View Single Post
Old 11.21.2016, 11:32 AM   #19954
Severian
invito al cielo
 
Severian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,741
Severian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
Inception was a boring, slow movie full of old tired, rehash ideas about subconscious that are actually outdated and irrelevant. stupid fucking movie.

The worst part about having an education based in neuroscience is that I have to listen to people with an introductory knowledge of psychology wax pedantic about how "irrelevant" psychodynamic theory is. We all know the these pop-psych models of dreams and the subconscious are absurd, but that's not what Inception is really "about," and I think by focusing on the scientific "relevance" of the overt and flag-wavingly fantastical elements of the movie, you're kind of missing the entire point.

Inception is less about the subconscious than it is about ... movies. Seriously. The film draws a self-aware parallel between the experience of watching a film and the experience of dreaming. There are studies that have found neurological similarities between the two (pre-frontal cortex quiets down, visual cortex flares up, acetylcholine pumps). There's no question that Inception explores patently unfounded psychodynamic concepts, but ... so what? It can do that. It's a thriller, not a theory. In fact I think the entire movie is a dream (this is kind of obvious, though), so forget about the relevance of the pseudo-science ad take it for what it is: a movie whose concept is to mimic the experience of dreaming that happens to be about dreams (movies).

Finally, if there's any area of modern neuroscience or scientific philosophy that Inception actually tackles, I think it's "p- and a-" concepts of consciousness. Phenomenal (experiential) and access (propositional) consciousness. Imagine the characters are operating under the impression that they can detach from and mix and mesh these states at will, which is why they're Dream spies or whatever... but they can't. And the deeper "levels" in the film are actually closer to the surface, showing them how little control they have over anything. Mal asks Leo what he thinks is really happening at one point, and suggests that their fantasy life is real, and he's like "nah you're crazy *tears* I'm a dreamspy and stuff!" and then things get wrapped up, and it appears he's right until the top spins (leaving us with a very "Blade Runner: Director's cut" kind of existential cliffhanger).

To argue that the science IN the movie is "irrelevant" is to miss the point that the movie is designed to feel like a dream, so ... who gives a shit how sciencey the science is? There's a whole world of other, more interesting things to focus on in the movie.

I don't think it's conceptually brilliant, but I do think it's captivating and REALLY fun, and visually, just, wowza.
Severian is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|