| Author | Message | ||
     Jalsa Moderator Username: Jalsa Post Number: 13761 Registered: 02-2008 Rating: N/A |
brother, i asked the same question the other day. I must be missing something too. | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 298 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 115.184.38.4 Rating: N/A |
I wonder how they could induce( or take the subjects into) dreams within dreams! how can the device work in dreams. if the device controls the drug administration to push the subject into deeper levels it has to get feedback from the dream. they should be able to control the device( the device in real world..not the one in dream world) from dreams or subconscious to administer more drug into the subject. Am I missing something!!? | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 297 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 115.184.38.4 Rating: N/A |
In case you have not read.....interested interpretations: http://www.cinematical.com/2010/07/19/dissecting-inception-s ix-interpretations-and-five-plot-holes/ Interpretation 3: Saito is the architect, pulls a Mr. Charles on Cobb. Much has been discussed of deciphering what actually happened in Inception by identifying the layers of reality, but little has been said toward identifying character motivation. Ultimately there are only two characters who have objective-based motivations, Cobb and Saito. Everyone else is either in it for the money or the experience. From this viewpoint alone, everything is either based on Cobb's reality or on Saito's. Cobb is under the impression that Saito hires him and his team to plant an idea into the mind of a rival corporation, and in turn Saito will arrange for his legal troubles to be cleared away and that he'll once again be able to live happily with his children. We are then under the assumption that the inception being performed is on Cobb's target, Fischer. However, it's not entirely illogical that everything that happens in the film is actually Saito's doing. It makes some sense if you look at the first three dreams (Saito's limbo, dinner party and apartment) as being orchestrated not by Cobb, but by Saito. He's aware that the Cobol corporation has hired Cobb to steal the information regarding a new plant's opening, so half-way through their attempt to do so, Saito actually pulls a variant of Mr. Charles on Cobb by telling them that he knew about their plans all along, that he knows he is dreaming, and that it was all really just an audition for them to work for him instead. Informing them that they failed the audition plants the initial seed of inception in Cobb's mind; that there is a surefire way he can get home to his children. It is that belief that comes to define Cobb for the rest of the film. Remember, Cobb believes that inception can work if the idea is born out of a desire for reconciliation. In his case, it's his desire to reconcile with his children that motivates him to accept Saito's challenge of planting the company-dissolving idea in Fischer's subconscious. We can assume that Saito really does want to break up this potential energy superpower, but, other than honor, what reason does he have to make Cobb a free man again? Instead of paying to have Cobb's record completely erased from government records, wouldn't it be cheaper to just create a course of action that leaves Cobb in limbo until his brain scrambles? It's a stretch, no doubt, and I don't personally think that's what Nolan intended, but there is select evidence causing people to believe this is the case. The most crucial support for this theory being Cobb's trip to Mombasa, which is when A) Saito improbably saves the day by pulling up in a car right when Cobb needs him the most (this last-minute save being a real world continuation of the Saito-Mr. Charles gambit) and B) where Saito interrupts Cobb's post-sedation bathroom trip, where his appearance coincides with Cobb's hallucination/aborted confirmation that he has returned to reality, thus planting the seeds that will eventually lead to Cobb's decision to stay in limbo. Interpretation 4: Ariadne is the architect/Cobb's therapist. Hal Phillips' theory that Ariadne is Cobb's therapist and that the real objective of the film isn't to give Fischer an emotional breakthrough, it's to subvert Cobb's deep, deep layers of guilt over causing Mal's death, is even flimsier than Saito as the architect, but it is an intriguing one. I'd recommend reading the full theory right here, but I've extracted the two key paragraphs below to explain generally what is at play: Ariadne presents her dream-self to Cobb as someone who will become his confidant. Because she is a neophyte, he can trust her. Because she relies on his guidance, he is not threatened by her. Because she is a prodigy, she can swiftly "learn" everything she needs to know without contradicting the above. And she is recommended to Cobb by Cobb's mentor and father figure; we are told later that someone's relationship with their father informs the path to their subconscious. ... On level 5, Mal shoots Fischer. The film portrays this as a huge problem that can potentially strand everybody in limbo. Not true! It was all part of the plan. Cobb had to believe that his irrational refusal to accept his wife's death had led to disaster, making his problem as urgent as possible. This is achieved when his refusal to shoot Mal, even though he knows she's not real, leads to her shooting Fischer and endangering everybody. The stakes are finally high enough so that Cobb has both a reason to go one level deeper and a reason to sort his problems out, once and for all. (At the very start of level 5, Cobb wonders what's there for Fischer, and Ariadne says "what's there for you?") It's an interesting proposal, that's for sure, but I don't think there's any evidence that this is Nolan's intention; that Ariadne is monitoring Cobb's dreams (everything before she arrives) and then selectively inserts herself at all the key moments to usher him toward the idea that he is capable of letting go of Mal. Also, Cobb being inmate #528491 in an insane asylum is just too much of a stretch (though it is pretty funny). |
