The following contains heavy spoilers for Inception. If you haven’t seen it yet, you definitely need to see it at least once before reading this. Inception is one of the best films of 2010 and an incredibly original piece of work. Do not read any further unless you’ve seen the film.
Huge Spoilers beyond this point, you’ve been warned
For the past two weeks after several showings, a ton of reading and even more discussion, I’ve reached some conclusions about Inception. The purpose of this blog post is two fold. First, I want to explain Christopher Nolan’s intent behind the film. Second, I want to discuss the seemingly ambiguous ending of the film and explain how it isn’t actually open for interpretation as some people believe.
To explain Director Christopher Nolan’s intent behind the film, some background is necessary. Nolan has imagined making a film with a plot centered around lucid dreaming since he first became aware of the phenomenon as a teenager. He first started working on the script for Inception about ten years ago, shortly after dark sci-fi films like The Matrix and Dark City were released. He pointed to those (and a few others) as inspiration. Originally it was envisioned as a horror film, but the idea slowly evolved into the heist film that made it to theaters.
Nolan has said (regarding the estimated $200 million budget) that the human mind is full of infinite possibility and he wanted this movie to feel the same way. That makes for a very expensive movie. Hollywood studios don’t go throwing around that kind of money on anything other than a franchise very often. After Nolan’s 2008 film, The Dark Knight, grossed over $1 billion worldwide he finally had the leverage he needed over the studio to get his movie made with the total creative control he desired. Dangling the possibility of doing a third Batman film in front of the studio, they gave Nolan whatever he wanted to keep him happy.
Now we get to the intent behind the film. Inception is a metaphor for filmmaking. While there are other themes at work here (can one idea fundamentally change a person’s nature? / what is reality?), Leonardo di Caprio helped cement the intent of Inception as a metaphor for how Nolan makes films during an interview in which he referred to Inception as Christopher Nolan’s 8 1/2. Instead of using a more obvious connection to something like The Matrix, he chose to make an analogy about a seemingly obscure Italian film from the 1960′s. 8 1/2 is a film directed by Federico Fellini which has a very significant place in the history of cinema (side note – I had a film professor in college whose favorite director was Fellini and we spent a lot of time talking about him). 8 1/2 is well known because it was an autobiographical take on Fellini’s own approach to making movies. It is considered one of the greatest films ever made about the creative process filmmakers go through. Its influence is recognized everywhere by those who have seen it. At its core, Inception is a movie about trying to make a movie.
Nolan himself said in a recent interview, “There are a lot of striking similarities [between what the team does and the putting on of a major Hollywood movie]. When for instance the team is out on the street they’ve created, surveying it, that’s really identical with what we do on tech scouts before we shoot.” Leonardo di Caprio has also said that he based how he played his character on Nolan, who isn’t an action hero going sneaking through people’s dreams, he is a film director.
The metaphor gets deeper. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb who would be the director. Cobb is the ultimate creative force and vision behind the inception that takes place within the film. Marion Cotillard who plays his wife Mal represents the portions of himself a filmmaker brings to a project. It is impossible to make a film without it being a reflection of the director’s experiences, feelings and beliefs, all of which are manifested in Mal. The producer would be Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character Arthur. He is the point man doing all the research and acting as second hand man to Cobb, ensuring that all goes according to plan and when it does, he is there with a backup.
Ellen Page’s character Ariadne is a brilliant young architect, making her perfect for the crew’s screenwriter. She builds the worlds in which Cobb creates the stories. Tom Hardy is Eames. In the film his character is a master forger, in the metaphor he is an actor. Often before he transforms into another character he is seen in front of an old styled make up mirror preparing for the part just an a classic actor would do. Ken Watanabe plays Saito, a character who insists on tagging along because he has the money financing the project and because of his stake in its outcome, even though his involvement is more of hindrance than help. That makes him the Hollywood Studio.
Finally Cillian Murphy completes the metaphor in his role as Robert Fischer or the audience. Fischer is everyone of us who has ever sat in a theater. The entire show Cobb is putting on is for Fischer and it is of the utmost importance that he believes it is real. This brings us to the most important part of the metaphor and the link to the outcome of the ending of the film. Both the act of constructing dreams and Cobb’s spinning top represent the suspension of disbelief. Cobb can’t totally trick Fischer into believing the dreams are real, just as a director can’t totally trick an audience into believing a film is real. However, they can both create a world in which in the back of Fischer’s or a viewer’s mind they know it is not real but chose to make a conscious decision to ignore that feeling. This is a fundamental part of the film, this is the suspension of disbelief. Just as a film begins to fall apart when it gets too ridiculous to believe, so do dreams literally fall apart in the world of Inception.
This brings us to the business of the spinning top. The film ends on a close up of the top, just as it appears to be wobbling, or does it? This has led some to speculate that the entire film was a dream.
The supporters of this theory cite a few main pieces of evidence. First is Michael Caine’s line about asking Leo to return to reality. Next are Cobb’s children who appear to be the same age at the end of the film as he remembers them from the beginning, even though a large amount of time has elapsed. The third piece of evidence would be the chase in Mombasa where Cobb runs from more and more security agents, then slips through an alley that gets smaller and smaller only to squeeze through to find Saito and Eames conveniently waiting for him. If the entire film is in fact a dream that would mean that the title Inception actually refers to an Inception Cobb does which is so elaborate it works on himself to convince him he has finally made it back to reality when he is actually still stuck in a dream. The final key piece of evidence here is that Ellen Page’s character is named Ariadne. In Greek mythology Ariadne helps Theseus enter the Minotaur’s maze, slay the beast within and then uses a ball of thread to lead him out from the end of the maze. In the context of the inception being against Cobb this would make sense.
All of this sounds very plausible, until you consider the alternative. Michael Caine’s line about coming back to reality could easily be taken both ways. The child actors who play Cobb’s children at the end of the film are different from those who play the children at the beginning on the phone. The chase in Mombasa is different from those in the dream world because in dreams everyone turns on the intruders, not just a few. Is Saito’s rescue that preposterous? Considering he had enough money to buy an entire airline, it isn’t a stretch to believe he has the resources to follow one person pretty closely. Finally the analogy of Ariadne from Greek mythology is like Michael Caine’s statement about reality. It can easily support either conclusion. Unfortunately for the people who think the entire film is one big dream, you cannot use a lack of evidence to prove that something exists. There just isn’t enough there to support the idea that the entire film is one big dream.
But what about the top?! It definitely keeps spinning! Prepare to have your mind blown. Totems are created for characters to remind themselves whether or not they are dreaming. The top isn’t Cobb’s totem at all. The top is very clearly referred to as Mal’s totem. Cobb spins it to remind himself not that he is in reality, but to remind himself of what he did to Mal and what he must do to make it right. His totem is actually his wedding ring. If you go back and watch the film again, you’ll notice a very significant detail. Every time Cobb is dreaming, he is wearing the wedding ring. Every time he is back in reality he is no longer wearing it. When he is dreaming the totem is there in the back of his mind as a reminder that he is dreaming. When he is in reality he has it put away like he advises Ariadne should do with her own totem to ensure no one will learn about it. Every single sequence of either dreaming or reality has a very clear shot of Cobb’s hand which he wearings the ring on. Don’t believe me? Google “Inception Wedding Ring” and you can find fan sites where people have pulled screenshots showing the ring or lack there of. The spinning top is merely a red herring to distract the audience. Another clever trick by the filmmaker.
The final shot of the spinning top is the ultimate nod to the suspension of disbelief. If the shot continues any longer and the top continues to spin, the disbelief falls apart at the most important moment. Because the film ends just as the top appears to start to wobble, the film has accomplished its goal of keeping the suspension of disbelief in place just long enough to sustain the story until it is complete. While it may leave some with an idea about how much of what they just saw was real. This idea was was implanted into your mind by the journey you took through the film up until the final shot, brilliant Mr. Nolan, absolutely brilliant.
Are you telling me I was Incepted? Still doesn’t explain if the top falls or not.
Is he wearing his wedding ring while he spins the top? I understand the suspension of disbelief aspect, and like it, but unless we get a clear shot of his left hand in the last scene, I don’t think there is any definitive way of telling if it’s a dream or not.
Or could it be that if a movie is made well enough, even the director can get caught up in the dream world? Just an idea.
Adam here is a screenshot showing Cobb’s hand without ring when he wakes up from the inception.
http://revolvingdoorproject.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/no-ring-airplane.jpg
Are there other screenshots of other scenes?
plus when he is in a dream and it spins there is never a wobble where at the end there is clearly a wobble.
People are also pointing towards the sound it makes after the cut to black.
So true! Everything is with the wobble.
I think what these other people posted is what I pretty much agree with. I like what you’re thinking about a director getting caught up in a dream world. A lot of those guys definitely seem to be living in some other fantasy world we aren’t aware of.
Just got back from seeing it. Amazing movie. Good write up. You must have heard the /filmcast on Inception. I am going to give it a listen tomorrow.
The /filmcast on Inception is actually really bad. They bring on some critic who spends the whole time explaining how Michael Bay is more talented than Christopher Nolan.
Michael Bay? Really?
The /filmcast is usually really good, but Armond White from the New York Press was on this week. That guy is retarded.
yeah I skipped that part but they mentioned the Chud article you got the whole director comparison from.
The Chud article is good, but the rumors of the overtures to Fellini’s 8 1/2 existed before the movie hit theaters. The Chud article is just the article about it with the most traffic / exposure right now.
For the curious, here is the article in question:
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html
Good article, but I agree with what is written above as to the evidence supporting the ending not being a dream. It comes down to this – you can’t support something with negative evidence. I can’t say an invisible monkey is in my cubicle because you are unable to prove it is not there.
one last thing about the chud article, the author has since said…
“I have been considering writing a follow-up to my incredibly (and thankfully) popular Never Wake Up article about the secrets and meanings of Inception, with new information and thoughts.”
I think he will reverse his thoughts on the dream ending
What is /filmcast?
It is a weekly podcast about movies. It is usually quite good, but this past week they brought on Armond White who is rather notorious for hating on anything popular. He has said on multiple occasions that Roger Ebert ruined film criticism. He had a lot of valid points, but for every thing I agreed with there were probably ten statements that I did not agree with.
Usually they get into talking about stuff like this blog post. They read a lot of viewer e-mails concerning theories about films and discuss them. Unfortunately in this last episode they spend so much time talking with Armond White about film in general they don’t have much time to explore any of the theories about Inception. They gloss over a lot of stuff because they were running long. Hopefully in next week’s show they will get back to a little discussion of Inception because they didn’t really do it justice.
Long story short, I would highly recommend checking out the podcast if you like movies. You can check it out on iTunes.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Understanding the Meaning Behind Inception | KyleLibra.com -- Topsy.com
I’ll assume by the lack of non-Hamby responses that everyone who has read this agrees with me 100%.
I think you’ve got it right. There is also a NY Mag interview with one of the actors saying something similar to what you’re saying about the ending.
NY Mag interview with Dileep Rao who plays the chemist.
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html
Good interview. I read that before writing this blog post, but I decided against putting Rao’s quote in here. When I got to that point I figured I had said everything I wanted said already and the article was getting really long.
In the Fellini comparison I’m curious to see where you think the Chemist fits into everything. Some people say he is a general technical person in the metaphor, which I don’t really buy.
I think instead of general technical person he should be considered as that plus the effects guy. He causes the rain in the first dream during Inception (it is caused because he drank too much on the flight and that is all he can think about). He is also responsible for the zero gravity in Arthur’s dream because of the van tipping over in his own dream. I think he represents a lot of the lesser known behind the scenes people on a film set. It takes sometimes hundreds of people to get a movie made and I think he is a tiny bit of most of them.
Great blog post! Lots of stuff here I did not consider!
This is a movie that definition makes you think. I’m considering seeing it at least one more time in theaters.
Saw the link on twitter, good work!
Thanks for reading! I’m glad you enjoyed it.
this post isn’t complete without mentioning this video about the ‘secret’ in the music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkQ0C4qDvM&
Like Memento, the film is set up to be an endless cycle—the act of “Inception” seems to be a talent not limited to Dom Cobb. The film begins with an ending, just like Memento, whose main character, injects a clue that leads him, not to the murder of his wife, but to kill the evil man that takes advantage of his condition, ending his search for good. In Inception, Mal interrupts the “kick” agreement between Saito and Cobb until the film’s actual end, where both can be freed from the cycle: The cause of the break in the cycle is due to the absence of Mal’s projection, killed by the young Architect Ariadne . Michael Caine, Mal’s Father and Ariadne teacher is the inventor of this process–and reveals his motive to get Cobb “back to reality”–he sends his best student, with whom, Cobb is very impressed, and she kills Mal (throughout the film, there is a strange tension between Mal and Ariadne ) which is a projection of Cobb’s fear that she will be removed.
Another strange loop in the film is the shifting totems. . .since Cobb knew of Mal’s totem, he could manipulate her. Saito, the architect, also knows of Cobb’s Wife’s totem, but not of the ring. If Michael Caine is Cobb’s father-in-law, then he must have known his own daughter well (the sub-plot is parallel, a outside group trying to make the son “fischer” understand his father) . Has Caine lost her and is trying to keep his projections trapped? I found this on Wiki about totems and also some interesting concepts of totems being family histories, sometimes shameful, and non-linear:
“Vertical order of images is widely believed to be a significant representation of importance. This idea is so pervasive that it has entered into common parlance with the phrase “low man on the totem pole.” This phrase is indicative of the most common belief of ordering importance, that the higher figures on the pole are more important or prestigious. A counterargument frequently heard is that figures are arranged in a “reverse hierarchy” style, with the most important representations being on the bottom, and the least important being on top. Actually there have never been any restrictions on vertical order, many poles have significant figures on the top, others on the bottom, and some in the middle. Other poles have no vertical arrangement at all, consisting of a lone figure atop an undecorated column”.
With this idea in mind–Caine, the least of the characters, (but, “in reality” the most famous) is the most powerful in the film. The point about the film being a metaphor for film making–is good. I think it is interesting to look at Nolans’ film
“The Following” and “Memento” to come to the final theme: how hard it is for humankind to gain any concrete sense of control on anything given autobiographical stress, socialization, psychology, memory and it’s ever changing face. It is Victorian arrogance to think that with all the information we ingest, our perception of our experiences, that any thought or decision is our own, that we are the master’s of our fate. Would we really want to be the Master of our fate? I would really like someone to punch holes through this. . . any thoughts. . .as a final note, Dom Cobb and Mal grow old together for fifty years. . .without their kids, where are they in the dream, how is there unchanging youth accounted for except through memory. When Cobb calls his children on the phone and asks Caine to deliver a gift, who interrupts the phone call? the Grandmother or Mal, is Caine caught in a dream of his own, and why is Caine waiting at the airport on the side that Cobb so badly wants to return. . .when, in an earlier scene, they speaking face to face. What allows Caine to gain admittance to both “levels”. . .I think I know. One must read Flann O’Brien’s “The Third Policeman” and also Kafka’s Parables “The Law” and ” An Imperial Message”–What is truly ‘Inceptive” about the film is that after you watch it and begin to go over scene by scene with family and friends, because of the sameness of all of the main characters, after a day or two, how people recall the film is adjusted to the argument they are trying to make and causes the viewer to want to return to the theater (in this case “reality” to figure it out. . . (copyrighted by Christopher Daniggelis, 2010)