Filmnology

Golden Globes, 2011

2012-01-15T00:00:00.000+08:00

GOLDEN GLOBES, 2011

Legend: ** - predicted winner, * - dark horse.

Prediction Accuracy: 71% (10/14)
Prediction Accuracy (if including dark horses): 86% (12/14)

BEST MOTION PICTURE (DRAMA)
The Descendants WINNER!
The Help *
Hugo **
The Ides of March
Moneyball
War Horse

BEST MOTION PICTURE (MUSICAL/COMEDY)
The Artist ** WINNER!
Bridesmaids
50/50
Midnight in Paris *
My Week with Marilyn

BEST DIRECTOR
Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris) *
George Clooney (The Ides of March)
Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist)
Alexander Payne (The Descendants)
Martin Scorsese (Hugo) ** WINNER!

BEST LEADING ACTOR (DRAMA)
George Clooney (The Descendants) ** WINNER!
Leonardo DiCaprio (J. Edgar)
Michael Fassbender (Shame) *
Ryan Gosling (The Ides of March)
Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

BEST LEADING ACTRESS (DRAMA)
Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs)
Viola Davis (The Help) **
Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)
Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady) WINNER!
Tilda Swinton (We Need to Talk About Kevin) *

BEST LEADING ACTOR (MUSICAL/COMEDY)
Jean Dujardin (The Artist) ** WINNER!
Brendan Gleeson (The Guard)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (50/50) *
Ryan Gosling (Crazy, Stupid, Love)
Owen Wilson (Midnight in Paris)

BEST LEADING ACTRESS (MUSICAL/COMEDY)
Jodie Foster (Carnage)
Charlize Theron (Young Adult)
Kristen Wiig (Bridesmaids) *
Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn) ** WINNER!
Kate Winslet (Carnage)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh (My Week with Marilyn)
Albert Brooks (Drive)
Jonah Hill (Moneyball) *
Viggo Mortensen (A Dangerous Method)
Christopher Plummer (Beginners) ** WINNER!

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Berenice Bejo (The Artist)
Jessica Chastain (The Help)
Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs)
Octavia Spencer (The Help) ** WINNER!
Shailene Woodley (The Descendants) *

BEST SCREENPLAY
The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius)
The Descendants (Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, & Jim Rash) *
The Ides of March (George Clooney, Grant Heslov, & Beau Willimon)
Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen) ** WINNER!
Moneyball (Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, & Stan Chervin)

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"Lay Your Head Down" (Albert Nobbs)
"Hello Hello" (Gnomeo & Juliet)
"The Living Proof" (The Help) **
"The Keeper" (Machine Gun Preacher)
"Masterpiece" (W.E.) * WINNER!

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
The Artist (Ludovic Bource) ** WINNER!
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross)
Hugo (Howard Shore)
War Horse (John Williams) *
W.E. (Abel Korzeniowski)

BEST ANIMATED FILM
The Adventures of Tintin * WINNER!
Arthur Christmas
Cars 2
Puss in Boots
Rango **

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
The Flowers of War (Zhang Yimou, China) *
In the Land of Blood and Honey (Angelina Jolie, USA)
The Kid with a Bike (Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne, Belgium)
A Separation (Asghar Farhadi, Iran) ** WINNER!
The Skin I Live In (Pedro Almodovar, Spain)

AVATAR as Popular Cinema

2011-12-04T21:37:00.004+08:00

Article: AVATAR AS POPULAR CINEMA

Author: Eternality Tan

Published: 04-Dec-2011

Blockbustering Avatar

It has been two years since the successful release of writer-director James Cameron’s 3-D film, Avatar (2009), yet its global impact on popular media and culture remains strong as ever. Exuding almost every quality associated with the word “blockbuster”, Avatar was a massive undertaking, even by Hollywood standards, both financially and technologically.

Cucco (2009) has described the blockbuster in terms of its size, referring to its major economic investment and the large amount of takings at the box-office. Earning nearly US$2.8 billion worldwide from an estimated production budget of US$250 million (this is discounting the US$150 million spent on marketing and advertising as reported by Stanley (2010) in MediaWeek), Avatar is the highest-earning Hollywood feature of all-time, surpassing even Cameron’s own Titanic (1997).

(Estimated box-office figures and budget taken from Box Office Mojo and the Internet Movie Database respectively.)

In retrospect, it appears that “blockbustering” Avatar was no mean feat, considering it was neither part of a popular franchise that already had a mass following like the Transformers trilogy or the Harry Potter films (i.e. it did not have a pre-sold identity), nor did it have a marketable A-list star such as Christian Bale or Brad Pitt whose political economy could have been tapped to drive audiences in waves to the multiplexes.

Instead, Cameron has opted for Sam Worthington, a largely unknown English-born Australian actor, whose stock has risen after his lead appearance in Avatar and in subsequent Hollywood blockbusters such as Terminator Salvation (2009) and Clash of the Titans (2010). In fact, the closest Cameron had come to have a star in his film was the ageing Sigourney Weaver, a female action star known for her gutsy portrayal of heroine Ellen Ripley in the Alien quadrology in the 1980s and 1990s. However, she has been relegated to a mere supporting role here.

This raises an interesting point: Stars rise and fade away. What then drives directors or producers of popular action films to decide between an unknown actor and an ex-action star to lead their films? After all and despite her waning popularity, Weaver is more well-known than Worthington and a stronger reason to lead Avatar. However, I find Cameron’s film to be a special case, because in all honesty, it does not need a star to put a recognizable face to the film. The true star here is the man with the vision himself: James Cameron.

Spectacularity as Attraction in Avatar

Avatar promises spectacularity, the other distinctive feature of blockbusters mentioned by Cucco (2009). While the film’s spectacularity is a direct result of its heavy investment in state-of-the-art 3-D and performance capture technology, it is Cameron’s reputation as a popular director of spectacular films that promises the experience of spectacularity in the first place.

As the writer-director of Hollywood hits such as Aliens (1986), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) , True Lies (1994), and of course Titanic, Cameron has amassed a huge global following because of his commitment to delivering well-told narratives that are punctuated with unforgettable action set-pieces or moments of special effects wizardry. Recall how the mighty ship spectacularly broke into half as it sank in Titanic, or the iconic sight of Arnold Schwarzenegger with a machine gun slung over his wide shoulders spraying bullets at the police in Terminator 2. Even in a less popular film like The Abyss (1989), the attraction comes from the fact that Cameron shot almost the entire film in difficult underwater conditions.

Cameron’s films then become an attraction in itself. In the words of Gunning (1986), the ability to show something makes a film exhibitionistic, and consequently, a cinema of attraction. In Avatar, the attraction comes from its stunning rendition of photorealistic imagery, enhanced by 3-D effects as the camera explores the sights and sounds of the Pandora jungle and its tall, blue-skinned inhabitants called the Na’vis. Despite the curious peculiarities of Pandora’s environment, clearly this is no carnival ride, “in what might be called the Spielberg-Lucas-Coppola cinema of effects” (Gunning, 1986, p. 70). Rather, it is something more.

Bukatman (2002) argues that special effects sequences presenting a massive environment are designed to integrate the virtual space of the spectacle with the physical space of the cinema theater. In other words, the sheer scope and magnitude of these spectacular vistas are designed to create an immersive experience for cinema spectators. Avatar’s lush cinematography in 3-D provides audiences with an “I am in Pandora” feeling, and this is exemplified especially in the magical scene of floating, translucent jellyfish-like organisms.

James Cameron as Graffiti Artist

While it is easy to see Cameron as a technically-adept filmmaker who always tries to push the boundaries in terms of delivering spectacle and attraction to audiences with each film, one must also look at how effortlessly he brings in elements of popular culture as propagated by popular films and integrates them in most of his narratives. I argue this point more so for Avatar than any of his previous works.

In his article on Return of the Jedi (1983), Sammons (1987) mentions that “(George) Lucas fabricates his movies out of graffiti, out of bits and pieces of this and that, found in various places and given unity by his own artistic vision.” (p.365). In Avatar, Cameron is no different from Lucas in this respect. In fact, Wedderburn (2011) asserts that Avatar is a piece of pop-culture and the story is littered with familiarities. Hence, my stance on Cameron as a graffiti artist.

Influences on Avatar include popular American films such as Dances With Wolves (1990), The Last Samurai (2003), and even Japanese animated features like Castle in the Sky (1986) and Princess Mononoke (1997). Reducing Avatar into its simplest form, we can see that it is a story of war and peace, freedom versus colonization, modernity versus tribalism. Some scholars have read the film in terms of its racist overtones (i.e. white superiority), such as Wedderburn, while others like Olivier (2011) have underlined its ecological crisis subtext. Whatever the case, Avatar is a coherent mash-up of ideas and ideals that influence and affect humanity at a global scale, presented in a way that promises spectacularity and attraction.

Notice I use the phrase “coherent mash-up” because there is no point in the film I felt it to be incoherent despite its graffiti-like nature. There is no sense of counter-unity or counter-narrative – key attributes that result in cinematic excess as described by Thompson (1977). Whatever instance of suspected excess, be it the use of 3-D effects, or intensified continuity editing techniques such as the slow-motion as mentioned by Bordwell (2002), not only becomes integral to the narrative context of the film, but also in meeting audiences’ expectations of experiencing spectacle and attraction in a Cameron film.

Avatar as Commodity and Popular Cinema

In conclusion, I would like to point to Wasko’s (1981) article on the political economy of the American film industry. She mentioned that “film in a capitalist economy is a commodity – a rather special commodity because it is also an art form, a communications medium, and an ideological tool.” (p. 135). This, I argue for Avatar: the film is indeed an art form when viewed from a technological lens, a digital painting of sorts that has been rewarded with three Oscars for best art direction, cinematography, and visual effects. As a communications medium, Avatar delivers Cameron’s message of promised spectacularity to his audiences who since Titanic have waited for more than a decade for a new spectacular film from him. Finally, as an ideological tool, Avatar explores themes of racism, ecological crisis, and even taking an anti-militarist stance in light of America’s controversial involvement in the Iraq war.

Last, I wish to cite Hampp (2010), who has reported a statement from an unnamed marketing chief of a rival studio to 20^th Century Fox (which produced and distributed Avatar): “As jealous as any of us are, and everyone in the movie industry should admit that, (Avatar is) a fantastic thing for this business. The fact that such a broad audience has connected with it is exciting for the industry, the possibilities of stories we’ll all be able to tell have opened up, but also the pure excitement of moviegoing has all been reinforced.” If Avatar is not popular cinema, then what else is?

References:

Bordwell, D. (2002). Intensified continuity: Visual style in contemporary american film. Film Quarterly, 55(3), 16-28.

Bukatman, S. (2002). The artificial infinite: On special effects and the sublime. In A. Kuhn (Ed.), Alien Zone II: The spaces of science fiction cinema (pp. 249-275). London and New York: Verso.

Cameron, J. & Landau, J. (Producers). Cameron, J. (Director). (2009, December 18). Avatar

[Motion picture]. United States: 20^th Century Fox.

Cucco, M. (2009). The promise is great: The blockbuster and the hollywood economy. Media, Culture & Society, 31(2), 215-230.

Gunning, T. (1986). The cinema of attraction: Early film, its spectator, and the avant-garde. Wide Angle, 8(3-4), 63-70.

Hampp, A. (2010). Avatar soars on fat ad spending, mass marketing. Advertising Age, 81(1), 1-20.

Olivier, B. (2011). Film as communicational mediation of the ecological crisis: Avatar and the road. Communicare: Journal for Communication Sciences in Southern Africa, 30(1), 66-85.

Sammons, T. H. (1987). Return of the jedi: Epic graffiti. Science Fiction Studies, 14(3), 355-371.

Stanley, T. L. (2010, July 6). Avatar era raises stakes for movie marketing. MediaWeek, 20(23), 13-16.

Thompson, K. (1977). The concept of cinematic excess. Cine-Tracts, 1(2), 54-63.

Wasko, J. (1981). The political economy of the american film industry. Media, Culture & Society, 3, 135-153.

Wedderburn, P. (2011). Avatar-racism reinforced: They know what they are doing, yet they are still doing it. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://files3.peopleperhour.com/uploads/portfolioItems/Portfolio-219926-Racism_Reinforced.pdf

My Definitive Cut, 2011 (Half-Time List)

2011-08-30T00:31:00.004+08:00

As we reach the halfway mark of the cinematic year of 2011, I shall present a list of films that have captured my attention for the right reasons in the last eight months. These films, released theatrically from 01-Jan-2011 to 31-Aug-2011, are recommended for viewing if you haven't seen them yet, and some of them might even make it to my annual list of Top Ten Films.

My TOP TEN Films of 2011 (Half-Time List)

1. THE ILLUSIONIST

2. POETRY

3. MICMACS

4. SOURCE CODE

5. BIUTIFUL

6. THOR

7. MARY AND MAX

8. INCENDIES

9. WIN WIN

10. RANGO

Honorable Mention

11. NORWEGIAN WOOD

12. RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

My TOP FIVE Directors of 2011 (Half-Time List)

1. SYLVAIN CHOMET (The Illusionist)

2. LEE CHAN-DONG (Poetry)

3. JEAN-PIERRE JEUNET (Micmacs)

4. DUNCAN JONES (Moon)

5. ADAM ELLIOT (Mary and Max)

Honorable Mention

6. TAKASHI MIIKE (13 Assassins)

Motivational Theories in Cinema: Character Motivation of Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver (1976)

2011-08-09T18:07:00.003+08:00

CASE ANALYSIS

Overview:

There are three key motivational issues that can be identified in Taxi Driver as experienced by the film’s protagonist, Travis Bickle. (Please refer to the Appendix for a summary of the film’s main plot and the characters involved.)

1) Travis’ motivation to date Betsy – which can be explained by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Drive Theory, and Social Comparison Theory.

2) Travis’ motivation to assassinate Senator Palantine – which can be explained by Attribution Theory.

3) Travis’ motivation to save Iris – which can be explained by the Self-Determination Theory.

I will also look into Travis’ motivation to assassinate Senator Palantine versus his motivation to save Iris, because in the film Travis decides to first pursue the former instead of the latter. This can be explained by the Cognitive Evaluation Theory.

Introduction

Travis Bickle is perhaps one of the most complex characters in all of cinema. While he is not exactly likable, there does not seem to be a strong reason to hate him either. Although his capacity for violence is startling, Travis’ actions still contain a fair measure of justification, at least in the context of his feelings and attitudes, which are primarily shaped by the environment he lives in.

I feel it would be very interesting and apt to analyze Travis’ character as it could reveal aspects of character motivation that would not only give us a greater insight into the motivational issues observed in the film, but also help us to understand how motivational theories could link with, explain, and drive the film’s storyline. I will structure this case analysis according to the film’s major turning points as these are where Travis’ motivations are the clearest.

First Turning Point – Travis Meets Betsy

Back from the Vietnam War, Travis is at the crossroads of his life. He is not educated enough to land a steady job and has chronic insomnia, so he decides to work the night shift as a cab driver, earning enough money to satisfy his needs for the time being. He also has no clear purpose in life. He observes from the safety of his cab the rampant prostitution and drug-dealing that occur beneath the petty street crimes that plague the city. From Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943), Travis has only fulfilled the first two levels – physiological and safety. He has yet to find a sense of belonging, has considerably low self-esteem, and is obviously far away from self-actualization.

The first turning point comes when Travis becomes attracted to Betsy, a woman who works behind a glass window as a volunteer for a political campaign. Because Travis is lonely, he desires companionship i.e. a sense of belonging. And despite being a lowly cab driver and feeling insecure, he is motivated to ask Betsy out for a date. The Drive Theory (1943) by Hull can explain Travis’ motivation in this instance. This theory states that everyone has needs and that internal stimuli pushes these people into action, driving them to reduce the stimuli by looking for ways to satisfy their needs. What motivates him is his inner drive to seek a sense of belonging with someone with the hope that the other party would fulfill his needs, which in this case, is more emotional than sexual in nature.

In addition, Travis’ motivation to approach Betsy despite differences in their social and economic background could also be attributed to the presence of Betsy’s colleague, Tom, whom is seen by Travis as lacking in special qualities and getting nowhere with his constant flirting with Betsy. Thus, Social Comparison Theory (1954) by Festinger, which posits that people learn about their own abilities and attitudes by comparing themselves with other people, can explain Travis’ motivation to date Betsy as Tom is seen to be more inferior than him i.e. downward social comparison, which means Travis perceives himself to be a more competent person than Tom, and that motivates him to ask Betsy out.

Second Turning Point – Travis’ Plan to Assassinate Senator Palantine

Unfortunately for the socially-inept Travis, his emotional needs are misread by Betsy as perverse sexual lust when he takes her to a porno theater on their first date. Betsy rejects him, and despite reconciliation efforts by Travis, she shuns him completely. Travis’ anger at himself leads him to think of violent thoughts. This marks the film’s second turning point – in which he begins to train himself up physically and buy weaponry from an illegal dealer. He now has a focus for his frustration, which is to target Senator Palantine, whom Betsy is working for.

Travis’ motivation to want to assassinate Palantine can be explained by the Attribution Theory (1958). As developed by Heider, the theory says that people have a need to explain the world, both to themselves and to other people, attributing cause to the events around them, giving them a greater sense of control. Thus, from my analysis, I would think that Travis is motivated to want to kill the senator because of the following reasons: (1) He wants to “impress” and show Betsy that he is not inferior to her, and that she is wrong to reject him; (2) he does not think Palantine is able to change society for the better, especially of wiping out its vices; and (3) he seeks to have control over his life (after presumably spending years taking orders from his superiors during the Vietnam War).

It appears that Travis’ motivation at this stage is the result of external factors such as the environment and past experiences. Furthermore, his motivation to assassinate Senator Palantine is an extrinsic one, in which success will not only raise questions about the extent of New York’s urban malaise, but more importantly for Travis, his notorious act will transform him from a nobody into somebody (i.e. the need for recognition), and allows him to realize his (perceived) fullest potential, which translates into obtaining the levels of self-esteem and self-actualization respectively in Maslow’s Hierarchy.

Third Turning Point – Travis Meets Iris

Before Travis’ attempt to assassinate Palantine, he chances upon Iris, a young prostitute who boards his cab but is forced out by Sport, her pimp. This encounter with Iris is the third turning point of the film. He later sees her a couple of times, and tries to convince her to step out of prostitution. By then, Travis has developed some kind of quasi-interpersonal relationship with Iris, and has become interested in helping her to leave Sport for good. His desire to help Iris, in this case, is borne out of intrinsic motivation, as he does not get any reward or recognition for doing so.

Fourth Turning Point – Travis’ Decision to Save Iris

Before Travis’ attempt to assassinate Palantine, he sends money in an envelope to Iris, hoping she would heed his advice and leave Sport. Unfortunately, Travis fails to kill Palantine but he escapes from the authorities in the nick of time. Now at the height of his frustration, he goes back to save Iris. He kills Sport and several other crooked men, but is also shot multiple times in the process. He tries to kill himself with a gun but the bullets have run out. The police later arrives at the scene of the crime.

In the fourth turning point, Travis’ motivation to save Iris stems primarily from his failure to assassinate Palantine. However, his motivation can also be explained by Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (1985) which says that the three principles of competence, relatedness, and autonomy (2002) must be satisfied in order to be motivated to complete a task.

For competence – if Travis has already been prepared to kill a senator (who is protected by armed Secret Service agents), he definitely perceives himself as competent enough to take on a low-lying pimp like Sport. For relatedness – Travis feels a connection to Iris and cares for her enough to risk his life to save her. For autonomy – Travis’ decision to save Iris is his own; he feels that he is in control of his own actions. Thus, the three principles are satisfied and this explains Travis’ intrinsic motivation to save Iris.

Travis’ Dialectical Motivations

A question to ponder is this: Why is Travis still motivated to assassinate Palantine when he could have helped Iris instead? How does one motivation give way to another motivation? Why is one motivation able to suppress another motivation? Cognitive Evaluation Theory (1975) by Deci could explain this interesting aspect. This theory examines how intrinsic motivation is affected by external forces. It posits that people evaluate a task in terms of how well it meets their needs to feel competent and in control.

As mentioned earlier, Travis’ motivation to assassinate Palantine is the result of external factors and is driven extrinsically. These become the “external forces” that would limit the power of Travis’ intrinsic motivation to help Iris. Moreover, the act of assassination itself is evaluated by Travis to be a personal decision i.e. he feels in control, and the preparations he has made e.g. physical training and the rehearsing of weapon concealment techniques make him feel competent enough to successfully execute the assassination.

Thus, from the film’s plot, it can be seen that Travis’ dialectical motivations tend toward extrinsic motivation (the assassination attempt). But when that fails, intrinsic motivation (saving Iris) helps Travis to refocus his priorities and propel him to carry out the task successfully.

Conclusion

Travis’ motivations in Taxi Driver can be explained by a range of motivational theories devised by academics and scholars. It is important to note that other social scientific theories not mentioned in the case analysis could also explain the same behavior, and that it may not necessarily be motivational in nature. I hope what I have discussed in the case analysis helps to shed light and provide reasonable explanations for the actions of the lead protagonist in the film.

REFERENCES

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-40.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hull, C. (1943). Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-96.

APPENDIX

Summary of Film

Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) plays the lead character in Martin Scorsese’s controversial film about one man’s descent into the depths of violence. Very much a filmic case study of a complex, anti-heroic character who is disillusioned as a result of his dark past and the urban malaise he is exposed to every day, Taxi Driver is a powerful take on one man’s motivation to do “what needs to be done” so that the world, according to his perception, would be a much better place for everyone to live in.

Travis is a Vietnam war veteran who finds work as a cab driver in downtown Manhattan. He works nights and observes first-hand the vices of prostitution, drug-dealing, and other forms of decadence and sleaze that plague the city. One day, Travis is caught by the beauty of a woman who works as a campaign volunteer for New York Senator Charles Palantine (Leonard Harris), who is running for President. Her name is Betsy (Cybill Shepherd). Travis dates her out, but it turns very sour when he brings her to a porno theatre.

On another night, a teenage prostitute called Iris (Jodie Foster) jumps into Travis’s cab only to be forced out by Sport (Harvey Keitel), a foul-mouthed pimp. Enraged by Betsy’s rejection and Iris’ victimization, he decides to take matters into his own hands. He attempts to assassinate Palantine, but fails to do so at the last minute. He then makes the decision to save Iris from Sport in a violent confrontation, which provides the film its unforgettable climax. He tries to kill himself after saving Iris, but once again, he fails to do so.

In a twist of fate or perhaps irony, the film ends with Travis hailed by the media as a hero, when he could have been condemned as a psychopathic murderer.

--[end]

Reasons Behind My Top 10 Favorite Films

2011-07-11T18:35:00.005+08:00

Explaining my choices for my top 10 favorite films:

For my full list, please visit this link.

#1 Schindler’s List (Spielberg, 1993)

I often credit this film, together with Scott's Blade Runner (1982), for kick-starting my deep, unwavering passion for reviewing films. Probably the best Holocaust film that is not a documentary. It never fails to make me sob uncontrollably like a baby every single time I revisit it. The epic scope of the film and the overwhelming emotional experience just gets me every time. The most devastating thing is that many of the circumstances as depicted in the film actually happened about 70 years ago. In my opinion, this is Spielberg’s greatest gift to us as a filmmaker, and it’s near impossible for him to top this.

#2 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)

In my opinion, the greatest science-fiction picture ever made. There is no action, has few scenes of dialogue, and moves at a snail-like pace, but its stunning visionary concept and its bold treatment of existential themes remain to be ahead of its time. Above all, it is the film’s unique melding of imagery and motion to the sound of classical music that continues to inspire me. I was immensely frustrated when I saw it for the first time and immediately panned it. It was only until my fourth viewing that I became enlightened and truly embraced this masterpiece from arguably the most admired and respected filmmaker who ever lived.

#3 Once Upon a Time in the West (Leone, 1968)

An operatic, nostalgic, and tragic treatment of the Western genre. In my opinion, this is Leone’s best film with legendary composer Ennio Morricone, whose mix of soaring strings music and his haunting “harmonica” theme make this one of the best-scored films ever. By the time the epilogue comes, the picturesque cinematography, brilliant music, and Leone’s composed direction would have combined perfectly to give one of the most rousing film endings, lifting our spirits, but at the same time, imbuing in us with a tinge of sadness that reminds us of the golden days of Western cinema now long gone.

#4 JFK (Stone, 1991)

Hands down the best edited film of all time. If you analyze the film, it contains thousands of shots, filmed in both black-and-white and colour, intercut with documentary footage, character flashbacks, and re-enactments of episodes leading up to the assassination of JFK and what happened thereafter. All of these are edited with such clarity, and the pacing of the film is so consistently rhythmic that there is never a dull or fuzzy moment. It is also the scariest film I have ever seen in my life, not because there are hideous monsters or ghosts, but because the probing of truth is often very, very frightening.

#5 Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)

A very influential action picture that focuses on storytelling and character development, this film is most memorable for me for Kurosawa’s amazing direction, especially that of the final act where elements of wind, rain and mud come together to give a highly visceral battle experience. The iconic scene of a swarm of bandits on horses galloping down from a hilltop to the village has been copied in various forms and contexts, but has never been equalled, let alone surpassed. Lots of action films now owe a huge debt to the masterful techniques devised by the great Japanese master. Not to forget, despite a lengthy runtime, it remains highly engaging and entertaining throughout.

#6 Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1976)

My favourite Scorsese film, Taxi Driver has an unsettlingly dense atmosphere and features, in my opinion, the best performance ever by Robert De Niro. What I love about this film is its powerful, complex character study of Travis Bickle, a character whose conflicting motivations and desires remain intriguing, and its thematic treatment of alienation and loneliness not as a personal disease but as a consequence of a society whose values have gone to waste. Composer Bernard Hermann’s haunting, jazzy score accentuates the visuals, which brilliantly captures the grittiness of society’s decadence. Portraits of urban malaise don’t come any bleaker than this.

#7 Chinatown (Polanski, 1974)

One of the best screenplays ever written in American cinema by Robert Towne, Chinatown is a film lovingly directed by the great Polanski as he pays tribute to the style of film noirs of the classical period. The saturated colours used in many of the shots, the clever use of the camera and framing, the mournful Jerry Goldsmith music, and the twists and turns in the plot give us a motion picture experience that is an outstanding mix of drama, suspense and mystery, captured beautifully yet fatalistically. It gets better with each viewing and I would pick this or Taxi Driver anytime over The Godfather (1972) as the best American film of the 1970s.

#8 Cinema Paradiso (Tornatore, 1988)

Anyone who loves cinema would fall in love with this heartaching portrait of a “father-son” relationship between a boy (Toto) and an old projectionist. Cinema Paradiso is all about reminiscing the past, as we tap into our treasured memories of our loved ones and friends as well as regrets of lost opportunities. With cinema acting as a parallel because it is arguably the only visual medium that could store our lost, moving memories to nostalgic effect, the story of Toto becomes more poignant, and this is best encapsulated in the final act (featuring an amazing montage) that will leave us in a deeply, reflective mood. As a passionate cinephile, this film means a lot to me.

#9 12 Angry Men (Lumet, 1957)

It’s a testament to Lumet’s strong directing ability that sees nearly the entire film shot within the confines of a small, claustrophobic room. Furthermore, despite the short runtime, each of the twelve members of the jury is developed to an extraordinary extent, such that by the time the film ends, it is as if each one has become a close friend whom we know and understand clearly. The screenplay is exceptional as Henry Fonda’s character remarkably convinces the jurors to reverse their stand, even when the court evidence seems to point the other way. It is a film I can watch again and again without getting tired of.

#10 Casablanca (Curtiz, 1942)

Another screenplay gem of a film, with perhaps the most quotable lines ever to come from a single film. Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Claude Rains, Peter Lorre, and Sydney Greenstreet form an outstanding ensemble cast that belongs to the top tier of all Hollywood classical films. A highly memorable finale provides an excellent closure to the stories of these characters, yet deep inside us, we yearn and wish to know more about them because they are such intriguing people to spend time with. All the drama and romance set against the terrifying backdrop of an impending war that would change the course of history. An emotional, beautiful, and bittersweet film that continues to age well.

My Definitive Cut, 2010

2011-03-14T20:47:00.002+08:00

My Definitive Cut is an annual list recognizing the Top 10 Films and 5 Best Directors of each cinematic year. This year (01-Jan-2010 to 06-Mar-2011) I have reviewed 61 theatrically-released films and have narrowed them down to 14 nominees.

The following are the selected nominees to compete for the Top 10 Films of 2010 (in alphanumeric order):

ABOUT HER BROTHER (Yoji Yamada)

BLACK SWAN (Darren Aronofsky)

FIGHTER, THE (David O. Russell)

GHOST WRITER, THE (Roman Polanski)

GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, THE (Niels Arden Oplev)

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (Dean DeBlois & Chris Sanders)

INCEPTION (Christopher Nolan)

KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, THE (Lisa Cholodenko)

KING'S SPEECH, THE (Tom Hooper)

SHUTTER ISLAND (Martin Scorsese)

SOCIAL NETWORK, THE (David Fincher)

TOY STORY 3 (Lee Unkrich)

TRUE GRIT (Joel & Ethan Coen)

WHITE RIBBON, THE (Michael Haneke)

My TOP 10 Films of 2010

1. INCEPTION

2. SHUTTER ISLAND

3. BLACK SWAN

4. TOY STORY 3

5. THE WHITE RIBBON

6. THE KING'S SPEECH

7. ABOUT HER BROTHER

8. THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

9. THE GHOST WRITER

10. THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Honorable Mention

11. THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

12. TRUE GRIT

My Director's Cut, 2010

1. CHRISTOPHER NOLAN (Inception)

2. DARREN ARONOFSKY (Black Swan)

3. MARTIN SCORSESE (Shutter Island)

4. ROMAN POLANSKI (The Ghost Writer)

5. MICHAEL HANEKE (The White Ribbon)

Honorable Mention

6. DAVID FINCHER (The Social Network)

Academy Awards, 2010

2011-02-12T19:10:00.007+08:00

ACADEMY AWARDS, 2010

Legend:

** - predicted winner

# - my vote will go to this

Prediction Accuracy: 71%

BEST PICTURE

127 HOURS

BLACK SWAN

THE FIGHTER

INCEPTION #

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

THE KING'S SPEECH ** WINNER!

THE SOCIAL NETWORK

TOY STORY 3

TRUE GRIT

WINTER'S BONE

BEST DIRECTOR

Darren Aronofsky (BLACK SWAN) #

Joel & Ethan Coen (TRUE GRIT)

David Fincher (THE SOCIAL NETWORK) **

Tom Hooper (THE KING'S SPEECH) WINNER!

David O. Russell (THE FIGHTER)

BEST LEAD ACTOR

Javier Bardem (BIUTIFUL)

Jeff Bridges (TRUE GRIT)

Jesse Eisenberg (THE SOCIAL NETWORK)

Colin Firth (THE KING'S SPEECH) ** # WINNER!

James Franco (127 HOURS)

BEST LEAD ACTRESS

Annette Being (THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT)

Nicole Kidman (RABBIT HOLE)

Jennifer Lawrence (WINTER'S BONE)

Natalie Portman (BLACK SWAN) ** # WINNER!

Michelle Williams (BLUE VALENTINE)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Christian Bale (THE FIGHTER) ** # WINNER!

John Hawkes (WINTER'S BONE)

Jeremy Renner (THE TOWN)

Mark Ruffalo (THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT)

Geoffrey Rush (THE KING'S SPEECH)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Amy Adams (THE FIGHTER)

Helena Bonham Carter (THE KING'S SPEECH)

Melissa Leo (THE FIGHTER) # WINNER!

Hailee Steinfeld (TRUE GRIT) **

Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Mike Leigh (ANOTHER YEAR)

Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, & Keith Dorrington (THE FIGHTER)

Christopher Nolan (INCEPTION) #

Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg (THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT)

David Seidler (THE KING'S SPEECH) ** WINNER!

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy (127 HOURS)

Aaron Sorkin (THE SOCIAL NETWORK) ** # WINNER!

Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich (TOY STORY 3)

Joel & Ethan Coen (TRUE GRIT)

Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini (WINTER'S BONE)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Matthew Libatique (BLACK SWAN)

Wally Pfister (INCEPTION) WINNER!

Danny Cohen (THE KING'S SPEECH)

Jeff Cronenweth (THE SOCIAL NETWORK)

Roger Deakins (TRUE GRIT) ** #

BEST FILM EDITING

Jon Harris (127 HOURS)

Andrew Weisblum (BLACK SWAN)

Pamela Martin (THE FIGHTER)

Tariq Anwar (THE KING'S SPEECH)

Kirk Baxter & Angus Wall (THE SOCIAL NETWORK) ** # WINNER!

BEST ART DIRECTION

ALICE IN WONDERLAND ** WINNER!

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1

INCEPTION

THE KING'S SPEECH #

TRUE GRIT

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

ALICE IN WONDERLAND ** # WINNER!

I AM LOVE

THE KING'S SPEECH

THE TEMPEST

TRUE GRIT

BEST MAKEUP

BARNEY'S VERSION #

THE WAY BACK

THE WOLFMAN ** WINNER!

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

A.R. Rahman (127 HOURS)

John Powell (HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON)

Hans Zimmer (INCEPTION) #

Alexandre Desplat (THE KING'S SPEECH) **

Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross (THE SOCIAL NETWORK) WINNER!

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

"If I Rise" (127 HOURS) #

"Coming Home" (COUNTRY STRONG)

"I See the Light" (TANGLED) **

"We Belong Together" (TOY STORY 3) WINNER!

BEST SOUND MIXING

INCEPTION ** # WINNER!

THE KING'S SPEECH

SALT

THE SOCIAL NETWORK

TRUE GRIT

BEST SOUND EDITING

INCEPTION ** # WINNER!

TOY STORY 3

TRON: LEGACY

TRUE GRIT

UNSTOPPABLE

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1

HEREAFTER

INCEPTION ** # WINNER!

IRON MAN 2

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (Dean Deblois & Chris Sanders)

THE ILLUSIONIST (Sylvain Chomet)

TOY STORY 3 (Lee Unkrich) ** # WINNER!

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

BIUTIFUL (Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Mexico)

DOGTOOTH (Giorgos Lanthimos, Greece)

IN A BETTER WORLD (Susanne Bier, Denmark) WINNER!

INCENDIES (Denis Villeneuve, Canada) ** #

OUTSIDE THE LAW (Rachid Bouchareb, Algeria)

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP (Bansky & Jamie D'Cruz)

GASLAND (John Fox & Trish Adlesic)

INSIDE JOB (Charles Ferguson & Audrey Marrs) ** # WINNER!

RESTREPO (Tim Hetherington & Sebastian Junger)

WASTE LAND (Lucy Walker & Angus Aynsley)

Golden Globes, 2010

2011-01-16T23:20:00.003+08:00

GOLDEN GLOBES, 2010

** - predicted winner

Prediction Accuracy: 71%

BEST MOTION PICTURE (DRAMA)
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The King's Speech
The Social Network ** WINNER!

BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)
David Fincher (The Social Network) ** WINNER!
Tom Hooper (The King's Speech)
Christopher Nolan (Inception)
David O. Russell (The Fighter)

BEST MOTION PICTURE (MUSICAL/COMEDY)
Alice in Wonderland
Burlesque
The Kids Are All Right ** WINNER!
Red
The Tourist

BEST LEAD ACTOR (DRAMA)
Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network)
Colin Firth (The King's Speech) ** WINNER!
James Franco (127 Hours)
Ryan Gosling (Blue Valentine)
Mark Wahlberg (The Fighter)

BEST LEAD ACTRESS (DRAMA)
Halle Berry (Frankie and Alice)
Nicole Kidman (Rabbit Hole)
Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone)
Natalie Portman (Black Swan) ** WINNER!
Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine)

BEST LEAD ACTOR (MUSICAL/COMEDY)
Johnny Depp (The Tourist)
Johnny Depp (Alice in Wonderland)
Paul Giamatti (Barney's Version) WINNER!
Jake Gyllenhaal (Love and Other Drugs)
Kevin Spacey (Casino Jack) **

BEST LEAD ACTRESS (MUSICAL/COMEDY)
Annette Bening (The Kids Are All Right) WINNER!
Anne Hathaway (Love and Other Drugs)
Angelina Jolie (The Tourist)
Julianne Moore (The Kids Are All Right) **
Emma Stone (Easy A)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale (The Fighter) ** WINNER!
Michael Douglas (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps)
Andrew Garfield (The Social Network)
Jeremy Renner (The Town)
Geoffrey Rush (The King's Speech)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams (The Fighter)
Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech)
Mila Kunis (Black Swan)
Melissa Leo (The Fighter) ** WINNER!
Jacki Weaver (Animal Kingdom)

BEST SCREENPLAY
Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy (127 Hours)
Christopher Nolan (Inception)
Stuart Blumberg & Lisa Cholodenko (The Kids Are All Right)
David Seidler (The King's Speech)
Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) ** WINNER!

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"Bound to You" (Burlesque)
"You Haven't Seen The Last of Me" (Burlesque) WINNER!
"Coming Home" (Country Strong)
"There's A Place For Us" (The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader)
"I See The Light" (Tangled) **

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
A.R. Rahman (127 Hours)
Danny Elfman (Alice in Wonderland)
Hans Zimmer (Inception)
Alexandre Desplat (The King's Speech)
Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross (The Social Network) ** WINNER!

BEST ANIMATED FILM
Despicable Me
How To Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Tangled
Toy Story 3 ** WINNER!

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Biutiful
The Concert
The Edge
I Am Love **
In a Better World WINNER!

Inception As Philosophy for Our Future - Where Are We Headed?

2010-12-26T23:02:00.004+08:00

To coincide with the release of the DVD for Inception, I shall post this article that I have written for SWITCH magazine that was published in the Oct/Nov 2010 issue.

This is the link to SWITCH Online.

The top kept spinning, spinning, and spinning. It seemed like it would never end. Then it wobbled ever so slightly, and before we could register what that meant, the screen was immediately cut to black. With that, visionary British director Christopher Nolan has created one of the most ambiguous and talked about endings in all of contemporary cinema, stunning hundreds of millions of viewers whom, I foresee, would continue to talk about it for a very long time.

Inception shows a world no different from ours. It is very much a realist dreamscape; it is neither overly futuristic like that of The Fifth Element, dystopian like that of Children of Men, nor dark and gloomy like that of Blade Runner. Nolan’s vision is rooted in the very construct that determines how our world operates – the adherence to the causal-effect phenomena, the curiosity of the human psyche, the evolutionary tendency towards eliminating rival competition, and very essentially, the prevalence of technology in our daily lives.

Inception probes on numerous issues, directly or otherwise, ranging from Man’s increasingly unregulated use of technology, our identity and place in society, and to more pronounced observations on the state of our being, which is arguably the most fascinating and thought-provoking takeaway from the film. The concept of the “state of our being” could be described as seeking for an objective subjectivity in an environment of constant ambiguity. Or to put it simply, it is about trying to get all (if not most) of the truth out of the perceived world we live in.

Nolan’s film places the reality versus dream debate in the very nucleus of the film’s psychological-philosophical discourse. It asks questions that some of us are not ready to answer, or have no answer to. What exactly is reality? Is there such a thing as the real world? Are we in that world? Or are we too caught up in our own (materialistic-driven) “dreams” that we are unable to determine the state of our being? There is a word for it – limbo, as introduced and theorized by Nolan in his film.

Our future is not shaped by who we are, but how we think what we are. What we are will tell us where we are headed. Inception is provocative in the sense that Nolan forces upon the viewer a judgment he or she has to make, especially of its ending. Is it reality? A dream? Limbo? A metaphor? A mental loop state? A false consciousness? Not making a judgment would seem akin to not questioning what we are.

If you perceive the world that you are living in right now as reality, what then is your dream? Is it the dream of a better life? But what if you are actually living that dream, what then does reality mean to you? Our state of being, consciously or otherwise, is constantly struggling to find a place in either of these two realms. Very often, it ends up in neither, causing us unhappiness and disenchantment.

So I shall propose this: In the final scene, Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) spun the top and walked away, not caring about its outcome, confidently accepting what he wanted to believe. That is what we should be striving for. Dreams, realities, and what not, do not matter anymore. They are mental constructs that serve no relevance. What is most important for us now is to find joy and satisfaction in what we have, to seek what I call “living the now”. This will give us a platform to build a future of hope. A future that would not be decided by a spinning top.

Theory #10: Nolan committed inception on us.

2010-11-14T21:48:00.001+08:00

Heck, this is the most awesome theory to believe in. Throw away all the other theories. Discard them to limbo or somewhere else. The theory that Nolan committed inception on us is simple in notion yet it has powerful, thought-provoking effects on us.

We, as viewers, are the subjects of Nolan’s “experimental” film. His film is designed to make us probe for the truth, to question the ideal of objectivity in a subjective world, and to be wholly entertained (like a feel-good summer blockbuster would do) at the same time. He introduces to us the concept of inception, which by the time the film ends, would have been fully integrated into our cognitive understanding of the entire film. That in itself is a literal inception on us the very idea of inception.

Expanding upon that, this ingrained conceptual understanding of inception becomes crucial for us to interpret the motives (or rather, concerns) of Nolan, who is intelligent enough to hide them under the weight and ambiguity of his film. A personal project heavily financed by Warner Brothers as a form of gratitude towards Nolan, whose two megahits Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008) brought them hundreds of millions of greenbacks, Inception is the first truly original screenplay by Nolan himself since his debut feature Following (1998).

How would mainstream audience react to his film? Would it be too abstract, too Freudian for the average viewer to comprehend? And very importantly for this industry, would it attract enough people to allow the film to break even, let alone making a profit? These were probably some of the concerns Nolan would have thought of a decade ago, which was when he started writing the first draft of his screenplay.

With an ambiguous ending, Nolan incepts us with the idea that his film could be enjoyed and embraced not only by smart people, but also by the average mainstream crowd. He does not treat moviegoers as dumb folks who munch greedily on popcorn; instead, he treats them as sophisticated thinkers who want a movie experience to be more than just a passive affair. Viewers want to be engaged – intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally – and it is the intellect that Nolan tries to target at.

Inception is a masterpiece, a film of unparalleled quality, and is arguably the holy grail of the contemporary blockbuster (yes, this is far superior than James Cameron’s Avatar (2009)). With the possibility (or rather uncertainty) that his film may not be well-liked or understood, Nolan ends it with Cobb’s top that keeps spinning and spinning (or does it not?), incepting us with the idea that his film is like a dream. And we collectively wake up from it dazed and maybe slightly confused, but nonetheless intrigued and very satisfied.

Theory #9: Cobb dreamt of the final sequence while still in limbo with old Saito.

2010-11-14T21:42:00.001+08:00

This theory is plausible only if one assumes that Cobb was in limbo with old Saito for a significant amount of time. The idea is that when they were waiting for the sedative to wear off, Cobb went to sleep and dreamt of the final sequence that we saw in the film. It was an unplanned dream (he was not connected to a dream machine) but it was not what I would describe as a “permanent state of being” because he would eventually wake up either in limbo or in reality, implied by the cut to black at the end.

Theory #8: Cobb began to dream after he met Yusuf.

2010-11-14T21:40:00.001+08:00

What if everything from when Cobb met Yusuf was just a dream? Think about it, Cobb went down to the basement with Yusuf and saw all the old people who were dreaming. He then decided to test out Yusuf’s special sedative. This could be the last moment he was truly awake. When he woke from the sedative, he tried to use his totem but was interrupted by Saito in the washroom. Cobb wasn’t able to tell if he was in a dream or not. From this point, we never saw the top fall again. This meant that, technically, we could never know if Cobb awoke from that dream in Yusuf’s basement.

(taken and rephrased minimally from Dream A Little Bigger: A Guide to Understanding Inception: http://wegotthiscovered.com/2010/07/20/dream-a-little-bigger-a-guide-to-understanding-inception/)

Theory #7: Cobb entered a deeper level of limbo.

2010-11-14T21:37:00.000+08:00

This theory opens up the possibility that Cobb entered a deeper level of limbo. Why so? Let’s return back to the sequence at the end of the film that showed Cobb trying to save Saito from limbo. Remember that Saito picked up the gun on the table, and then the scene was immediately cut to Cobb waking up at the “airplane level”? What exactly happened in limbo? To explain this theory, the inference to take is that Saito shot Cobb, (incorrectly thinking that by doing so, Cobb would get out of limbo), causing the latter to enter into a deeper level of limbo.

This deeper level of limbo manifests itself as the “end sequence” showing Cobb clearing the US customs and reuniting with his children. The outcome of the spinning top could be interpreted as such: Before the top could stop spinning, the screen fades to black. A possible explanation could be that the sedative wore off at that time, and Cobb woke up at the “airplane level” from the deeper level of limbo.

Theory #6: Cobb was stuck in a closed-loop state designed by Ariadne.

2010-11-14T21:36:00.001+08:00

This theory explains Theory #5 in more detail and should be read as complementary to the latter rather than in isolation. The involvement of Ariadne in Cobb’s inception mission should not be underestimated as merely utilitarian. She was more than just an architecture student of Miles or (as we later found out) a skilled builder of dreams. In fact, she was probably the only one besides Miles himself who knew about the “inception-within-an-inception” mission.

In (2) - the inception mission on Fischer - Ariadne’s role was to help Cobb design the levels of dreams. However, in (1) - the inception on Cobb - Ariadne’s role was to act as Cobb’s psychoanalyst. She was to help in providing emotional support, and to further understand his troubled psyche, especially about his problems with Mal, with the sole aim of providing him with the means for catharsis, and more importantly, to slowly gear (or manipulate, if you will) him towards voluntarily accepting the idealized “state of being” that he would eventually find himself in at the end of the film.

This idealized state could be described as a closed-loop state designed by Ariadne to contain Cobb’s mind in a place where he could be happy forever, like a dream that ran for eternity. Furthermore, with Cobb’s mind already being incepted with Miles’ idea of reunification in the film’s last sequence, it was likely that Cobb had accepted his perceived state of being as real and genuine as opposed to a sense of “false consciousness”.

Theory #5: The subject of the inception mission was actually Cobb (inception-within-an-inception).

2010-11-12T21:28:00.001+08:00

Saito hiring Cobb to commit inception on Fischer was just a ploy. The actual subject of inception was actually Cobb, and Miles was the mastermind of the whole mission. This was plausible because Miles was the one who taught Cobb the skills of using dream technology, and he had enough experience to know that he could secretly tap on Cobb’s expertise to help him execute his mission.

Miles’ mission is this: To incept Cobb with the idea that he could be reunited with his real children.

Obviously saddened by the loss of Mal, Miles also understood Cobb’s tragic situation. It was a double whammy for Cobb, who lost his wife to insanity, and was forced to leave his children, possibly forever. Empathizing with Cobb, Miles sought to provide him with some measure of hope by creating this elaborate idea to incept him as he attempted to incept another person, in this case, Fischer. Ultimately, Miles wanted Cobb to be happy, and the only way was to introduce the idea that he could be reunited with his real children.

So Miles started with Saito, and told him to act as if he was the “subject” of an extraction mission by Cobb, who in turn was oblivious to the fact that he was being auditioned by Saito. Miles also enlisted the cooperation of Cobalt Engineering for this “audition sequence”. Later, Cobb found out he was being auditioned, and Saito seized the opportunity to persuade Cobb to take up a final mission – the inception of Fischer – and earn the chance to be reunited with his children back in the States, with all of his criminal charges wiped clean. This was the moment when Cobb was first introduced to the idea Miles had planned to incept in Cobb.

This theory is very interesting because two inceptions are happening simultaneously: (1) Miles on Cobb via Saito, and later, via Ariadne (I will explain her involvement in Theory #6), and (2) Saito on Fischer via Cobb. Since the idea had to be planted deep in Cobb’s mind without raising his suspicion, Miles had to rely on Cobb’s elaborate design of (2) to facilitate his plan of (1). (2) was what we saw from the film, whereas (1) was a subliminal process that slowly developed in Cobb’s mental faculties.

When Cobb was in the “building level” with Ariadne to find Fischer during the latter stages of the inception mission, he revealed to Mal (his subconscious projection) something he had been hiding from her – the commitment of inception by him on her. This action provided a kind of cathartic release for Cobb, who would now be able to return to his children after the mission without the spectre of Mal haunting him. This “exorcism of Mal’s ghost” was important for Cobb because Mal was the one single obstacle separating him from his children.

In the final sequence, we could see that inception had been completed on Cobb – he spun the top and left it alone; he did not bother about the outcome because he was sure that he had been reunited with his real children. And most importantly, he was happy about that.

Theory #4: Nothing in the film ever happened. It was all Cobb's dream.

2010-11-12T21:19:00.001+08:00

Cobb was not plugged into any dream machine and there was no existence of dream invasion technology. Cobb was just someone with a highly fertile and imaginative mind. He could have been an ordinary person who one night (or day) dreamt of everything that had happened in the film. Maybe he was affected by the loss of his wife, or he was facing psychological problems due to being away from home for a long time, or his children were taken away from him.

We never saw the real character of Cobb in the film. We only saw the “dream image” of Cobb, who through the film’s sequences told us a lot about his perceived character. We were also introduced to his family and close associates, and the relationships he had with them. Was it a parallel to his own real life? Or was it a fantasy? No one knows.

The opening sequence showed Cobb waking up along the beach and finding old Saito in a villa. What happened before that? We did not know because Nolan chose to open his film that way, suggesting that Cobb was dreaming the whole thing from the onset. He was disorientated and so were we. We followed Cobb as he tried to make sense of his dream in the audition sequence (this was when the dream invasion technology was first established in the film). He became our anchor, guiding and helping us to decipher the layers of narrative and concepts, which were becoming increasingly complicated.

When the film ended, its closing shot was that of the spinning top before it was cut to black, signifying that Cobb had woken up from his dream. He never knew what happened to the top, and he could never know because his dream ended prematurely. Similarly, we were also left dumbfounded.

**Interestingly, after the cut to black, there was no scene showing Cobb’s real body waking up after his very elaborate dream. This was in line with the film’s “dream” opening; there was not a scene of Cobb falling asleep to dream prior to that. Critics of this theory may point out that this meant that there was no establishment of Cobb’s reality in the film. And because of this lack of establishment, it could be read that whatever happened in the film was none other than Cobb’s reality itself.

Paradoxically, advocates of this theory could then point out that since there was no establishment of Cobb’s reality in the film at all, then everything was just a dream. Whatever happened in the film was just Cobb’s dream which meant that none of what was seen in the film happened to Cobb in his reality.

Theory #3: The spinning top is a metaphor.

2010-11-12T21:12:00.001+08:00

The spinning top does not provide an answer for the dream-reality conundrum. Instead, it could be interpreted as “living the dream” or “a dream come true” for Cobb. He was now a free man, absolved of all criminal charges, and reunited with his real (or perceived as real) children. Whether it was reality or a dream did not matter to Cobb anymore (he chose to ignore his totem) because that was not important. What was important was that he was now with his children and they could live as a family again.

Theory #2: Cobb was in a dream all along since the beginning of the film

2010-11-12T21:08:00.001+08:00

This theory implied that there was a level even shallower than the “airplane level”, and that level was reality. If this theory was true, it meant that Mal was right to convince Cobb to jump with her to return back to reality. But Cobb didn’t and remained in the dream while Mal went back to reality by dying in the dream.

When Cobb woke up in the airplane, it was a dream but he thought that it was reality. The whole end sequence had a dream-like quality to it with Cobb passing through the customs without a glitch, meeting Miles, and finding himself back at home with his children. He spun the top but walked away from it, confident that he was in reality. However, the top kept spinning and never came to a standstill, implying that Cobb was still in a dream. The split-second wobble of the top could be attributed to an uneven point on the table, a tiny depression of sorts that caused it to be momentarily unsteady.

Another observation was the sequence in Mombasa. Cobb was there to recruit Eames, but as he was chased by armed agents, he had to run into a gap between two walls that became narrower, causing him to struggle his way through. This could be a sign that it was a dream because it was unnatural in reality to have walls built unparallel to each other. Moreover, Saito, who was in his car, rescued Cobb in the nick of time. This could be read as merely coincidental but it would be very hard to believe unless it could be explained that “it was all just a dream”.

**The strongest argument against this theory was that if Cobb was in a dream since the beginning, who then sustained him in reality? Could it be Mal? Unlikely because if Mal jumped and returned back to reality, she would have tried all means to find Cobb and unplug him from the dream machine (because she was desperate for him to join her). If it wasn’t Mal, then who else? And for how long had Cobb been plugged into the dream machine if he was being sustained by someone? Was it even feasible?

Theory #1: Cobb went back to reality and was reunited with his children.

2010-11-12T21:02:00.002+08:00

This theory is the one most viewers would acknowledge as the “most correct”. An optimistic interpretation, this theory is in my opinion the strongest, and is quite difficult to refute even though there are a few grey areas.

When Cobb woke up in the airplane, that was reality. In his dream, he successfully performed inception on Fischer. He also managed to convince a stuck-in-limbo Saito to honour the arrangement they had made which allowed him to pass through the US customs without a glitch. Accompanied by Miles, he returned home to his children. He spun his top and walked away, not even bothering to look at the outcome, which was a sign that he was confident it was reality.

The children have also aged (albeit only slightly) since Cobb was away for about a year. Nolan used older child actors for the final scene, backing up the claim that Cobb’s children did indeed age. They seemed to wear identical clothing but on closer observation, they were only wearing very similar clothes. Even if they wore the exact same clothes like they did in Cobb’s dream, it wouldn’t be much of a hoo-hah too. Why? Ask yourself this: How many times in a year do you wear the exact same clothes while at home? My guess would probably be at least twenty times. So my point is that coincidences do happen and they do not always surprise.

Everything that had happened in the film prior to Cobb waking up in the airplane could only have occurred if there was a solid platform for these occurrences to, well, occur. This solid platform was provided by the assurance that there was a reality, and that reality was the fact that Mal had killed herself, and Cobb was subsequently forced to leave his children. Without reality, there would be no motivation to talk about dreams, limbos, totems, extractions, inceptions etc. because these concepts were created based on the existence of the dream-reality bi-construct, or the dual existence of both dream and reality.

Another observation would be the wedding ring on Cobb’s finger. In the dream sequences, he wore the ring, but in reality he did not. In the final scene, he did not wear any ring. This meant that the ending was reality.

Last but not least, the final shot of the spinning top that wobbled ever so slightly before Nolan cut to black was an indication that it was reality. Why? In a dream, the top would spin smoothly and indefinitely. But in reality, it would wobble and fall. That wobble at the end (even if it was only a split-second) suggested that it was reality.

Section 4: Introduction

2010-11-12T20:57:00.002+08:00

No discussion on Inception would be complete without any mention of its ending. Was it a dream or reality at the end? This is the question that has been on everyone’s lips for the last few months. There is no clear and right answer to this. Nolan invites ambiguity with the film’s final shot and that is his masterstroke. There are altogether ten possible theories (not exhaustive) of the film’s ending, which I will explain and elaborate in detail, giving examples from the film itself. It is really up to you to evaluate which ones satisfy you best. For the record, I subscribe to the no-frills interpretation that Cobb is indeed back in reality with his children.

Q & A: End sequence

2010-09-30T19:20:00.001+08:00

Q13.1) How was Fischer unable to recognize the team from his dream(s)?

Answer: It is difficult even for the well-trained to recognize anyone in dreams within dreams. The best giveaway would be the “van level”, which was only one-layer deep; Fischer could have at least had some impression of that dream. Let’s take a look at whoever who was in that dream and see if Fischer would have recognized anyone when he woke up at the airplane.

Since remembering the beginning of the dream was hard, Fischer would probably not have any recollection of the situation before his interrogation i.e. the taxi, shootings etc. He might have had glimpses of some members of the team but the time was too short for Fischer to form any significant impression of them. Fischer was also covered with a hood for most of the time except during the interrogation.

Cobb – he wore a mask when interrogating Fischer so the latter could not have recognized him. Moreover, he was not in the taxi when Fischer was kidnapped.

Arthur – he wore a mask when interrogating Fischer, and even though he was driving the taxi, it was still highly unlikely that Fischer recognized him.

Yusuf – he was driving the van, and was out of Fischer’s sight for almost the whole time.

Eames – he may be in the taxi, but Eames did not show himself to Fischer during the interrogation since he was the one who impersonated Browning.

Ariadne – she was with Cobb, and was not in the taxi. She also stayed hidden from Fischer during the interrogation.

Saito – he was in the taxi and pointed a gun at Fischer. Fischer might remember him because after all, he was his fiercest business competitor. But then again, Fischer would have thought that was expected since it was plausible that his “enemy” could have coordinated the kidnapping.

**Don’t you think it was strange that Fischer did not appear to be bothered by Saito’s presence in the airplane, and that he thought something might be fishy? Possible question mark here.

Q13.2) Why was it so difficult to plant an idea in Fisher's mind when it seemed so easy to do so for Mal?

Answer: Fischer was trained in defending his subconscious. Mal was not.

Q13.3) Was it a dream or reality at the end?

Answer: See Section 4.

Q & A: "Old Saito sequence at the end of the film"

2010-09-30T13:22:00.001+08:00

Q12.1) Is this limbo?

Answer: Yes. Most definitely.

Q12.2) Is this related to the “building level”?

Answer: No. See Section 2 for explanation.

Q12.3) Why was Saito so much older than Cobb?

Answer: Two reasons. One, Saito went into limbo before Cobb. Two, since limbo felt like an eternity, time would have moved extremely slow, resulting in the advance ageing in Saito.

Q12.4) Why did Cobb need to save Saito from limbo?

Answer: Cobb did it for a couple of reasons. One, he needed to remind Saito of the arrangement to free him of all criminal charges so that he could return to his children. Two, Saito would have lost sense of what was real. Stuck in a place for decades, limbo had become his reality. If Cobb did not come to tell Saito that he was in limbo before the sedative wore off in reality, Saito would have woken up in reality thinking that that was his dream, and that he should kill himself to wake up from his perceived dream (notice the similar psychological problem with Mal). A dead Saito would not have done any good for Cobb’s future.

Q12.5) Saito picked up the gun on the table and the scene was cut prematurely on purpose. What really happened?

Answer: A few scenarios could have happened. Saito could have shot Cobb and then himself, or he could have shot himself only, or he could have shot Cobb only, or he didn’t shoot anyone. I will explain why the last scenario is the most plausible under the circumstances.

After Cobb revealed to Saito that he was in limbo and that there was an arrangement to be fulfilled back in reality, Saito would then realize that he was in a dream all along. He then picked up the gun, and the next scene showed them waking up in the airplane. Anyone would have inferred that Saito shot Cobb and/or himself. But if you dig deeper, that inference is wrong and can be easily debunked.

The only way to get out of limbo is to wait for the sedative to wear off. One cannot kill himself to get out of limbo, because if it could be done, limbo would not be a frightening prospect anymore as one could escape from it easily. There is also the uncertainty of killing oneself in limbo because it may even cause the person to go into a “deeper limbo” (this “deeper limbo” theory offers an alternative explanation to the film’s ending, which I will elaborate in Section 4).

Saito instinctively picked up the gun because he thought limbo was just another dream and that he could return to reality by shooting himself. What we didn’t see was Cobb intervening by warning Saito that even if he shot himself, he would not be able to escape limbo, and that the only way out was to wait for the sedative to wear off in reality. So I propose that Saito did not shoot anyone, and both of them waited.

**There is another argument that when Saito picked up the gun and was about to shoot both himself and Cobb, the sedative coincidentally wore off, thus accounting for the immediate cut to the airplane.

Remember that the team (Arthur, Ariadne, Eames, Yusuf, Fischer) was still waiting at the “van level” for the sedative to wear off? The dream machine was programmed to administer the sedative for the bulk of the flight time in reality, which was about ten hours. This would give one week at the “van level”, meaning that the team had to wait at the “van level” for one week before they could wake up in reality. One week would probably give decades in limbo. Therefore, the coincidental wearing off of the sedative might be too prompt and convenient to happen.