of character development and the length of the film (admit it, this film could easily have been half an hour shorter and not detracted from the story) kept it from being as good as I thought it would be.
I don't really think it could have been much shorter. Maybe, maybe 10 minutes. Maybe. But it would be more trimming lots of stuff here and there. I didn't mind the length. The first half hour of the film was necessary exposition. Took a while to get into it, sure. But still. Kinda needed it.
Perhaps, but then just how many times did we see slo-mo shots throughout the entire film? I was starting to get sick of seeing that van hanging in mid air every couple of minutes and part of me was hoping a shark or something just as nasty would pop out of the water and try to take a bite out of it.
The film obviously has its flaws, but its strengths are so unbelievably great and powerful that what the heck does it matter that it's not perfect, you know?
For one thing, I thought it needed a little humor. Obviously, with a dialogue exposition-heavy movie like this, I'm going to miss more than a few lines as a deaf person, but I didn't laugh out loud once. However, my brother has seen the film twice (in one day, opening day, besides) and has let me know the humor is there, it's just easily miss-able with all the other bazillion things going on.
The film also passed by in a nanosecond for me. I thought it could've been longer, and I wouldn't have minded some extra time allotted to developing characters besides Dom. I might be alone in this, but I really hope Nolan does just one sequel eventually, where he can have even more fun with this world he's set-up and explore more of the nuances, while getting around to some character development which there wasn't time for in the first film because of the necessary exposition (which, with a concept like Inception's, requires a lot).
And color me surprised that Jello likes Ariadne.
PHYSICS TIME (sort of)
The power of the totems is that they behave in manners that only the possessor of them fully knows. Intricacies to it. Now, a top, by all rights, SHOULD precess and fall in some time, and so the only reason, imo, that there is significance to it NOT falling is if someone that doesn't know it can't recreate the slight imperfections that will cause the axis to shift or dream the complex physics involved. So instead, it operates under simple physics of just spinning. Someone would need to know the specifics of that top to know how it would really behave, and that includes how the weight is distributed. That's also why the loaded die is useful. You know how a die should generally behave, but that one deviates from the norm in a way only he knows.
From there, it would seem that unless there's a whole extra level of dream, and Mal really had that as a totem, if the totem has the ability to ever tell the difference between a dream and not a dream, it must mean that Cobb made up back up to reality to see the actual top after Mal died. So that her death is, indeed real. The top of his mind would be idealised, not the imperfect nature that makes it function as a totem. Sort of the whole Being/Becoming philosophy. Cobb, in his own dreams, could create the rules such that the top behaves as he thinks it should, but for other dreams, he can't set the ground rules like that. So it seems to me that after Mal jumps from the building, that that is the level of reality because it gives him the chance to handle the actual top to know it's behavior to then use it after that to differentiate if he's in someone else's dream or not, the power of the totem.
When he was clearly in someone's dream, the top, I thought, spun in the ideal fashion. Now, at the end, as it clearly has an uncertainty in it's movement, that to me points to two options. One is that that is, indeed, reality and so it was behaving as it should. The other is that Cobb chose that dream under his control to BE his reality, and so as the architect of it he was able to include the top as he knew it and not the generic top. As he knows how the top behaves, he can't tell if it's his own dream or not using it because he can shape the dream so the top behaves identically to how it would in reality. This could be either a conscious or subconscious effort on his part.
Same here. Went to a 10:20 showing last night, and when it was over, it little past 1:00am, and I was thinking "Did it really go by that quickly?" That's the thing with great films................they never feel too long.
Back-to-Back!: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: World Champions
One thing that I wish was explored just a bit better was the limits of what you could fabricate in a dream. Now Cobb explained about not changing too much or using things too real. But we see them using different items in the layers. In particular are the weapons and the comment about "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger" and then out comes a grenade launcher. By that logic, what was to stop them from getting a tank? I realize that eventually they turn on you, but in theory, why couldn't they just think of something even stronger to protect themselves? Like, I dunno bullet proof vests to avoid getting hit
What? The Theseus/labyrinth allusion is very neat, especially in that it parallels not only the story, but the idea that the minotaur is a stand-in for Theseus's own personal issues.
I will have to see it again. I think I was too distracted by the cinematography wondering time and again how they achieved certain tricks. I can't wait to get this on DVD and dissect the shots or see some behind the scenes. Its funny...I was thinking that this summer had been a huge disappointment when it came to movies. Sure some were fun, but never did I have the same old feeling I loved to have when I walk out of a movie and I am already excited to see it again and break it down and understand it. Hadn't had that once this summer until tonight.
And yeah that was the first time I have ever heard an auditory gasp at the end of a film from an audience like that. I half expected the final "Lost" logo to appear.
i thought the minotaur was minos' sceleton in the cupboard.
in other notes, i really liked the addiction element displayed, even visiting the 'opium den' in the middle of the film.
I grade it a B-
I only kind of skimmed the thread and didn't see this mentioned. A part that stuck out, jumped out at me as far as if Cobb was still in his dream, was when Saito woke up, he had the phone in his hand. His promise was to call and clear Cobb so he could return to the U.S.
Realy enjoyed it. As detailed here and elsewhere online, there are flaws and potential plot holes (as is probably inevitable with such a heavy concept - but films like this should be applauded first and foremost. We should be glad this film even exists. Its flaws can be accepted on that basis alone IMO.
Yeah. I say it's most interesting if you just accept the premise at face value, and THEN ask questions about it afterwards--i.e. what everything entails, etc. It's like those people who say "lightsabers are impossible!" That's nice, but it's not real. We already know that.
Saw it last night. Loved it. As for the length, I don't think you can lose the slow-mo shots of the van. They're absolutely integral to the editing structure of the third act. I saw someone on another forum refer to the van as "possibly the best ticking clock in film history" and I'm inclined to agree.
As for the ending I think what's more important than the top falling or not is the fact that Cobb, a character that for the whole film has been obsessed to the point of paranoia about checking the totem to make sure he's awake, sets it spinning and then leaves it, not caring about the result. I think its really Nolan's way of saying "interpret it how you like, it doesn't matter if he woke up, or didn't wake up, or if the whole movie was actually a dream, all that really matters is that the emotional catharsis was real and meaningful" which is also something that can be said about movies.
In its way, I think Inception is just as much about films and film making as it is about dreams.