It seems that there are 2 theories regarding the ending of Inception. If we accept that the entire movie is not a dream and that Cobb did in fact escape his limbo with Mal, then it is reasonable to believe he also escaped his limbo with Saito.
It is possible that the entire movie is a dream, and that Cobb never left his own limbo. Which one do you think is the correct one? Or do you have a different theory?
I'd love to see how this is answered. Can I say how frustrated I was with the movie's ending? I do think that it would be interesting to discuss why it was left so unsettled and how this communicates the themes of the movie. – tclaytor6 years ago
I was under the impression that the ending being ambiguous was intentional. I haven't watched Inception in ages so my memory is a lil fuzzy, but I thought the whole movie was, in essence, about questioning what is reality and what we want to be real. I think the ambiguous ending encapsulates that existential debate. I don't think there's a correct theory; at least, I don't think there should be one. – Starfire6 years ago
Nolan was greatly influenced by Satoshi Kon's 'Paprika' (2006) and I'm of the opinion that since both deal with the 'dream' world and reality, then the meaning within both 'Paprika' and 'Inception' is very much down to personal interpretation. So, either theory regarding the ending is correct - it's all about how we personally perceive it. Good topic suggestion! – Amyus6 years ago
Animals are widely used in the film industry for various reasons, but are they always accurately represented? In the reboots of "Planet of the Apes," I highly praised the use of non-verbal communication between the animals, as a lot of the way animals communicate is through body language. However, horses are commonly portrayed as loud and always making a sound if they are on screen, which is very inaccurate of horse communication. Film is an intriguing medium that uses both sight and sound, so a lot of animals have sounds inserted to add to the verisimilitude, but it can actually detract – in my opinion – when animals who wouldn't normally be making sounds are indeed doing so. Thoughts?
This is a neat idea for a paper, and I like the example of the horse (I know nothing about horses, so I never would have guessed how they really communicate). This reminds me of the classic "bald eagle on screen with a red tailed hawk's cry, because bald eagles sound like chickens, and an accurate cry would spoil the drama of said eagle" thing. However, I'd like for this topic to have a clear thesis; what are the ramifications of inaccurate portrayals of animal behavior? What are the merits of accurate animal portrayals versus the merits of tailoring a fantasy about that animal for the viewers to enjoy? – TheCropsey6 years ago
Right, or the use of a tiger's roar in "The Lion King" because they are louder. – Sara L.6 years ago
I think that movie directors try to add as many effects to movies as they can because in their mind it will improve the movie. So I doubt that they will choose to resort to accurate portrayal of animal sounds if they feel that it will result in scenes that are lacking detail. – Health6 years ago
I thought communication was handled somewhat awkwardly in the recent Planet of the Apes films. It was unclear to me why Caesar and others were able to "evolve" to be able to speak, but only at times of emotional stress. I may be misremembering the film, but I thought it was an inconsistent and inaccurate (albeit, fictional) portrayal of primate communication. – Dropoutbear936 years ago
Dropoutbear93,
The evolution of the primates is not exactly what I was referring to, as you do make valid points to that unrealistic representation. I am referring to when they communicate to each other through a lot of gestures (not strictly in sign language), and body language in addition to the general grunts and howls we think of when we picture ape communication. – Sara L.6 years ago
Recently we saw how the lack of sound impacts the cinematic landscape in John Krasinski's A Quiet Place, but, of course, it is not a new phenomenon. Another wonderful example of the absence of sound (or rather music) in a film would have to be Michael Haneke's 1994 film 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance. It would be interesting to see how this absence lends itself to the film's plot and whether it strengthens or hinders the work. The exploration of sound/music in film is still a relatively new study, and I have not seen much in the way of discussing its absence, so it would be really fascinating to track the progress of sound and how it impacts spectatorship depending on its presence or lack thereof.
Excellent topic! I noticed this in Signs as well. There was music, but it was only in certain points of the film. I remember feeling weird when I watched the movie the first time, but I couldn't pinpoint what it was. It was only when I watched it a second time that I realized how the lack of background music made the movie feel like real life, which was unsettling and made the movie more intense for me. – tclaytor6 years ago
A bit more mainstream, but two episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that engaged in this are an interesting study in the use of music and sound. The episode Hush, which won an Emmy, has no dialogue only music - the score (orchestral only) and the gestures of the characters tells the entire story for one episode. The other interesting use in a show that is heavy handed with its inclusion of both musical scores and popular songs, was in the episode The Body where she finds her mother dead. The episode includes only dialogue and diegetic sound, no soundtrack. – SaraiMW6 years ago
I think it would be interesting to consider the movies of different decades and how they define the different generations. As a child of the 80s, I grew up watching Goonies, Space Camp, and Red Dawn which all impacted the way I viewed life. They presented a picture of adventure (with danger), enemies to fight, and things to hope for. What about the movies of the 90s or the early 2000's?
This would be a great tie-in to the history of cinema through the decades (a topic I very much enjoyed in my Film Analysis class back in college). It would also be interesting to discuss the ways those films from those decades emulate the culture at the time, as films tend to do. – Sara L.6 years ago
Sara--Film Analysis sounds like a fascinating class! I agree too that films emulate culture as well as create it. – tclaytor6 years ago
Movie prequels have become increasingly more popular. Are they simply a cash-grab and do we need them? When you already know the outcome of a movie, do you even care? Do screenwriters have to work harder when writing a prequel in order to make the audience "forget" that the end is predetermined? Do we even need prequels? Is there a need to have an explanation for every tiny reference that was made in a previous movie? The Star Wars franchise is one of the biggest examples of this trend. Another franchise that comes to mind is Underworld. The third Underworld movie, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, was a prequel. Do prequels have to work harder to make us care? Or do we need them because we care too much about those characters?
I like this topic a lot! I've avoided watching prequel movies for this reason. I don't personally feel like they can offer a lot to the overall story if everything is well-established in the original movies. I suppose further character development can be achieved through prequels (i.e. how Darth Vader came to be, or Han Solo's backstory) but at the same time, a part of me doesn't necessarily care *how* Han Solo came to be the pilot of the Millennium Falcon, for example. I think prequels are sometimes a burden on the original stories, especially if they retcon or change traits or facts we know about characters. – Karen7 years ago
I think prequels do have to work harder to create interest. I do, however, think Rogue 1 was one of the best prequels I've ever seen and is one of my favorites in the Star Wars franchise, even though I knew how it would end. The movie actually helped me appreciate Star Wars and what went behind getting the plans to the Death Star. Perhaps compare this to one that didn't do so well? I'm not hearing great things about the Hans Solo movie though I haven't seen it yet. – tclaytor6 years ago
I'd just be wary when looking into Star Wars since yes, it is prequel-ception that helped boost the franchise into popularity, but Star Wars also have books, games, tv cartoon series, and comics that play into the overall canon of the universe. For instance, in the new Han Solo prequel, they actually based it on a Star Wars book and -- trying to not give away any spoilers -- they validated what happened in the Rebel animated series, therefore making it official canon. I think an interesting angle could also be the Marvel universe. Arguably, the hero 'trilogy' films are 'prequels' for the larger Avengers films as most Avenger characters don't appear until their solo-films have been released. – Pamela Maria6 years ago
I think prequels are fun, because it creates the potential for world building. I agree with tclaytor about Rogue One. Yes, we know how it ends, but we got to see what lead to it happening rather than just hearing about it in passing. Prequels explore lore not previously seen in the source material. Another good example is The Hobbit. It tells the story of how Bilbo Baggins got the One Ring, but it also works just as well as a stand-alone story. – RebaZatz6 years ago
How are the LATINAMERICANS portrayed in the films and TV shows on time? Only the MEXICANS are mainly considered in US films?. What about the image from other countries?
Good topic. Could you capitalise Latin Americans and Mexicans? Also, "portraited" may be "portrayed." – Munjeera7 years ago
Sorry, I believe there is a misunderstanding here. I meant just to capitalize the first letter. Hope this helps. – Munjeera7 years ago
I don't yet understand the importance of "mental health" to your topic. "Mental health" is given in your title but isn't discussed in the body of your topic. Your use of the keyword "stereotypes" makes me think you're talking about how popular representations of Latinamericans unfairly characterize them as somehow unstable or excessively violent or overly possessive. Am I close?
You might add more detail in the body of your topic. Maybe list some specific questions that you think someone should answer in a fully developed essay. – JamesBKelley7 years ago
Mental health? On time? The image? – T. Palomino2 years ago
Critics seem to have a strange relationship with comic book movies. They've enjoyed and even loved most of the MCU movies. The same can't be said on when it comes to DC. However should we judge moves that are part of a shared universe solely on their own merits. Movies that are part of a shared universe rely on each other to tell an overarching story. Some of these movies set things up that one resolve till years down the road. Should we find a new way to critique these movies?
Interesting point. I think you can look at how movie adaptations are critiqued for a start. There are two points you can consider: judging how well a movie adapts from the original source, and how well it stands on its own, needing no prior knowledge of the original source. With a shared universe, I agree that it should be critiqued collectively, but also how each subsequent addition to the universe expands the overarching story. – Starfire7 years ago
I strongly feel each movie should stand on it's own, as an individual story, even when it is part of a shared universe and story. I think the DC movies don't receive the same adoration as the MCU movies, simply because they're not as good (Wonder Woman notwithstanding). They prioritise flashy explosions and action sequences over character development. The MCU movies have been leading up to Avengers: Infinity War for nearly a decade, but each movie still told a self-contained story, as well as contributing to the shared over-arching story. The DC films are yet to pull this off. – rachelfreeman7 years ago
I agree with the comments made by Starfire and rachelfreeman. My comment isn't so much about reviewing MCU films as much as it is about reviewing films in general. Your last question about finding new ways to critique these movies is especially I think that we need to find new ways to view, critique, and interact with ALL movies. In my opinion, many people view films too passively. I think that every film should be actively supplemented (or complemented) by the viewer's empathy and imagination. The viewer must actively try to meet the film halfway by encouraging themselves to empathise with the films characters, to imagine the unseen implications of the film's central plot line, and by encouraging themselves to actively consider and extend the themes and ideas presented by the film. It can't just be about the passive consumption of a story. Anyway, I think that one of the benefits of having a shared universe is that it invites viewers to consider what happens at the periphery of the main story. It encourages viewers to imagine the implications of any given event across time, space, and other films. Furthermore, comic book movies have such passionate fans that deeply enjoy debate, critique, discussion, imitation, emulation, and so much more. Maybe this is the beginning of a new kind of film criticism? – Vertov.Isou6 years ago
Although 'A Quiet Plan' is heavily advertised as a horror/thriller movie, there are definitely underlining themes of family and what family is willing to do for one another. Not only does the love of family truly shine in this film, but it also shows how strong a family can be when their life is on the line everyday.
Yes, although "A Quiet Place" is labeled under the horror/thriller genre, the underlying theme is togetherness and communal efforts. I think this is apparent considering the film emphasizes the importance and value of each of the characters. Each character serves a different purpose at some point in the film where the entirety of the family wouldn't be able to survive with the removal of one of them. They are all necessary, and the most moving example of this has to be the conclusion where the only handicapped character ends up saving the day due to her discovery that she made in her father's office. – ralphpolojames7 years ago
This is definitely something I found in the film. I think it would be interesting to look at how director and co-writer John Kransinski has talked about it. He has mentioned multiple times that he saw it as a film about family and even described it as a love letter to his children. I think that would definitely add some weight to the discussion of this theme in the film, considering it seems to be a big part of how he conceived of the story – Beth Jones7 years ago
I agree that the love and dedication with the family members is the piece that holds the film together. Overall, if the family dynamic wasn't as compassionate as it was portrayed in the film, there wouldn't be as much pathos. It is a film about family that uses the horror/ suspense genre as a cloak. They stand by one another, even in the threat of being attacked by the film's creatures. For the parents especially, they stay alive not just for their own survival, but for their children's survival. – Kellie7 years ago
