Everyone keeps talking about the ambiguous ending of Inception. Funny, because I felt like the ending was the only non-ambiguous part of the film. Are people making it ambiguous out of a hope for a happy ending? Or am I just missing something?
For Michele and me, the really ambiguous part was the beginning. There are amply clues in the first 10 minutes that the entire thing is taking place within Cobb’s subconscious, but not enough to argue the point conclusively. It seems important, though, that the establishing shots for the cityscapes are all shown from such an aerial angel that they appear labyrinthine – impossible to maneuver. This is a fundamental “rule” the film establishes for creating a dream framework. The only city that isn’t a skein of buildings and roads that don’t go anywhere is the one Cobb and his wife build deep, deep, deep in their dream-world. The other rule that’s established is that dying in a dream won’t wake you up if you’re too deep into the subconscious, and yet we’re to believe that Cobb and Ken Watanabe’s character get out of the deepest levels by committing suicide.
Add to this the surreal scene in which Cobb is chased through Mumbai by an endless parade of anonymous “agents” through streets that don’t go anywhere, talking to people who don’t hear him, going into alleys that shrink until he’s being squeezed between buildings – that scene has more elements I would say are familiar to dreams than any other.
Also, when being lured to take the inception job, Ken Watanabe’s character says the exact words Cobb’s wife says before jumping to her death. Then there’s the music, of course…
Interesting film. I’m starting to think Nolan might be a new Hitchcock – populist, exciting, but with a surprisingly literary undercurrent that people are either clutching, or denigrating because of the popcorn veneer.
Joel Clements 