Have to disagree. With the slicked back hair and suit, I felt JGL looked old enough. Franco also looks fairly young still and to be honest, thinking of Franco in the role he would have been basically playing that character he normally plays. Really the only role he has done that seemed different then his normal schtick was playing the silly stoner in Pineapple Express. For the most part I like Franco but I haven't seen enough versatality to prove himself above the level of just being an "ok actor"
With that being said, i'm not saying JGL is a phenomenal actor or better than Franco. I'm simply saying that I think Franco would have made the role a bit boring if that makes any sense.
Watch Franco in Milk, he has the versatility to go past the stoner stereotype.
Franco and JGL are both talented, and imo, far more talented than what this role asks for. This goes for pretty much every role in the movie, except maybe Cobb and Mal. But I totally understand why Nolan cast this bunch. In spite of limited character development, the sheer talent combined added gravitas to these roles that ultimately made them authentic to the audiences. Lesser actors would have revealed the true nature of these parts, faceless character tropes of the heist genre.
Well, I'm under the belief that the whole was a psychoanalytical dream brought on by Cobb to help him get over the death of his wife. The heist, the machine... all made up by him as he's lucid dreaming.
[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]I've been really thinking about what Nolan has done with the beginning of the film. How you see flashforwards of Cobb and Saito in limbo.
I don't think it's just an interesting narrative decision for the sake of it.
Have you ever had an idea for a movie or story that came to you? Usually it starts with some images that don't make much sense, and then later you feel in the gaps to conform that image.
That's exactly what Nolan is doing here... or rather, Cobb is doing. If the whole movie is a dream, he is creating his dream based on a few of these images. That's why the scene goes straight to the same location with Saito, Cobb and co. And guess what the first words out of Cobb's mouth are?
"What is the most resilient parasite? An idea!"[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Personally I think Nolan deliberately left all these red herrings and holes, as the setup for his own cinematic inception (the ending). I've noticed that 90% of these theories take a scene or line from the movie, and completely run with it to form a series of events to explain the entire story. Incidentally not unlike an architect crafting the general blueprint of a dream, with the mark's subconscious
filling in all the details that suit
their memory and biases.
The fact that most of these theories are conceivable without any large gaping flaw, despite leading to completely different endpoints, should be telling. The ambiguity left at certain portions of the movie allows the structure of the narrative to be malleable. This fluidity paves the way for the last shot to do its job; to question what just happened, to rearrange what was once a straightforward narrative at it's malleable points, and ultimately come out with a different product.
This post is still the reigning champ to me. It covers every ground from a logical standpoint, not relying on omitted scenes or interpretive meanings that would otherwise destroy any given theory. It's not particularly surprising that the one that works best ends up being the most simplest, and in fact, the original interpretation everyone would have come out of that theater carrying...had it not been for the ending.
After letting the film linger on for a week and sitting back watching these rampant discussions, it's clearer than ever that we as a general populace are Mal to Nolan's Cobb. He's given us a platform to admire something unlike anything we've ever seen. He's betrayed us by planting a virus that's clearly taken a hold of our perceptions. You take the two main themes prevalent in the story; letting go of a firm belief & losing perception of reality: that IS the audience. Look at this place, listen to what you and your friends have been discussing these past seven days. It's taken a life of it's own, just as Nolan plainly dictated to us.
However, like Cobb, Nolan wants us to accept it for what it is. A fantasy ride. And perhaps it's time to hop off because we actually started believing in what was essentially a trick. This ties in to the final theme of the movie; the leap of faith. To reach your goal you have to place your trust in someone else that they'll help take you there. Cobb asks of this from both Mal and Fischer. Saito of Cobb. I think Nolan is asking this from us, as a director, that he'll safely take Cobb back to where he belongs. That's where we want Cobb to be as well, we're so emotionally invested in him that we seek that happy ending. The closure. This bond wouldn't be so gripping, the struggle not as difficult, if there wasn't an equally counteracting force playing opposite of Nolan, fighting for our trust. Cue in Nolan's cinematic inception. It's all full circle.
Aaaaaand that was a whole lot lengthier than what I was only intending to be a single paragraph.
