[Atención: este post contiene spoilers; NO leer lo que sigue si aún no se ha visto la película]
.
I had tried to write it smaller, on the assumption I might not be able to secure the budget I needed. What I found is, it’s not possible to execute this concept in a small fashion. The reason is, as soon as you’re talking about dreams, the potential of the human mind is infinite. And so the scale of the film has to feel infinite. It has to feel like you could go absolutely anywhere by the end of the film. And it has to work on a massive scale.
Christopher Nolan on Inception [1]
.
Try playing effectively infinite with finite means, that is the biggest problem of art, according to Paul Valéry. Descartes had also raised, from the philosophical point of view: " Thus, we will not bother ever in disputes about the infinite, it would be absurd for us who are finite, we tried to determine some infinite thing, and thus be supposed finite trying to understand " [2] . It seems absurd that the object, any attempt to infinite creative will be inconsistent, incomplete, false root. Yes, possibly true, but ... how beautiful are the results when someone tries. Are operating mondo, work-world of which we speak in Passages, trying to gather all the elements of a new, nonexistent, or one play all existing. They are pawns in a foolish ambition, boundless, but we should some of the most successful attempts of art, see examples literature: Dante, Joyce, Proust, Musil, etc.
His greatness, in part, lies in its defects. Failure to achieve its enormous objective, structural failure, is present from the first page or perhaps even earlier, when we see the "size" of the work and we say, large but not enough. But we immerse ourselves in the attempt, approach the behemoth and let us go, because deep know what is going to wonder is the effort, the ambition, inhuman and very human at the same time, to overcome , to establish what Steiner called the agon creator with God, attempting to make a world of nothing and give new life. All in vain, of course, the creation is never complete, never perfect, always be filled psyches, details to be clarified, by defining regions, populated streets, relationships that do not fit, narratives that open onto a cul de sac , metaphors worn or repeated references that appeal to existing worlds, fictional or not, and thus break the willing suspension of disbelief that Colerigde claimed for the fantastic. Yes, everything is in vain, but it is not. There is an artistic result, which is independent of program result of the work: the artist at the origin propose building a new world does not mean you have failed if it does, what matters are the ruins intact , shiny, showing that up and running. If they are enough or not for our imagination, to our satisfaction, not for self-determination as an artifact axiological.
Inception frame seems to make mistakes. The second viewing, I did yesterday, brought to light, apart from some others who have seen intelligent viewers as the writer Juan Trejo. Inconsistencies not only with respect to laws "traditional" dreams "of which actually still do not know too much, but even weaknesses of consistency with themselves and strange" dream laws "dictated by the film, for example: 5 minutes of sleep = one hour of time in reality. This standard, perhaps from the movie Contact , where half a second of real time equals 18 hours in a parallel reality and semi-dream, is quite arbitrary. Has no substrate verifiable, but it is a great and necessary element in the argument: one must accept to dive in history, as in Blade Runner must believe in other worlds or in taxis or in perfect flying replicants to move forward. More problems are the storylines of Inception when we began to wonder who is dreaming of what and who can make decisions within the dream of another, as when Cobb and construction of mazes Ariadne (developer and mythological name) decided to "lose" the unconscious of his dead wife to rescue Saito and Fischer, who have been "there" trapped. Another problem would be why Saito has aged Cobb in limbo and no, if the answer is for the time spent either in it for the footage is justified Saito's advanced age, but not vital Cobb stagnation. In short, there are many questions that a revisiting of the film does not clear, perhaps we should have the script in hand to explain these failures narrative ... unless explained by other means.
.
.
hypothesis Singer
The film, "as is" narrative leaves two possibilities:
1) Everything we have seen is more or less logical and possible, within its membership to the fantastic, obviously, under the laws of the plot.
2) Everything is a dream. Everything depends on whether the top down or fall into the final scene.
There are two possibilities. A Alvy Singer has pointed out, maybe do a post on his blog to explain: all we see is from the beginning, a dream or metasueño of Cobb, which has implemented the inception to solve the recurrence dream obsessive projects to his dead wife. What we see is the long presence in his head an idea that it must be removed by the end of his life, for what is needed throughout a complex that includes spy subplot, in turn, a inception in one of its projections (Fischer). In this case, venture here that Singer-can develop the relationship between Fischer and his father would be a transcript of the Cobb and his father, also limited Cobb seems to follow strictly the teachings of his father, without being able to create anything new for yourself. This inception metainception or higher before we see in the film, would be the way to prove to his father (played by Michael Caine in the film) that is capable of creative and originally used the resources at your fingertips in pursuit of a more ambitious (and practical). This hypothesis resolves all inconsistencies Singer narrative of the film: what we see is pure unconscious Cobb, so that the plot, the unconscious in place the implant, will whatever is necessary to achieve the ultimate purpose of redemption.
.
.
pharmacy hypothesis
A fourth explanation that occurred to me yesterday watching film for the second time. I will walk around the bush: when team members will visit the chemist, there are twelve people in the basement of your pharmacy or a clinic shared the same dream. The chemist brings an element that will be very important later: the use of a sedative (other details of lightness of the plot, since from the beginning there sedative to everyone each time they connect to the device sheath) of great power. Cobb wants to test the effects of the drug itself, and lies to try. Immediately descends to the deepest level of your unconscious, where it is prey / recreated his dead wife. He wakes up, or so it seems, agitated, goes to a bathroom, where water is poured on the face to wake desperately spinning the spinner to see who is awake, but the sudden arrival of Saito pull the top makes it to the ground, so can not verify if it has awakened ... or are still dreaming the pharmacy. My thesis is that Cobb has not woken up, and everything is happening in loop in the pharmacy. This explains why the unconscious is always present in the dreams of others, and therefore can, from Fischer's unconscious (which is what moves the whole snow scene), down to the ordinary world he has with his wife and deploy it Fischer projections and Saito, making the latter age and be chasing him for 50 years to find. Supports my hypothesis that there is no "jump" or "kick" him out of sleep do you have in the pharmacy while under the sedation effects of the chemical. What we see, 70% of the film, is his dream, 30% of the principle is a long prologue to understand what comes next. The dream is what Cobb want to happen to break free.
.
.
(no)
These four are just four of many possible explanations for Inception . I think Nolan has them all and some more in the deck. Is assumed to have been writing and mulling over this story since 1995, has been nearly fifteen years to suggest (it) twists, oxymorons plot, narrative tapes Moebius, loopholes script, etc. Nobody will ever know much of the film as himself, of course. 15 years would have to be obsessed with it -In my case, do not rule, to reach the level of depth and knowledge about the same as he has. This film takes place as with the Lynch film, as noted here a few months ago: no matter whether or not it makes sense, what matters is the trail that leaves, what moves us. If in the case of Lynch's perplexity is the absence of explanation or information, uncertainty Inception reached by the prodigious multiplication of possibilities and data.
I think Nolan has used to build his dream world (In which the temporal maze, as stated in the first post, replaces the maze spatial Hell Dante), the cosmological theory of wormholes, this theory appears already used in Contact to explain the parallel temporalities, but it is also Jorge Luis Borges, who uses it in stories like "The Secret Miracle," for example. Borges knew the scientific theory of Hugh Everett III and De Witt of spatial holes (which is a hypothesis, not proven evidence), as demonstrated by some analysts Borges work. This comes about because in the interview with the New York Times cited above, Nolan acknowledges that Borges was reading when he wrote Inception. Could be by Borges, Contact or Philip K. Dick, who also uses the action The man in the castle . The point is that the confluence of time that elapses at different speeds, but parallel and connected, it is essential for the film, whatever its origin . Which reminds me of this poem by Eugenio Montale, which seems to be a fifth and final explanation Inception: the film as a dream of Nolan (owner of "assemblies and needles"), to unravel their own mazes emotional.
.
.
TIME AND TIME
There is no single time: there are many tapes
that slide parallel
often opposite and rarely
intersect. It's when you discover
the only truth, revealed,
is canceled at the point who cares
assemblies and needles. And it falls again
the only time. But at that moment
when only the few living
to say goodbye, never see you later. [3]
[1] http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/a- man-and-his-dream-christopher-nolan-and-inception /
[2] René Descartes, Principles of philosophy, I, 26.
[3] Extracted from Eugenio Montale, 37 poems, Hyperion, Madrid, 1996, translation by Ángel Crespo.
0 comments:
Post a Comment