"Inception" - Ariadne (Spoilers!)
Auntie Lib
warning. If you opened the thread you obviously don't care about
being spoiled.
I actually liked this movie. A lot. I thought it was gripping, well-
acted, the CGI wasn't overly obnixous. I had no problem keeping track
of the various levels. They were so distinct: the first class cabin
("We'll need to buy out all of first class. The flight attendant
too." "I bought the airline. (pause) It seemed neater." heh) Then
the white van driving in the pouring rain, the hotel, the snowy
hospital, and the sand-castle limbo.
I liked that the movie just... began. Much like a dream, emphasizing
the line abut how you can never remember how you got to where you are
in a dream. I can remember in days past where directors had to fight
to leave information off the main opening title sequence. Union rules
and all that. This one just started right up, not even the film's
name to identify it.
All the character names were pretty innocuous, exept for Ellen Page's
character: Ariadne. It's an uncommon name these days. My 19-year-
old niece thought it was made-up and she's a voracious reader. People
haven't named their daughters Ariadne for a long time. Why that name,
when the others were simply Cobb, Arthur, Yves? (Don't get me started
on Mal - pronounced like Moll. "Bad?" Really? Is it me or was that
a "Firefly" flashback that just wizzed over my head.)
So I looked it up and it turns out that in Greek mythology, Ariadne
was the one who gave Theseus a ball of red twine so he could find his
way out of the Minotaur's labyrinth.
I'm just sayin'...
It just reinforces the idea that the ending wasn't meant to be
ambiguous. Yeah, it was a jolt, maybe even a gotcha! But I think the
quick cut was done for artistic reasons, not to leave the ending
open. That top was definitely starting to wobble. We saw the top in
the dream; it spun smoothly and never slowed or wobbled but that top
in the last scene was slowing down.
It's what I prefer to believe, anyway.
elizabeth
Bill Anderson
>
> I'm just sayin'...
>
> It just reinforces the idea that the ending wasn't meant to be
> ambiguous. Yeah, it was a jolt, maybe even a gotcha! But I think the
> quick cut was done for artistic reasons, not to leave the ending
> open. That top was definitely starting to wobble. We saw the top in
> the dream; it spun smoothly and never slowed or wobbled but that top
> in the last scene was slowing down.
>
> It's what I prefer to believe, anyway.
>
I didn't much like the movie and by the end I didn't care whether Leo's
character was really at home. But I do enjoy thinking about whether
Nolan succeeded at what he was attempting.
I will point out again that Nolan clearly attempted to have an ambiguous
ending, but I believe he miscalculated. If he'd cut to black when the
top was spinning steadily, the obvious inference would have been that it
was a dream. If he'd shown it topple and stop, the inference would have
been that it was reality. I believe he cut to black when it was
wobbling because he thought that would leave uncertainty in the mind of
the audience. I say he's wrong. To show it progress from steady
spinning to wobbling implies it's about to progress from wobbling to
falling over. This isn't a question of physics or dreams, it's a
question of whether a director succeeded at what he was attempting. If
Nolan wanted to leave me uncertain, he failed; end of story.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Mark
Gripping and well acted? Were you on meth at the time?
Auntie Lib
> I didn't much like the movie and by the end I didn't care whether Leo's
> character was really at home.
Do you ever wonder WHY you don't care about a film's characters? I
do. Obviously I cared muich more than you did about these particular
characters but sometimes, while I'm watching a move that I don't
really care about I wonder why that is. What is it about the story or
casting or execution or script leaves me so cold? Could it be some
sort of "actor" connection? When I watched "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" I
remember thinking, when the film opened on Brad Pitt's face as he's
talking to the off-screen therapist, that I loved his character right
from the start and was willing to suspend my disbelief and just go
with whatever was coming. If it had been almost anyone else I might
not have been so willing. (Like Drew Barrymore. Can't stand her.)
> I will point out again that Nolan clearly attempted to have an ambiguous
> ending, but I believe he miscalculated. If he'd cut to black when the
> top was spinning steadily, the obvious inference would have been that it
> was a dream. If he'd shown it topple and stop, the inference would have
> been that it was reality. I believe he cut to black when it was
> wobbling because he thought that would leave uncertainty in the mind of
> the audience. I say he's wrong. To show it progress from steady
> spinning to wobbling implies it's about to progress from wobbling to
> falling over. This isn't a question of physics or dreams, it's a
> question of whether a director succeeded at what he was attempting. If
> Nolan wanted to leave me uncertain, he failed; end of story.
But we can still argue about whether or not he really intended to
leave you uncertain since the editor DID cut while the top was
wobbling and I'm going to assume that the cut was made with the full
knowledge and consent of the director. To you and me, it's obvious.
To other people... not so much.
Another question. Were we supposed to be surprised at the end that
the "old" guy was Saito (spelling?)? From the moment I saw him in
that first scene I thought that was the worst age-makeup job I've ever
seen. And when I heard his voice later, I knew who he was so there
was no surprise at the end. Just the answer to why he was there.
Hey, if nothing else, the movie got me thinking. More than I can say
for anything else I've seen so far this summer.
elizabeth
Auntie Lib
> Gripping and well acted? Were you on meth at the time?
Nope. Just a difference in taste I guess. Tell me, does one NEED to
be on meth to disagree with your opinion? (But then, it's my opinion
that you need to be on some sort of drug to sit through any of the
"Saw" moves. I was forced to sit through the remake of "Clash of the
Titans" and all I could think about was the 2 hours of my life I'd
never get back. It may have had better special effects than the
original but it was still incredibly bad.)
I didn't think any of the performances were anything less than really
good (even Ellen Page) and Leonard Di Caprio is incapable of giving a
bad performance.
I guess YM really MV.
elizabeth
MichaelW
getting into the story because it was so abstract and complicated. It
certainly took a while before you could accept the premises of the story and
get into the action. Perhaps this is what left some people "cold".
--
http://www.booksie.com/michael_wynn (my humble self)
www.TheEnglishCollection.com
"Auntie Lib" <walle...@msn.com> skrev i melding
news:634a7a91-7e5c-438d...@u31g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
Red Cloud
Meth is creative joke here. I thought those addicted just can't stop
seeing it...
And those keep pushing it for whatever reason is let say trying to
save his ass...
BroTHeR zAcHaRy
> I'm not leaving spoiler space. The Subject header should be enough
> warning. If you opened the thread you obviously don't care about
> being spoiled.
>
> I actually liked this movie. A lot. I thought it was gripping, well-
> acted, the CGI wasn't overly obnixous. I had no problem keeping track
> of the various levels. They were so distinct: the first class cabin
> ("We'll need to buy out all of first class. The flight attendant
> too." "I bought the airline. (pause) It seemed neater." heh) Then
> the white van driving in the pouring rain, the hotel, the snowy
> hospital, and the sand-castle limbo.
I agree with most of what you wrote, and I also didn't have trouble
following it. But those more prone to ADD I guess might, and get
bored, lost interest, get lost, and then go to the lobby to demand
their monies back.
I guess they are changing public education these days, because I
remember Ariadne's story from secondary school (in the 70s-80s). No,
wait, that was Arachne, but definitely Ariadne from 9th grade
mythology.
Concerning that, I though her name was a major misfire on Nolan's
part. "Ariadne" was too obvious precisely because the name is so
archaic. It felt like author interruption. And in addition, I thought
her character was pointless. Yes, I understood what the script
required her to do, but they could have dropped her entire character
(except for her being Cobb's confidant or conscience, but another
character could have done that) and the story wouldn't have suffered.
Mark
> On Aug 2, 4:20 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't much like the movie and by the end I didn't care whether Leo's
> > character was really at home.
>
> Do you ever wonder WHY you don't care about a film's characters? I
> do.
In this case it was because they were completely undeveloped as human
beings. Who would care about characters like that? In 2 hours and 22
minutes you learned absolutely nothing about any of these characters.
All you learned was that a bunch of somewhat talented actors could
spout technical gibberish from that boring script. You learned nothing
else. It was impossible to care a bit about any of them and what was
going on.
Mark
> On Aug 2, 4:21 pm, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Gripping and well acted? Were you on meth at the time?
>
> Nope. Just a difference in taste I guess. Tell me, does one NEED to
> be on meth to disagree with your opinion?
Nope, but in this case, yes, because there wasn't one bit of good
acting in that film. And that's not an opinion, but a fact. Point to
what you think was good acting in that film. Try. Please. I'll wait.
Probably until hell freezes over.
(But then, it's my opinion
> that you need to be on some sort of drug to sit through any of the
> "Saw" moves. I was forced to sit through the remake of "Clash of the
> Titans" and all I could think about was the 2 hours of my life I'd
> never get back. It may have had better special effects than the
> original but it was still incredibly bad.)
>
> I didn't think any of the performances were anything less than really
> good (even Ellen Page) and Leonard Di Caprio is incapable of giving a
> bad performance.
Oh, really. Did you see "The Aviator?" Who knew that Howard Hughes was
really a 12 year old boy.
Mark
> Another question. Were we supposed to be surprised at the end that
> the "old" guy was Saito (spelling?)? From the moment I saw him in
> that first scene I thought that was the worst age-makeup job I've ever
> seen. And when I heard his voice later, I knew who he was so there
> was no surprise at the end. Just the answer to why he was there.
I love Ken Watanabe but he was awful in this film. Did Nolan encourage
him to mumble his every line? Half the time you couldn't even make out
what he was saying. They should have gotten Kim Catrall from Ghost
Writer to provide him any one of her 12 different accents from that
overreated piece of amateur filmmaking.
Auntie Lib
> On Aug 2, 1:32 pm, Auntie Lib <wallenbr...@msn.com> wrote:
> Concerning that, I though her name was a major misfire on Nolan's
> part. "Ariadne" was too obvious precisely because the name is so
> archaic. It felt like author interruption.
Agree with you there but instead of a "misfire" I thought it more of a
clue. (Except for the illiterate who probably made up the majority of
the film's audience.)
> And in addition, I thought her character was pointless. Yes, I understood
> what the script required her to do, but they could have dropped her entire
> character (except for her being Cobb's confidant or conscience, but another
> character could have done that) and the story wouldn't have suffered.
Who else could be spared? It was a pretty tight group there, in
dreamland. Saito? Dying. Yussef? Busy driving the van in level 1.
Arthur? Busy holding down the fort in level 2. Yves? Busy fighting
his way into level 3. Fischer? Just plain busy being the patsy. No
one else could be spared to make the trip to limbo with Cobb. Ariadne
had no other purpose, once she had finished her architecture, except
as Cobb's "confidante or conscience." You could also call her
"Exposition Girl" and her role would be the same.
I thought of her as MY link to "Inception's" world and she made the
trip more enjoyable. Without her, I would've been as lost as Cobb.
elizabeth
Auntie Lib
> > Nope. Just a difference in taste I guess. Tell me, does one NEED to
> > be on meth to disagree with your opinion?
>
> Nope, but in this case, yes, because there wasn't one bit of good
> acting in that film. And that's not an opinion, but a fact.
Fact, huh? You have hard data to prove that assertion? (Don't
bother. I know you don't. I love how people like to claim their
opinons are facts and others' opinions are bullshit. Doesn't make it
any more true that you're stating anything other than a purely
subjective opinion here but... still amusing.)
> Point to what you think was good acting in that film. Try. Please. I'll wait.
> Probably until hell freezes over.
I thought the entire cast did what they were supposed to do. Sucked
me into the drama, made me care about them, furthered the story. I
thought Leo DiCaprio's scenes with Ariadne, where he is showing her
the dream world, were excellent. His distress at his wife's death.
His longing for his children. All believable. I thought Ellen Page
was wonderful. She represented the viewpoint of the audience and
conveyed the wide-eyed wonder at the entire notion of dream-sharing in
her early scenes beautifully. Her interactions with Cobb were spot-
on. I liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt's earnestness, Dileep Rao (Yusuf)
had the smallest part but he was funny and convincing, Ken Watanabe
(except for the horrible old-man make-up which was hardly his fault)
played the stoic effectively, Cillian Murphy's reaction to his dream-
father's revelation, Tom Hardy (Eames! Not Yves) was totally
believable as the sexy rogue.
You can wait until hell freezes over if you want to but my opinion
that the acting was top-notch still stands. And your opinion that the
acting sucked is still not a fact, no matter HOW long you wait.
elizabeth
Auntie Lib
> Meth is creative joke here. I thought those addicted just can't stop
> seeing it...
> And those keep pushing it for whatever reason is let say trying to
> save his ass...
Shut the fuck up, Red. Your opinion on a movie you haven't seen is
worthless. Go back to ranting about "hollyweird" whatever the hell
THAT is and leave the film discussion to the grownups.
elizabeth
Auntie Lib
> I thought the film was ok, but a bit too long. Also, I had some problems
> getting into the story because it was so abstract and complicated. It
> certainly took a while before you could accept the premises of the story and
> get into the action. Perhaps this is what left some people "cold".
True. The whole film-as-flashback thing does leave some people
unmoved. The premise was, indeed, abstract. The audience is supposed
to just go along with the idea that dreams can be shared, without any
explanation or exposition as to how the film's world got to that
point.
If you can't suspend your disbelief that the basic premise is true,
then I can see how the whole thing would collapse like a house of
cards. That's true for any movie but for one as far from our everyday
reality as this one is, it's even more important.
elizabeth
Red Cloud
You are an addicted. Hollweird is a drug. Shut down by consuming tons
of Hollyweird drug. CIS controls your thought and your emotional
level and your
social action. That's purpose Hollyweird creating a drug cinema one
after another...
I bet CIS (Cinema Intelligent Service) next goal is niggerizing
America. In the name
of honoring Martin Luther King Jr, Hispanic, White, Asian all behaved
like street
nigger. Nigger nihilism is a next big social goal.
Bill Anderson
> On Aug 2, 4:20 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't much like the movie and by the end I didn't care whether Leo's
> > character was really at home.
>
> Do you ever wonder WHY you don't care about a film's characters? I
> do. Obviously I cared muich more than you did about these particular
> characters but sometimes, while I'm watching a move that I don't
> really care about I wonder why that is. What is it about the story or
> casting or execution or script leaves me so cold? Could it be some
> sort of "actor" connection?
I'm pretty sure the reason I didn't like the characters in Inception
is that I simply didn't believe in the situation. I was never
persuaded by the central premise, the characters were engaged in
activities that seemed illogical, and I never learned enough about the
people to identify with them.
When I watched "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" I
> remember thinking, when the film opened on Brad Pitt's face as he's
> talking to the off-screen therapist, that I loved his character right
> from the start and was willing to suspend my disbelief and just go
> with whatever was coming.
Well when I watched "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" for the very first time just
a few months ago, I thought Robert Montgomery was miscast, the story
was unpleasant, and the humor was forced -- but that's probably just
me.
>
> Another question. Were we supposed to be surprised at the end that
> the "old" guy was Saito (spelling?)? From the moment I saw him in
> that first scene I thought that was the worst age-makeup job I've ever
> seen. And when I heard his voice later, I knew who he was so there
> was no surprise at the end. Just the answer to why he was there.
Yeah, I felt much the same about him. I don't remember exactly when,
but somewhere along the line I was looking at the blood on Ken
Watanabe's shirt and I realized that he must be the old guy at the
beginning, stuck forever in limbo because he'd died in a dream in a
dream in a dream in a dream or something like that. By that point I
really didn't care.
>
> Hey, if nothing else, the movie got me thinking. More than I can say
> for anything else I've seen so far this summer.
>
Well yes, but the daily Sudoku makes me think too, and working it
provides about the same level of lasting satisfaction as watching
Inception.