Inception, Take Three… Spoilers Abound!

Most of you are probably sick of Inception articles but I just have to weigh in here.  First off, I apologize for my absence.  Long week.  That being said, on to the good stuff…

If you follow me on twitter or Facebook, you may have noticed I recently watched Inception for the third time.  That’s right, I said it, the triumvirate, the trifecta (that is a real word though my Word program refuses to acknowledge it), the trinity, three times.  Now, I may have been slightly more confused the third time, however I’m going to throw my proposition out there.

I realize there are some great articles about the lack of confusion in the movie, as well as Nolan using it as a movie about making movies, all of which carry great worth.  I suffer from a condition though.  I can’t watch something with that much potential for twists and surprises and accept it at face value or as nothing more than a movie about movies. The reasons for this are two fold. To accept it at face value is to cheapen the depth of the writing, and to make it all about something outside the movie content itself is to demean the depth of the writing yet again.

So I propose that, like good writing, Inception’s meanings exist on multiple levels simultaneously, much like Fisher and his dreams.  First, you have the face value movie.  Inception is a story about a guy chased by a secret corporation who specializes in Inception/Extraction and puts a merry band together for a caper.  It’s a solid sci-fi mind bending heist movie not that far off from Ocean’s Eleven in genre.  The beauty is that level one is enough to satisfy most people.  It leaves you with a cliffhanger of an ending, something not done enough in film, but still a sense of fulfillment and warm fuzzies.  It has lots of action and heartbreak.  It’s a solid blockbuster movie at face value.

Level two is where we all have our opinions of what it’s really about.  This is the movie within the movie.  This is where the intrigue enters and everything is not as it seems.  I’ll get back to this level in a moment and propose my theory.

Then finally there is Level Three, the Meta-Movie.  This is the theme that exists outside of what happens within the story content and is a reflection of the “real world” meaning.  This level is where I believe the concept of Nolan using Inception to mimic the movie industry/ filmmaking and watching process is a perfect fit.  Google the theory if you haven’t heard of it yet, as I believe it is dead on and a solid theory.  However, there has to be a deeper layer within the movie or else I feel like claiming just level one or three as the end all is a cop out and I’d be greatly disappointed in Nolan.  He is, after all, the director who gave us Memento, The Prestige, Insomnia, Batman Begins, and the Dark Knight.  This guy is six for six, and known for a little tension in his writing.

So back to level two, the level within the level.  I propose that the entire movie is a dream manufactured by the children’s grandfather so Cobb can find catharsis and move on because he was the one lost and unable to move on.  My reasoning is as follows:

The first tip off I got was in round one, the Grandfather.  He was wearing the exact same clothes in both scenes he was seen in.  At the end, after Cobb moves on from the spinning top on the table to meet the children, the Grandfather is seen walking back into the house before the screen goes dark with a very self satisfied and strange smile on his face, as though he accomplished something.  He also taught Cobb all he knew and used to be an architect.  The faces of the children could easily have been constructed from the Grandfather’s memories of the little ones.

Second, numerous characters are seen talking to Cobb and telling him to “come home” and “come back to reality” in the same words throughout the movie.  This includes Arthur, the Grandfather, Mal, and Ariadne. Additionally, Saito, Mal, and others all said the exact same lines at different times and levels of dream and supposed reality.

Thirdly, the issue of Cobb’s totem not really being his totem is negated by this theory as, if everything is a dream, then his use of the totem is irrelevant and it then symbolizes his inability to release Mal.

Fourth, the shifting of scenes and perception.  Of course, the scene where Mal is on the ledge opposite from him is suspect as dream, but there are numerous scene changes that we take for granted.  Time simply passed, but based on the rules we are taught at the beginning of the movie, you never know how you get somewhere.  This is important, as there is no indication of a kick when Saito and Cobb awaken from limbo to the plane scene at the end.  Likewise the transition to the baggage claim is very dreamlike as is the sudden appearance of the grandfather and their arrival at the house.

Another thing to consider is that Cobb’s entire team are projections of his subconscious emotion.  Yusif is his technical/scientific knowledge, Arthur is his logic and reason, Fisher is his need for restoration/resolution, Ariadne is his voice of truth, Eames is his creative side, Saito is his hope for escape, and Mal is his guilt or a projection of her used to try and get him to leave the dream by dying, but after he refuses, the grandfather uses this elaborate sequence to help him feel as though he escaped, as though he “did something” to get home.  Also, in the end credits two groups of children were credited as playing James and Philipa. Two that fit the ages of the children seen on screen and two that would have fit the age of the children’s voices on the phone.

There are a number of other observations I have on the film but it warrants a fourth viewing with a notepad and on blu-ray so I can pause and rewind.  Dialogue is important in this film as it gives you a number of key bits of information. All things being equal, it’s an amazing work of cinematic art and storytelling.

Thoughts and comments are welcome…