Nolan has said that there is indeed one explanation in Inception. I started out thinking it was all a dream and had many reasons to believe this. In fact, I could probably come up with 50 or more premises that back up the dream argument. Here are a few off the top of my head:

1. Cobb and Cobol - dreams can elicit blended associations

2. The top is Mal's totem - Cobb can't trust it

3. Repeated dialogue such as "leap of faith" and Cobb's tone when he says "waiting to die alone" to Saito in the 1st layer

4. While looking in the mirror, Cobb seeing Mal in "reality" after apparently waking up from the dream in Moombasa (and of course the fact that we don't see him successfully spin the top)

5. The characters standing around Cobb at the immigration check - why would the airport let Ariadne, for example, hang out by the other immigration agent when there's a long line?

I could go on and on. After having read the evidence for reality, however, I'm convinced that it is so. There's no need for me to list the reasons for reality, as most of you are well aware of them. Predominantly, the most obvious premise for reality is how the top begins to wobble at the end. A top that will continue to spin would not wobble like that.

Anyways, the point of this post is to point out Nolan's genius. A main theme of Inception is not being able to trust what you know (Mal: "what do you believe? what do you feel?). Once doubt starts to creep in, a slippery slope can send you to psychosis. Not only did Nolan implement this into the plot, but he did it to his own viewers. The critical, informed viewer knows that Cobb is in reality at various parts of the movie, especially the end. I think Nolan makes this extremely clear when you consider all of the evidence. And yet, he designed the dialogue, plot, character development, and visuals in such a way that you can't help but consider the dream argument. Nolan filmed the movie in such a way as to blatantly tell you it's reality but to leave just enough doubt for those who are willing to entertain another explanation.

Nolan incepted us by planting the idea that the ending may not be reality, even though it is.

Totally agree, but that's nothing new. That's correct and it always was.

By the way: Mal in Mombasa is just a flashback of Cobb. He remembers. She's not really in the mirror. She's at the window, going to jump. It's a memory.

I figured so. The premises for a dream that I posted are far fetched and go to show how far the slippery slope can take you. Going with your example, doubters can go so far that the memory explanation for seeing Mal isn't good enough for them. They're certain it's a dream and will confirm it by distorting / ignoring evidence.

dalnet22 wrote:I figured so. The premises for a dream that I posted are far fetched and go to show how far the slippery slope can take you. Doubters can go so far that the memory explanation for seeing Mal isn't good enough for them.

Yep, that's true, but I mean you can see that she's not really there, that it's just a memory. And all the other things you said really are very strange and having doubt is the point.

The only thing that makes it strange for me is Chris Nolan saying Cobb is an untrusty narrator. I wonder what that means...

I think Nolan's throwing a fakeout with that one. Cobb's trustworthiness has nothing to do with Nolan's depiction of reality and dream. None of what Cobb says throughout the movie is needed as a premise to prove the reality theory. All Nolan's doing is creating more details for the dream theorists to focus on, making it more difficult for them to zoom out and look at the big picture.

"Forest from the trees, mate..."

If someone wants to claim that Cobb's untrustworthiness means that we can't trust his ability to look at the children at the end, then they're basically sabotaging all aspects of the film. The dream theorist depends on using unfalsifiable claims to prove their argument.

dalnet22 wrote: 1. Cobb and Cobol - dreams can elicit blended associations

Not disagreeing, but with reference to your number 1, you might want to take a look at the Empire article I posted yesterday, he says that he had to change the name of Cobol several times for legal reasons (he was probably picking names of co's that actually exist) so it doesn't really mean anything.

Theory number 2 in the empire article is also worth a look as he clams up in response.

Full thing here - http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... =26&t=4240

Rob wrote:The only thing that makes it strange for me is Chris Nolan saying Cobb is an untrusty narrator. I wonder what that means...

You see Cobb spin the top in one of the first scenes to establish A reality, not definitive reality, you then spend the rest of the film believing (or not) Cobb's version of reality. But is Cobb's version of reality actually reality?
I was really falling on the its not ALL a dream side of the fence until I read theory 2 in the Empire magazine article. Now I don't know what the definitive answer is, but I'm choosing to believe he really does get home as I want him to be with his kids.

Thanks for posting that, Sara. Nolan's response to Theory 2 suggests that it's certainly not correct but that commenting on it requires Nolan to say too much about the correct answer. Not being able to comment at all on it means that he can't discuss the underlying point of the theory, which is in favor of the movie being entirely a dream. Nolan created a movie intentionally ambiguous between the reality and dream theories. He clearly wants to avoid anything discussion that taps into the heart of those topics.

The other possible underlying point of theory 2 is that of there being a main architect that is not Ariadne. Why would Nolan want to avoid discussing that? Perhaps it's because it would require him to discuss how Cobb is essentially the architect for us viewers. We see the film through his eyes and thus how he perceives reality. Maybe he's afraid of elaborating on this and ruining the ambiguity he's created.

here's the final answer: there is none. It's supposed to be based on your perception. The Mombasa scene, The ending, the things that Mal says, the way the movie all works is meant to change the way you see reality. At the end of the credits, I prefer to think when the kick music slows down and then the credits end, I think that's Nolan's way of saying, 'The movie's over, it's time to wake up.' In my opinion, it doesn't matter, because Cobb got to see his children's faces, and he finally got over Mal. Who cares if the totem fell at that point?

dalnet22 wrote:I think Nolan's throwing a fakeout with that one. Cobb's trustworthiness has nothing to do with Nolan's depiction of reality and dream. None of what Cobb says throughout the movie is needed as a premise to prove the reality theory. All Nolan's doing is creating more details for the dream theorists to focus on, making it more difficult for them to zoom out and look at the big picture.

"Forest from the trees, mate..."

If someone wants to claim that Cobb's untrustworthiness means that we can't trust his ability to look at the children at the end, then they're basically sabotaging all aspects of the film. The dream theorist depends on using unfalsifiable claims to prove their argument.

Thanks, very good post!

It's clearly reality. However a lot of people don't seem willing to accept that, because it would be "cliched."