Inception

This is a compilation of the flaws/inconsistencies I found in Inception. Also included are some apparent inconsistencies and my explanations resolving them. They are listed randomly, and are titled with geeky names inspired by the names of the episodes of The Big Bang Theory.

For those who haven't yet seen what is arguably one of the best movies ever made (#3 on IMDb at the time of writing this post, #2 after TDK on my list of Nolan movies), this would be the place to stop reading.

The suicide anachronism Cobb and Mal, after having spent 50 years in limbo, kill themselves by sleeping on a railway track. If indeed they had been there for 50 years (and as portrayed in one of the closing scenes), they must have been old when they died. The scene however shows them still being young.

The imbalanced parentheses Mismatch of the order of dreams. I would think that the order in which the dream layers are shown must be a LIFO stack, i.e. when person B is dreaming a dream inside person A's dream, B would have to wake up from the inner dream before A wakes up from the outer one. This is not the case, at least (not necessarily the only case), for Ariadne dreaming within Eames's dream. One possible explanation is that all people wake up at the same time, but each is shown sequentially in the film. Another is that when the person dreaming the outer dream wakes up, those within the inner dream are trapped in limbo, and since they do eventually die there, they wake up from the outer dream also. But the question remains that if they are indeed waking up from limbo, they should get back to reality and not still be in any other dream level. But, this is not the case and hence the inconsistency.

The dreamer ambiguity The dreamer of the third level dream---the one where they are in the snow capped mountains---is not clear. I believe there are two dialogue sequences where it is claimed that the dreamers are different. When Ariadne asks "Whose dream are we getting into?", Cobb replies saying it is Fischer's dream, and Arthur adds that he will be helping them break into his own dream. This is just before they enter the third level dream. However, in the third level dream, Cobb says "Eames, this is your dream..."

The weightlessness paradox The premise is that if the dreamer is experiencing a state of weightlessness, so does everyone in his dream. This is true because when Arthur is dreaming the second level dream sitting in the freely falling van in the first level dream of Yusuf, everyone in Arthur's dream in the hotel is weightless. If that is the concept, then everyone involved in the third level dream, including Eames and Fischer who are the two possible dreamers, are experiencing weightlessness. Why does this not carry forward to the dream in the snow capped mountains?

The Browning disappearance In the second level dream, when Cobb, Arthur and Ariadne are with Fischer in the room, Fischer's projection of Browning (It is surely Fischer's projection because Eames is shown entering the room later) is shown to be entering the room and being caught by the team, showing him to be the one conducting the kidnap in dream level one to annul the will that would dissolve the Fischer-Marrow empire. Then, both Browning and Fischer will be plugged to the dream sharing machine along with the others, but somehow everyone except Browning appear in the third dream level, i.e. Browning is conspicuously missing.

The Cobb deficiency Another concept is that of the architect. There are dialogues which hint that the architect is someone who builds the worlds in the dreams at different levels and "explains" them to the people who will be sharing that dream. There is another dialogue where Cobb tells Ariadne, who is the architect, not to explain him the specifics of the plan for the world in the dreams. I found these to be contradictory. But this might be explained as Cobb not wanting to know the specifics himself because of his condition. He would still want others to know the plans well. This is justified by a scene where Yusuf is shown working with Ariadne on the plans, and another where Eames is said to have added a "shortcut" through a maze in the dream level three. Also, Cobb constantly asking Ariadne to explain things to Saito and Fischer also corroborates this explanation.

The Saito time-dilation The fact that only Saito was old in the dream when Cobb came to convince him to kill himself to honour the agreement between them can be explained. Conceptually, the age of a person in a certain dream level depends on the time spent in that dream by that person. When Saito dies, he goes into some unknown, but deep, dream level. Now when Cobb is searching all the dream levels to get to Saito, it can be said that he spends not too much time in each level. So, in the first scene of the film, Cobb can be assumed to have just arrived into Saito's dream whereas Saito himself has been there for decades. But there is a dialogue where Cobb, while asking Ariadne to kill herself and get back and explaining why he will stay back, says "Saito must be here somewhere." If that dialogue is taken literally to conclude that Saito was trapped in the same level dream, the age difference is difficult to explain. By "somewhere here", I think Cobb meant "in some dream deeper than here."

The limbo explanation Cobb also gets stuck in limbo because he does die in a dream---not in level three, but in level two, when everyone comes out of the van--- Cobb stays behind, drowns and dies.

The bullet repulsion What is perhaps the most unrealistic part of the film is the fact that the entire team suffers only one bullet shot after being barraged by bullets almost everywhere---in reality, with a lot of bullets that seem to be dodging Cobb in Mombasa; dream level one, with infinite bullets shot at the van; two, with bullets shot at Arthur; three, with the bullets from a whole army of militants not finding their targets. But I am willing to consider this Nolan's V-effect and disregard it.

Kudos to Gandhe for coming close to the main concept of the film!

Swayam-na-vadhu

I have always hated and vehemently opposed "reality shows". Come on! The name is itself an oxymoron - "reality" is something that doesn't happen in a "show". But, somehow these shows manage to garner a lot of public attention. Whether it is for ruining kids' lives by subjecting them to unwarranted, extremely critical, rebuttals of performances aimed at increasing ratings; or trained judges opposing each other just for the heck of opposing, bringing their idiosyncrasies and idiotic theories to the fore, to give the audience a laugh, again at the expense of the contestant. Or the controversy arousing game show where no one knows whether there is a lie detector or the lie detector is nothing but a sensation maximising device, which makes me wonder how a sane person would choose to contest - to be ridiculed on the one hand, or humiliated on the other -- really, it is a lose-lose situation for the celebrity contestant, amply exemplified by Vinod Kambli.

To top them all is the Indian Britney - Rakhee Sawant! Here's a girl who is willing to do anything, "any" thing, to be in the spotlight. No one had thus far slapped her boyfriend when he came to her home with a bouquet of flowers apologizing for some crap -- perfect recipe for brouhaha, live on TV! And in no one's case was the whole episode "filmized" with background scores suiting the mood of the scene. No woman had been so outspoken about her personal life - everyone needs some personal space. But not Rakhee (or Salman, for everyone knows everything about him) ! I am so fed up with all the news about reality shows and Rakhee Sawant, that the sadist in me has awoken, and I conjured up the perfect end to her televised swayamwar -- the selected groom rejecting her, live on TV! (evil grin)

Pakistan Zindabad!

For a country being torn apart by the demonic forces of terrorism, religious fundamentalism, namesake democracy, misbehaving army, a secret service infested by terrorist sympathisers, clashing internal forces and foreign pressure, Cricket could prove to be a hope for better days ahead.

I maintain that one of the prime reasons for Pakistan's failure thus far has been the inherent, and often unwarranted, suspicion on India, the failure to recognise the pragmatic polity that helps its own people while looking out for foreign threats, the hardcore ideological standpoint compromising the lives of thousands fueling the prospect of anarchy trapping the country.

The situation is therefore that the people have forgotten what it is to lead "normal" lives, enjoying with their families, with work. The people seem to have forgotten how to be peaceful watching movies, aspiring to be like the heroes they love, to fantasise having the good-looking girls adorning their television screens as their girls, to be famous musicians composing their way to glory, to be the cricketers who their country proud, who bring fame to their cities and towns. They have forgotten the days when the young boys in Peshawar were inspired by Shahid Afridi and not by the misleading mullahs of the Madrasas. When Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan captured the attention of its youngsters through his talent, making them want to embrace music and paint an indelible sketch of their culture.

This sudden and least expected surge by Pakistan to the finals of a top tournament could be a blessing in disguise. People now have a chance to see the actual way they can show the world the talent and the promise of Pakistan. They have a chance to realise that their ideological war of bringing the infidels to justice through Jihad has failed, and failed miserably, leaving them hurt more than anyone else. They have a chance to see that the world would respect and love a Pakistan that keeps its wars within the confines of international acceptance - to bringing into action a revolution to establishing a modern democracy (If Iran can do it, why can't they?), to the race to beat other countries in progress and growth, to the war against forces that tear apart their own society, to the fight against obstacles to the welfare of their own people, to eliminate the hindrances to a peaceful agreement between civil modernity and native ethnicity, traditions and faith, to the pitch on a cricket field and to the hockey fields.

Will we see that Pakistan soon? Will the Pakistanis learn from their mistakes?

PS : The title is inspired by a very well made documentary by Pascale Lamche.

Wild Wild West

It is sad to see that most things being borrowed from the west today are unwanted or "bad" things. Glamourizing the lifestyles of the rich and the famous, upholding them as worthy of being emulated, encouraging carefree shopping, wasting resources for a reason no better than you being able to pay for them - things that India can very well do without.

The western pop-culture has led to the treatment of celebrities like gods, and this is outrageous. Why is Salman Khan still a hero after the Black buck and DUI cases? Why does Sanjay Dutt still have a fan following - after he has pleaded guilty of possessing illegal weapons and knowing personally those who bombed the commercial capital of the country in 1993? Do we need to be one of the unfortunate many who lost loved ones in those serial blasts to understand that helping a terrorist activity in the narrowest of ways makes you a terrorist, a betrayer, a traitor? The sad thing is that these incidents have given us the impression that when you become a big actor in Bollywood, ties with the underworld are inevitable, and having such ties does not mean you are a traitor yourself. Really, is this the "reality of life" we are teaching our children?

Page 3 is a sad story. But, there are other negative fallouts of economic globalization. What's the new craze for the iPhone? It is just another phone, one with good ergonomics. Haven't we always had leaders like Apple if you take every appliance we use? Wasn't Sumeet mixer-grinder supposed to be better than the other mixies people had? Wasn't a BPL Colour TV a priced possession? Wasn't a Premier Padmini truly "premier"? Everyone knew these things. But there was never a craze for buying all of these as soon as people could. This was because we used to be guided by our needs, and not our wants. We wanted a Premier Padmini, but we didn't need it, and so it could wait. We wanted the new wet-grinder, but we could use our mixie and the grinding stone, and so it could wait. This way of life has started to fade away. I completely agree that moving towards being a developed country gives you such liberties, but India is not there yet. So why this urge to buy more than one cellphone per person? Why the urge to get newer and newer versions of iPods? To get bigger and thinner TV's? Encouraging such mindless shopping will only increase the gap between the rich and the poor. We should not buy for the reason that we can afford something. What happened to our economic values? Wasn't the Indian middle class hailed as among the most economically progressive people, with a habit of saving and a practice of spending with prudence? Has the sight of money that our parents could not have dreamed of left us blinded? This reminds me of the saying by a great man from my hometown, which was aptly printed behind the passbook of the State Bank of Mysore - the place where I opened my first bank account - and it read "If you buy what you do not need, you will need what you cannot buy" - a quote credited to Sir M Vishveshwariah by the SBM. I will not get into the implications of the quote. But, looking at people today, I find it hard to believe that we were once the people guided by such principles.

"Dude, let's drive around, we still have a quarter tank to empty before we return the car" - an example of something that would piss me off. Being able to afford something, or having paid for something do not qualify as valid reasons to waste that thing, especially if it is a consumable. You do not have to empty the gas tank before you return the car just because you have paid for it. Not when you have no real use of the car. You do not have to use the AC in the hotel room when it is not required only because you got a room with AC. The west has pampered its people with such luxuries, what I would call unwanted luxuries. And thanks to Hollywood and TV, Indians are being influenced.

There are many things to learn from the west. But it is up to us to choose the good parts and leave out the bad. Sadly, we seem to be doing the exact opposite.

Why So Serious?

I believe "The Dark Knight" deserves the top spot it has earned on IMDb. This post is more a testimony to the characters Batman and Joker themselves than to Chris Nolan and Heath Ledger.

Though I don't like superheroes, Batman has grown to be my favourite. The reason is his strength - his anonymity. It is the purest form of service - to fight for justice and to expect nothing in return, not even recognition. To be able to satisfy oneself with the only fact that justice is being reinforced. To be called a wealthy industrialist with no big concern for the city when actually risking one's life for the betterment of the city. He is an embodiment of service in its purest form.

And that is exactly where the Joker scores. The kind of lunatic who could do outrageous acts for no reason, commit crime not for money or power, but for the establishment of anarchy, for reigning chaos. To fight against justice and expect nothing in return. To be able to satisfy oneself with the only fact that lawlessness is the only law. To be called a lunatic, a freak, when actually risking everything for what one believed in, and rightly so, for the Joker's doctrines are those of a lunatic, a freak. He is the true 'Professor Chaos'.

As the Joker himself says, the conflict is like when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. The concept kind of reminds me of the movie 'Seven' which also has a similar theme. But, unlike there, the Batman makes the Joker lose by losing himself, by sacrificing his options to prove his vigilante image wrong - another point that reinforces the Joker's claim that the Batman 'completes' him. The underlying theme is heavily inter weaved with ironies and seemingly paradoxical situations. The whole Batman-Joker battle has been elevated to an ideological stratagem, and that is what makes the movie brilliant. And Chris Nolan has proved his genius thus. But, it would be unfair not to mention Ledger's owning of the role of the Joker. The body language, the dialogue delivery are exemplary, perfect even. A must watch. Probably more than once!

Phew!

Its been a tiring quarter, and being on the other side of it makes me glad. If there is one thing I have learnt this quarter, it is that one shouldn't take four courses in a quarter.

Being jobless after a long time, I have sped through the first three seasons of 24 in record time. Have also watched a number of movies. But, two movies impressed me particularly - Philadelphia and Jodhaa Akbar.

Philadelphia was quite different from the movies I have seen recently. The story was backed by a strong theme - highlighting the discrimination against homosexuals and people suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, and was strengthened by some amazing acting by both Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. One of those movies that would've forced me to think about Law had I seen it before I delved into Science - "Every now and again, not often, but occasionally, you get to be a part of justice being done. That really is quite a thrill..." - Inspiring!

Jodhaa Akbar was good in its own way. Though there were a few things that could have been done better, the message the story had, and its relevance to contemporary India almost obscured the shortcomings. Whether it is historically sound or not, the story reminds people of, what has today become one of the very badly needed qualities in a man - religious tolerance. That morality and humanity supersede religious formalities has been upheld finely by Akbar's character.

I like movies that teach me something, movies with morals. And both these movies reminded me that I had forgotten one very important essence of life in the diverse world I live in today - tolerance...