I found an essay that I wrote back in 10th grade...during my California phase, LOL:
The twenty first century: the best of times and the worst of times. Especially in the state of California. Geographically, it is the farthest point of Western civilization. And coincidentally, it represents the apex of paradigm traits of Western civilization.
On the surface, it seems like the perfect place to live: beautiful climate, capacious blue skies, great cultural diversity, and of course, the famous Hollywood. In fact, it is the largest entertainment capital in the whole world. The economy is prospering and there is much business opportunity. People are relocating to California from all corners of the world. It is an urbane center of both pop-culture and career opportunities. The rest of the world strives to be like California, which would partially explain why there are so many Hollywood film spin-offs made in, for example, Bollywood (India’s film industry). The song “Californication”, by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, perfectly phrases the world’s view of California by stating that even “little girls from Sweden dream of silver-screen quotations”. It also expresses the inevitability of the rest world trying to model itself after California – “tidal waves couldn’t save the world from Californication”. But perhaps California is more than meets the eye. Perhaps it is not always the “golden state”.
Although California has many cultures, there is still a large social gap between different groups. This has existed ever since the aftermath of the Mexican-American War, but most noticeably today. If one drives straight through Los Angeles, he or she will pass through a well-maintained community. But if one continues driving, he or she will pass through the shady, dark downtown area where drug-dealing gangs and mafias hang around. Many of these gangs form as a result of the latent hostilities between various social groups. The members of the secure, more wealthy community have no association whatsoever with the gangs. But yet, there is a great flow of citizens who lurk in the dusty allies of downtown to make transactions for illicit drugs. The issue of drugs is a major drawback in Californian culture. There is also much political tumult between the conservatives and liberals. California citizens are playing a game of tug of war for the legalization of gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and the list goes on.
The twenty first century is both the best and worst of times, particularly in California. California is a great place to live with a multitude of benefits, but there are many arcane problems that exist beneath the surface.
One of my favorite things to do is find a correlation between the books I read and the music I listen to. It really makes reading a lot more profound experience; I often find myself in tears by the end of a novel when my iPod is playing a certain song. I
So, here are a few of the connections I've made:
One of the best books that I have ever read. Every bit of emotion was sprinkled in the right way. The colorful songs I have chosen perfectly express the fruitful plains of Georgia that I think of whenever I remember the book. And then, of course, Scarlett's bold, daredevil personality which is definitely a songworthy one.
Most of the songs I picked for this particular book remind me of the dark, cold nights that Holden anxiously spent just wandering in Central Park. I find it interesting how The Strokes and The Bravery are both New York bands. And the Catcher in the Rye (probably my favorite book, if I had to choose one) also takes place in that region as well. It just goes to show that there's just something special and rich about New York/Northeast culture, and that it truly is universal; from a 20th century book to a 21st century alternative rock song.
If I could sum up this book in one word, it would be: Innocence. And these songs do a fantastic job in capturing a sense of auburned nostalgia. (Yes, I know that auburned isn't a word. But it just describes what I'm trying to say).
Again, the New York glitter and glam and glitz culture portrayed by the Bravery songs. And Thom Yorke's vocals are an amazing representation of Nick Carraway's vulnerability. Poor guy.
Anthony Kiedis's bio. This guy has had a pretty intense life. You can find my full review on this book (& others) on Goodreads. But if I had to pick one song to fit Anthony's life into, it would be this. There's just something so divine(see what I did there?) and nostalgic/pleasantly painful about this song. It's beautiful.
Another one of my favorite books. Try reading this book, with these songs playing, and not crying. It's impossible.
Also, when I attended a Bravery concert back in 2010, Sam Endicott (the vocalist) said that this book his favorite book as a child. The song "Time Won't Let Me Go" is based on The Outsiders. In fact, the whole reason I even read this book is because Sam Endicott read it. And I strongly admire him, because he is a genius. No other word or phrase can describe him.
The lyric "Never had a Cherry Valance of my own" in TWLMG is a direct reference to the Outsiders.
People will never straight up say what they actually want. They beat around the bush; but they never just state it. There’s a reason why a kid will show his father a straight-A report card right before he asks for a new Xbox 360. There’s a reason why even a dog will start whimpering and crying when it accidentally broke the lamp on the nightstand. The point is that it’s just not in human nature (or in the nature of living beings at all if we take the dog analogy seriously) to cut to the chase. It’s all about the build up and suspense.
The art of rhetoric is indeed a complex machine. When we persuade someone, we don’t just TELL them. We want them to realize it themselves. Almost like Inception. The targeted audience has to realize the truth in what is being thrown at them; only then will they agree.
Rhetoric cannot really be considered just any argument to be made to convince someone of something. Rather, it’s more of a series of guidelines for the audience’s perceptions. Facts, statistics, mixed with personal anecdotes, testimonies, etc. are spurted out. But it’s up to the audience to decipher the meaning; the underlying, true purpose. And that purpose is NEVER stated. Even if an orator says “I am here today to talk about _______”, that’s not what he’s REALLY there for. There’s something more, something hidden, which he wants YOU to realize so you agree with him.
And sometimes, the truth can come as quite a shock. Traumatizing, even.
Today, I was reflecting about the stories I grew up listening to. Goldilocks & the Three Bears, Hansel & Gretel, Cinderella. These timeless tales are often taken for granted – they are seen as cute, fluffy, creative ways to send out moral messages. But after a bit of deep thinking, it dawned on me: these stories are gruesome, brutal, and disgusting. It shakes me up a bit to think that these are the kinds of stories that illuminated my childhood. It’s almost as worse as my reaction when I found out that the frolicking tune of Ring Around A Rosie was actually an account of the hundreds of thousands of Europeans that died in the Middle Ages due to the venomous Black Plague.
Maybe I’m just overanalyzing. But if I can see it, who’s to say that’s it’s not the truth?
Who is Goldilocks? It’s an old, shriveled up woman. Possibly homeless. She’s vulgar and menacing. She trespasses property – moreover, property of anthropomorphic bears. Why didn’t I ever notice this as abnormal before? I’m not even going to delve into my interpretation of this horrifying tale because that would go against the purpose of realizing things by yourself.
In the original Hansel and Gretel, the kids escape not by shoving the witch into an oven (which is still a pretty scary thought); the “witch” is actually a devil, and the kids are actually in hell (not a candy castle), and they slit the devil’s throat and run away. Even though the kids are reunited with their parents by the end of the story, that’s just a bit too subliminal and dark.
Even my personal favorite, Cinderella, isn’t so happy. In the original, non-Disney version, the step-sisters actually slice off parts of their own feet to try to fit into a wood slipper. That’s an extremely repugnant and sickening detail to include in a supposed-to-be fairy tale.
So what are the purposes of all these morbid twists? To scare children when they become adults and realize these? Maybe.
But I think that it just shows that humankind, in general, is a vulnerable species. If fairytales and childhood stories are supposed to be light and playful, and they’re really not, what does that say about people who listen to them? They might not realize it, of course, but that’s why I emphasize my point that it’s ALL subliminal.
Can our unhappiness be blamed on….childhood stories and nursery rhymes and fairytales?
People have probably been telling you “I DON’T GET THIS MOVIE.” Or you’ve probably seen a few status updates saying “Inception....WHAT???”
Don’t let that fool you. The truth is: This movie is not as hard to decipher as it seems to be.
Now, before I begin, I highly recommend you watch this movie at least twice. IT WILL MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE THE SECOND TIME.
****SPOILER ALERT*****
Keep in mind that the screenplay took over 10 years to write; obviously, there will be some complex elements to the storyline, but there WILL be a definite ending to the movie. I especially highly doubt that the “whole movie was Cobb’s dream”. No. It is not an open-ended storyline that is prone to several interpretations or responses or whatever.
So, I will be expressing what I believe to be the TRUE, BONA FIDE explanation behind this seemingly labyrinthine movie.
First off, get to know the director; Christopher Nolan…does he seem like the type of director who would end his movie so abruptly and ambiguously? Absolutely not. He may want to give off that impression, but we should know better. And of course, he would be discreet about it. See, in this film, it’s all about the little clues. These clues are cleverly embedded in the visual effects, costuming, dialogue, and even in the score (composed by Hans Zimmer – living genius)! Christopher Nolan is a filmmaking prodigy and artist. If anyone has seen Memento: The movie is going backwards and forwards at the same time. Like, HOW does one make such a illustrious, magnificent piece of art? It bewilders me. It is said that “Inception” is his masterpiece. It was completely his idea, and it took him a significant amount of time to piece it together.
But I suppose the most logical approach to getting to the bottom of the enigmatic plotline is to…reduce! Eliminate all the red herrings. This movie’s full of them. I’m just going to clear up doubts about the major ones:
The first scene always leaves everybody confused. Why would the opening scene have both Cobb and Saito significantly aged?
Well, here’s the solution: It’s a FILMMAKING strategy. You’ve seen it in several movies before; a scene that the audience will not understand without context is shown as the initial scene. Then, it is implied that the rest of the movie is a sort of flashback. So, “Inception” is not necessarily in linear format. Don’t disconcert yourself over nothing. It’s important not to be over-analytical.
The top is another red herring. It is stated in several times throughout the course of the film that a totem should not be shared. And it was also stated that the top belonged to Mal. And Cobb does seem to break a few of his rules (i.e., basing his dreams off of memories). But this was one rule that he did not break. And perhaps Nolan took this red herring as an opportunity to hide a HUGE clue in the movie. If the top wasn’t Cobb’s totem, it couldn’t be used to distinguish between a reality and a dream (at least not for Cobb). So what was Cobb’s totem? The secret lies in the cinematography of the movie. Notice that in some scenes, that are implied to be in a dream, Cobb is wearing a wedding ring on his left hand. This is because in his dreams, he was supposed to be married…to Mal. There are several shots in the movie that make it obvious and noticeable whether or not he’s wearing a ring. For example, towards the end of the movie, when Cobb and the rest of the team (along with Fischer) are getting off of the airplane, what was the purpose of the air hostess giving out the immigration forms? It was a filler shot; from the angle at which we could see Fischer accepting the immigration forms, Cobb’s left hand is visible. And what do we see? No ring! Thus, the ending of the movie was indeed reality.
Another “mystery” is the children, Phillipa and James. Why do they appear the same throughout the movie in comparison to the end as well? …Look again. I’m not entirely sure about James, but I noticed that in Cobb’s memories, Phillipa wore a sleeveless pink dress. Whereas at the end, she wore a short sleeved dress. I’m assuming that James (who wore plaid in Cobb’s memories) had his costume altered a tiny bit, too. Tricky. I noticed this the second time I watched it. Also, there is a blaring piece of evidence, whether it was intentional or not, in the credits. Phillipa and James have two sets of actors who portray them.
Now that I filled up a few of the movie’s greatest plot holes, it should make a lot more sense next time you watch it. Here’s a couple of tips for your next viewing:
-Actively listen to the score. It helps. Edith Piaf’s song (has a French title, not completely sure what it’s called) is used as the musical countdown to synchronize the kicks. But since dreams have different “time zones” (for lack of a better term), the speed of the music is different. It’s the same song, or at least the same few notes, and the deeper they get into the multiple levels of dreams, the lower/slower the song sounds. This isn’t really a clue into solving the story, but it will help you distinguish between the layers of dreams.
-Pay attention to the dialogue. Very close attention. I know that in movie theaters, it’s sometimes hard to understand exactly what’s being said, because there are no subtitles. But make an effort to listen. Listening is the key. I have a feeling that people are going to understand this movie a lot more when it comes out on DVD, because the dialogues will be more clear with subtitles and whatnot.
-Stay focused on the big picture. Disregard the red herrings. If you don’t get something, don’t ponder over it. Just keep watching. Things will come together in the end.
-Regarding Phillipa and James; the costumes are very similar. But not entirely. Watch out for that. The first time they are shown, you might want to make a mental note like “pink, plaid, short-sleeve”. And at the end, you’ll find that the costumes are in fact different.
And now, I guess I’ll jump into answering FAQ.
1.What was the chase scene at Mombasa about? Was it a dream, because people were chasing Cobb?
I don’t think it was explicitly stated anywhere in the movie, but I believe that it was a legitimate chase (reality- not a dream). Cobb failed the extraction mission at the beginning of the movie, and he never returned the money to Saito’s corporation. Also, since inception/extraction isn’t “strictly speaking, legal”, Cobb is a wanted man. I am not entirely positive about either of these theories, but I don’t think it really matters what the exact reason is. I’m in the ballpark at least. But that scene was not a dream; and this was double confirmed by the fact that he was not wearing a ring.
2.What was Ariadne’s plan at the end (after Mal shot Fischer)?
After “Mal” (rather Cobb’s projection of her) shot Fischer in the snow fortress just before he was going to open the safe door, Cobb shot Mal. Fischer and Mal were both in limbo now (and Saito was somewhere in there as well, because he died). Cobb was panicking because he felt like they didn’t have enough time to salvage the failure of the mission. But Ariadne suggested that they both go into another layer of dreaming – this time, hosted by Cobb. It is also important to note the fact that Cobb said something about Mal wanting him to “follow her down there”. Now, this is where it gets a little confusing. Why would everyone end up in Cobb’s limbo? That’s where paying attention to the dialogue comes in handy. It was stated earlier in the movie that if anyone dies in a dream (while they’re sedated), they would go into the limbo of someone who is sharing the dream that has already been there. And in this case, it was Cobb. And Cobb’s dreams are based on his memories, so his dream is equivalent to the limbo that the others were in. So this is why Ariadne’s plan would work; they would all end up in the same place, and they could rescue the others (if they rode the second kick back up). But, obviously, Cobb stayed behind to find Saito (which circulates back to the very first scene of the movie). Then, Cobb and Saito both shoot themselves to wake up from limbo.
3.Why did Cobb spin the top at the end?
Who knows? It was just a red herring. It’s not relevant, because it wasn’t his totem in the first place. And besides, if you saw a top, wouldn’t you be inclined to spin it?
4.What were the first few scenes about in Saito’s dream?
That was an extraction mission that Saito gave Cobb and the team. He wanted to see if they were capable of successfully breaking into a dream, so that he could give them the task of inception. Obviously, they failed because the old architect (can’t seem to remember his name!) designed the carpet wrong. Hence, he was kicked out of the team, and it was just Cobb and Arthur who were given the task. That’s why Cobb had to find brand new members (architect, forger, etc).
Well, I think that covers most of the movie, if not all of it. If you have any more questions, let me know!
