Running head: (LACK OF) FLASHING ARROWS IN INCEPTION 1

(Lack of) Flashing Arrows in Inception

Kurt Reynolds
Lincoln High School












(LACK OF) FLASHING ARROWS IN INCEPTION 2


Abstract
This paper focuses on how Christoper Nolans Inception is an example of modern
pop culture complexity. This paper illustrates how Steven Johnsons theory of directors
not using flashing arrows to signify key plot points is evident in Inceptions first scene.
As a result of the ambiguity in the first scene, the viewer is forced to remember and later
recall important details that are just casually referenced in the first two minutes of the
film.
Keywords: Inception, Christopher Nolan, Steven Johnson, flashing arrows













(LACK OF) FLASHING ARROWS IN INCEPTION 3
(Lack of) Flashing Arrows in Inception
Inception is one of the most complex movies I have ever seen. I thought Quinton
Tarantinos 1994 classic Pulp Fiction was complex, but that is a kids movie - in terms of
complexity - compared to Christopher Nolans masterpiece, Inception. There are more
complex movies certain, such as Primer and Mulholland Drive, but those border on too
complex, which can lead one to argue that they actually become silly paradoxes. That
cannot be said for Inception, which is not impossible to comprehend. You just have to
really pay close attention to the multiple plot threads and dream levels. And above all,
you have to live without any flashing arrows.
Many critics of todays culture argue that we our pop culture is dumbing down the
masses. Critics cite plunging reading scores, vacuous reality TV shows, and even
Google, which puts vast amounts of knowledge just a click away - and perhaps makes
memorizing much of anything - obsolete, as reasons for our cultures demise. Yet author
Steven Johnson, in Everything Bad is Good for You, argues that pop culture is actually
more complex than ever; moreover, Johnson argues that our pop culture is actually
making us - gasp, shock, and awe - more intelligent.
We must pause here while the Gen Xers recover from shock and the Baby
Boomers come to after pausing out . . . How can this be? A simple example, which is
perfectly illustrated in Inception, is the lack of flashing arrows. Johnson (2005)
elaborates: Its a kind of narrative signpost, planted conveniently to help the audience
keep track of whats going on. Gen Xers and Baby Boomers have been duped into
relying on flashing arrows to clue them in to specific aspects of their favorite films. I
recall the first time I ever saw the baddest bad guy of all, Darth Vadar. (Well, that is until
(LACK OF) FLASHING ARROWS IN INCEPTION 4
I saw Anton Chigurh of No Country for Old Men). When Vadar appears on the rebel
ship in the opening moments of Star Wars: A New Hope, he emerges from the smoke and
sparks with John Williams iconic, Imperial March, playing. Even at five years of age,
I knew this guy was one bad mo fo. Thats a clear flashing arrow employed by George
Lucas, alerting everyone to the fact that the seminal bad guy just showed up. Did we
really need the music to alert us? I mean a seven foot tall dude, dressed all in black
armor, with the deeper than deep voice of James Earl Jones, with incredible strength as
he dangles the ships captain a foot above the floor and crushes his windpipe with just his
hand should have told us everything we needed to know about Vadar. But the music and
smoke were Lucas way of using a flashing arrow to tell us a simple truth. Johnson
observes how this works: When the villian first appears in a movie emerging from the
shadows with ominous, atonal music playing - thats a flashing arrows that says: bad
guy (Everything Bad is Good for You, p. 73).

Audiences today, though, are used to complex films devoid of flashing arrows.
In fact, audiences today will pay millions of dollars to actually be confused, hence the
popularity of films such as Shutter Island, Gone Girl, and Looper. Millennials and some
Gen Xers have grown up without directors feeling the need to clue us in to every small
detail. Thus, todays movie audiences are able to handle far more complex films and TV
shows than Baby Boomers and many Gen Xer. I mean the biggest movie of 1975 was
Jaws! Though it is a masterpiece, in terms of plot structure, it is not very complex at all.
It has one main narrative: kill the shark. On the other hand, If Inception, with its multiple
plot lines, dreams within dreams sequences, and total lack of flashing arrows, would
have been filmed and released in 1975audiences would have been dumbfounded.
(LACK OF) FLASHING ARROWS IN INCEPTION 5
The opening scene of Inception, which lasts just 2:07, where Cobb wakes up in
limbo and is brought to Saito is full of vital details that contain no flashing arrows to alert
us to their importance. Here is a list of questions I had after watching that scene for the
first time. What is he doing washed up on the beach? Who is the old man? Was
Leonardo Decaprios character sent to kill him? What is the old man mumbling about?
Why does it seem to resonate with Decaprios character? What is the significance of the
top?
Having watched Inception half a dozen times, I realize now how vital all of these
seemingly random bits of information really are. We are introduced to Cobbs totem
here. Plus, Saito states a series of phrases that seem to be important as they trigger a
reaction from Cobb when he hears them. Finally, the importance of the gun (as a kick) is
introduced as well.
When the movies climax finally rolls around, all of these apparently trivial pieces
of information suddenly make sense. Yet, I was wrestling with all of those details
throughout the entire film! The payoff is when a series of epiphanies occur that suddenly
make sense. First, Cobb chose to stay under in limbo (or the shared subconscious) in
order to find Saito, who was plunged deeper into the dream state when he died in the
third dream level. Cobb must do this in order to finally have his freedom and return to
his children. Second, Saito has grown old in limbo waiting for Cobb to find him
(remember time slows down in limbo where Cobb and Moll spent 50 years one afternoon
while sleeping in their living room). Third, yes, Cobb has come to kill Saito, which as
we now know is the only kick that will bring them all the way back to reality. Luckily
for Cobb and Saito, they are so deep and time has slowed so much that their gun shots to
(LACK OF) FLASHING ARROWS IN INCEPTION 6
the head will still be in time to allow them to coincide with all of the other kicks (the
snow fortress exploding, the elevator crashing, and the van filling full of water) so that
they can wake up in reality. Finally, the fact that Saito recognizes Cobbs totem, causes
him to find himself and remember enough so that he is able to recite the bit of dialogue
that he used earlier in the film to convince Cobb to take his offer to try and plant a
memory deep in Fischers mind in the first place. This causes Cobb to realize that he is
in limbo with Saito too and that they must kill themselves to return to reality.
Yet, still having watched the film at least six times, those bits of information only
lead to more questions. How exactly did Cobb wind up washed up on the shore of the
shared subconscious, or limbo? How long has Saito been there? Has he really been there
long enough to grow into an old man (remember, time is exponentially longer the deeper
into the dream one goes)? Or is it just his imagined state? Why is Cobb the same
age? Saito touches - and actually spins - Cobbs totem. I never caught this before, but
Arthur tells Ariadne to never allow anyone to touch her totem. Is this significant? When
Cobb is devouring his food, we clearly see his wedding ring? Is this important?
Finally, when Saito begins reciting the phrase about living with regret and being
young men once again, this triggers a sense of familiarity in Cobb. Has he been in limbo
so long that he has forgotten himself? Remember Ariadnes warning about not losing
himself to Cobb just before she jumps to her death (as her kick)? Is this significant?
So the fact that I can resolve some of my initial questions raised by the opening
scene - and its lack of flashing arrows - but the fact that the answers only lead me to more
questions is a perfect example of what Steven Johnson means when he argues that many
of todays films are far more cognitively challenging than films just a generation
(LACK OF) FLASHING ARROWS IN INCEPTION 7
ago. What Nolan has done with Inception is create a piece of art that actually mimics its
purpose. What I mean by that is the more one thinks and analyzes Inception, the further
one is drawn into its depths, just as Cobb and Saito are drawn deeper and deeper into
dreams within dreams within dreams. Until we arent sure of anything any more. Which
is the exact point of Inception.




































(LACK OF) FLASHING ARROWS IN INCEPTION 8
References

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.