Cinema 102, Professor Karaoghlanian

It's just as I had imagined! I need to offer another course because the first course is closed! In this course, I will be teaching an introduction to cinema, in which we will be discussing the basics of cinema, as well as the foundations of the medium and the films that exemplify their respective movements. It's a closer look at the techniques, aesthetics and social implications of cinema. It's also a chance to better understand the different elements of cinema, and like all my courses, it's a chance to discover films that you have never seen!

Week One – Opening Film

Screening: Singin’ in the Rain (1952)

I believe in magic... and for the first film of this course, I would like to allow my students to experience the magic of cinema. Singin' in the Rain is one of those films that will leave an impression and become an instant favorite. It's the perfect film to lift up your lackluster life! Singin' in the Rain stars Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor and Debbie Reynolds. It's an unforgettable film that will leave you laughing and crying and singin', and for that reason, we will screen it as the opening film for the course.

Week Two – Literary Design

Screening: The Sweet Hereafter (1997)

It's time to jump into the course, and our first order of business is studying the literary design of films. The Sweet Hereafter was adapted from Russell Banks' novel of the same title. Atom Egoyan makes a faithful adaptation here, which received a nomination for an Academy Award. It's a devastating film, which allows us to understand the way in which a novel can be transcribed onto the screen.

Week Three – Performance

Screening: On the Waterfront (1954)

Who's your favorite actor? If Marlon Brando didn't immediately come to mind, then it's probably because you have never been properly introduced to him. Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront is a role that arguably redefined acting for generations to come. The actor is often praised for his performance but audiences don't seem to understand the true commitments of actors, and that's their star persona is one of the things we will discuss.

Week Four – Visual Design

Screening: Raging Bull (1980)

I'm having some fun here because I had to write my first paper as a film scholar on this film and on this element of film production. Raging Bull is perfect in all aspects of cinema, from its performances to sound design. It's visual design, however, is so superb, I can spend hours discussing and analyzing certain scenes. Martin Scorsese creates a jungle-like atmosphere within the boxing ring and puts the audience right in the middle of it. It's exciting, devastating, and shows the deterioration of a "raging bull."

Week Five – Composition

Screening: Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

In Entourage, Billy Walsh was starting work on a film that was set to make Lawrence of Arabia look like it was shot on a sandbox. I'm not surprised that his film never came to fruition, because such a film is not possible. In terms of space and landscape, David Lean paints a sturnning portrait with this film. There are certain shots that will stay in your mind, forever.

Week Six – Temporal Design

Screening: Memento (2000)

Who says you have to follow the rules of filmmaking? Christopher Nolan certainly didn't when he was making Memento. In fact, he chose to tell the entire story backwards. Yes, he begins by telling us the ending and moves in reverse. It's the job of an editor to be invisible, and if their work on the film is top notch, audiences will never know about their existence. That's a problem because editors are storytellers on their own, and that's our focus of discussion.

Week Seven – Sound Design

Screening: Apocalypse Now (1979)

This is a terrific topic to discuss because most audiences often ignore sound design when it comes to films. It's often overlooked because they don't understand what it really is. Walter Murch paved the way for sound design with Apocalypse Now, considering the term was born after his contribution on this film.

Week Eight – Documentary

Screening: Waltz with Bashir (2008)

I'm sure a ton of people who don't regular watch many films have seen documentaries, but the problem is they have probably seen made-for-television documentaries. Waltz with Bashir is an amazing effort by Ari Folman because it's a foreign language animated documentary. It's terrific in terms of all three, but it's an engaging and thought provoking documentary.

Week Nine – Animation

Screening: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is a well-known film, but I'm certain many people didn't know it was made over seventy years ago! In fact, it was the first animated feature film - in color, in the United States - and it was produced by Walt Disney. The role of animation in films has changed over the past few decades, so we will be looking at the significance of such films.

Week Ten – Modes of Representation: Realism & Formalism

Screening: Ladri di biciclette (1948) and Sayat Nova (1968)

It's time to jump ship and look at two very different types of films. Ladri di biciclette depicts the reality of Postwar Italy. It's heartbreaking, cruel, and you could swear it's all real. In fact, it almost is, because many of the cast and crew are amateurs. In Sayat Nova, however, you will be blown away by the formalist approach. Sergei Parajanov, the filmmaker, was a poetic artist and tells a story completely through a visual approach, rather than a narrative approach. I assure you, it's nothing like you've ever seen in your life. Sofiko Chiaureli (a female!) plays an astonishing six characters in the film, including the title character of Sayat Nova.

Week Eleven – Classical Hollywood (1929-1945)

Screening: Gone with the Wind (1939)

It's time to define our times, and to be introduced to Classical Hollywood. This is the Golden Age of Hollywood, all of which seems like a dream to us now. Clark Gable, Ava Gardner, Rita Hayworth, Katherine Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Vivien Leigh... the list goes on! In our first look at a time period of filmmaking, we will discuss the history of the Classical Hollywood period.

Week Twelve – Postclassical Hollywood (1946-1962)

Screening: The Apartment (1960)

Who can resist falling in love with Shirley MacLaine, or admiring the down-and-out Jack Lemmon? This film defines this period of Hollywood because it's so rich in terms of romance, comedy, and characters. It's time to see how films began changing after the war, in terms of censorship and content.

Week Thirteen – Modern Hollywood (1963-1976)

Screening: The Graduate (1967)

The Graduate defines this period of time in Hollywood where things were changing, including the circumstances in which we made our films. This is a time in which filmmaking was changing, as the studio system began falling apart. The Graduate is one of the films in which this change is present... and making films has never been the same since, for better or for worse.

Week Fourteen – Postmodern Hollywood (1977-Present)

Screening: Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

This is the time period in which we live in today, driven by franchises and technology. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a terrific film, it's hauntingly beautiful, because of its ability to incorporate animation with live action. This is a good example of a film using technology to integrate it with its storytelling. This is the time period in which we make films in today, a time in which our fascination inspires us to work with animation, performance capture, and 3D.

Week Fifteen – Closing Film

Screening: Citizen Kane (1941)

I suppose we can save the best for last, because Citizen Kane is one of the defining films in the history of cinema. This film changed the business, not just because of it's approach in telling a story, but its performance and cinematography as well. It's time to wrap up the class, and what better way than to leave one what is arguably one of the best films of all time.

I hope you'll be back for my future courses, including an upcoming course that covers international cinema! If there are specific films that you have seen and would have something to say, please feel free to share. If there's a specific film you would just suggest as a replacement for one of the films I have chosen, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Look, Ma! I'm on television!

I'm usually behind the camera on my projects, but this is a chance for me to be in front of the camera! I'm going to be on Platforum, a program on Trojan Vision, which is a student television station at the University of Southern California. I was asked to join a panel of students who will be discussing, debating, and conversing about the films of this season, some of which will be in consideration for awards season in a couple of months.

I love talking about films, so I would never turn down such an opportunity. If you live in the Los Angeles area, you can watch it live on Channel 36 at 5:30pm. If you don't live near campus, you can stream it online. Trojan Vision broadcasts to more than 29,000 students and 18,000 university employees, and over 1.8 million homes in the Los Angeles area.

I hope everybody will be watching, as we discuss many films that are already gaining momentum for the Academy Awards. So, this is your chance to watch and see what films you should check out that are currently in theaters, and what films you should be prepared for in the coming months!

If you'd like to watch the program, click here to watch the entire episode online!

Yerek Yereko (Three Evenings)

Yerek Yereko (Three Evenings) is an independent film from Arshak Amirbekyan, and it held its World Premiere in Los Angeles on June 9, 2010. Now, it’s scheduled to screen at the Arpa International Film Festival at the Egyptian Theatre, and I wonder if my fellow brothers and sisters will show up this time, because the theater was awfully empty several months ago.

Yerek Yereko is not your typical feature film. I was surprised to find out its running time was only 64 minutes – that’s either excellent storytelling or an extremely repetitive short film. In addition, the film was produced with a consumer camera (HDV) with a budget of $2,500. If you’re still not convinced, it is also a period piece set in the 1960s.

In the film, a lonely man (Georgi Amirago) spends his days writing his doctoral thesis, and spends his days behind his typewriter in the midst of parties and celebrations that often occur in the apartment below his. On a particular evening, he sees a young woman (Kristina Zaminyan) standing outside his window, and discovers that she has been following her husband, who seems to be having an affair with a woman from his building. In their second meeting, the man finds the young woman waiting outside once again; this time, in the rain. They have a brief conversation, until she agrees to come inside for a cup of tea. It is there we discover that he is studying to become a scientist, and that she is married with three children, uncertain of where her life is headed. In her fragile position, she confides in him and tells him how she really feels, as she reveals her vulnerabilities and fears about life and marriage. Suddenly, she decides to leave, despite that it is still raining – it is only right to do so.

I realized by this point of the film that these characters had not introduced themselves to each other, or to the audience, for that matter. In a sense, this added a layer of a dreamlike quality between them and contributed to the atmosphere of the film. On the following day, the young woman decides to drop in unexpectedly. It’s a change of pace for the story because it is the first time she has taken the initiative. They drink beer, eat sandwiches, and laugh – allowing their friendship to form, as they grow closer. They even begin dancing – at first, it’s upbeat and fun to see them break free, and later, it's a slow dance. Their evening shifts into something much more intimate, as their relationship begins to evolve. This doesn't establish into a feeling of romance, but rather companionship. She's there for him, a lonely fool, and he's there for her, a lady in distress.

I don't want to go any further, but this is not a film of expectations. Instead, it's about finding a friend and establishing a compassionate relationship. It's an intimate film that deals with companionship, rather than sexual desires. In the end, there is a feeling of lost love, even though that love is never established in the conventional sense.

Yerek Yereko was adapted from a short story that the filmmaker’s father had originally written. It’s quiet, atmospheric, and gives way to the emotions of the leads, who never let their vulnerabilities steer them away. Yerek Yereko is a rare film that provides us with a sense of our culture. It is a film that could have been produced decades ago, when Italian neorealism films were presenting us with a look at life after the war. In a similar sense, Mr. Amirbekyan presents us with a film that deals with realism. It’s a beautiful film that speaks to our hearts and allows us a look at a hopeless love story.

Yerek Yereko has its share of flaws, from its sound design to its screen direction. In a sense, I was able to look past all of this - and I hope others will too – and focus on the intentions of the filmmaker, the overall story that he has presented for us. I was drawn to the screen and fell in love with the characters in the film. I felt proud, as I listened to the actors speak Armenian, and later read the credits in my mother tongue. I only wish there were more of us in attendance at the screening that evening, but perhaps, they will show up another evening.

Yerek Yereko is scheduled to screen on September 18 at the Napa Sonoma Wine Country Film Festival and on September 25 at the Arpa International Film Festival. I am currently in talks with the filmmaker to help bring the film to more screens in Los Angeles for the Armenian community.

I'll see you again... this side or the other.

In 2007, Ben Affleck made his very impressive directorial debut with Gone Baby Gone (2007), which starred his younger brother, Casey Affleck, in a riveting performance. Now, it's three years later and he is three days away from his sophomore directorial debut with The Town (2010), which stars Jeremy Renner, Jon Hamm, Blake Lively, Rebecca Hall… and Ben Affleck, himself. I had the pleasure of seeing The Town six months ago at an advance screening.

The Town revolves around the lives of four bank robbers from Charlestown, Massachusetts. Charlestown is a one square mile neighborhood in Boston and known for having the highest number of bank and armored car robberies anywhere in the United States. Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) leads his boys and stays on top of their excessive behaviors, including his short-tempered best friend, Jem Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), who is the closest thing to a brother that Doug has. Krista (Blake Lively) is Jem’s sister and Doug’s ex-girlfriend, who has a 19-month old baby that she believes belongs to Doug.

Doug has followed in his father’s criminal footsteps, but has been contemplating leaving his lifestyle behind. In their last job, however, Jem takes Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall), a bank manager, as hostage and complicates Doug’s plans. Jem, who has a temper like no other and is fresh out of prison after serving nine years for manslaughter, decides to track Claire down to ensure that she did not see anything during the robbery. Doug asks to take over the case, knowing Jem’s unstable state of mind, and finds himself falling in love with her. This begins complicating their lives because as Doug falls in love with Claire, the bank manager, she is at the same time being questioned by Special Agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) of the FBI.

It’s been done countless times before, but the approach in this film is both exciting and daring. It’s an authentic and genuine look, because there is a blurred line between who is the hero and villain of the film. Sure, these kids are cut from the same cloth as some of the characters from The Departed (2006), but it’s their no-bullshit approach that grounds their action in realism. In fact, this is how I imagine banks are robbed – with force.


Jeremy Renner is the star of the film, presenting us with an impressive performance from start to finish, as he transforms into a Boston criminal with a drive for disaster. It’s an excellent departure the young actor, who becomes unrecognizable from all his previous roles. Rebecca Hall, however, gives a rather dry performance. It’s only with the help of her surrounding actors that her scenes are bearable to watch – she simply exists in the story as a romantic interest, but there’s nothing worth connecting with on emotional terms. Blake Lively is quite captivating in her performance as she plays against type in a role that we have never previously seen her in. Krista is something like a hooker, a role that demands a talented actress to begin with.

The Town takes a realistic approach to depict the grittiness of bank robbers. It's packed with action, but it's also handed effectively in the hands of Ben Affleck. It's never overwhelming or tiresome, and continuously serves to add interest and thrill to the plot of the film. It’s the believable approach of the film that has left an impression on me after six months of seeing the film.


It's hard not to mention Academy Award contenders because of its release for this Fall. In actuality, Jeremy Renner and Blake Lively deserve a nomination each for their respective performances. They both play characters we haven’t seen them take on before, and they do it quite incredibly and memorably. I personally believe this is Jeremy Renner at his finest, and possibly the best performance of the year, thus far. Ben Affleck, however, proves that he can tell stories behind the camera and I look forward to another film. This time, I know what's in store for us.

The Town is scheduled for release on September 17, 2010.

Amorosa (World Premiere)

In March 2009, I decided to volunteer for the Burbank International Film Festival at Woodbury University. I was extremely excited with this opportunity because it was their first annual film festival and it was all taking place in my hometown. I had the pleasure of working with some incredible people, including students, filmmakers and festival coordinators. I was also given a “Volunteer” badge, but was envious of those individuals who received a “Filmmaker” badge.

I was in post-production with my short film, Amorosa (2010), at this time and was in the process of applying to film school. I felt like I was on the outside, looking in, and wanted to be a part of the film festival as a filmmaker, instead of a volunteer. I told myself I would submit my film the following year and come back as a filmmaker. I suppose dreams do come true, because that is exactly what happened.

I submitted my film earlier this year and received a phone call in June from one of the film festival coordinators. I was told that my film was chosen as an Official Selection for the Burbank International Film Festival and I would be receiving my laurels soon. I was ecstatic! I couldn’t believe I would be receiving a “Filmmaker” badge this year.

I couldn’t have been more nervous as this week approached. On September 10, Mary and I were invited to the Opening Ceremony of the film festival, where filmmakers from around the world had the chance of meeting. I didn’t have a “Filmmaker” badge, because this year, they were replaced with “Official Selection” badges. I believe that’s quite remarkable and I wore it across my neck, proudly. I felt like I had finally accomplished one of my goals. I was in another world during the ceremony, as lights and cameras surrounded us both. In fact, we received over half a dozen compliments on our clothing (we were matching) and we were even crowned “Best Dressed” by a festival coordinator.


I felt like all eyes were on us, as the compliments kept pouring in from strangers around us. There was another dream of ours coming true as we walked down the red carpet and had our photographs taken, from the same group of photographers who worked at the Emmys this year. Inside, Mary and I were interviewed on camera about our short film and the festival itself. I couldn’t believe any of this was happening.

On September 11, Amorosa held its World Premiere at AMC 6 in Burbank at 2pm. This is a theater we commonly watch films, and to have my first film play on the big screen there is nothing short of amazing. I feel like everything happened in the blink of an eye. I simply remember a bunch of my family and friends there, supporting me and cheering me on. In the end, it was a unique and memorable experience to share my film with my family and friends, as well as strangers. It’s funny because it helps remind me why I make films to begin with – to share them with the people I love.


If nothing else matters in this world, family does. It’s only them I want to see when I look around a theater, because it’s only them who matter. I love every person who was able to share this memorable event with us. I accomplished a dream of mine this year, to have my short film accepted at the Burbank International Film Festival, the same festival where I volunteered a year ago. I have new dreams now, different dreams, and I’ll keep fighting until I have them realized as well.

Cinema 101, Professor Karaoghlanian

If I was teaching a course on the history of motion pictures, what would the class be like? I'm betting it would be lots of fun, with discussions that go back and forth, as well all contribute to the learning environment of the class. In fact, I might even let the kids call me by my first name, just because my last name is too hard to pronounce. If I was up there teaching, however, this is an idea of what the class would look like...

Week One – Introduction, Early Cinema

In the first class, there would be an introduction and overview of the beginning stages of cinema, as well as an emphasis on Thomas Edison, the Lumière brothers, Georges Méliès, Edwin S. Porter, and D.W. Griffith.

Screening: Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (1896), The Great Train Robbery (1903), and The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Week Two – Silent Cinema

I believe Silent Cinema was a magical time when audiences allowed stories to grab them and take them on a ride! In fact, film lovers had a hard time letting go of silent films after sound was introduced.

Screening: The General (1926), Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927), and City Lights (1931)

Week Three – Soviet Montage

If there's something audiences take for granted, it's the editing of a film. In Russian Cinema, several notable filmmakers revolutionized editing techniques, and their discoveries are both a surprise and an adventure.

Screenings: Battleship Potemkin (1925) and Man with a Movie Camera (1929)

Week Four – The Coming of Sound, German Expressionism

What are the first words that were ever said on the big screen? In this week's class, it's the coming of sound and students will be able to hear these words for themselves. In addition, we will also take a dark look inside the films of German Expressionism.

Screening: The Jazz Singer (1927) and M (1931)

Week Five – Studio Era, The Big 5, The Little 3

What does MGM stand for? Who were the Warner Bros.? In this week's class, we will learn about the studios and their function in this time period.

Screening: Citizen Kane (1941) and Casablanca (1942)

Week Six – Italian neorealism

World War II was a tough time for the entire world, but it also shaped some of the films from this timer period. In fact, come see my favorite film and learn a little bit of the history behind this time period.

Screening: Ladri di biciclette (1948)

Week Seven – Golden Age of Hollywood

In the seventh class, we will take a close look at Hollywood and its function in the films from this time period. It's an exciting time, as we begin exploring Classical Hollywood.

What is Classical Hollywood? In this week's class, we will understand what this city is made of, as we learn about the ins and outs of a town we all love.

Screening: Sunset Blvd. (1950)

Week Eight – Cinemascope, Technicolor

It's a fantastic world of color, as we sing and dance and laugh. It's without a doubt the most fun a film can provide!

Screening: Singin' in the Rain (1952)

Week Nine – Hollywood Ending

It's the end of the studio era, as well as the introduction of television, which posed a threat to the film industry.

Screening: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Week Ten – French New Wave

It's time to see how the French changed all the rules. It's a complete different approach to what we have seen thus far, and will allow the class to fall in love and witness how cinema was revolutionized.

Screening: Breathless (1960)

Week Eleven – New Hollywood

In New Hollywood, the camera left the studio and was on the road, filmmaking out of the studio and on location. It was an exciting time period, which was our first step in changing cinema.

Screening: Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Week Twelve – Postmodernism, Blockbusters

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas introduced us to the "blockbuster" and cinema was forever changed. It's an introduction to special effects and high concept films, as well as sequels and franchises.

Screening: Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977)

Week Thirteen – New Technologies, Entertainment Conglomerates

In an ever-changing medium, see how new technologies and media began affecting our films, for better or for worse.

Screening: Annie Hall (1977)

Week Fourteen – Auteur Filmmakers

Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock, and Martin Scorsese are all considered auteur filmmakers. In this week's class, we begin understanding this concept, as well as the role of the director.

Screening: Raging Bull (1980)

Week Fifteen – Conclusion, Independent Filmmaking, Digital Cinema

In the last class, we are presented with a look at independent filmmaking, an exciting opportunity for filmmakers to create films on their own, without the need of a studio. In addition, we begin asking questions about where the film industry is going next, as we understand the function of digital cinema and its threat to cinema.

Screening: Pulp Fiction (1994)

If this fits the bill, please register on time because classes fill up! This does not include the required papers and exams, which will be both comprehensive and difficult. Remember, all films screened will be film prints to ensure the best theatrical experience. Oh, and check back soon for details on other classes I plan on teaching!

Kicks, and Totems, and Dreams! Oh My!

I've been asked a handful of questions for the past few weeks, all of which sound quite familiar. In the end of Inception (2010), does the top keep spinning or does it fall down? Is Cobb still in a dream? Is Cobb back in reality? Is all of Inception a dream?

Christopher Nolan has presented his audience with a puzzle, and he's asking us to think outside the box for this one. Inception is a maze, in and of itself, and it seems it's too complex for some viewers. Inception is making us think and perhaps that's a bad thing for some people. If Inception was too confusing at first glance, perhaps a better-suited film would be Avatar (2009)... or The Blind Side (2009).

First of all, I can't understand the comparison between Inception and Shutter Island (2010). I suppose it's because both films star Leonardo DiCaprio, but that's a horrible reason. I suppose, for the same reason, we could compare Inception to The Departed (2006). Perhaps, it's because both films leave us with an open ending and asks the audience to draw their own conclusions... but then again, for the same reason, we could compare Inception to Memento (2000).

Leonardo DiCaprio believes that both films deal with the "dreamworld and... some sort of cathartic journey..." but declares "that’s about where the similarities ended." Inception should never be compared with Shutter Island, and those who do compare them, seem to be interested with what's on the surface, because these films have nothing else in common, in themes or otherwise.

In fact – and this is where I'll step into some analysis – while several critics have compared the film to science fiction thrillers and action adventures like The Matrix (1999) and James Bond, Leonardo DiCaprio claims he based his performance on Christopher Nolan, and believes Inception is more in line with Federico Fellini's 8½ (1963). I think that's an immense clue, because Inception could simply be a film about the making of a film.

Devin Faraci explains it all better than I can, but it’s not too farfetched. Cobb is Christopher Nolan, or the filmmaker, who is at the helm of this film/job. Arthur is the Point Man, or the producer, who assists with the research. Ariadne is the Architect, or the screenwriter, who designs/writes their dream/film. Eames is the Forger, or the actor, who manipulates himself to take the physical form of another person. Yusuf is the Chemist, or the technical crew member behind the scenes responsible for their safety. Saito is the Tourist, or the financier, who employs Cobb and runs the show. Robert Fischer is the Mark, or the audience, who is being incepted/inspired by an idea. Mal is the Shade, or the impulse of an auteur, who brings herself into the dreams/films.

Christopher Nolan knows this quite well, and it's a clever device for this theory. It's an auteur who brings his personality and interests to a film, which allows audiences to recognize their work. It's seen in the films of all auteur filmmakers, from Ingmar Bergman to Christopher Nolan, himself. In this film, however, we are told through Mal's character (and rightfully so) that this auteurist impulse is not always a positive characteristic. In this theory, we look to ourselves for the meaning of the film. Perhaps, Christopher Nolan is performing inception on us, by either inspiring us with an idea (of creativity) or by driving us all insane about whether the top keeps spinning or if it falls down.

Is all of Inception a dream? Is Cobb asleep, riddled with remorse, as inception is being performed on him by somebody else? It’s quite clear what happens by the end of the film. Cobb is able to move on and is finally reunited with his children – and regardless of whether the ending is a dream or reality – his character experiences this transformation. So, it is logical then, to question if Cobb was the subject of inception. Perhaps Miles, his father-in-law, is responsible for performing inception on Cobb with the hopes that he finally forgives himself. Cobb is clearly filled with paranoia – it has become impossible for him to distinguish reality from the dream world – as he sits with a loaded gun pointed at his head, ready to kill himself to wake up from what might be a dream. Miles tells Cobb to “come back to reality” and perhaps this hints at his motive. Is Cobb the subject of inception, to allow him to forgive himself and finally live his life?

If all of Inception is a dream, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no meaning and emotional satisfaction for the audience. If Cobb’s team is simply a projection of himself, the entire film, as a result, is make-believe. So, why do we care, and why invest ourselves in a film that is all a dream? Well, this theory, I believe, connects to the previous one. Inception is a film about dream sharing, because these characters are able to fall asleep and enter each other’s dreams. Christopher Nolan, however, could be referencing films once again, because cinema is the power of sharing dreams. It’s what we do every time we watch a film – we’re in a dark theater, with strangers, and we all share dreams and become invested in the lives of characters that we know are fictional. If Inception is all a dream and everything is make-believe, and there’s no reason to emotionally attach ourselves to characters whose lives are not at stake, then why do we sympathize with other characters in other films, when we know, for a fact, that everything on screen is fabricated? It’s the same thing, isn’t it?

I do realize, however, that some people are wishful for a happy ending. Cobb appears to be reunited with his children and that’s what they want to believe. In fact, there are several facts that support this belief. I know for a fact that many people were focused on the clothing of the children. Cobb was forced to leave his children and flee the country, and this is the scene that he replays in his head when he sees his children. In this memory, they are playing with their backs to their father and they are always wearing the same clothing that he last saw them in. So, this brings up a key question. If there clothing doesn’t change throughout the film, are their clothes different in the final scene? If it’s the same clothing, does this mean that Cobb is still in a dream? I would assume so, and there are conflicting thoughts about the clothing of the children. I can, however, put your mind at ease because the children’s clothing in the final scene is different. In fact, the costume designer for the film, Jeffrey Kurland, says so himself when he states that "the children's clothing is different in the final scene... look again." If the clothing is different, which it is, this could mean that Cobb is, in fact, back in reality.

In addition, there is another aspect of the costume design that might suggest that Cobb is back in reality. I believe Cobb's wedding ring holds some significance, because it’s missing in quite a few scenes. I believe that this was a purposeful act from the filmmakers and it serves as a clue for the ending of the film. In all scenes that are from the dream world, Cobb is wearing his wedding ring. In all scenes that are from the real world, Cobb is not wearing his wedding ring. In the final scene, when Cobb is reunited with his children, Cobb is not wearing his wedding ring, which further suggests that he is, in fact, back in reality.

If this holds true, this could mean that Cobb drowns in the van after not receiving is kicks, and Saito dies in Level 3 from his gunshot wound. Saito enters Limbo and Cobb follows him, several minutes later, which is why several decades have passed. It’s impossible for you to keep track of reality in Limbo because your brain scrambles – years pass by in minutes and so on. Saito can only leave Limbo if he can realize he is in a dream and kill himself, but this is impossible to happen on its own. Cobb enters Limbo and is taken to Saito, which cause Saito to realize that he has been trapped in Limbo. Saito recognizes Cobb and his totem, which serve as his wake-up call. If Saito kills Cobb then himself, he should wake up on the airplane in time to return to Los Angeles. I suppose the question here is if Saito kills Cobb then himself, will they return back to reality? Is it possible to kill yourself in Limbo and wake up despite the heavy sedation? I believe this is impossible to answer because that’s the ambiguity in the film.

Christopher Nolan has constructed a film that can deal with all these theories, but it’s also possible that the main focus of the film is, in fact, in its climax. It’s all a question about the spinning top, but Cobb’s totem might not even hold a true purpose. It’s made clear that a totem is unique to its owner, because only they know it’s true weight and function. Cobb’s totem, however, used to belong to his wife, which should mean that it wouldn’t work for him. I believe this could very well be misdirection from Christopher Nolan, in an effort to shift the audience’s attention to such a small, inanimate object, that wouldn’t be deciding factor if Cobb were still in a dream or back in reality.

So, please, stop asking me whether the top keeps spinning or if it falls down. It’s impossible to answer because the only person who knows that answer is Christopher Nolan. In addition, it doesn’t matter whether the top wobbles or not because the film cuts to black before we can see what happens. In fact, it doesn’t even matter, because that’s not the point of the film.

Cobb is finally reunited with his children and has freed himself of the guilt over his wife, and is no longer in fear about distinguishing between reality and the dream world. For this reason, he no longer waits to see if the top will keep spinning or if it will fall down. Cobb lets himself see the faces of his children, and whether this is a dream or reality, this is where he wants to be.