Inception Forum

• Add

We have a nice little debate going on on the Podcast page regarding some comments I made regarding a statement that Christopher Nolan apparently made in an attempt to elucidate the ending of Inception. To be fair, the comments (which I hadn't read when we did the podcast) are more general and not as specific as I was led to believe. Nolan doesn't explicitly discount any specific interpretation to the ending, just says what he "probably" thinks it's supposed to be.  

I'm reminded a bit of an anecdote from one of Asimov's memoirs. He said to Tolkien that he thought the One Ring represented modern technological advancement and Tolkien's unease with those advancements. Tolkien said that that wasn't really what he was thinking of when he invented the world of Middle-Earth, but Asimov said that it didn't really matter what his intent was; that was the symbolism of the One Ring, regardless of intent.  
 
I think about that anecdote a lot when it comes to "criticism" of art. Can a piece of art have connotations completely separate from the authorial intentions behind it, or even actively opposite the views that the author supposes? Does it even matter what an artist says about a piece of art after it's completed? Or is the New Criticism view of art as completely self-contained still relevant?  
 
I dunno. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then I think perhaps meaning might be as well. In a way, I don't think that it matters what Nolan or anyone else says about the ending to Inception, because the meaning should be inherent in the film itself. My only point in my reaction to his comments was in this mindset; I don't think he needs to explain his film, and in fact works against it as a piece of art when he attempts to do so. The art that endures is, by and large, art that inspires debate and commentary and passionate opinions; the need to explain away confusing or challenging aspects of a piece of art seems defensive and unnecessary if you wish it to be relevant in a year, five years, ten years.

This is a more general opinion I have than just talking about Inception. I'm curious to know more about what you guys think on all this. 
 
I'm also reminded of this bit of Rilke:

Works of art are of an infinite solitude, and no means of approach is so useless as criticism. Only love can touch and hold them and be fair to them. - Always trust yourself and your own feeling, as opposed to argumentations, discussions, or introductions of that sort; if it turns out that you are wrong, then the natural growth of your inner life will eventually guide you to other insights. Allow your judgments their own silent, undisturbed development, which, like all progress, must come from deep within and cannot be forced or hastened. Everything is gestation and then birthing. To let each impression and each embryo of a feeling come to completion, entirely in itself, in the dark, in the unsayable, the unconscious, beyond the reach of one's own understanding, and with deep humility and patience to wait for the hour when a new clarity is born: this alone is what it means to live as an artist: in understanding as in creating.

While I understand and agree with Alex's sentiment that an artist should be able to do whatever they want with their art, I also see where you're coming from (I think!) as far as leaving Inception ambiguous goes. When you take away the ambiguity of the ending, you take away the open ended-ness and debate-ability of the movie that had people like me and my friends as well as many others coming back to see Inception second and third times. After all, imagine if we could go back in time and ask DaVinci about the Mona Lisa. For all we know, he might say "Yeah, it was just a portrait of some inconsequential chick.". All the mystique would be gone.

This is where New Criticism breaks down. Audience perception is more important than author intent, especially over time. While LotR was clearly written about the rise of fascism in Europe, the audience's perspective has changed over time. Fascism in Europe isn't as pressing a concern to me as it was to Tolkien when he wrote the books, so naturally our perspectives have changed. I guarantee that my perception of Moby Dick, Don Quixote, or A Midsummer Night's Dream is not what the authors intended when they wrote it. 

By and large I agree with you. Art can absolutely have meaning and messages removed from the creator's original intention, and those messages are still completely valid because the purpose of art is (in my opinion at least) to provoke a reaction, to provide something for the person appreciating it. I've being trying to explain that notion (maybe I should try inception? I've heard from a guy it can be done) to some of my friends who don't 'get' abstract art, that different people can take different things away from the same artifact. 
 
However, I don't necessarily think that hearing the creator's original intent can work against  something they've made. It can provide a more 'definite' counterpoint perhaps, and maybe help clarify things, but if someone were to completely change their mind on something after hearing how it's ostensibly supposed to be then they probably didn't have an opinion in the first place. You can't tell someone how to view their work, you can certainly suggest how you intended it to be viewed, but ultimately their own experiences, opinions and perception will define what they take away from the piece, what you think, basically, be damned.

Totally agree. No piece of art exists in a vacuum, it's defined as much by audience reaction as artist intent. It's always interesting to hear an artist's interpretation of their own work after you've come to your own conclusions about it but I think that anyone reading the article before seeing the movie could potentially have lost that opportunity. It's still a fine piece of film making but, for me at least, the ambiguity made it a richer experience overall.

@will:  Doesn't New Criticism expressly discount the important of authorial intent, though? I thought the whole point of NC was to effectively remove any biographical or authorial intentions from a work of art and look at it as completely self-contained.

@Rorie: Oops. I meant criticism of New Criticism....  I should really read things before mashing submit.

@Rorie:  Yeah Rorie I generally agree with what you were saying on the Podcast.  While I respect Nolan enough to be interested in his take on the movie, I generally have no interest when an artist tries to tell me what it is supposed to mean.
 
I think at its core, there is value to the artist's intent, and they can say or do anything they want with their works.  The issue is that it's usually not a good idea.  The work has already been created and unleashed on the minds of the audience, any attempt to shape how the work is interpreted should be included in the work itself (that's what editing is for).
 
 Also, I think this issue gets muddied when its someone smart like Nolan speaking.  The example I would use that is slightly similar is what George Lucas has done with the original Star Wars trilogy.  When Lucas made his changes to the original trilogy, he expressly said that he wished the original movie had been like the special editions.  So, once I found out that in Lucas' mind Han Solo was not the badass who would shoot a dude for just thinking about taking him down, I just thought less of George Lucas as a creator.
 
This is a bit muddled, but basically I'm saying that most of the time we don't want to know what the creator thinks of the work, and that subsequent statements of intent just tend to make the creator look dumb, and don't really affect interpretation anyway.

@Rorie

@fattony12000:  d'awwwww

'If you have to explain the joke, it's not funny' is how I look at it. Besides, part of the reason Shakespeare is so popular is that there is no one way to interpret most of his characters, they can all be portrayed differently while using the exact same dialogue, without necessarily detracting from the play itself. 

@Rorie: Wow, I just skimmed through the comments on the podcast (i'll listen to it later) but yeah people really flipped their shit for no reason... 
 
I have no clue about the actual conversation just the first few minutes, but my gut reaction from what I've seen about the reactions to you....seem completely off base. 
 
Especially when you bring into account his Wired interview where even he admitted ambiguity let the audience decide for themselves their relationship with the movie. Just because he himself took the film in one way, doesn't mean he's taking away from your take on the story. He just decided it would be better and have the movie not seem random if he had his meaning to go off of. He never really said his way was the right way.
 
For me even after the first time I saw it the movie was about how emotion is real no matter where you find it, movies, dreams, or in life it's all the same which is why Cobb didn't look at the top at the end of the movie, to him it didn't matter. 

That's a great quote at the end there.
 
I generally agree that an artist's words on a piece of art shouldn't be used as an end-all be-all, and the viewer should draw their own interpretations based on their own internal logic, but I don't think that makes the creator's original intent irrelevant either. The artist had some sort of specific goal in mind when he or she created something, and I think it's often fascinating to hear what those intents and the influences on it were. I think you should use the creator's statements as a way to gain further insight, a springboard for your own mind to further explore, rather than as a absolute measure of what the creation can and can't be.

 To me, authorial intent and audience perception are as important as whoever is looking at whatever the "piece" (because I'm talking about "art" in general, not just film) is wants it to be. 
That is to say...however the person (could be the author or an audience member) derives meaning and what that meaning is is a personal thing and each view is as valid as the next one. 
If I see something and find it meaningful and the meaning I derive from it is contrary to the author's intent then that is just as meaningful as someone who may have learnt about the author's intent first and then viewed the "piece" and derived meaning from it that way. 
 
Ya dig?    

When I was listening I felt like I was agreeing with Alex, but you make some good points. Most notibly that:

"I don't think he needs to explain his film, and in fact works against it as a piece of art when he attempts to do so."

I talked with my friend after seeing Inception for a solid 45 minutes about the ending, and we both left with the notion that "Well the one thing we do know is that he'll never come out and say what it literally meant." We both would see stories and theroies online and discuss them there, stuff like "Oh he doesn't have a ring on here he obviously is in a dream" or "this guy dies like this, and that's how they die in dreams." If there was some sort of scene where Michael Cane turns to the camera and says something like "It's all a dream!" none of that post-movie discussion would have happened. It would have still been a good movie, but half the fun was discussing and debating it with fellow fans.

     I definitely agree with Asimov on this one. Tolkien's (and by extension Nolan's) opinion on their respective art is essentially irrelevant. I came out of Inception with a very clear idea of what happened and what didn't happen at the end, and Nolan's belief's about the ending changes nothing. To suggest  that there exists some "correct" interpretation of the events is absolutely ludicrous and undermines the entire purpose of the work of art. 
 
Also:

I suppose on how the artist looks at the art he creates.  
The Beatles always said their music was never made to satisfy anyone else but themselves and yet somehow the sounds they make resonate with millions of people. So for the viewer or listener we cannot help but strive to wonder what the artist's original intent was.  
 
The question is then is it needed for artists to reveal their original meaning behind their art? 
I'd have to agree with Rorie in that artist should have already be satisfied with their product. It detracts from everything, it detracts from the thought process that defines art. It then becomes a defined experience, it's like a roller coaster. The same turns, the same feelings, everything rigid. Leaving it up for debate, up for crazy and crackpot theories keeps the art flexible enough to live on. 

@ashogo:  I highly recommend all of Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet. It's only 50 short pages or so and it's a wealth of amazing insight into life in general.

I dont mind when an artist tells me what he was trying to do say , actually I get really exited when what I have thought was the real intention of the artist , yet I also like when people comes up with other theories , it can only enrich the art. The one thing I hate tho is when someone claims that X film or movie cant have a meaning because acording to them it cant have one ,  when I was in film school I saw Lost Highway and said that I understood what was going on , it made a lot of sense to me  but lo behold a so called "fanatic" of David Lynch ,  said that his movies never have meaning and is just randomness etc. BS I say. Now talking about inception is a good movie but I didnt felt that there was a specific thing that made me think that he wasn't in the real world at the end ... A lost opportunity from Nolan , in Shutter Island , Martin Scorsese trough camera movement at the begining he established that there was something wrong with the whole situation ( When Dicaprio's character is talking to his "cop" buddy , theres some very stange camera movements and unusual cuts , but it is no mistake as Scorsese is a prime director , he knows his shit)  , when camera work/ photography could have made the scene more impactfull instead of story devices . But then again I might be wrong and just causing mindless debate :P

What makes something a work of art is the ability for the observer to look at it and see it represent something entirely personal and unrelated to the creator. If it look at the work of Van Gogh my interpretation is based on my experiences not the knowledge Vincent Van Gogh was bat shit insane from drinking absinthe. This hold true for literature and films and Inception is no different, if Nolan wanted the ending to be viewed a certain way then he should not have filled the plot with so much ambiguity.