HOME | DD
dijinn — Inception Dream Layer Map
Published: 2010-07-20 07:34:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 33127; Favourites: 115; Downloads: 303
Redirect to original
Description
**SPOILER ALERT**This image is so riddled with spoilers I don't even know where to begin. Don't even think about looking at it unless you've already seen the movie. You've been warned.
**SPOILER ALERT**
Many of you think there was only 3 dream layers that we encountered in the movie Inception, Nolan's ground breaking work. Well, I am here to posit, there were SEVEN. (If you want to read my full explanation - see it here: [link] )
1. The TRUE awake reality where Mol does everything she can to get Cobb back.
2. The movie's "awake" state reality where Cobb is unrealistically an international dream thief.
3. The first Inception dream layer - where the van is attacked and eventually goes off the bridge.
4. The second Inception dream layer - where they go to the hotel and convince the mark he needs protection.
5. The third inception dream layer - the Alps, where they attack the fortress in order to get what is in the vault.
6. Mol & Cobb's semi limbo world - where they lived for many years and grew old together.
7. Saito's Limbo World - where Cobb goes after him and ultimately convinces Saito to follow him back up to dream world 2.
Think about it. The only level here any of my fellow viewers could possible argue with is level number one. All the rest are a matter of record. Right? The question on the table here is - was Cobb dreaming at the end? And if so, who's dream is it that he is inhabiting?
There is TONS of evidence to support the fact that Cobb was dreaming the whole time. The most incontrovertible of which was the fact that at the end his kids were wearing the same clothes they'd been wearing in his memories of them... and that they hadn't aged a lick sense he saw them last. Not enough for you? What about what Cobb's father says to him - "Wake up Cobb... come back to reality!" Or Mol for that matter. "A dream thief running from faceless international corporate thugs? Come on Cobb wake up!"
Or what about all the sections of the movie that just didn't feel right realistically? The bit in the chase scene where the alley gets tighter and tighter until he's barely able to squeeze through? Dream!
Think about this. What if Cobb successfully implanted the idea in Mol's head that this wasn't reality and it festered until they both agreed to take the train to anywhere - as long as they were together. They arrive at the "real" world - but Mol is still plagued with the idea that it isn't the real world BECAUSE IT ISN'T. She seemingly jumps to her death - but in fact this is just her kick - her escape to the real world above.
And the sadest thing of all - Mol is now by Cobb's bedside pleading with him to wake up from the dream that is going on within her own mind. This explains how she was able to intercede occasionally and plead with him to come back to her. This isn't Cobb projecting his memories - this is really Mol pursuing him. If it was his own projection would it be telling him to kill himself - really? No, this is Mol desperate to get her husband of 100's of years (elapsed dream time anyway) back and convince him of his errors.
Inception is either a very happy happy ending Summer blockbuster. Or it is one of the saddest Shakespearean tragedies ever written. And either answer is just fine. As with The Prestige where either the machine worked and we have the silliest sci-fi imaginable on our hands - or it didn't and we have one of the most brilliant character dramas of all time. (To see my review of said flick and all the nuances that show the Tesla machine was a fake take a gander here: [link] ) Either way - you are entitled to your opinion. I've just tried to add some clarity to the levels by depicting the various strata involved here in one place.
*As an editorial note - I know that the photo for level 7 is incorrect. The photo here is actually the same location as Saito's limbo world - but a different time. I don't have a photo yet of Saito as an old man or I would have used that instead. If anyone knows of one, I'd be eternally grateful!
**SPOILER ALERT**
This image is so riddled with spoilers I don't even know where to begin. Don't even think about looking at it unless you've already seen the movie. You've been warned.
**SPOILER ALERT**
Related content
Comments: 77
I loved reading all the theories, and I can see how rapidly this movie is growing into a film of cult. I can't wait to watch it once more.
Just one thing... and I apologize for how silly this is, and I swear I'm not trolling, but it bugged be HORRIBLY every time I read it (I am aware what a lunatic I am, believe me). But for GOD'S sake, you go into the movie so much and get the wife's name wrong... every time.
Her name (or nickname) is/was MAL, not Mol.
With that said, I, once more, apologize. I just had to take it out of my chest. Thanks again for all the wonderful reading on your theories about this movie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad you got that off your chest. I realized this later on. Most people online the first day the movie was out was referring to her as Mol. And so I did to. I wrote a new post last night and utilized MAL everytime... check it out... it'll make you smile. I promise.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
One problem: THE CHILDREN DID CHANGE!
If you don't want to read my whole post, I'll sum up: the little "hints here and there" and the "nagging feeling that something wasn't real" is actually NOLAN'S "inception" of his audience. Think about it. The movie title is "inception". Nolan denied his viewer of seeing the top fall, just as Mol was denied, the way the very first inception was created. People already think that their mind was blown by the movie, but trust me, you don't even know just how blown. Just watch the movie a few more times once it's on DvD and try to see the bigger picture.
There were two sets of children acting as Cobb's children. Claire Geare played 3-year-old Phillipa. Magnus Nolan played 20-month-old James. HOWEVER, Taylor Geare played 5-year-old Phillipa. Jonathan Geare played 2-year-old James. Taylor and Jonathan ONLY appeared in the ending scene of the movie. Magnus and Claire played the parts of the children in every other scene.
I think people are playing up FAR too much on what is believable and what is real rather than a blatantly obvious and significant theme throughout the movie, which is taking a leap of faith. Think about it.
1. Mol's leap of faith was her jumping from the hotel building. She knew she was unhappy, and she believed more than anything that her real children were waiting for her, so she took a leap of faith and commited suicide.
2. Cobb's leap of faith was when he turned away from the spinning top. Up until that point he relied on the top to make sure that he knew the difference between reality and dreams, but realized that what was more important than that was his family.
3. The audience's leap of faith is one that seems to have been taken by maybe 10% of the people who saw the movie, at the end, when you don't see the top fall. The viewer has to let go of that obsession, as Cobb did, of finding out what is real and what is not. IN FACT, if you think about it, it's much like what Cobb did with Mol's top--she never saw it fall, and therefore became convinced that reality was not actually reality. Cutting off here was Nolan's own "Inception" into the viewer's mind. I actually thought it was his last hurrah for the film.
There are many other examples as to why Cobb was not actually dreaming at the end... but I'll stick with the main one: he actually KNEW how he got there. He knew how he had gotten on the airplane. He knew how he had entered each dream state. He knew how he got out. Then the camera follow Cobb through getting off the plane, passing by each person who helped him, taking his luggage, leaving the airport, being driven home by his father, and entering the house with his father. In your dreams, you aren't supposed to know how you got to your location. If Cobb had woken up on the airplane and the scene cut immediately to him being home, that would entirely change the outcome.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well said. I actually think there two schools of thought and yours is how most people think it happened. Not as well thought out of course, but yours is the normal perspective all the same. And that is mainly because untidy is taboo in American cinema. Dream as answer is verboten.
But seeing as though you've thought this through so thoroughly we can agree to disagree. One thing you have to admit is that Nolan intentionally allows for multiple interpretations in all his movies. Memento & The Prestige (question for you, did you think the Tesla Machine really cloned anyone? Would love to hear your perspective on that one.) both could be interpreted two (or more) ways. All I care about is that people actually think and come up with a conclusion they've supported on their own with evidence they believe credible. What drives me nuts is people just glibly taking the status quo answer.
But yeah, I get what you are saying with your evidence here. And I understand it. At the heart of it though - dream sharing technology? Really? Seems to make sense in a dream, but not necessarily in reality. Thought Thieves? Really? Thought creators? REALLY? Saito saving them at the last minute in India - "I have to take care of my investments" - really? It just is too far fetched. Its in line with a Bond movie. But Nolan is no Bond idiot director. He's the smartest director of our generation. Bar none. So again, I actually applaud your analysis and really understand your perspective, I just don't buy it. (Not your logic, rather that perspective).
If you are spoiling for a real fight - I would love to hear your perspective of this: [link]
take care,
taylor
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I thought of this in some way, but you put it in a way that even when I'm about to pass out it makes so much sense.
Thank you for this, now I can go watch the film and see an entirely different movie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hahah...
its rare people agree with me. I'd find that discouraging if I were you!
hahah.
Taylor
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hmm. . . So I was right then. Then why do I still not care. . . Why is this such a good movie?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
it really doesn't matter which perspective you buy into. the movie is brilliant either way. unlike the prestige though. I actually believe there is only one perspective that is correct in that one. Would love to hear what your vantage of that movie was if you've seen it. I personally don't think the tesla machine worked... you?
Taylor
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Prestige is favorite movie to date!
I don't really think whether or not the machine work or not is an issue. There's solid evidence that it does. The hats, the cat, and multiple versions of Angier.
My issue with Inception is that the ending doesn't really effect the rest of the film. In the prestige the surprise ending that Bordon has a twin and they've been switching the whole time is a huge claim and has to be consistent with the rest of the movie, and it also test the writer and actors to go a step beyond, in my opinion. If "your watching closely" you can see and hear the small differences in Bale's acting and dialogue when he's one brother or the other. But it is also subtle enough that you never pick it up during the first viewing.
While watching Inception, I guess that the whole thing was going to be a dream within the first five minutes, and when it turns out it was I felt ripped off. With all the attention it was getting I expected a bit more. In the end it was like James Cameron's Avatar: pretty, but somewhat lacking in overall story telling.
Sorry about the rant. I think I'm just steamed because everyone's having so much fun with this movie and I just feel like im missing out on something
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Ah, it annoys me you felt ripped off because you knew how it would end. It was a very deliberate give-away from the very beginning; the movie has pretty much all the characters ask the question, what is real? Or even, how do we know it's real?
But that aside. The amazingly skillful way in which this movie is told makes it worth to watch, even if it's not entirely a surprise ending (the surprise of course depending on your experience with either movies or common philosophy). Some of the crazy amount of detail (and skill!) is listed here but there's so much more, and all this makes it deserving of the attention it gets.
I can forgive Nolan for telling the story of solipsism again because, hotdamn, it's a good story.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice response. Must take issue with your dismissing out of hand the fact that the machine doesn't work. Trust me. It doesn't. The hats and the cats don't prove anything. Finding identical cats and hats isn't difficult - but it was a clever way to make Angier believe it worked for himself. It was only later (after the whole dubious edison burning down the shop business) that Angiers realizes he's been duped.
But THAT was when he finally got it and began LIVING the magic. His 100 performances were for only one person. Borden. (Well Nolan intended it for us too. But that is a whole 'nother discussion entirely.) And in the end, when Fallon (borden's twin) is asked to look at the trick, to see the prestige of the final magic trick (the tanks filled with fake angiers) he doesn't bite. He does what his brother should have done and left well enough alone. He collects his daughter (step-daughter) and moves on with his life.
As for the rest... I understand. It was pretty easy to guess that was where it was going. But it was in the validation of said assumption that I find fascinating. And the realization that Nolan actually balanced two explanations - both perfectly plausible - within the same movie that is genius. (As he did with Memento as well. Did he kill his wife? Is she still actually alive? Did Lenny do it? etc etc.)
Good discussion none the less. Kudos to you.
Taylor
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know what you mean as far as the ending. I think he was trying to do the balance that he in Memento, I just think it worked as well this time around.
I'm still confused on why you think the machine didn't work. If it didn't do what it said it did, how do you explain the Ageir that died in the tank and then the later one that visits Boredon in prison.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you read my blog out on taylorholmes.com it'd make more sense faster. Love to know your thoughts!
Taylor
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, but I think I'll pass. I think this is one of those things we'll just have to agree to disagree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great way to put it together and I was contemplating this even before I saw this image, and when I saw it, I just kept shaking my head and going, "it makes perfect sense. Everything fits! All the little hints, like the children not changing, I wasn't just being delusional in thinking that wasn't right!" I'm not sure I want to believe it was all a dream cause you're right, it would be an EPIC tragedy and I'd like to think it ended happily and everything was tied up perfectly...But then there's always that niggling doubt, is there? Wow, I love this movie so much!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well said... glad to know there are others of us out here who absolutely adored this movie regardless of what really happened! Thanks for the note - really appreciated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I read this before watching the movie, along with other spoilers, and I think it actually helped me. I felt like I was able keep up, more or less, with all the dream world shifts.
I'd like to add one possible bit of evidence that the whole thing is Cobb's dream. At one point, Cobb has woken up from a dream into "reality" and goes into the bathroom to splash cold water on his face. Through the bathroom window, you can briefly glimpse the silhouette of a woman in the window of a building opposite. I'm almost positive that it's Mal, sitting on the ledge, ready to jump. Saito comes in and interrupts before Cobb notices her, though.
I also agree with you that Nolan designed the movie to support different explanations. The last shot, of the spinner wobbling but not stopping, perfectly sums up the whole thing. To me it's as though Nolan is saying to the audience, "This isn't exactly real or Cobb's dream. It's a movie--and this movie, like all movies, is a dream, built by one dreamer yet shared by many, who all bring their own 'projections' along."
I don't mean that Nolan is saying it's a movie in a cop-out, break-the-fourth-wall kind of thing. I think he's inviting us to connect the various levels of reality and dreams in the movie with our own reality and our own dreams.
So my interpretation is that, at least on one level, in Inception Nolan is musing on the interrelationships between a movie maker, the movie, and the audience.
To sum up: yay for movies that entertain us as well as make us think!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well done. love your thoughts. And your comment about seeing Mol on the ledge gave me goosebumps just thinking of the possibilities. Seriously. If you are right that would be epic. Can't wait to see it again.
And as to your thoughts re: the movie maker et al... have you read this yet? [link] Absolutely brilliant in every way. This guy knocked it clean out of the park. I think he gets a few details wrong - like whose dream the main "awake" layer is (my level 2) - but otherwise he is brilliant here.
Thanks for the thoughts and the time to write. Made my day.
Taylor
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the reply! Let me know if you do see it again.
Thank you for the link! I hadn't read that analysis. Great minds really do think alike... and, on occasion, so do I.
I think it's great that Nolan can deal with the sort of abstract philosophical concepts we're talking about, without the movie coming across as pretentious or a cheat. It's a thoughtful, intelligent movie that's entertaining and emotionally involving at the same time and for the same reasons. (I know a lot of critics don't agree about the "emotionally involving" part.)
So many movies that try to do this will have a story to follow on one level, then the "deeper" meaning underneath that. So when I watch them, I follow the story the first time, then have to pick it apart in later viewings to get to the deeper meaning. But that kinda leaves the movie in bits and pieces all over the floor, so to speak.
The way Inception unfolds, just following the story also means picking up on the deeper meaning on the way. They're part and parcel of each other.
Which, in a way, might be why the tragic-ending interpretation doesn't bum me out like it normally would. Maybe it's because the movie shows that whatever happens, Cobb's no longer condemned to a meaningless, empty limbo of loneliness, guilt, and sorrow. Even if the whole thing is within Cobb's mind, then Cobb is still a man who's managed to make peace, if only with himself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's really well thought out!! I loved the movie, and at the end I was trying to figure out whether or not it was still a dream. Cause, ya know, the screen blacks out before the top can drop or keep spinning.
Now what I really want to do is go back to see it for a second time, and think of the movie in this sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i wrote a discussion of the totems and how they work if you are interested... would love to hear your thoughts on it:
[link]
Take care... hopefully you get a chance to see it again. I loved it even better the 2nd time. Am planning a third.
Taylor
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I knew this movie was a complete brain buster even from the adverts. I'm in two minds of whether you've clarified the plot. Or whether Nolan had the full intention to have more than one devisable plot. Especially when you walk out of the screen at the end questioning your own reality and every reality shown throughout the movie.
There is the one thing that has been cleared up for me now though. That I am gonna go along with your theory and it tidies up my query of the dream level from the beginning and Saito's limbo at the end. It means that Cobb was the dream and architect all along. [I was wondering how Arthur could possibly think of that layout in a dream and then Saito repeat it perfectly in his limbo.]
I'm going to lie down. My head hurts tremendously...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh he totally intended two perspectives at least. Look at his other movies... prestige & memento? Crazy the number of different perspectives there are with those two. If you've seen either one I would love to hear your perspectives of these write ups on them too:
[link]
[link]
Take care!
Taylor
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow. You are pretty amazing for posting this and thinking this through. What you've said makes complete sense, and I'm convinced now that it was a dream in the end, thanks to you! haha.
This is seriously one of my favorite movies now, I've seen it twice - it's just so.. appealing to me and the whole complexity is really interesting, and I LOVE the characters, especially Arthur, Ariadne, and Mal. <3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey there!
I totally agree - Inception is in my top 5 movies of all time. Along with all of Chris Nolan's other movies (memento, prestige, dark knight, etc.) Just saw it a second time and have plans for a third as well. Such a deeply moving movie. My buddies wanted more gun fire and explosions - I on the other hand wanted less... and more of the emotional connections between the characters. More answers around the why's etc.
Glad you see it my way... but ultimately I don't think I'm necessarily right. I think Nolan created two possibilities and tried to balance the evidence between the two. Similar to his Memento & Prestige - there are (at least) two competing theories of what actually happened in all of his movies.
Fantastic movie - glad you liked the pic.
Taylor
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |