Scots Taffer on 16/9/2010 at 14:23
Definitely, Queue, I'd argue there's considerable material to be found in arguing the psychological stereotypes housed in those environments! My immediate thought about the hotel was that it's a place where people seek escapism and rejecting their day to day in favour of some stylised form of living.
Vivian on 16/9/2010 at 14:27
I'm worried you're putting words in the directors mouth, but that is definitely a more interesting way to think about it than 'oh a hotel'. Hmm.
driver on 16/9/2010 at 14:29
Quote Posted by Vivian
The only real issue I had with it is that everyones dreams consist of extremely sterile financial district buildings, hotels or the second level of MW2. Where the fuck was all the weird stuff?
The dream mazes were constructed so that the team could traverse them and try to avoid the subconscious manifestations of their target and complete their missions. If they were as surreal and trippy as 'normal' dreams then the extractors/inceptors would be constantly distracted by giant floating boobs.
Queue on 16/9/2010 at 14:29
Exactly. A hotel makes a perfect statement about our how we live and interact. Where else could you literally be surrounded by humanity, yet are so "locked away" from everyone in your own little environment -- all while maintaining this idea of living the good and pampered life, yet the damn thing's probably full of bed bugs -- than a hotel?
Vivian on 16/9/2010 at 14:34
Quote Posted by driver
The dream mazes were constructed so that the team could traverse them and try to avoid the subconscious manifestations of their target and complete their missions. If they were as surreal and trippy as 'normal' dreams then the extractors/inceptors would be constantly distracted by giant floating boobs.
Yeah, fair point. They could still have let rip with limbo, however. The swirling chaos of the subconcious was just a beach.
Scots Taffer on 16/9/2010 at 14:39
Ultimately I'd love to hear how much of the creative process is conveyed by Nolan in a commentary, but we still might not get all of what I'd like to hear - regardless, I think it's a movie meritorious of discussion despite what people may choose to find fault in.
Queue on 16/9/2010 at 14:40
Quote Posted by Vivian
I'm worried you're putting words in the directors mouth....
There is always that problem.
It's like with writing. A writer (one who really pays close attention to his craft) wants a reader to read just the words on the page and find the meaning behind what he has written. And to do so, the reader must figure out the meaning behind the symbolism and metaphors that the writer uses, without adding their own take. There should never be this notion of "reading-between-the-lines" and adding you're own interpretation.
Chade on 16/9/2010 at 22:08
I feel a little wierd arguing with people who watch about ten times as many movies as I do, but I just can't see how stranger dreamscapes would have helped the movie.
Surely the whole point is that we can look at them, and identify with the various stages of the inception. First contact with Fischer's mind, then becoming more intimate as they go down into the hotel, then the barren snowscape surrounding his relationship with the father.
I quite liked that the wierd parts of the dreams were all caused by stimuli from the layers above. I thought it made for some dramatic moments, as pretty much every time some strange event occurred, you were not just viewing events in that specific layer, but simultaneously imaging the related events occurring in another layer.
That being said, when I hear you all talk about strange dreamscapes, I start imagining some sort of comic book action ... I probably don't have enough experience watching bizarre behaviour drive a plot forward.
all on 12/10/2010 at 12:53
Quote Posted by Queue
It's like with writing. A writer (one who really pays close attention to his craft) wants a reader to read just the words on the page and find the meaning behind what he has written. [...] There should never be this notion of "reading-between-the-lines" and adding you're own interpretation.
Gasp!
Why not? Isn't that the whole fun of it? (Unless you exclusively read straightforward first-degree literature, ex: 'Joe was attacked by mages who threw fireballs from their fingertips, that's it that's all.')
At best, an author assumes what a reader may potentially understand in his writing... Furthermore, many authors are well aware about the 'communication gap' between themselves and their implied readers, and choose to play with this variable by purposely blurring things up in order for the reader to interpret something of himself (I can give you tons of sources if you want, but this would be getting off topic). So conceiving a writer as someone who forces his readers to see things his way is, if not false, at least an oversimplification...
How dare you state what should or should not be in reading! And who are you to tell us what a writer supposedly wants the reader to think! ;)
edit: hehe, ok sorry about that, carry on, please...
