>>Male Presenter: Kyle Johnson is here to
talk about "Inception and Philosophy."
He's the editor of the book, among--.
He's also the frequent contributor to other
volumes of the Blackwell Philosophy and Popular
Culture series, including Heroes in Philosophy.
And he's here to talk today about Inception
and why--.
What's the premise of the--?
>>Kyle Johnson: It should've won Best Picture.
>>Male Presenter: Why Inception should've
won Best Picture.
It's a very cogently argued philosophical
argument, which I think you will all enjoy.
And without further ado, let's welcome Kyle
to Google.
[applause]
>>Kyle Johnson: Thank you very much, Tyler.
So, just to make sure, who's seen Inception?
Good.
All right.
'Cause if you haven't seen it, you almost
can't spoil Inception because it's unclear
what's going on in Inception, right?
So, there's no ending to spoil necessarily.
But what I do wanna argue today is that Inception
should have won Best Picture.
And I should warn you that there's gonna be
a lot of stuff flying at you here.
The words on the slides are really for my
benefit.
The pictures are for your benefit, so don't
feel like you need to read everything.
The Power Point is designed such that you
can just go through the Power Point by yourself
and understand it.
So, don't be overwhelmed by some text-heavy
slides as it were.
But I'm going to argue that Inception should've
won Best Picture.
Now, I really don't actually care that much
about whether or not it won Best Picture.
Like, I wasn't crying the night the Oscars
were on, whenever it didn't win.
But the reason I think it didn't win is because
the Academy didn't understand it.
I think it went right over their heads.
[laughter]
And so what I'm really attempting to do here
is I'm attempting to explain, by telling you
why it should've won, I'm going to explain
the movie.
I'm gonna help you understand the movie about
what it was about, about even what happened
in it.
Like, what actually is going on in the plot.
And I'm gonna show you how philosophy can
help you understand the movie.
And I think maybe you can even really truly
understand the movie without it.
And so, that's a lot of what the book tries
to do is help you use philosophy to understand
Inception.
And then, once you understand it, we go off
and we explore other philosophical issues
that are raised by the movie.
So, some things that they may have missed.
One thing that the Academy probably missed
about Inception was that the movie itself
is an analogy--it's an allegory--for movie-making.
That the dream team, each element of the dream
team has an analogous element to those who
make a movie.
So, Cobb, who orchestrates everything, he's
the director.
Ariadne, who designs the dreams, she's the
screen-writer.
Saito, who bankrolls the whole thing, who
buys the whole airline instead of just buying
out first class, he's the production company.
He's the bankroll.
Arthur, who organizes everything.
He's the producer.
Eames, who puts on characters--literally portrays
the sexy blonde--or Browning, the Godfather,
he's the actor.
Yusuf, who has the technical savvy to chemically
concoct the chemical they use to put themselves
under to make the whole thing possible, he's
special effects.
Fischer, the mark, he's the audience.
And we even see things like this, where we
see Eames as Browning.
You see Eames in the mirror there.
He's actually sitting at an old-time vanity
mirror like an actor would.
And so, we have this direct analogy with movie-making
itself where Inception is actually an analogy
for movie-making itself.
Here's something else that they probably missed.
[music plays]
I believe it was Hans Zimmer who did the music
for Inception, has admitted in interviews
that it's not just the intro.
Every piece of music all the way throughout
the film is based on different parts of that
Edith Piaf track, either sped up or slowed
down to different tempos.
And he just took those elements, took it,
sped it up, slowed it down, and then composed
the music for the film based on that.
That is cool.
That is really cool and it's something that
most people missed about the film.
And in fact, Inception itself is an inception.
You may think that Inception is impossible.
In fact, they even talk about that in the
movie that it's impossible to get into someone's
mind an implant an idea in there and make
them think that it was their own idea.
But that's just what movies do.
That's all movies do is--.
It's not all they do, but that's one big thing
that they do is they incept ideas into us.
Inception probably incepted into you the idea
that reality may not be actually real, but
instead is a dream.
Inception happens all the time.
And that's what the whole point of advertising
is.
Inception.
And so, but these are not even--.
This is just, this is tawdry stuff.
This is just little tiny things that you may
have missed.
This is not even the big stuff.
Kinda cool, but not the big stuff.
Here's the big stuff.
Or at least, starting with the big stuff.
Just, just getting started.
On the surface, the movie is a great action
film with some cool special effects and a
clever cliffhanger.
At the end and he spins the top to see if
he's really in reality and they fade to the--.
They go to the top.
Is it gonna fall?
And they cut out.
You don't know.
That's kinda cool, right?
Unraveling the movie would seem to simply
require discovering the answer to the question,
"Did the top fall?"
And if you knew whether the top fell or not,
then you'd know whether Cobb was home and
the movie can be nicely wrapped up.
The first step to understanding Inception
is realizing that the answer to that question,
"Did the top fall?" doesn't matter at all.
Even if we knew whether or not the top fell,
we would still not understand the movie.
Even if the top falls, Cobb could still be
dreaming.
And in fact, I think he probably is.
Now, I'm gonna give you an argument for why.
So first, we have to start out asking ourselves
how do totems work.
'Cause Cobb's top was not the only totem in
the movie.
Arthur's got a totem.
It's the die.
Ariadne's got a totem.
It's the bishop.
There's some others as well.
You're never supposed to let anyone else see
how your totem works.
You don't even want anyone else to touch your
totem.
Because if they do, they might feel how it's
weighted in the real world and then your totem
will not be able to tell you whether or not
you're in one of their dreams.
So for example, Arthur's totem is the loaded
die.
If Ariadne touched his totem, she might get
inkling about how it's weighted in the real
world.
And she would know that whenever he rolls
it in the real world, it always comes up a
five.
So, he can't let her touch that because if
she touches that, then if he's in one of her
dreams and he rolls his die in her dream--.
Well, she knows it's supposed to come up a
five and so she would dream it would come
up a five.
So, you can't let anyone know how your totem
behaves in the real world.
If she does touch it, then it will not be
able to tell Arthur whether or not he is in
her dream.
This is why he doesn't let her touch it.
This is also why Ariadne refuses to let Cobb
touch her totem, the bishop.
If he gets an inkling as to how it works and
how it's weighted in the real world and how
it falls, then it won't be able to tell her
whether or not he's in one of his dreams.
So since, but here's the thing.
Most importantly, what this means is that
totems can only tell you that you're not in
someone else's dream.
Arthur even specifically says that in the
film.
It can only tell you if you're in someone
else's dream.
It can't tell you whether or not you're in
your own dream.
So, even if the top falls in the end, Cobb
could still be dreaming because he could still
be in his own dream because he knows how his
totem works.
So even if it falls, he could still be in
his own dream.
But it gets worse.
Cobb reveals too much.
When Ariadne calls totems an "elegant solution
for keeping track of reality,"--this is right
after he'd asked to see hers and she said,
"No, you can't see it."
And he says, "Good job.
You shouldn't let anyone know how your totem
works."
Right after that, she says, "It's an elegant
solution for keeping track of reality."
And asked if it was his idea.
And he says, "No, it was Mal's actually.
This one was hers.
She would spin it in the dream and it would
never topple, just spin and spin."
He just did what he told her never to do--tell
people how your totem works.
He just told her how it works.
So now, the totem is no good for telling him
whether or not he's in one of her dreams because
now she knows how it works.
And since she designed all the dreams of the
inception, it can't tell him whether or not
he's out of the inception or not because tops
would fall.
She knows how it works in all the dreams in
the inception.
And worse yet, the top was originally Mal's.
That was her totem.
It's not his.
She knows how it works.
So, it can't tell him whether or not he's
in her dream, either.
So, even if the top falls at the end, he could
still be in his own dream.
He could still be in Ariadne's dream.
He could still be in Mal's dream.
Now, he thinks Mal is dead of course, so he
doesn't have to worry about that.
But the problem, of course, is she might have
been right.
And if she was, she's still alive.
We'll talk more about that in a little bit.
But it gets even worse.
Those three people that it could be, that
he's still dreaming in, he's in their dream.
But it gets worse.
Think about how the other totems work.
Arthur only knows what number his die falls
on in the real world.
Only Ariadne knows how her bishop is weighted
in the real world.
There's another totem.
Eames' totem, the poker chip.
It's not exactly stated in the film, but you
can tell because he's always playing with
it.
That's his totem.
And it's not quite clear how it works, but
if you think about it you can figure it out.
There's one line in the film where Cobb talks
about the misspelling on his chip.
And, if you went to ComiCon this year, one
of my contributors, Lance, showed me this
picture.
This is from ComiCon this year.
They had Eames' totem on display.
And if you look, it says "Mombasa District
Casino, one hundred Shillings."
It's a Mombasa Casino casino chip.
But it's misspelled.
There's an extra "S" in Mombasa.
And this is how his totem works.
If he looks at his poker chip and he sees
that extra "S" he knows he's in the real world
'cause he put it there.
But if he looks at his poker chip and it's
spelled correctly, it doesn't have that extra
"S."
Then he knows he's in someone else's dream.
But with each one of these totems, notice
that their behavior in the real world is unique.
It's loaded.
It's weighted.
It has an extra "S." In the dream, it behaves
ordinarily.
Roll the die and it rolls random.
But Cobb's totem is backwards.
How does it behave in the real world?
Like all tops behave in the real world.
It falls down.
Its behavior in the dream is unique.
All the other totems, how they behave in the
real world is unique, and in the dream is
ordinary.
His is ordinary in the real world, unique
in a dream.
It's backwards.
And since not only do Mal and Cobb, obviously
and Ariadne know that his top would fall in
the real world, we know his top would fall
in the real world.
That's what tops do.
Everybody knows that.
If Cobb was in one of your dreams and he spun
his top, what would you dream that it would
do?
Well, I'd dream that it would fall 'cause
that's how I think they behave in the real
world.
Cobb, even if the top falls at the end, he
could still be in anyone's dream.
The top falling at the end tells us nothing.
It is a red herring.
It is there to distract you to think you've
got it figured out.
Oh, if I only knew if the top fell I'd have
it all figured out.
No, you wouldn't.
[laughter] And this is not a mistake.
This is not an oversight.
This is intentional.
Cobb himself is shown as an unreliable source
of information in the film.
"You notice how much time Cobb spends doing
the things he never says to do,” is actually
a line from Arthur in the movie.
We see that.
We actually see two versions of some of the
events of the film that he recounts.
Like, whenever he is, when he and Mal are
laying on the train track in Limbo, the first
time we see it, they're young.
And then later, when we see it again, they're
old.
Well, which is it?
Cobb tells us himself that he tries to alter
his memories.
What is he saying?
Is any of it accurate at all?
Is that really how totems work?
We don't know.
That's the beauty of it.
That ending was much more clever than you
thought.
Much more clever than you thought.
What's clever is the magic trick that no one
pulls on us.
No one has misdirected you, trying to make
you pay attention to the wrong thing--the
top--to try to find out whether Cobb is still
dreaming.
So, what you're doing at the end of the film
is like, "Oh, I wonder if he's still dreaming."
And so, you're looking down here at the top.
Will it fall?
Will it fall?
Will it fall?
While you're looking, what's actually going--the
clue--is up here on the upper-right.
You need to be watching and listening to those
children whenever they first meet Cobb after
he's back home.
You need to be listening.
That's where the clue is, but you didn't hear
it 'cause you were looking at this.
Cobb has misdirected you.
Now, to tell you.
The children say something here that's very
illuminating.
But to understand why it's illuminating, I
need to give you a little background.
And the background is this.
We see in the movie that the subconscious
works its way through dreams.
The most obvious example is the train in Limbo.
The train from Limbo barreling down in Yusuf's
kidnap dream in the middle of that city street.
The subconscious element, part of Cobb's subconscious
is working its way through a dream.
This is not the only example.
Two really good examples.
That random string of number that Fischer
arbitrarily gives as a combination to his
father's safe.
Right?
They're in the kidnap dream.
He's like, "Now tell me the first five, the
first six numbers that come right to your
head right now."
And he says, "Uhh, I don't know.
Five, two, eight, four, nine, one."
"You'll have to do better than that."
And they haul him off.
Well, that five, two, eight, four, nine, one
starts showing up in the dream after that
again and again and again.
It's the combination of both safes in Eames'
snow fortress dream.
It's the fake telephone number that Eames
gives as the sexy blonde and it's also in
Arthur's hotel dream.
In addition, Mal and Cobb's anniversary suite
number, where she jumps from the window is
three, five, oh, two.
That number is also on the train that barrels
down through the middle of the street and
the taxi they hail in that dream is two, zero,
five, three.
It's that same number backwards.
So, there's a napkin.
Five, two, eight, four, nine, one.
That's the phone number that the sexy blonde
gives Fischer.
There's the hotel room numbers in Arthur's
hotel room dream.
Five, two, eight, and four, nine, one.
And then if you were to look at Fischer put
in the combination for the safe, you see there
five, two, eight, four, nine, one for the
safe that is in the snow fortress.
It's hard to see here 'cause the picture isn't
very good, but you'd see three, five, oh,
two here on the door.
Especially if you have it in Blu-Ray, you
can see the three.
five, oh, two there.
You can see the three, five, oh, two on the
train there, as it barrels down through the
middle of the city street.
And then, the two, zero, five, three on the
taxi that they hailed in that same dream.
Subconscious elements worked their way through.
Well, another subconscious element has worked
its way through.
Both at the beginning and ending of the film,
we see that Saito dreams of a mansion on an
ocean--a house, as it is described in the
script, "a house on a cliff."
When Cobb returns to his children at the end
of the film and asks them what they have been
doing, they say, "They are building a house
on a cliff."
Turn the captions on and you'll see it right
there in black and white.
It looks like a subconscious element of Saito--Saito's
subconscious--is working its way through into
the dream that is at the end of the film.
It's working its way through.
Peeking out that subconscious.
Now, why think that Cobb is in Saito's dream
specifically?
Not his own dream or someone else's dream?
Well, here's the thing.
Think about where, if you exit Limbo.
If you commit suicide in Limbo, where do you
go?
Well, we only actually have two examples in
the film of where you go when you exit Limbo.
And that's Ariadne and Fischer.
At the end of the film, they go down there
to find Fischer.
She kicks him off the building.
He falls and he wakes up.
And a little bit later, she throws herself
off.
She falls.
She wakes up.
But where did they go?
Back to the real world?
No.
They go one layer up.
They go to the snow fortress dream--Eames'
snow fortress dream.
They go one layer up and then Fischer finishes
the inception there.
And when Ariadne gets back, they ride the
kicks back up the layers.
But you only go one layer up when you exit
Limbo, not back to the real world--not all
the way back to the front.
One layer up.
That's it.
So, at the end of the film--you can barely
see the picture there--but at the end of the
film, whenever Saito, when Cobb finds Saito
in Limbo and he's got his gun, if he were
to shoot himself in the head, where would
he go?
Or wouldn't he go where everyone else goes
when they exit Limbo, one layer up.
And that would be to Eames' snow fortress
dream.
But everyone's already left that dream layer.
So, he would find it empty, ready for the
taking.
He would fill it with his own expectations,
his own assumptions, his own subconscious,
and that would be to find himself on the plane
after the inception was complete.
Once Cobb shoots himself after that, he would
pop up to that same level, find Saito's airplane
dream and would go back to his kids in that
airplane dream.
And notice that they could be there for ten
years--the way dreams work--before they finally
realize that they were still dreaming.
So it's entirely possible, based on a consistent
interpretation of the film, that Cobb was
still dreaming.
Even if the top fell he would still be dreaming.
He'd be in Saito's dream as a dream that he
created once he got Eames' snow fortress dream
layer that was empty once he woke up from
Limbo only going one layer up.
So, Inception is more complicated than you
think.
What's clever about the ending is not the
fact that it's a clever cliffhanger.
It's clever because it tricked you into thinking
it was a clever cliffhanger when it wasn't
a cliffhanger at all.
You should've already suspected that he was
still dreaming and realize that the top was
a red herring.
That's what's clever about it.
Nolan misdirected it.
At first, you were confused.
Then, you thought you had it figured out.
But then, you start to think about it and
everything you thought you figured out, you're
not confused about, you actually misunderstood.
That's what's beautiful about it.
It lends itself to multiple interpretations.
Are we convinced that it was better than The
King's Speech yet?
[laughter]
Come on.
But we've only scratched the surface.
If we think about Saito and where you go when
you exit Limbo, if when you exit Limbo you
just go one layer up, like Ariadne and Fischer
did.
Then where did Mal and Cobb go when they exited
Limbo, when they put their head on the train
tracks and they exited Limbo?
Would they have done what everybody else does?
Go one layer up?
Well, what would be on that layer?
Would that be the real world?
Well, Cobb actually tells Ariadne, whenever
he's recounting the events that preceded their
meeting, that they entered Limbo after experimenting
with--.
Let me get the quote exactly right here.
"After exploring the concept of a dream within
a dream."
They were doing multi-level dreaming and he
pushed them too far.
He went too deep and they landed in Limbo.
But that means that they entered Limbo after
going through a multi-level dream.
So, when they woke up from Limbo, where would
they have gone?
Would they have just gone one layer up of
that multi-level dream?
We see them awake on this apartment floor
hooked up to a passive device, but is that
the real world or wouldn't that just be the
lowest level of the multi-level dream they
used to get into Limbo in the first place?
The real world in which the whole plot of
the movie takes place could actually be a
dream.
Maybe the whole movie is a dream from beginning
to end.
Forget about the end.
The whole movie looks like it may be a dream.
And in fact, Nolan leaves us many clues that
suggest exactly this.
So, if you look at the Mombasa chase scene
that's supposed to happen in the real world,
it has very many dream-like elements.
The overhead shots establish that Mombasa
is like a maze.
The agents that are after him literally pop
in and out of nowhere inexplicably.
And the walls of buildings literally close
in around him just like they do in dreams.
So, we see that it Mombasa is like a maze.
We see Cobol agents that come out of nowhere.
It's a blurry pic, but if you look at when
he's in the cafe and he gets called out and
he starts to run, literally from out of nowhere,
there's an agent that comes and tackles him
from the right.
There's no way.
He was just there.
Literally appearing out of nowhere [whispering]
just like they do in dreams.
And the walls close in around him.
They look like they're fine here and as I
try to go through it squeezes and squeezes
and the walls literally are closing in around
me.
Just like they do in dreams.
Eames--clue number two--Eames is a dream forger,
but looks like he forges in reality.
Eames as a dream forger, appearing as others
in dreams and magically lifting Fischer's
wallet in Arthur's hotel room dream as the
sexy blonde.
If you look closely, whenever he's lifting
his wallet in the hotel room dream, he doesn't
actually touch him.
He doesn't actually get anywhere close to
him.
He just has the wallet.
It just appears.
Which is fine.
He's dreaming.
He can do that.
He's a dream forger.
He can just forge the wallet.
Yet in the real world, Eames forges casino
chips and he lifts Fischer's passport in the
airplane in exactly the same way.
So, Eames picks pockets in the real world
just like he does in a dream without even
touching him.
Watch the scene and you'll see he can't even
come close.
It's like, Eames is there.
They're sort of close.
And the poof, he has the passport inexplicably.
Eames bets his last two chips in the real
world and the script calls them his last two
chips.
And he's broke.
He even says, "You've gotta buy if we're gonna
bring over beer.
You gotta buy."
And then he goes to the cashier and just magically
poof, here's chips.
Cashes them in.
He's literally dream-forging right there in
the real world.
The script even describes it.
He mysteriously produces two stacks of chips
that he then cashes in.
Clue number three.
Mal's suicide.
You can't see it here.
Consider where Mal sits during her suicide
attempt.
What supposedly happened was she trashed their
hotel suite and then climbed out on the ledge.
But if she did that, she would be on the same
side of the building as their room.
He would be able to look out the window and
look and she would be out there on their side
of the building.
That's not where she's at.
She's in the window of another hotel room
across the way.
And it is another hotel room.
If you look behind her, you'll see the same
things that are behind Cobb.
It's another hotel.
I mean, the window of another hotel room.
That doesn't make any sense.
How did she get over there?
And in fact, Cobb doesn't even realize it
doesn't make sense.
He's asking her, "Please come back in.
Come back in."
As she can just walk across that gap?
It doesn't make any sense.
That's exactly the kind of thing that you
watch and you don't really think about it,
but then you think about it a little bit later
and that doesn't make much sense.
Just like in a dream.
Weird things happen in dreams and they seem
perfectly normal, but then when you wake up
you go, "Yeah, that didn't make much sense.
How did I not know that I wasn't dreaming?
How did I not know that I was dreaming?"
How do you not know that he wasn't dreaming
right there?
He's gotta be.
His father-in-law, Miles, even tells him to
"come back to reality," at one point.
And this is my favorite clue.
The song the dreamers use to herald the end
of a movie is that Edith Piaf song that we
listened to before.
It means "No, I regret nothing" in English.
When the song is done, the dream is over.
That's what heralds the end of the dreams.
The song is done, dream is over.
The running time of the original recording
of that song that they use in the film is
two minutes and 28 seconds.
Inception is, to the second, two hours and
28 minutes long.
Exactly.
Watch your Blu-Ray player.
Watch it click down.
Exactly two hours and 28 minutes long.
Could it be, just like with shared dreaming,
when the movie is done and the song is done,
the dream is over?
The entire movie, I think, is a dream.
Now, the thing is, you can't--.
There's always two sides to every coin.
No clue is gonna settle this one way or the
other.
And there are clues that suggest that the
real world is indeed real.
This is a good Nolan--.
Anybody know where this is from?
It's a Batman reference 'cause no one does
Batman
Two.
But there's two sides to every coin.
Let's look at a couple of clues that the real
world may actually be real.
So for example, if you look at Cobb's kids,
whenever he's flashing back they're younger.
And at the end, they're actually wearing slightly
different clothes and they're older.
And they're actually played by different actors
and actresses.
Two different actors there.
So, some may suggest that they really did
age and he's back in the real world.
Others have suggested that Cobb's totem is
not really the top.
It's his wedding ring and that whenever he's
in the real world he doesn't wear the wedding
ring, except the flashbacks.
And then when he's dreaming, he's still wearing
the wedding ring.
And this includes the end of the movie.
If you look at the end of the movie, whenever
he's checking in with the ISA agent, he's
not wearing his wedding ring.
That's gonna indicate that the end of the
movie is also real.
But the truth is, pointing to the movie and
clues in the movie is never going to settle
anything.
The movie is ambiguous and Nolan, himself,
has admitted that he intentionally made it
ambiguous.
It's supposed to be open to interpretation.
Nothing will definitively prove anything one
way or the other.
The dream clues could merely indicate that
Cobb is losing his grip on reality.
But now the dream clues could merely reflect
Cobb's assumption that he's not dreaming when
he really is.
The answer to the question of whether or not
the entire movie is a dream is what philosophers
would call "under-determined."
There's not enough evidence there to settle
the issue.
But this is where philosophy can come to the
rescue.
Philosophers and scientists know how to deal
with under-determination.
For example, any scientific data can be accounted
for by many possible hypotheses.
But we're not just stuck.
We have ways of delineating and deciding which
ones we should prefer.
Scientists prefer the most adequate hypothesis,
the one that's most fruitful and simple and
wide-scoping and conservative.
[Kyle Johnson coughs]
Excuse me.
This is what we did whenever we were debating
about the heliocentric versus the geocentric
view of the universe, or the solar system
at least.
Is the sun the center or the Earth the center?
Well, the Earth being the center required
all these weird retrogrades and planets were
revolving around points and blah, blah, blah.
And it's really complicated.
Or this was simple.
They all go around the sun.
Very simple.
And so, we ended up selecting that, after
we killed a few people.
Apart from that--
[laughter]
we ended up selecting this even before we
could experimentally identify that it was
definitely the right one as opposed to this
because it was simpler, because it was more
adequate.
And so, philosophers--.
We really can't do that with an interpretation
of Inception.
And philosophers have more guns in our arsenal.
Philosophers, when presented with ambiguity,
like ambiguous statements--that kind of stuff--we
employ the principle of charity.
When it's unclear what someone means, you
choose the most charitable interpretation--the
one that entails the speaker is not an idiot,
or not misinformed.
So, which interpretation of Inception is more
charitable?
Which one makes it a better movie?
I think it's the all-dream interpretation
that makes it better.
And the reason why is because if it's not
all a dream, there's some significant criticisms
that can be leveled against the movie.
For one, all of the characters, except for
Cobb, are completely one-dimensional.
Arthur, Ariadne, Fischer, Saito.
They don't even have last names, much less
a past.
They're all just there for Cobb.
They just do what Cobb wants them to do.
Even Ariadne, who shows just a little sliver
of free will when she initially rejects the
idea of being an architect--"I'm outta here.
I can't share my subconscious with someone
like you."--and she walks out.
Cobb just says, "Oh, she'll be back."
And then what does she do?
The next thing?
She comes back.
They're completely one-dimensional.
They're only there for Cobb.
That's not good writing and Nolan doesn't
usually do one-dimensional characters.
Even, somebody gives me Batman's, his butler.
>>MALE #1: Alfred.
>>Kyle Johnson: Alfred.
Right.
Even Alfred's got a past and he's a complicated
character in Batman.
That's not Nolan's style.
The editing in the real world is sloppy.
There's quick jumps from here to there and
you're not quite sure how you got from here
to there and why are they doing this now?
There's all these really weird jumps in the
real world in regards to just mere editing.
And that chase scene in Mombasa and he's got
all the agents on him and then Saito shows
up out of nowhere.
What are you doing in Mombasa?
"I had to protect my investment."
Really?
That's a little cheesy.
That's not exactly the best way out of that
situation.
But if it's all a dream, the characters are
one-dimensional because they're just projections
of Cobb's subconscious.
They each represent a different aspect of
Cobb.
And if you watch the movie with that in mind,
you'll see that each one of them plays a different
role in his subconscious.
One's the planner.
One's more daring.
One's the moral conscious.
You can even divide it in id, ego, and superego.
You see all of these elements.
The sloppy editing?
Well, we see that same sloppy editing when
we know that Cobb is dreaming.
You jump from place to place to place in a
dream not realizing how you got there because
that's what you do in dreams.
He's doing the same thing in the real world,
jumping from place to place to place.
And yeah, that Saito line is a little bit
cheesy--I have to protect my investment.
But as a subtle clue that Cobb is actually
dreaming, that is brilliant.
A much more charitable interpretation.
Now, you might think that it's not too charitable
'cause if the whole movie is a dream, well
then why would you care?
Why would I want to watch a movie about a
dream?
Nothing's really happing so I don't really
care.
Well, that's the thing.
It's a movie.
It's fiction.
Yeah, it doesn't really happen 'cause it's
a dream.
It doesn't happen anyway.
It's a movie.
[laughter]
Why would you care more about a movie about
a dream than about a fictional movie about
events that didn't happen anyway?
They all didn't happen.
This is the paradox of fiction that Tyler
was talking about a little while ago.
Why do we care about events that we don't
know are happening?
Well, I'm not exactly sure how to solve that
paradox, but I know that the paradox arises
whether or not the movie is about a dream
or not.
And so, it doesn't make it a worse movie.
In fact, it makes it pretty cool 'cause it
could be a metaphorical story about how a
disturbed mind handles its own dementia.
I mean, there's all kinds of cool interpretations
that can go with it I think that are really,
really interesting.
Now, you might wonder if we could solve all
this if we just asked Nolan himself.
[laughter]
Is the whole movie a dream or not?
And Nolan's even said that he does have a
view.
Like, I approached him with a certain interpretation
in mind and I know what I think is real and
what's not.
But does that matter?
Does Nolan get to dictate how his film must
be interpreted?
Or, if he makes it ambiguous, is it open to
us?
If he wanted it to be interpreted a certain
way, he had to put in something there to make
it be interpreted that way.
And if he intentionally makes it ambiguous,
then my interpretation is just as valid as
his.
Is that the way art works?
Or does authorial intention matter?
That's what the first chapter of my book is
about.
It raises this issue about whether or not
the entire movie is a dream and then talks
about whether or not the authorial intention
view is correct.
Inception should have won Best Picture.
Either the Academy didn't understand it or
they didn't interpret it charitably.
If they had done either, they would have realized
that it was much better than a film about
a stuttering English monarch.
Clearly a better film.
But even though it didn't win Best Picture,
Inception still wins Plato's Academy Award--it
looks like Rodin's Thinker--because of its
philosophical depth, because of the plethora
of philosophical questions that it raises
and, of course, I tackle in my book, "Inception
and Philosophy: Because It's Never Just a
Dream,” published by Wiley Blackwell.
So, some of the other--not all of them--but
some of the other topics that we cover in
the book.
If we can't tell whether or not Cobb is dreaming,
can we tell whether we're dreaming... right
now?
Could this be a dream?
Can you be certain?
The answer is no, you can't.
This is a classic, philosophical, skeptical
problem.
And once we realize we can't tell for sure
whether the real world is real, how do we
deal with that angst?
How do we deal with the kind of tension, the
kind of mental anguish that causes us?
Coleman's got a chapter about that.
Perhaps we should just have faith that the
world is real.
Maybe that's a way out of it.
But when is faith rational?
Is faith ever rational?
Faith is belief without evidence.
A lot of times, that's not rational.
Like, I could believe without evidence that
there's an elephant behind me, but that's
not rational.
When is faith, if ever, rational?
Cobb doesn't think it's always rational.
Mal asked him to take a leap of faith right
out that window and he refused.
So, when is it rational to take a leap of
faith, if ever?
That's what my chapter is about.
Can you be held morally responsible for what
you do in your dreams?
You might think they don't have real-world
impact, but what if you thought it was real?
Don't sometimes your intentions matter if
you thought it was real and you had that chance
to cheat on your significant other in your
dream and you did it?
Aren't you a bit morally culpable?
Wouldn't they be upset if they found out that's
what you did in your dream?
That's another good chapter.
Are real paradoxes, like the pin rose steps,
possible?
That's Tyler's chapter.
Is Inception really possible?
Isn't that, for example, what advertisements
do?
And if it is possible, what are the kind of
ethics that go along with that?
And does that threaten free will?
We don't think that Fischer gets moral responsibility.
He doesn't freely choose to break up his father's
company.
But if inception happens all the time in the
real world, are we morally responsible for
what we do?
Do I really freely choose to eat that McDonald's
hamburger when I'm bombarded with advertisements
all the time that make me want a McDonald's
hamburger?
What is time?
What exactly is time and can it really slow
down in a dream, or speed up in a dream?
Would you really want to live in Limbo, a
utopia, a perfect world?
Or would you eventually get bored with that?
Are utopias even possible?
Those are all issues that I talk about--that
I and my authors, of course--, my contributors
talk about in the book.
So, that's my presentation and I thank you
so much.
I'm ready for questions.
I'd love to hear what you think.
[applause]
>>FEMALE #1: I'm just curious.
You mentioned Freudian psychology or it sounded
more Freudian, but I have a writing teacher
who really got enthralled with it.
He actually has a really good blog.
His name is Scott Myers and he was talking
about it from a Jungian perspective with the
dream interpretation and it seems to lend
itself a lot to that.
I'm just wondering if you get into that in
your book at all.
>>Kyle Johnson: No.
I'm sorry.
I don't.
I'm not familiar with it at all.
I wish I would've known about it so I could,
but I don't.
>>FEMALE #1: Well, you might, since you're
so into this, you might look into some Jungian
stuff.
I can give you a list of books or whatever.
>>Kyle Johnson: Great.
>>FEMALE #1: Yeah, cool.
OK.
>>Kyle Johnson: Cool.
Thanks.
>>FEMALE #2: That's OK.
I don't need a mic.
>>Male Presenter: You do for the recording.
>>FEMALE #2: OK.
I was wondering if you had a link to the Power
Point presentation at all.
>>Kyle Johnson: I'm sure we can do that.
I could--.
I'll tell you what.
When I get home, I will post it on my website,
so just google David Kyle Johnson.
My webpage for King's College will pop up
and you can download it there.
Cliff, can we make it available somehow through--?
>>Cliff: Yeah.
>>FEMALE #2: OK.
Awesome.
>>Kyle Johnson: Yeah, I'm hoping that I almost
bombarded you a bit.
And really, almost everything I covered in
there is in here.
So.
>>FEMALE #3: So, how many times did you have
to watch the movie to get all this?
>>Kyle Johnson: Yeah.
That's a good question.
So, quite a few times.
I also took to just watching specific parts
as I was editing the book and seeing what
I needed to see.
A number of other things were also, like--.
Here's I think a really fun, cool part of
the book.
If you add up all the times that all my contributors
and I watched the movie, it's gotta be hundreds
and hundreds and hundreds of times.
And one of the ways I took advantage of that
was I created a Google Doc--Google Docs are
so cool--and I gave a link to every one of
my contributors.
And I started a little appendix of cool things
that you might have missed about the film.
And I let all my contributors just dump stuff
on there.
And after they were done, I went through and
edited.
And so, the end of the book is an appendix
that is the result of like, hundreds and hundreds
and hundreds of watchings of the movie that
have all these cool, little things that you
may have missed upon the first watching of
the film.
So, off the top of my head, a cool one is
the fact that Dom--one second--Dom, Robert,
Eames, Arthur, Mal, Saito, put them in the
right order, they spell dreams.
Those kind of cool things.
The stuff about Inception being analogy.
There's all kinds of stuff.
We even have a catalog of exactly what those
two kids were wearing before and after, at
the end of the movie and see exactly how different
their outfits were.
It's very, very detailed.
That's in the appendix.
Go ahead.
>>MALE #2: So, about the kids.
You didn't mention this specifically, but
I suspect you probably did turn it up that
you never see the kid's faces until the end.
>>Kyle Johnson: Right.
Until the end.
>>MALE #2: So, I don't know what the significance
of that might be.
>>Kyle Johnson: Yeah.
I mean, that could be a clue that he's really
awake.
It could be just a clue that he thinks he's
really gotten back home.
And so, he can finally see his kid's faces
at the end.
I mean, it could be a clue either way.
>>MALE #2: Cool.
So, the other deeper question that I had is
I read that clue about the wedding ring months
ago.
I don't know if you read "The Last Psychiatrist."
>>Kyle Johnson: I don't think so.
>>MALE #2: It's a great blog.
It's worth checking out.
But he did a thing in there where he mentioned
it.
And so, I was talking this over with a bunch
of friends and one of them had to watch the
movie again.
And his claim, the way he interpreted that,
was that Cobb actually destroyed his totem
in the real world.
Because he knew it so well, he didn't need
to actually have it present.
He only knew that it behaved the way he didn't
expect it in the dream, then he was in someone
else's dream.
And there's no reason to actually have it.
And the whole thing about having Mal's totem
was just in remembrance of her and wasn't
actually his totem.
>>Kyle Johnson: Interesting.
So, he doesn't have a totem at all.
So, his wedding ring's not even his totem,
or his wedding ring is his totem?
He destroys it in the real world.
>>MALE #2: His wedding ring was--.
He doesn't need it because he knows how it
behaves and he doesn't want anyone else to
discover it, is one way of interpreting that.
>>Kyle Johnson: Right.
>>MALE #2: And I don't know if that's actually--.
I don't know if that affects anything said
actually.
>>Kyle Johnson: I mean, it still doesn’t
cause--.
It still doesn't solve the problem because
he could still be in his own dream.
>>MALE #2: Yeah.
But it's an interesting thing though about
that.
>>Kyle Johnson: Yeah.
Absolutely.
>>MALE #3: Did you circle back with Christopher
Nolan to validate any of your observations?
>>Kyle Johnson: No, I haven't.
I wish I could.
I'd love to sit down and talk with Christopher
Nolan.
I wasn't able to do that.
We did scope through his interviews and that
kind of stuff to see what he said.
So like, one thing I know then--but this raises
the issue of whether or not Arthur can determine
the meaning of his movie or not--one thing
I know is, one other kind of dream clue is
the fact that the company that's after Cobb
is Cobol.
C-O-B-O-L.
Cobol, Cobb, Cobol.
He's after himself?
That really looks--.
And Nolan himself said, "Yeah, that's just
a coincidence.
We had to change the name of that company
multiple times for legal reasons."
It looks like that's just a coincidence, not
really a clue.
Right?
But again, maybe it could still serve as a
clue if the author doesn't get to determine
the absolute meaning of his film.
But I wish--.
If you've got some contacts, let me know and
I'd love to sit down and talk with him.
[laughter]
>> Male Presenter: Last question.
>> MALE #4: So, do you think the fact that
Mal's and Edith Piaf was both played by Marion
Cotillard was also a clue?
>> Kyle Johnson: I don't think it was a clue.
No one actually talked about that as well.
And he basically said something like, I don't
read too much in this.
It's kind of a cool thing.
But don't read too much into it.
It's not--.
But that is--.
The actress who plays Mal also plays Edith
Piaf in the movie about her life.
It's the same actress.
She's pretty cool.
>> Male Presenter: Very cool.
We'll have some time afterwards for more specific
Inception and Dragon Tattoo questions.
Thank you very much for speaking at Google.
>> Kyle Johnson: Thanks.
[Applause]
