MovieChat Forums > Inception (2010) Discussion > there is only one ending: he was dreamin...

there is only one ending: he was dreaming


the totem is spinning. that's the only proof you need. first because it doesn't stop spinning. people say it almost stops before it cuts to black. but what's important in a movie is what's shown. the totem is never shown stopping, so it doesn't stop. that means that people who thinks cobb is not dreaming at the end are basing their theory on something they DON'T see.
and most important of all, if it wasn't a dream, the movie simply wouldn't end showing the totem spinning. that's the whole point of showing the totem spinning: to know it's a dream. if the movie ends with the top spinning, you don't need any other proof. why the hell would the director cut to the totem spinning (and end the freaking movie with this image) if it wasn't an important part of the story? you really think nolan ended the movie with this image just to fool or confuse some people? that's not how movies work. what's in the screen is only what's important for the plot. confusing viewers is not important for the plot, and nolan is good enough to know that. end of story.

reply

The top spinning at the end is a misdirection. Nolan has stated that the key to the scene is not that the top does or does not stop spinning. The key is that Cobb is not watching it. He doesn't care anymore.

The top represents Cobb's obsession with the guilt over his wife's death. At the end of the film, he is with his children, no longer obsessed with Mal's death. However, by focusing the camera on the top, we are watching it. He engaged an "Inception" on the audience -- we are fixated on the top even though Cobb is not.

👿 I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!

reply

[deleted]

The ending is intentionally ambiguous for jerking off like this. Because of that, the ending in and of itself cannot be used to specify one way or another.

reply

It actually doesn't matter if the top falls over or not. The top is a flawed totem. The REAL clue is in what the children say, which Nolan cleverly distracted you from by putting your focus on the top. Listen to the kids next time. They say to Cobb, "we're building s house on a cliff". Hmm sound familiar?

reply

FWIW -- Christopher Nolan only gave one interview in preparation for the movie's release (although a number of magazines cited that interview.) In in, he was asked about the house on the cliff, and he downplayed it:

Nolan: That’s a tricky one. Anyone who’s worked with child actors, even ones as great as the ones in this movie, knows that you basically have to ask a kid to improvise and they’re going to say whatever they want to say. We certainly tried to choose the most apt takes. But yes, the film is about architects, builders, people who would have the mental capacity to construct large-scale worlds—the world of the dream. Everything is about how they would -create, whether it’s blocks or sand castles or a dream. These are all acts of -creation. There’s a relationship between the sand castle the kids are building on the beach in the beginning of the film and the buildings literally being eaten away by the subconscious and falling into the sea.

https://www.wired.com/2010/11/pl_inception_nolan/

He has also spoken about the top in a speech to the graduation class at Princeton. Basically, (without answering the question) he says that whether the top falls or not is not the key to the ending. The key is that (for the first time in the film) Cobb is not watching the top until it falls. He's watching his kids.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christopher-nolan-princeton-graduation-speech-799121


👿 I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!

reply

I watched a super interested lecture by the author of "Inception and Philosophy". You've probably seen it based on your interest but just in case you haven't:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ginQNMiRu2w

He makes some really awesome, interesting points. One being that Saito's dream in the beginning as well as his constructs in Limbo include houses on cliffs. So the children saying the thing about the house on a cliff could hint that the end of the movie is in Saito's dream. As in, the killed themselves to leave limbo and went up to level 3, not all the way awake. Saito was the one to pick up the gun so we can assume he was the first to kill himself, so he would move up to an abandoned level 3 and fill it with his expectations, i.e. The airplane and the normal world. The house on a cliff comment could be a little hint at Saito's subconscious coming out. Just a theory though!

reply

One way to know that he is in reality as opposed to dreaming.
In all his dreams, when the children break thru his subconscious, they are young as they were when he left. Philippa is wearing a pink dress and black shoes.
they look the same also in the house when he is talking to Mal when he and Ariadne are there looking for Fisher. Cobb can't picture them any other way because he has NOT seen them since he left.
The day he left Philippa was wearing black shoes and a frilly dress and had blonde hair.

When he came home at the end, Phillipa is taller and has brown hair and is wearing pink sneakers and a different dress with a white t shirt. the little boy is dressed similar to when he was younger but different clothes.

now if Cobb was in a dream state he would see them the only way he knows how, as they were then. because his subconscious drives the dream.

But since they are actually older and look different we must assume he has actually gone home. and yes the top was losing its spin and starting to fall as the camera pulls away.

A second way to know he is finally home is his ring finger. when he was dreaming/working, he had his ring on!! when he sees Saito the last time before awakening on the plane he has on his ring and it is very distinctive.
But when he wakes on plane the ring is gone and it is also gone when he goes thru customs.
The director left may tell tale clues for us and the ring is one of them.
Dreaming...ring on.
Awake....ring gone.

reply

I watched that video several years ago. I don't know how much I agree with him. He is right that Nolan has several points that make the question ambiguous. He clearly tries to confuse reality with dreams several times in the movie. I believe the movie is better understood as a work of literature rather than a logic problem. There are a number of repeating images in the movie including, the safe, trains, the elevators, and mirrors. Nolan tells you in the very first scene (when Cobb ties a rope around Mal's chair leg or when Cobb is pushed into a bathtub) that the symbolism is important.

For instance, Mal is what is called a "mirror character" to Cobb. When you look in a mirror, your image is not exactly the same as you. (If you are left-handed, then your mirror image is right-handed.) Cobb sees the image of Mal in the mirror in Yusuf's basement.

Mirror characters are usually used to show that one character makes different choices than the other when faced with the exact same situation. Mal became obsessed with her Inception ("To wake up, we have to die.") In turn, Cobb becomes obsessed with his Inception (the guilt over his wife's death.) Unlike Mal -- through his catharsis, Cobb is able to overcome his guilt. This is foreshadowed by Ariadne in the infinite mirror sequence. She shatters one mirror which foreshadows Cobb's catharsis.

This is the reason for Mal being on the ledge directly across from him. It fits the literal motif of the mirror image rather than obvious logic.

The kid's line about "I built a house on a cliff" may be significant, but Nolan downplayed that line in his one and only interview. It makes sense that it could be a clue as to whether Cobb is dreaming, but I prefer to focus on Cobb not staring at the top. It indicates that he is cured of his emotional obsession with his wife's death (the resilient parasite.)

The item that bothered me the most was his answer about Carl Jung. They movie is based on Carl Jung's architecture of the mind. If he does not understand that connection, then he missed a significant analog to the film.



👿 I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!

reply

Plenty of context to movies doesn't happen on screen. The ending is ambiguous.

reply