Michael Caine Explains the End of 'Inception', but Should He Have?
You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.
One of my most popular articles ever was the one I wrote following the release of Inception titled "Wake Up! Let's Talk about 'Inception' – Here's My Interpretation. It gave me an opportunity to work out my theories on the film and its ending and allowed readers to discuss their personal interpretations. At this moment it has over 440 comments and serves as the most read article on the site for 2010. Why? Not because my interpretation was some whirlwind interpretation, but because people wanted to read not only my opinion, but share their interpretations and read the opinions of others.
This was the beauty of Inception and Christopher Nolan's decision not to end the film with a clear cut answer as to whether the top fell or continued to spin. It's the reason you heard groans in the theater followed by laughter as audience members were waiting to see if it would fall and once they realized Nolan wasn't going to tell them there was excitement and giddiness at the idea of the unknown.
Nolan was leaving it up to our imagination and our interpretation of what's real and what isn't. Who is the true architect and is Dom still dreaming or are those really his kids? Well, they look like the same kids but are they wearing different clothes? IMDb lists two separate sets of child actors for his kids. And so on, and so on. The debate continues and no one knows whether they're right or wrong and that's what makes it so great.
But wait. Hold on. Being the society we are, we're unwilling to accept this idea of the unknown. Hell, we have our freaking iPads and WhatsamaGoogles and we damn well should be able to figure this out. So and so is on Twitter and he'll probably tell us the answer.
First there were the endless number of charts made to "explain" Inception as if the dream levels were what was causing debate. Then there were the clever folks behind "plot hole" images that can't even spell Michael Caine's name correctly let alone understand Cobb's wish wasn't just to be the guy his kids visit in France on occasion, but to have an ongoing and active role in their lives and be their father again. I'm not positive, but I don't think the authorities would take too kindly to a grandfather exporting his grandchildren out of the country to live with their fugitive father. The folks hunting Cobb down would certainly use that against him and something tells me this might raise a red flag. Moving on…
Next it was Dileep Rao over at Vulture adding his two cents, but this was merely his interpretation. Considering he was part of the cast his interpretation was interesting, but it was nonetheless an opinion no better than the rest of ours and doesn't necessarily take things too far. However, costume designer Jeffrey Kurland began pulling the curtain back in early August and now Michael Caine has attempted to reveal the whole shebang as if Nolan handed him his playbook. And yes, if you don't want your interpretation of Inception spoiled you should probably skip the next paragraph and continue reading below the image.
In an interview with BBC Radio's The Chris Moyles Show (via Screenrant) Caine is quoted saying, "[The spinning top] drops at the end, that’s when I come back on. If I'm there it's real, because I'm never in the dream. I'm the guy who invented the dream."
Photo: Warner Bros.
So there you have it. Mystery solved. The key to Borden's journal has been revealed and the magician's trick explained.
Ironically, just as I was reading Caine's quote I was watching Criterion's upcoming Blu-ray release of Ingmar Bergman's The Magician and on the disc there is a short interview in which Bergman is asked about the "intention" of his latest film, Persona. You may find Bergman's answer interesting:
If I've really managed to make a film that has sparked a debate it would be very tactless of me to barge in on that debate and talk about what I really meant by the film.
It would be tactless toward the audience, because I'm sure they all have their own interpretations, and tactless towards those commenting on it in the media, who might feel hurt if they found they'd misinterpreted the film.
Therefore I prefer not to say anything at all.
I played my part in this debate when I made the film.
As far as being "hurt", as Bergman puts it, it isn't that I feel hurt as much as I feel Caine is cheating people who may now find it useless to explore the film further, as they look for their own explanation and find it impossible to shake Caine's words from their head. Personally, my interpretation suits me just fine and I will be watching the film again looking for further evidence to either back it up or shoot it down in support of another theory. So while I agree with Bergman's statement, I think the one thing he's missing is that no matter what, an artist's intentions may be when it comes to their art, it doesn't mean it's the "only" way to view or interpret said art.
Sure, Caine is just one of the actors and it isn't as if Nolan started blabbing, but considering Caine's role in the film many will take his word to be the final word. Fortunately, I don't think we'll be hearing Chris Nolan explaining the ins and outs of Inception or confirming Caine's statement any time soon. I would expect to hear him talk about Inception's ending just as much I anticipate he'll offer a final explanation for the existence of a certain tattoo in Memento.
As for Caine's interpretation, I've already swept it under the rug. In my interpretation of the film it doesn't matter if the top falls or not so I guess his reasoning makes no difference either way to me. In fact my interpretation could actually shoot his down in terms of explaining whether or not the end of the film is a dream or not.
Nevertheless, that's besides the point, I only hope anyone that reads his opinion does the same as I have and just pass it off as another opinion and leave it at that. When movies leave the door open for the audience to make their own interpretation, and engage us along the way, there are few things better if you ask me.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 30 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I still think it is Caine's interpretation of it. He sounded a bit confused about the thing himself when he was talking about it, so I don't think it's that big of a deal. The only person I would probably believe is Christopher Nolan, but I know he won't say anything.
Yeah, I definitely don't agree with him. After 4 movies, of course, Caine would know Nolan pretty well, but Nolan's movies are always pessimistic. In every one of his movies, the protagonist technically defeats the antagonist/achieves his goal but there's some discovery at the end that makes it seem more like a defeat. SPOILERS Killing John G multiple times (Memento), having previously faked evidence (Insomnia), losing Wayne Manor/identity exposed and loss of romance with Dawes (Batman Begins), one Borden still alive (The Prestige), Batman has to take the blame for all the deaths (The Dark Knight), and…
Unless Nolan has seriously broken his own tradition… Cobb not reaching his children (Inception).
I think the fact that he's never in a dream is just because his character is peripheral, there's no need to show him in a dream. A lot of the little clues and obstacles seem to be well-thought out, intentionally placed by Nolan, but it doesn't feel like this Caine thing was a deliberate hint.
I'm telling you the wedding ring is what sold me on my theory! Also Brad I love that you used The Prestige last line as the headline.
Hollywood is obsessed with being spoonfed answers. I reckon that it is Caine's personal interpretation. I don't think even Nolan has an answer. I think he designed the film that way. Even if Nolan knew, he wouldn't tell anybody because there wouldn't be a talking point. I loved the ending though!
I think it is just his interpetation of it.
I agree, but to an extent.
Of course you can look at a movie on it's own and give it any interpretation that suits you, but there are other instances where you would want to know the artist's intentions in making it to compare them with the finished product and assess their methodology.
Certainly with the spinning top it's something I presume Nolan doesn't even have an answer on -No interpretation is necessarily wrong, although I'm preferential to the one where it really does stop spinning and he's back in reality, because I'm an optimist.
But, to say a filmmaker shouldn't explain their view on a film -how far does that go? Character-wise for instance there could be a debate on whether it was really moral for Cobb to go through with Inception changing an entire man's life just to return home to his kids (and all the complexities that go with both sides of that argument) and it's not something that's entirely clear or laid out in the film -like the spinning top it's unknown and neither answer is right.
Good films are rife with ambiguity, but some things will eventually get explained either directly by the filmmaker or via insight into his/her views. So to say filmmakers should not enter into the debates their movies generate can be considerably restrictive if taken to the extreme.
The discourse created by the uncertain ending definitely helped marketing wise and I think is a good lesson for other filmmakers to learn from. If people are talking about your movie it's probably a good idea not to kill the debate, but the real question is what constitutes something that a filmmaker should (or in some situations inevitably will have to) explain to their audience and what kinds of things should be left open to interpretation?
I'm sorry, but was it ever up to debate that it wasn't a dream?
The debate was WHAT DID IT MEAN. WHAT WAS NOLAN TRYING TO SAY? WHAT DID COBB LEARN?
I don't think the debate was "WAS IT REAL?" The top obviously fell. That isn't up to interpretation at all.
Yes it was up for debate and no the top didn't obviously fall… in fact, it never fell at the end and was totally up for interpretation.
I felt that way in the first few seconds, but you know, there comes a point when you're just inventing ways to become fooled. The top wobbles and you hear it preparing to fall and it then fades to black. The top does fall, and I don't think it could have been any clearer. But Nolan doesn't want you to see it fall, thats where the debate lies (at least the ones I've participated in– including the one on this site.
WHY DOESN'T NOLAN WANT YOU TO SEE IT? WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
I personally thought it meant that Nolan wanted you to notice that Cobb didn't look back. He didn't care anymore if the top was real or not, and that's why they zoom in on Cobb hugging the kids and transition to the top spinning (showing you that it has 0% of his attention).
I just read Rao's interview and it makes me feel stronger about my initial opinion.
However, if some people are considering the top to not have fallen, they're just looking for something that isn't there. Kinda like this video http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1939234
You never see the top fall so to say you know, unequivocally that it did is flat out, 100% wrong. That is why it's part of the debate, not the whole debate, but part of it.
i agree… the idea was the top kept spinning in dreams… it clearly begins to fall or teeter which would ruin the dream image, and if people think it would teeter for no reason and start spinning perfectly again, theyre reaching in my opinion… idk wat the fuss was about either. After i came to that conclusion, i decided it was plot holes and a questionable ending that leads to an interpretation, or in my opinion just a lack of an ending. I wanted so bad to like this movie because i love "mind blowing" movies… but in my opinion it was just a bad way to end it… happy that someone finally agrees.
On the contrary, I loved the ending. I understand where you come from though, but I don't think all movies should have a twist. This one didn't need it, it had closure with a solid ending that made people think.
As for Brad, you're the film expert, but I just can't agree with you. The top wobbled and was prepared to fall. Unless it spun back up like in the comedy video I showed you, its obvious it is going to fall. Nolan didn't show it, not to make you question the falling, but to make you realize that SEEING the top fall wasn't important to Cobb anymore- and therefore, shouldn't be important to YOU.
Fine, the reason I'm giving for the situation is purely speculation on my part, but the situation is not though. The top fell. There's no question about it. The question is WHY DID WE NOT SEE IT?
I totally understand what you are saying entirely and even agree to some extent, but even in your reasoning you come to conclusions based on the top falling or not, whether indirectly or directly. If Nolan doesn't use that small gimmick at the end of the film and do it just as he did, conversation surrounding the film would not have been as intriguing.
Additionally, Warner Bros. sent out replica tops from the film to the press and you'd be surprised how often they actually wobble (just as it did at the end of the film) and then continue spinning again as if they'd never showed a hint of falling. Those things will spin forever. So yes, there is question about it. Unless you see it fall, you don't know.
Nolan put the wobble in there for a very specific reason — so you and I would have this discussion. If he just shows it to us falling then everyone comes to one conclusion. If it keeps spinning and never shows the slightest sign of wobbling then everyone would come to the opposite conclusion. The wobble absolutely has to be in there to reinforce both sides of the argument without ever answering one or the other with an absolute by cutting to the credits before it falls… or doesn't.
The top wobbled. Come on, we all saw it.
He shouldn't.
Part of the fun in this movie it's the fact that we don't know what happens at the end. Both times I saw Inception, the audience laughed when the credits begin. Not a "that's funny!" laugh, but the "oh no he didn't!" laughter.
People liked the fact that the ending was open to interpretation and EVERYBODY had one. Nobody didn't care wether the top stopped spinning or not, they kept talking about the movie for days after they say it.
But when Michael Caine say's what actually happens, the debate is over, isn't?
My take on the final was it did not matter, he was happy and "home".
Ha, those were my words exactly when I explained it to someone. So good job. XD
I think everyone is just pissed now because they have nothing to talk about anymore. This movie is supposed to be so intelligent and smart yet the only thing anyone talks about is whether Leo is dreaming or not. Wow, that's a deep question for the ages. Philosophers in ancient Greece where having that discussion.
Plato: So Socrates, was Leo dreaming or was it all real?
Socrates: Like the sands of the hour glass, so are the days of Leo's lives…
I don't agree. I think the top did not fall. Obvioulsy the teetering of the top happened to raise the question, did it fall or not? I also don't get what M. Caine was saying, maybe I am dumb, but his point is that he was never dreaming, so if he is there it couldn't have been a dream…I dream about other people who are not dreaming all the time. Can't people be in his dream that are not actually dreaming or did I miss something? This could have been some giant metaphor for something, but what I liked to believe was that he was dreaming and when his wife commited suicide she was dreaming but got out. The whole movie is trying to convince you that she was the crazy one who killed herself, but I think she was the one who actually woke up.
Indeed that is possible. The question isn't then whether Leo was dreaming in the end, but was he dreaming the whole thing? Some points to consider. 1) Michael Caine could have been a mere projection from Leos subconscious appearing in that part of his dream. 2)The kids appear in the same place many times throughout the film. When he explains his 'story' we see the kids on the grass. At the end we see the kids on the grass. Is Nolan telling us that Leo can see the future in his dreams because those kids are exactly where he imagined they would be, unless of course it was all a dream in which case the kids could teleport wherever and whenever his subconscious calls them in. It seems unlikely he could dream exactly where his kids would be when he returns to them after a long exile. 3). Wedding rings, shoes etc can change in a dream and they obviously do when moving through levels. Is the last scene a higher level? He shakes of the wedding ring when he accepts the loss of Mal (what a name for her!).
I'm not saying it was or wasn't, just saying there is plenty to argue that Leo was dreaming it all. And more.
Most important question of the year. When is this flick releasing in super-deluxe edition DVD and Blu-Ray? :)
If someone doesn't feel too pleased it's easy enough to just take that as Caine's take on the film.
I don't think it will stifle any discussion of the film in the long term.
i really still dont know what to think. i just want it to come out on bluray soon. anyone know when that will be ?
Really, I think Caine saying that makes all my assumptions plausible now so I am cool with it.
But still it is fun to talk about. If his words haunt me now, so be it, but I will still talk to people and see what they think and then give them what I think and everyone play with everything until we are all blue in the face. So I am good with whatever.
the fact that we see cobb in his own subconcious in the beginning is an obvious reference that he was dreaming at the beginning and that when he and old saito were never seen getting shot it leaves the impression that they never woke up but just jumped to a nonlinear dream continuing the eteral loop cobb is on, a changing eteral loop that cobbs top represents no reality except the one he has come to accept, and that infact mal is the one who has taken "the leap of faith" and that the hotel room was just a room in their limbo and the impossible rescue by saito just proves the point that things are not real and that cobb is stuck in dreamland.
The top was wobbling. It was about to stop.
well considering in that level of world he had already many times used the top and it had fallen. unless they skipped a level of him waking up; then it did indeed fall, (even see the wobble at the end)
thats how i see it.
scratch the skipped a level part. doesnt make sense even if there was one.
Hate to disagree with Mr. Caine, but the top doesn't drop at the end. That is the end. The top keeps spinning. People are waiting for the top to fall, and want it to fall. But it doesn't fall. That is how the film ends, and on purpose. He is in the dream world.
Remember that Caine's character is in France before Cobb's flight. How does he know to fly to the U.S. and get there before Cobb arrives? All the charges are instantly dropped in flight so that Cobb can just waltz through security? It is way too dreamlike.
The entire film is in a dream. Caine refuses to help then instantly changes his position, offering his best assistant? Ariadne invades Cobb's private dreams without hesitation or excuse, offering to help all the time? Less human, more dreamlike. It is just another layer of dream. But whose dream? Is it simply a matter that Cobb is undergoing dream therapy from his step father to let go?
Or is the dreamer the one who owns the top, Mal?