Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
Yes, and I understood it It's all interesting, but I think my point is still valid.
Critic Jim Emerson made two interesting points
in a blog entry.
1. If they wanted Ellen Page to create realistic architecture in the dream, why spend all the time training her
using unrealistic dream imagery (Escher steps and folding cities)?
2. Why not save some of these cool sequences for end of the film? Imagine a chase scene in a folded city!
Quite simply...I just don't think this is the kind of film for you, then. I don't mean this as a slight or insult, just an honest impression, your thinking seems to be stubbornly literal and obtuse, and this movie's subconscious/dream rules are figural and abstract. Some people like and are able to think certain ways, other people others. Maybe this film just goes against your grain, and that's fine.
And the critic is wrong. They did not train Ariadne using unrealistic imagery. The first point of the training session was that she must create realistic interpretations of the world that a subconscious would not reject, that's why all the twisty world stuff sent Cobb's subconscious on her.
Then, they showed the use of the Escher-like "impossible figures" as a simple tool to be used lightly in order to trap or confuse subconscious projections. Hence, Arnold losing the one "henchman" by making him fall in the stairwell. But they didn't appear to be unrealistic upon first glance. That's the point of "impossible figures." It's like an Ames Room.