I'm (gulp) going to disagree with Fr. Robert Barron

Fr. Barron of Word on Fire is one of my favorite authors (I've read all of his books) and speakers, but I'm going to have part ways with him on a matter of eternal importance and substantial weight: his review of the summer blockbuster hit movie, Inception. Here is the key paragraph:

Now what struck me about Inception was not so much its special effects or twisty plot, but its relentless secularism. As the characters plumb the depths of their own and one another’s psyches, as they delve into the furthest reaches of who they are and what motivates them, neither God nor salvation, nor even psychological growth ever even come up for consideration. The entire purpose of the Inception team is to make money by helping their clients uncover or implant some practically useful bit of information. And this is such a let-down, precisely because the deep exploration of the self has long been appreciated, both in the eastern and western spiritual traditions, as a privileged means of encountering God.

As I've thought more about the movie and pondered deep questions ("Is it hyper-gnostic or über-gnostic? Did I really see the movie or did I sleep through it and dreamed that I saw it? Why did I pay for that stale popcorn? Or was the popcorn a bad dream?"), I have reached the conclusion (spoiler alert!!) that the movie is primarily about the question: How do we know reality? How do we know that reality is real? And so forth. I think the final sequence of the film, while purposefully ambiguous, points toward the main character, Cobb, recognizing that reality can, in fact, be known through love and relationship. He no longer has to rely on a token (the little top that once belonged to his wife) to mark his place in reality and dreams. Once he sees his children, he is able to walk away from the top (which could, I suspect, symbolize materialism or reliance on external date, contra Fr. Barron) for he knows his children are real, and he is now able to embrace reality fully. (Note that throughout the movie he only sees the backs of his children, but at the end is able to see them face to face—a strong suggestion of communion and knowledge).

But, that aside, I think it is incorrect to say that the "entire purpose of the Inception team is to make money by helping their clients uncover or implant some practically useful bit of information" when the only reason Cobb takes the job and assembles the team is because he believes the client is able to reunite him with his children (the other team members, of course, have other motives). Cobb is haunted by his wife's death, which was largely his fault, and he is trying, in some way, to pursue redemption by being with his children and being a new man. There isn't, I don't think, an obvious and blatant "God theme" in the movie, yet Cobb's realization of his limits and failings points to a certain spiritual awakening and undermines the notion that it is all about "relentless materialism." Again, I believe it is completely the opposite; I find that "reading" as flawed as the idea the movie is promoting gnosticism.

The "deep exploration of the self" is shown in Cobb's coming to grips with the selfishness and jealousy that destroyed his marriage, with his obsessive need to control and manipulate. In the end, he has to confront his demons (his wife—or, rather, her memory, is portrayed with a somewhat demonic quality) and accept and admit his failings. This allows him, then, to let go completely of his demons when he leaves the token spinning at the very end.

On a related note, the most intriguing and original review of Inception that I've read so far is found in Locus magazine. I'm not convinced completely by it, but its good reading. Finally, for those still trying to figure out the levels and such, here is a graphic guide.

• "'Inception' is so good..." (July 24, 2010)

Comments

[Raving Papist]

I agree with you and also disagree with Fr Barron. Inception could be renamed "Purgatory" and Cobb's journey as a type of Purgatorio. I like to think that Flannery O'Connor would have approved of this movie. Personally, I think Nolan is the most interesting filmmaker at work today.

[Apolonio]

I agree with you here, Carl. I think what we are seeing from movies nowadays is the recognition to see that we cannot save ourselves. The same thing with No Country for Old Men. Nobody in that movie was good. They tried to but they really couldn't. And that's a good recognition, that we cannot save ourselves, that we see our limitations.

I think I disagree with you on the ending of the movie, though. (I won't tell the readers anything here). But it seems that Cobb could get into the subconscious, can get into the depth of things but he never took away his guilt.

Plus, I also think that a movie about a man desiring many things, looking deep within, or whatever and then in the end find God, would be a very boring movie. I think artists would agree. I think, for example, that A Beautiful Mind is one of the most Christian movies I have ever watched. But there was nothing there about John Nash finding God to be the ultimate reason. It does tell us that we can only really live through the fidelty of another. That's Christian.

[Anil Wang]

I don't know. It seems more like he's even given up caring what's real and just wants to enjoy a life he's comfortable with. Does he even know is wife is right and he's still in a dream? Does he even care that he might be in a coma, living off someone else's expense and living away from his real family, leaving them fatherless?

I think the way Star Trek Generations handled the Nexus was far better. Unlike the real world, it was possible for Picard to have a "real" family and for Kirk to have "real" adventures with his "real" wife in the Nexus (a secular eternal paradise), but both gave it up because "real" reality is not enough, even if it doesn't hurt anyone and even if escaping this "reality" means a loss of "real" relationships and it means ultimate death (people in the Nexus never die).

[Fr. Josh Miller]

Anil: That's the struggle. He wants what is real, what is true; that's why he comes (with at least the intent) to pull his patron back into the real world.

I agree with your analysis, Carl. What was so interesting to me about the movie was the exploration of consciousness. I kept thing George Berkeley the whole time.

[fidens]

Actually, Cobb is still in limbo - he has just 'let go' of his guilt over his wife's death and is thus able to imagine a happy alternative reality, including his children's faces.

The top we see at the end is still spinning.

[Stephen Golay]

Have not seen the movie. Never heard of it until I read of it here. Rarely go to the theater. So far, nothing said here perks my interest.

Is this reality - the not being interested? The not going to see it? The the satisfaction of seeing my wife's face this morning, and those of my children, is sufficient for the day thereof.

Do I need to see a movie for deep-truth telling? Seems, these days, if a cherished deep-truth isn't "on film" it maybe ain't, that we need the film of it to assure us of its communion.

Rather go fishing.

[Christopher Knuffke]

How about theme? Doesn't the movie's Moral Premise (Stan Williams) revolve around questions of relationships: the importance of marriage and children, "the too-busy spouse", regret and guilt?? And if a movie doesn't "tell the truth" - as per Robert McKee (Story) - what's the point???

[Frank Ryan]

I'm also a fan of Fr. Barron, but find it odd that while he was hard in his critique of Inception, he was a marshmallow in speaking of The Shack.

[Gina]

Saw the movie, and sorry, I agree with Fr. Barron. Your main error is that Cobb did not engage in a "deep exploration of the self", but his revisiting a carefully constructed escape from the world. His teammate didn't discover an untapped source of self-enlightenment, and Cobb had already known the truth about himself long before he returned to that world. The practice of turning the self inward to escape the world is a very common pagan practice.