Inception was easily the most talked-about movie of the summer, if not one of the best. Combining the heist genre with the highest of high-concept science-fiction, it garnered glowing reviews, made bank at the box office, and inspired a million and one spoofs—not to mention upcoming films. With a single rotating hallway and a dozen or so wires, it even cemented itself within the annals of film history.
Following Inception‘s debut in theaters, questions arose about what the film’s true meaning was. (Our very own Kofi Outlaw’s detailed analysis of the film is one of the best you’ll find anywhere.)
Everybody and their grandmother wanted to know what Christopher Nolan truly intended, specifically with his ending. Was Leonardo Dicaprio’s character, Cobb, still in the dream-world? Or was he in that weird half-sleep, half-awake state where gremlins sit on your chest and talk to you?
Now, Sir Michael Caine claims to have the inside-track. While promoting his new autobiography on BBC Radio’s The Chris Moyles Show, Caine said of Inception’s ending:
“[The spinning top] drops at the end, that’s when I come back on. If I’m there it’s real, because I’m never in the dream. I’m the guy who invented the dream.”
I don’t mean to be a stickler here, but anything Michael Caine says about Christopher Nolan’s intended meaning for Inception’s ending technically qualifies as hearsay. And besides, every film critic—or professor of critical theory, for that matter—would happily tell you that it doesn’t matter one iota what the artist says his or her movie, book, play, painting, comic book, videogame, et cetera actually means. The author of the work is responsible for, at best, just one interpretation of said work. So just because Michael Caine says Christopher Nolan intended for Inception’s ending to exist in the real world, doesn’t make it so. It doesn’t mean that I was wrong, or you were wrong, or that my grandma was wrong—she’s pretty darn sure the whole movie was a dream, like Dallas season 8.
The point is, in 500 years, every living artist in the world today will be dead and buried (short of some technological miracle). It won’t matter what they said their work meant. It won’t matter what they believed their work meant. The only thing that’ll matter is the collective opinion of the people who read, watch, look at, and analyze their work. Historians, scholars, students, buffs, and so on. Descendants, yours and mine.
Michael Caine also briefly touched upon Batman 3, but only insofar as he confirmed that nobody knows anything about it save for Christopher Nolan, David Goyer, and Jonathon Nolan. He did indicate, however, that shooting for the sequel to The Dark Knight is likely to start in May.
Source: BBC Radio’s The Chris Moyles Show Via FilmTwats
‘Assassin’s Creed’ Gets Memorial Day 2015 Release Date [Updated] 
New ‘Anchorman 2′ Teaser Trailer: Brick Wishes You Happy Easter 
Kevin Feige Talks Possible Movies for Marvel’s Phase Three 
‘Prometheus 2′ Casting Rumor – Is the Sequel Moving Forward? 
Unless that is what the artist meant to convey…. Just because others got something else out of it does not mean it was meant to be that way. In 500 years I hope we still have records of stuff so then regardless of who is dead and buried if they expressed what THEY meant it will still be available.
So yes you and your grandmother along with Kofi myself and my family could have been wrong….. right?
No, not according to Critical Theory. The film exists on its own outside of the filmmaker and what he intended for it to mean.
An artist work will always mean what it was interpreted to them. Critics aren’t artist. Its hard to take critical theory seriously when the critics don’t do it themselves. If i write a lyrics or a poem or a screenplay and i say this is what it means, well that’s what it means. Anyone is allowed to interpret it to what they took from it, but that doesn’t mean it was intended IMHO.
Again, it’s not. The work speaks for itself. I’m not saying “critics” as in “movie critics” define what a movie means, I’m saying everyone defines what it means. You, me, the critics, the filmmaker. Everyone.
This isn’t what it meant, it’s a debate about the factuality of things in the movie, which the author knows. Deciding we’re going to collectively call Cobb a woman doesn’t make him female, nor does it invalidate the minority (and correct opinion) that he’s male.
But you’re talking about something that couldn’t be clearer: his sex. I’m talking about something that was purposefully left ambiguous, the theme of the movie, the metaphor, etc. Those things aren’t clear, and they’re not clear–very obviously, I might add–according to the film itself. On the other hand, there’s no doubt that Leo and his character are a male to anybody with eyes and ears and–etc.
But it wasn’t left ambiguous. Michael Caine’s character being in the final scene, the (slight) differences in the children’s clothing, Cobb having his wedding ring on, etc. Caine’s comment was proof that the many subtle clues left in the final scene do indeed point to the correct ending.
The fact that it’s still being argued is proof that the film left it ambiguous. Regardless of what Michael Caine says.
No, it’s proof that the things intended to show what happended were shown briefly, and that many people didn’t watch closely enough to really observe what they were seeing. When the DVD comes out, folks will be watching in slow speeds, taking notes and saying “WOW, I don’t remember seeing *that*!”.
Not ambiguous, but you had to pay Very Close Attention to details shown very briefly.
Ben is arguing for critical theory and to be honest it’s an intricate thing to discuss but frustrating and unfulfilling. It’s true that in theory (of literature at least) that something is defined by what people take from it. BUT… that does NOT draw away from what the artist actually intended. Take for example, the monlogue that Kate in Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew gives; over the centuries it has been adapted to say that she was undermining Pertuchio’s taming of her. In 1616, that is NOT what Shakespeare wrote it to be; he was writing a straight up attack on women. Just as he was with Shylock in The Merchant of Venice about Jews. Just because it is unpopular with the masses does not mean it is not what was actually intended. It’s true that in 30 years people will make Inception to mean whatever they want but that does not draw from what Nolan wanted and the fact that Caine was a part of the production that Nolan put together, the fact that he had interactions with the man that he recognized he was never in dream scenes on set that gives us clues to Nolan’s original intent. Nolan wanted it to be ambiguous to the unprepared eye. No one can say they for sure were expecting a questionable spinning top to be the final shot of the movie. But once you see the movie 2+ times and look for clues to original intent you can get the sense of what Nolan intended to be taken away. The kids were older (different actors of older ages), the wedding band, the fact that in the dreams it NEVER faltered and in the ending it DID and many other things… they are clues that were meant to give light to the true ending (as noted by “nowhere”). You had to pay close attention and the ending was meant to mislead you but it was NOT ambigious if you were paying attention the whole time. Nolan’s intent is clear and while theory denotes that Inception will be defined by us as time goes by, that will *never* changed what Nolan intended by it JUST as it will never change what Shakespeare originally intended with his plays. Have a good day : )
Do you think that it is quite probable the whole thing was just an ordinary dream like it is suggested here http://www.reviewmaze.com/2010/11/inception-ending-interpretations.html without any technology and so on? I haven’t thought of it but now when I read it, it seems quite feasible to me.
I’ve watched this movie atleast 2 dozen times to try and figure out what the ending means…..and the one thing I’ve noticed EVERYTIME I’ve watched the movie is that the kids have on the EXACT same clothing! I own this movie and watched it over and over again trying to figure out things I may have missed each time I’ve watched it. There’s absolutely no reason that Michael Caine couldn’t have been in his dream. The part that gets me is that if he was already in Limbo trying to find Fischer and stays to find Saito, then why does he end up BACK on the shorelne again??? Why would he not have just left his “home” with Mol to search for Saito? The only way he would’ve ended up back in the water is if he had died again and ended up back there again. But regardless, while he was in limbo, he knew that the world wasn’t real and even if he had died in the water after the van crashed into the water with no air tank as the the others (sans Saito and Cobb) he would’ve eventually woken up on the plan after the sedation wore off. But how did he wind up back on the shoreline once again after he and Ariadni had already done so. Did he die after Mol stabbed him in the end when he and Aradni were there at his and Mol’s home and that’s why he woke back on the shoreline? The only thing that makes me think it’s open to the viewers interpertation is that the top looked like it was starting to wobble. The only problem I had is that the childrens DID IN FACT have on the same clothes. His son, James still had onthe plaid shirt and Phillips still had on that pinkish, coralish dress and they were knelt down in the exact same position as when he left the first time. I’ve watched this movie umpteen times to see if the kids were wearing the same clothing……..and they were. But I really think the ending was left for our own interpertation. But it still drives me crazy not to know for sure. I love this movie and wish I knew for sure what the ending is actually supposed to mean. Whatever the ending, I still think this was an absolutely awesome movie and I just can’t watch it enough! I know care what anyone says. The concept of dreams within dreams absolutely facinates me!!!
Not only that…..when they show the top spinning in the safe when Cobb and Mol were in limbo themselves growing old and he foundh her safe and spun to top it spun and spun withou the slightes the slightes hint of wobbling but at the end it started to wobble just slightly and then flashed away so we’d never know for sure. UUUUGH….it drives me crazy!!! And I’m sure Christopher Nolan wil never reveal what he meant fot the endin to tuly be. I think it’s left up to us to make out own decision.
I disagree with Ben. Hey Ben Critical Theory is just one of MANY schools of film analysis. You talk about it like it’s the final and only word on how to interpret films. What the creator of the work intends DOES matter. Everything is not relative and unknowable. People who hate actually learning love such theories since it allows them to endlessly pontificate and bs without any basis in fact. Just their subjective opinions which they, of course, value so highly they trump even the original intent of the creators of the work. It’s lame. When I wrote a poem I know exactly what it means. Readers can take different meaning from it and that’s fine as long as they don’t assert what *I* intended.
You’re right, it’s one of the many, but it’s also the most prevalent, and the most agreed upon by the best filmmakers who ever lived. Kubrick, Spielberg, et cetera. They believe that it really doesn’t matter what they say their work means after the fact. Their work should speak for itself or it failed to be successful in that way. If their non-diagetic statements are fundamental in understanding the work, than their work was crap.
Listen, I don’t begrudge you for your beliefs on this topic, and I wouldn’t tell you that you hate learning and are lame for believing your school of thought is better. Good for you. It’s strange to me, though, that if Critical Theory is about hating learning…why is it taught at every top-notch Cinema Studies program in the world?
Critical Theory is about opening lines of communication between people and expanding one’s ability to interpret. It’s more challenging than just saying, “Sir Scorcese, can you color me a picture about what Taxi Driver means?”
Ben I did not mean to imply you were one who hated learning, I had a particular type of film person in mind and should have qualified my statement better. I agree with Critical Theory up to a certain point. Each viewer will process a film subjectively and in a way it is a unique experience for each person. If someone watches a movie about the life of whales, the filmmaker says it is about the life of whales and then someone says it is really about topic X then they certainly can say that but an honest student of film, or even just general history, will look back and see what the filmmaker said about his film. Now if 99 out of every 100 people watch the film and agree it is about X and the filmmaker says it is about Y then you must still say that that is what he or she intended in creating their work, but most people see it differently. Some great filmmakers chose to remain silent and not give any narrative into their thinking process in regards to the film, and that’s also fine. So as I said as long as one is being careful to note they are not refuting the artist’s stated interpretation and that it is only their subjective opinion what the works represents to them I have no quarrel.
wow, you do not get what critical theory is about. Those directors you mention are saying they failed if there is a question … that is a lot different than saying the meaning is always in question.
No the work speaks FOR the artist, that is the purpose of it being created. Everything is open to interpretation and the interpreter owns their own perception of what they are interpreting. How they choose to interpret something is their sole right. And they may take what inspiration from it that they can. BUT they cannot redefine what an artist has already established. Such critical thinking is not onlynrude but it would be the death of art and artistic expression.
Okay but the film WOULD NOT EXIST on its own without Nolan making it in the first place therefore his interpretation of the material is very significant regardless of how poignant the interpretation may be by someone else..Someone else’s view may be more inline with your own and therefore carry more significance with an individual..
It’s like the song American Pie by Don MacLean..he’s never commented on it’s real meaning but there are some pretty great interpretations of his lyrics out there..I would still love to know what MacLeans lyrics really meant..
Yes, I agree with you. What the artist intends for the art to portray is really fundamental to understanding it. Take Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Without Kubrick’s definition of the movie, that movie would be trash. So, yes, we can all be wrong in understanding the ending of Inception. Nolan had a vision and if we don’t see his vision the way he intended for us to see it, then we just failed to understand the message. But don’t let pride keep you from admitting that you’re wrong. That’s is how we learn and grow.
Xalindros, Kubrick conspicuously never defined 2001 at all – in fact going so far as to state at one point that to define it would be to castrate it as art. According to you, what did he define it as, then? Also, an award for Best Film of Educational Value from – of all unlikely sources – the National Catholic Office For Motion Pictures would tend to suggest that even if he had, your evaluation of the movie as “trash” is still wrong.
Make that “even if he HADN’T (which he didn’t)”.
“I don’t like to talk about 2001 much because it’s essentially a non-verbal experience. Less than half the film has dialogue. It attempts to communicate more to the subconscious and to the feelings than it does to the intellect. I think clearly there’s a basic problem with people who are not paying attention with their eyes. They’re listening. And they won’t get much from listening to this film. Those who won’t believe their eyes won’t be able to appreciate this film.”
- Stanley Kubrick
Am I the only person who completely disregards anything Caine says regarding Batman 3? Okay, so the writers are the only one who’ll know anything about the film, but everything else he’s said was BS. He said it would start in April, and now he says it’ll be in May. He’s also the one who started the rumor about “Depp as The Riddler and PSH as The Penguin”. Not to mention that he even thought there wasn’t going to be another film even after TDK made $1 billion (kind of obivous).
As for Inception, never saw it, so I can’t comment on the ending.
Ben, the collective opinion seems to be that Caine’s right, so his words don’t technically qualify as heresy at all, if you’re taking heresy to mean going against established ideas.
I thought “heresy” was supposed to be “hearsay”
Ben?
Yeah, my bad, that was a typo.
Fair enough – sorry to be a pedant!
I think Caine is speculating, he just “reports” it as fact when it’s just his opinion.
Nolan cut before the top falls to leave the question in the viewer’s mind, an artistic point as well as a great marketing ploy (see how we’re still talking about it?). It’s not a puzzle for which to find the solution, it’s a statement to make the audience think and it was very effective.
I agree that the artist’s intention doesn’t really matter, but I do like finding out what an artist intended because sometimes it helps me appreciate the work on a different level.
you are right that the artist interp does not matter in the since that it is a work of fiction. There are not true facts, so how it effects people is what matters … that also means debating it does not matter because the effects have happened. In that case the debate is not on what matters but on what Nolan intended … not what Caine and all the evidence states does matter for t5hat debate. Though ultimately … it will not change the world to know. If you do not believe me see the whole debate on Blade Runner/Do robots dream of electric sheep and how the “offical” resolution didn;t matter. It was a deliberate marketing ploy and well done. Then … and Now
All I have to say is, I love Michael Caine, even if I don’t necessarily agree with his interpretation of things.
Hmpf. Not that I completely discount Sir Michael Caine’s opinion, but this is along the lines of Harrison Ford’s assertion that Deckard is not and was never meant to be a replicant, whereas Ridley Scott insists he is a replicant.
One might say something about the actor being too close to the character, maybe, or not being privy to the big picture in the director’s mind. Evidence shows Ford and Scott had their differences throughout the process of making Blade Runner. Caine and Nolan, however, are quite chummy, having worked together in several films.
This certainly seems like a case of ‘doesn’t matter what the artist intended, rather what was achieved’ – Nolan obviously left the ending ambiguious, so neither answer is “correct” – something we’ve seen him do in Memento as well. Nolan just likes prodding his audience into thought.
The fact that the top makes a point to never wobble once in the movie while in a dream and it CLEARLY wobbles at the end lets you know it is real life. That is all you need to know and there is no arguing against it.
Thank you. Everyone can debate as much as they want. This is the be-all, end-all to the argument.
I’m sorry but when it comes to the meaning of the piece of art the creator of it does have the final say. It is true that a given piece of art may contain many unintended meanings or that a meaning may be ambiguous even to the artist or that many interpretations are possible. Yet, the artist should get to define his work. Only seems fair to me. The modern critical theory that says otherwise is just that, modern. It is a product modern subjectivism/relativism and I suspect will be mocked heavily in a couple of decades. And besides, the arguement is out of place here since the discussion is not about what the ending meant but about where it takes place, the dream world or the real world. This is a matter of fact, not of interpretation.
Hear hear! I agree. I’m not saying YOU’RE RIGHT AND BEN MOORE IS WRONG, I’m just saying I agree with you on this.
On another note, keep in mind, a lot of the responses are going to be people justifying what they believe about the ending (bringing in critical theory, for example). Justification plays a huge part in our lives, and any professor of PSYCHOLOGY will tell you that people will go to great lengths to protect their own views just because it’s easier than being wrong. I’m not saying anyone is wrong, because I sure as hell don’t know what Nolan intended for the ending, or if there is an intended ending at all.
At the same time, I don’t always trust what Michael Caine has to say.
Uh, what? Hey, man, I’m not trying to justify anything. First of all, to a large degree, I really do not care which way Nolan intended for the film to be interpreted. Secondly, “critical theory” is the predominant way, worldwide, to look at this stuff, and it has been for decades. The only thing that matter is convential wisdom, and conventional wisdom dictates that while the author’s POV is important, it’s not more important than everyone else’s. Now, maybe the CW will change in time and the author’s POV will be the only thing that matters–it’s possible! But the fact of the matter is, the author’s point of view on his or her work is as unreliable as anyone else’s. A) It changes over time and B) authors are not immune to lying to make themselves look/feel grander, smarter, etc.
I really don’t understand how you can hold so fast to CT. This point bugs me, “the author’s point of view on his or her work is as unreliable as anyone else’s. A) It changes over time and B) authors are not immune to lying to make themselves look/feel grander, smarter, etc.” The author’s point of view is by FAR more reliable than mine. If you gave a book to an illiterate 3rd world child, you’re telling me his take on the ending is just as valid as the author’s? Or rather just as “unreliable?” Because the author who made the work will change his mind over time on what he thought of it? I’m sorry but that’s borderline absurd. What the artist intended will be be lost forever over time, as noted by everything Shakespeare ever wrote, but what the artist originally intended can not be ignored. There are subtle hints that Nolan intended for the viewer to recognize that the top would fall throughout the movie so the ending is unambiguous and Caine is really just putting his vote in favor of this view. People will respect it because he took part in the making and is warmly connected with Nolan. It has credibility. CT says it won’t matter over time but in 1616 when Shakespeare had Kate in Taming of the Shrew explain that women should just take a backseat to men’s dominance in no way shape or form did he mean that he or she secrelty wanted women to come into power through submission. He honestly meant for women to be submissive period. Through CT we change the meaning. That doesn’t change what was originally intended and that’s what I am looking for at least. I give you a lot of credit because you’re right on so many levels but you are wrong to say that what the author intended means nothing and certainly means less than “anyone else’s”
look at my reply below, but as an academic I can assure you that the film community has lagged behind the academic community in trends of interpretation, to the point that when film critics went to the National Communication Association’s Conference their agreed upon comment was “I have never seen film analyzed like this” this out of touch with academia situation is why CSULB’s acting dean of fine arts started to have MFA students start to take rhetoric classes so they actually knew what they were talking about. Finally just because something is popular does not mean it is right (bandwagon fallacy) especially when dealing with the subjective world of art.
At this point… I’ll wait for the DVD so I can watch the ending several times.
Umm he’s not talking about the meaning of the film or what it’s about. He’s talking about what actually happened. He’s not at all discussing the hidden meeting of the film. So technically if the artist says “This happened” it’s safe to say it happened. We can debate the meaning of a film all day, but you can’t change the actual event that occurred.
Now on the other side of the coin Nolan is really the only one for sure who can say what happened.
Though I would say it’s pretty obvious that the end was real. The facts of the film support that theory and there really isn’t any facts to support that it was all a dream. Especially considering the wobble at the end.
“They are the areas I prefer not to discuss, because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded.”
and
“How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had written at the bottom of the canvas: ‘The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover.’ This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don’t want this to happen to 2001.
-Stanley Kubrick
I agree with you Ben. So does Kubrick.
Thanks, TMK.
I’ve seen the Mona Lisa up close..real close ..it’s overrated..and I’ve never been the type of person to wonder why she is smiling or whether it is Leonardno in drag or whatever other explanations have been offered for that painting..That’s not to say that there aren’t works of art out there that have inspired me to think about what this particular thing means to me or how it speaks to me..the Venus de Milo another work of art I find overrated..
The Birth of Venus or Primavera by Botticelli speak to me and some other might be unmoved by them .. it s all subjective..
I still do research when something I consider art because I personally want to know the artisits interpretation on something because in some way I hope it matches my interpretation. The same with film that rises above typical fare and takes on a life of it’s own as Inception has done…I think it wasn’t a dream and it’s mainly because of the wobble ..like he said it would just keep spinning forever and never wobble
Maybe Kubrick should have waited till scientists actually discovered biological copies of the Mona Lisa Smile.
I just can’t wait for a sequel.
If the ending is a dream then DiCaprio’s character’s struggle was meaningless and this whole movie was a big waste of my time.
hey its truly dream..
artist shows dis movie as dream coz its not possible in real life..
do u agree??
“I think it wasn’t a dream and it’s mainly because of the wobble ..like he said it would just keep spinning forever and never wobble”
Good call!
Yes, what the artist means to say DOES matter.
And just because anyone is capable of coming up with an interpretation, it doesn’t mean every retarded interpretation is valid.
Cobb was awake in the end, Michael Caine is right. This is not even “interpretation”, it’s just the damn storyline. Wondering whether or not he was awake in the end is like wondering whether or not Alfred was Batman’s butler or a part of his imagination.
Gotta say I agree. One can interpret all they like, but the intent of the filmmaker is the intent of the filmmaker.
Of course if his goal was to be completely ambiguous and for there to be no “right” answer, then the interpretation argument holds.
Vic
to be honest i think the meaning of the ending of inception is that it doesnt matter if he is dreaming or not. perception is all that matters if you believe its real then it is real.
Stanley Kubrick wrote about 2001 – A Space Odyssey:
“You are free to speculate, as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film.”
And so we all did.
If Kubrick had instead said:
“The meaning of 2001, as I intended it to portray was …”
AND the movie supported this interpretation, critics could argue from here to doomsday about other “correct” interpretations. It would be the artist, the director, who would clearly be the one to know what he did and wanted with his work.
Read carefully and you would see, that I wrote “supported this interpretation”. Inception has proven itself so open for all kinds of interpretations and sadly speculations, where solutions are created from information NOT SHOWN IN THE MOVIE, that I really don’t care anymore. After two viewings I’ve found Inception to be a very stylish movie, very skilled crafted but nonetheless a maze with more openings, than mazeways thus making it a waste of time trying to find “THE SOLUTION”.
Pick your choice. There is nothing in the movie that suggests a more correct interpretation, than any other and even though Nolan should step forward and insist on a specific one, he wouldn’t be able to settle the dispute with irrefutable arguments.
Kubrick also admitted that he agreed with Clark that the mocie butchered the book, but it was the best he could do … that implies that Kubrick meant to convey the book .. but failed.
Bear in mind the novel was written by Clarke based on his and Kubrick’s screenplay, and actually came out after the the film had been released, Mark.
I think the more important thing to take away form Inception’s ending isn’t whether or not it was a dream, the point is the Leo’s character didn’t care if it was a dream or not, hence he walked away from the top (when he stopped paying attention to the top, the audience is prevented from seeing the top).
Caine has it wrong sorry to say. His logic that because he shows up at the end with Leo and his children the dream is over and they are now in true reality has a serious flaw in it. Just because Caine was never in any of the dreams it doesn’t mean that Leo couldn’t have dreamed him there to be in it. Leo is the architect and the sole director of his dreams so he could very easily change the color of his children’s clothes, who’s in it and where they all are. For example, Leo frequently within other people’s dreams made it so that Mal his wife who was dead appeared in the dreams that weren’t even his! So to say that because Caine wasn’t in the dreams with Leo during his last assignment doesn’t mean that the entered reality when they woke up on the plane. There’s two more possibilities. 1. Leo had fallen asleep (or is in a coma??!!) before the movie began and we never saw it. Therefore, his whole last mission, everything leading up to the moment he took the job, and even his own wife and children could have all beens constructs of Leo’s mind in a dream state. None of it could have been real in the first place. His children, his wife and her suicide, for all we know his father in real life could have been dead, and the entire world he lives in where it’s possible to enter, steal, and implant ideas from people could have all merely been his imagination hard at work. Think about that one. 2. After they all got off the plane, isn’t possible he fell asleep again when he got back home? That whole dream stealing-jumping business has to tucker a person out! Ok, so you’re asleep the whole time but your mind is hard at work and it takes energy! So what if when he got home it was night time, and decided to go to bed. But because for the sake of argument his children aren’t there (maybe because that chinese dude doesn’t uphold his end of the bargain even though he made a phone call- he could have cancelled or reversed his order later-) he decides that he doesn’t want to wake so he makes a dream world where his children are with him? I see where people would be quick to think, well, if he couldn’t see his children and his wife was dead, wouldn’t he dream both of them in his last dream? Well, that’s possible. But because of what we see in the film his wife isn’t there. Supposedly dead. Maybe this last mission made it possible for him to let go of his wife and so he would no longer want or need to dream about her. Big thoughts. just think about it. Caine’s theory is absurd. Sorry.
Sorry Bob but you are focusing on the trees and missing the forest
You forget that this is not some random fanboy postulating his subjective interpretation of the film, this is a PRINCIPAL ACTOR who has INSIDER KNOWLEDGE. He has undoubtedly had numerous direct face to face conversations with the DIRECTOR. You are glossing over that very large fact and just throwing up your own theories. It’s fine to theorize but if we are saying WHAT DID THE DIRECTORY INTEND then very heavy weighting must be given to the director and what the principal cast says the director told/indicated to them as to the film’s ending.
well, not to say Caine probably did not have a lot of work and extra scenes shot, but he was not really a “principal” actor for this film…Hes in 2 scenes…Anyways just because hes on the set, does not mean that hes automatically privy to such knowledge. You really think Nolan took aside ONLY Mr. Caine and felt like divulging to him the secret meaning to his film? Highly unlikely…
I think the only importance to Caine’s quote is the end, “I’m the guy who invented the dream”, because if you look at Caine’s first scene in Paris and the whole “you need to come back to reality”…does this mean that perhaps Caine incepted Cobb with the idea that he must return to his children ? … I think that a main point overlooked by many is the fact that the whole “dream” process was clearly perfected and created by Caine’s character, it is after all Cobb who tells him that he taught him everything. So its highly possible that all of this entire movie was a incepted idea put into motion by a father in law who lost his daughter, but wants his grand children to grow up as happy as possible with their father….
AHHHGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH my head hurts now…even tho all of this is super old news.
I think he is dreaming.
Fact: When they plan the inception, the require a 10 hour sleep to get the job done. thats why they have to do it in the 10 hour flight.
Fact: time: 10hour plainflight = 1 week at the hotel /rain city….Saito gets shot, and they have to hurry up….. Yusuf does not drive for one week.
Fact: Cobb “wakes up” 20 minuttes before the plain lands. (the studesse tells him when he wakes up, and asks him if he would like an towel)
commenting on here after 6 months..
But, I think it’s quite clear, no matter how much everyone argues, that it was reality, and not a dream.
Throughout the movie cob has said this over, and over, that he can’t see his children faces while he’s dreaming. which he does at the end of the movie. He didn’t even bother checking his totem when his children showed up because he new right then that it was reality. Plus as it has been mention, the totem did wobble, you can clearly see it wobble, so with that, it’s safe to say that it was reality, and not a dream.
The totem drops several times throughout the movie. And it wobbles at the end. But don’t forget the totem is Mol’s. It don’t place too much weight on what the totem does. I think the ending is a dream because of the children. They are basically unchanged from his “memories” of them. So is the house How is that possible?
cob cant se his children face because he is actually in their dreams. they planted the idea in his mind about doing the job for saito so they will be able to be with their father again.
As a student and now also instructor of rhetoric I will be blatant in the fact that not ALL academics would agree on relativism as you say. Modernist such as Habermaus would not and classicalist such as myself also disagree. You seem to be under the opinion that only postmodernist still exists when it comes to the arts, but that is false. You further seem to make the assumption that the film, and the opinons of the masses on the film will survives the ages, yet the opinion of the the writer, director, actors, will not. That is grand assumption undeserving of print in any medium. i do not have to make a stand on the end of Inception to be sure that you yourself … are wrong
And I say that YOU yourself are wrong. Neener, neener, neener?
The opinion of the masses has up until now always superseded the opinions of the filmmakers. Although I suppose it is fair to say that THIS one will be different, and going forward things will be different, I’m of the opinion that that’s not the case. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Certainly, an artist’s opinion of a work will last through the ages and be discussed, but it won’t (in my opinion!) be more important than what the collective world opinion on said work is. From scholars, casual viewers, and so forth.
I don’t suggest that the only academic school of thought that exists today is the one that I put forth — rather, that it’s the most commonly taught, and that it’s the one that I subscribe to. There are plenty of artists/scholars agree with me. Apparently, there are plenty that agree with you. I’m glad we can have this debate, but for you to state in unequivocal terms that I’m “wrong” for believing what I believe leads me to believe that my opinion has gotten under your skin for some reason. Hope that’s not the case.
The public’s opinion means little compared to the finality of the artist’s vision. Did Dorothy and Toto really go to the Emerald City or was it just a dream? Do we really have to debate that, too? Of course not. She woke up in reality, and the rest of the adventure was a dream. The director of the film chose to be clear about the ending, but had it been left ambiguous, the ending of the book is still the real ending of the story, even if the movie chose to end it on a murky note.
As the artist, I know the true ending of everything I write. I even sometimes write a final page or chapter and choose to leave it out of the final product because it was unnecessarily redundant and debatably clear enough without it. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of the art.
Consider the Mona Lisa. We’ll debate it forever, but only Leo DV knows who the real subject was. Himself? A lover? A model? There is an answer to this question. Just because we don’t know doesn’t mean DaVinci didn’t know who the model was.
Nolan knows whether the ending scene in Inception is reality or still a dream. He just chose to leave the ending a tiny bit ambiguous and let people debate it. There are way too many telling elements to think it could go either way, though. Watch it again if you are not sure.
Clearly Nolan intended to keep this issue blurred. The sound of the top wobbling to me is more reassuring of the “reality” of the scene, as is the congratulatory tone of Zimmer’s score at the moment that Cobb sees his children. On the other hand, we are told by both Ariadne and Arthur that the feeling of a dream is more critical to the realness of a dream state than it’s visual aspects. Caine’s presence is also defamiliarizing in the film. He is a teacher, a father, a grandfather, a Briton in France who welcomes his American son “home” in Los Angeles. So he might be on to something. There may be clues in the film that this his character is the architect of Cobb’s prison.
As the months of conjecture continued, it is clear the public believes Leo ended up in reality, and finally made it out of the dream construct. When stacked up, the evidence is quite overwhelming. So if left up to public opinion, the public by majority believes it ended in reality. So does the actor with the key to the whole story (Caine). Slam dunk. Case closed. Back to the JFK mystery, everyone.
2001:The Sentinel short story
Let’s say an artist creates a painting about his life immediately after he lost his spouse to cancer. Dark, swirling imagery and iconic figures throughout the piece. The author clearly knows what those figures are; a segment of his wife’s cane, a memory of the ocean from their honeymoon, the number of their first apartment, a wedding band, the wrought iron gate to their favorite park, etc.
Now let’s say someone else looks at the same painting. It invokes feelings of when this person flunked out of med school and became an alcoholic. The gate represents the entrance to a hospital, the ring is a reminder of a failed marriage, the segment of the cane looks like a bottle of booze, the ocean is the unfathomable abyss of letting his father down, and so on. Clearly a different interpretation, not only of each item, but of the entire piece.
A third person may take a completely different route. The art is interpreted as the memories of hunting in the wilds of Alaska – a gloriously happy experience. He just happens to like dark imagery, and Alaska is often very dark.
All three are interpretations of the same art. But only one is correct. It was most definitely about the artist after he lost his wife. Others can take what they want from it, but there is only one truth. Same goes for most songs. The songwriter often takes from her life experience and tells a story. Others can interpret it any way they want, but if the song was about the writer’s relationship with someone he met one weekend in Paris, that’s what it was about.
Art can transcend the artist’s intentions, which is where we get infinite interpretations. But there’s only one true meaning of the piece. The rest of it is just for our entertainment or self-induced therapy. Like this discussion.
Thank you!!t
Wow…I read this post thinking you were brilliant for so effectively protraying Critical Theory as correct,,,only to be shocked at the end by your illogical conclusion of the opposite.
How can someone’s interpretation of art be wrong?!
To me, once art is out there, it’s not up to the artist to define and interpret it to the rest of us. I’ll interpret and come to my own conclusions, and my perceptions, interpretations and conclusions are as good and valid as the artist, others involved and others observing/having observed the art.
I still like the: “Ah, but it really all was just a dream within dream, within a dream…” end I thought I saw the first time. Now I’m a little worried that some of you have succeeded in making me see the end as a reality based on some concrete clues in the film. I don’t have a need for a simple and clear end the way some people do. If next time I see the film, I see the end as plain reality, I’ll certainly be disappointed.
If you think something else, of course you’re not wrong and I’m not wrong either! It’s so silly and juvenile when people let it get to them on that level.
Cobbs was/is still dreaming. He’s been dreaming for the whole movie. This is the only thing that makes sense. Mal was right to kill herself to escape limbo, but Cobbs never did so he keeps inventing more and more convoluted levels of subconcious dream space. 1) Mal invented the idea of the talisman, so she would know when to escape after all this time, why did Cobbs not have a talisman of his own? 2) Cobbs father did not live with the children, he not live in America. He was in the same place where Cobbs was abroad, still teaching at University so how is he all of a sudden in America?
I just found the following interview by Christoper Nolan on a CNN websire:
Christopher Nolan talks ‘Inception’s’ ending
“Inception” audiences’ heads are still spinning over the movie’s rotating top – and that was exactly the goal of filmmaker Christopher Nolan.
[Editor's Note: There's a spoiler after the jump. If you haven't seen "Inception" and would rather not know what happens at the end, stop reading now.]
SPOILER ALERT: At the end of the mind-bending movie, the camera cuts away from Dominic Cobb’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) spinning top as he is reunited with his kids, leaving viewers to wonder whether the top continued to turn endlessly, meaning the scenario was all a dream, or falls over, signifying that it was reality. Nolan tells Entertainment Weekly he refuses to set the record straight.
“I’ve been asked the question more times than I’ve ever been asked any other question about any other film I’ve made,” he says. “What’s funny to me is that people really do expect me to answer it.”
Nolan adds that he tries to leave his movies open to interpretation. “There can’t be anything in the film that tells you one way or another because then the ambiguity at the end of the film would just be a mistake,” he says. “It would represent a failure of the film to communicate something. But it’s not a mistake. I put that cut there at the end, imposing an ambiguity from outside the film. That always felt the right ending to me.”
The real point of the scene, he explains, is that Cobb is looking at his kids and not the top. “He’s left it behind,” says Nolan. “That’s the emotional significance of the thing.”
Nolan won’t confirm whether there’ll be an “Inception” sequel, but he does reveal that a video game is in the works. In the meantime, he’s also keeping busy with the third Batman film, “The Dark Knight Rises,” which he calls “the last chapter of our Batman saga.”
He clearly states that he tries to leave the ending of his movies to interpretation.
Share
Comments (133 comments)
Permalink
Christopher Nolan talks ‘Inception’s’ ending
“Inception” audiences’ heads are still spinning over the movie’s rotating top – and that was exactly the goal of filmmaker Christopher Nolan.
[Editor's Note: There's a spoiler after the jump. If you haven't seen "Inception" and would rather not know what happens at the end, stop reading now.]
SPOILER ALERT: At the end of the mind-bending movie, the camera cuts away from Dominic Cobb’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) spinning top as he is reunited with his kids, leaving viewers to wonder whether the top continued to turn endlessly, meaning the scenario was all a dream, or falls over, signifying that it was reality. Nolan tells Entertainment Weekly he refuses to set the record straight.
“I’ve been asked the question more times than I’ve ever been asked any other question about any other film I’ve made,” he says. “What’s funny to me is that people really do expect me to answer it.”
Nolan adds that he tries to leave his movies open to interpretation. “There can’t be anything in the film that tells you one way or another because then the ambiguity at the end of the film would just be a mistake,” he says. “It would represent a failure of the film to communicate something. But it’s not a mistake. I put that cut there at the end, imposing an ambiguity from outside the film. That always felt the right ending to me.”
The real point of the scene, he explains, is that Cobb is looking at his kids and not the top. “He’s left it behind,” says Nolan. “That’s the emotional significance of the thing.”
Nolan won’t confirm whether there’ll be an “Inception” sequel, but he does reveal that a video game is in the works. In the meantime, he’s also keeping busy with the third Batman film, “The Dark Knight Rises,” which he calls “the last chapter of our Batman saga.”
Share
Comments (133 comments)
Permalink
Christopher Nolan talks ‘Inception’s’ ending
“Inception” audiences’ heads are still spinning over the movie’s rotating top – and that was exactly the goal of filmmaker Christopher Nolan.
[Editor's Note: There's a spoiler after the jump. If you haven't seen "Inception" and would rather not know what happens at the end, stop reading now.]
SPOILER ALERT: At the end of the mind-bending movie, the camera cuts away from Dominic Cobb’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) spinning top as he is reunited with his kids, leaving viewers to wonder whether the top continued to turn endlessly, meaning the scenario was all a dream, or falls over, signifying that it was reality. Nolan tells Entertainment Weekly he refuses to set the record straight.
“I’ve been asked the question more times than I’ve ever been asked any other question about any other film I’ve made,” he says. “What’s funny to me is that people really do expect me to answer it.”
Nolan adds that he tries to leave his movies open to interpretation. “There can’t be anything in the film that tells you one way or another because then the ambiguity at the end of the film would just be a mistake,” he says. “It would represent a failure of the film to communicate something. But it’s not a mistake. I put that cut there at the end, imposing an ambiguity from outside the film. That always felt the right ending to me.”
The real point of the scene, he explains, is that Cobb is looking at his kids and not the top. “He’s left it behind,” says Nolan. “That’s the emotional significance of the thing.”
Nolan won’t confirm whether there’ll be an “Inception” sequel, but he does reveal that a video game is in the works. In the meantime, he’s also keeping busy with the third Batman film, “The Dark Knight Rises,” which he calls “the last chapter of our Batman saga.”
Unless a sequel is planned I think for a director to intentionally leave the ending of a film very ambiguous is an easy way out. A great director can have a definitive ending which conveys the appropriate ideas/emotion/ethos. Not buying his, “Haha I won’t tell you I’m so witty.” self-important remark. He took the easy way out and as a result it lowers my rating of this film from 8 to 7.
I think he’s awake at the end.
The top staggers as it does before the fall.
He remembers how he got to the house – his dad drove him. (He didn’t “poof” in.)
In all of his dreams, his kids look the same, but different actors play the (now older) kids in the final scene. I assume his kids looked the same before because he hasn’t seen them since he left his house.
That was enough for me. Feel free to comment and ask questions – I’ll do my best!