Jungian wrote:
fine. For YOUR ego its a useless test. but for Cobb's it was to immense help. clearer?

In what way was it a help for Cobb's ego?

He learned to let it go? If you pay attention in the end, its the faces of his children which is the assurance of reality.

Jungian wrote:He learned to let it go? If you pay attention in the end, its the faces of his children which is the assurance of reality.

How would the faces of his children provide "assurance of reality"?

In other words, what would prevent him from dreaming of their faces?

This film goes to great lengths to establish the rules of its universe. I don't think it was Nolan's intentions of using these rules to distract us from the sort of natural intuition a few of you keep bringing up. What really matters to me is what is in the script or what Nolan actually says about the film's ending. It's fine that one speculates and develops his or her own theories, and I legitimately enjoy reading them; but I really don't think the rules governing the totems are fallacious, mainly because the script spends a ton of exposition to define the rules of the film's dream worlds.

Ponsonby wrote:

Jungian wrote:He learned to let it go? If you pay attention in the end, its the faces of his children which is the assurance of reality.

How would the faces of his children provide "assurance of reality"?

In other words, what would prevent him from dreaming of their faces?

Cobb's guilt of "choosing to leave them" did not only forcefully project the evil Mal, but it also made it impossible for him to see their faces.

Addicted2Movies wrote: This film goes to great lengths to establish the rules of its universe. I don't think it was Nolan's intentions of using these rules to distract us from the sort of natural intuition a few of you keep bringing up. What really matters to me is what is in the script or what Nolan actually says about the film's ending. It's fine that one speculates and develops his or her own theories, and I legitimately enjoy reading them;

I completely agree up to this point. To me, too, it's what's in the screenplay (as well as what Nolan has said in interviews) that matters.

The various speculations are fascinating because they provide a window into the expectations people have of the stories they enjoy.

Addicted2Movies wrote: but I really don't think the rules governing the totems are fallacious, mainly because the script spends a ton of exposition to define the rules of the film's dream worlds.

Here we part ways, if I'm correctly reading what seems to be your implication (that the simple fact of exposition being given in a movie ensures that the exposition is reliable).

Recall that Nolan, in an interview, called Cobb "an unreliable narrator."

Jungian wrote:

Ponsonby wrote:
How would the faces of his children provide "assurance of reality"?
In other words, what would prevent him from dreaming of their faces?

Cobb's guilt of "choosing to leave them" did not only forcefully project the evil Mal, but it also made it impossible for him to see their faces.

I certainly agree that Cobb's guilt affected his every moment, waking and sleeping.

But 'guilt' is not an external force. It is internal, and subject to unconscious wishes and desires. Therefore, if Cobb wanted to dream of his children's faces, he would have dreamed of their faces.

Ponsonby wrote:But 'guilt' is not an external force. It is internal, and subject to unconscious wishes and desires. Therefore, if Cobb wanted to dream of his children's faces, he would have dreamed of their faces.

If he dreamt NORMALLY sure he would dream about them. But with Dreamshare...its a whole different thing.

Jungian wrote:

Ponsonby wrote:But 'guilt' is not an external force. It is internal, and subject to unconscious wishes and desires. Therefore, if Cobb wanted to dream of his children's faces, he would have dreamed of their faces.

If he dreamt NORMALLY sure he would dream about them. But with Dreamshare...its a whole different thing.

That seems like hand-waving the issue--unless there's evidence in the movie to the effect that 'the way Dreamshare works is that it keeps people from seeing their children's faces.'

???

Ponsonby wrote:

Jungian wrote:
If he dreamt NORMALLY sure he would dream about them. But with Dreamshare...its a whole different thing.

That seems like hand-waving the issue--unless there's evidence in the movie to the effect that 'the way Dreamshare works is that it keeps people from seeing their children's faces.'

???

Dreamshare obviously gave Cobb flashbacks of guilt right? And he said at the same time it was the only way he COULD dream. He was a drug addict lost in shame and guilt over his actions and whenever he used the Dreamshare device wired up with the somnacin drug it truly messed with him.

I am saying if he dreamt without the machine he would dream about anything.

But the rules of Dreamshare would never let him continue to live with the woman of his life after in reality he killed her. And it would not let him see the faces of his children because in reality he left them. His shadow self was trying to continue to live as it used to be, but his other half of a hole, himself would also not let him. Majorly conflicted. But he managed to say goodbye to his shadow self in the end. And hopefully he would never use Dreamshare again.