There's no place like home

*Plot spoilers below

Musings on the film in no particular order...

1) Too much time was spent expounding upon the rules which govern dreams. Rules should simply set up the story, not take the place of it. The rules are so intricate they require several scenes to explicate them.

2) The ambiguous ending co-opts the rest of the film. Audiences will be spending all their time debating what happened at the end instead of arguing about the film as a whole. This is a waste of time UNLESS the ending is essential to the overall theme. In which case, it is important to know how it ends. Or it could be that AMBIGUITY itself is the overall theme.

3) Thomas Hibbs argues in Arts of Darkness that there is a subset of films within American Noir which "characters engage in a kind of quest to recover something." Since these movies are a subset of Film Noir, they do not find what they're looking for, but movies avoid nihilism because the characters have "some sense of proper orientation; of not losing oneself."

Inception definitely falls into this category. Cobb wants to "recover" his children and spends the entire film trying to do so. In film's climax, Cobb is tempted to choose between living in a dream world or going home to his real kids. He orients himself correctly by picking reality. Yet in the final scene we are left with the possibility that his real kids are not real at all and that he is still stuck in a dream. Does this make the film nihilistic? Hibbs' argument is it can escape the nihilism charge even if Cobb does not make it back to his kids because he at least oriented himself correctly. He WANTS to return home. That he isn't there yet is another matter.

What happens to Hibbs' argument if Cobb is CERTAINLY trapped in a dream? I think Hibbs would say it is nihilist then because there has to be at least the possibility of a recovery.

Albert Camus, on the other hand, argued in the Myth of Sisyphus that meaning was still possible in such a situation: "The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." But this answer doesn't seem satisfying. It just sounds like playing pretend. And most of us lost that attitude when we grew up.

4) James Bowman, in an essay titled "Avatar and the Flight from Reality," uses recent films to show how ancients and (post) moderns view art's purpose. Ancients believed in the concept of 'mimesis', in which art is evaluated by how successfully it reflects or imitates reality. Postmoderns flip things around and make art the measuring stick for reality. Cobb and Mal created a dream so beautiful that Mal did not want to leave. Ariadne says what they're doing is "pure creation."

So did I like the film? Yes. Is it Nolan's best work? No. His worst reviewed film, The Prestige, is better. But then again, The Prestige was really good so that isn't a harsh criticism about Inception.

BSG Series Finale

*Plot spoilers below

While the show ended two years ago, I only now just got around to finishing the series. Here are some 'musings'...

1) The Show always presented a debate between monotheists, polytheists, and atheists on the question of God's existence. In the finale, it turns out the monotheists were right all along. What was not up for debate between the Humans and Cylons were the permissive sexual attitudes practiced on both sides. If there is a God or gods, the assumption was, he or they do not concern themselves with such trifles. In light of this persistent theme through five seasons of the show, the finale took a rather puzzling turn.

Flashbacks are presented depicting Caprica before the Cylon attack. We see Tigh, Ellen, and Adama at a club and Roslin considering having an affair. They're not living very admirable lives and their lives are depicted as banal. The suggestion is the attack and consequent struggle for survival afterwords brought forth the best out of them.

In the final scene of the episode, human civilization has returned back to the level (population, technology) it had reached in Caprica. God finds the same problems with this civilization as he had with Caprica. And the list of sins is rather traditional e.g. materialism, debauchery, etc. Ultimately, the Divine is not the Libertine the Show originally made him out to be.


2) After discovering Earth, the Humans and Cylons decide to give up the technology they possess and start all over. They will live simply and even intermingle with the human savages on earth. The hope is this will break the cycle of violence. The Final Five explained in a previous episode that Caprica's destruction and the ensuing aftermath was part of some sort of cyclical pattern. The implication is technology is the source of evil and Humans and Cylons can live in peace if they live without such relishes. It all sounds like Rousseau who argued that the advance of civilization was the regression of man. The 'noble' savage in the state of nature is morally good and it is civilization which corrupts him.

The conclusion takes place thousands of years later and we see civilization has developed in spite of Human/Cylon decision to forgo technology. And as I said in the previous point, this civilization has developed the same problems of the last one. This is because the source of evil is not in the material circumstances, but the human (or cylon) heart. Even if they live as noble savages, there is nothing to stop subsequent generations from developing technology. And if they choose not to develop it, that does not remove the possibility of malice, rage etc. They might not have battlestars to kill each other with, but they will have stones.

3) The suggestion that God will destoy Earth in the last scene is especially troublesome because it means Adama and Co. were unable to end the cycle of violence. In effect, they failed. This is strange since we have been rooting for these characters over five seasons and we find out in the last episode that their success is not final in any sense. Their attempt to achieve peace was ultimately in vain.

That being said, BSG attempted to answer as many questions as it raised, which is more than can be said for LOST.

The Missing Link

Modern Liberal rhetoric on abortion has changed over the years. It used to be portrayed as a positive good, but is now depicted as a necessary evil, hence President Obama's characterization of it as "tragic." This is probably due to our country's slight shift in a pro-life direction. Professor Naomi Cahn, one of the two co-authors of the book Blue Families v. Red Families, recognizes this and so she wants to change the subject and talk about contraception instead. But isn't there a link between birth control and abortion? Does access to birth control increase abortion rates? If it increases abortion rates, then Modern Liberals would be endorsing a policy which would increase something which they themselves admit is "tragic."

Ross Douthat points out the same states (e.g. Massachusetts) which uses public funds to increase access to birth control also have higher abortion rates than states (e.g. Mississippi) which do not. Cahn's attempts to explain this away by saying the problem is states like Massachusetts have not gone far enough. They need further funding of sex ed and even easier access to birth control. Yet this seems highly implausible; the more likely explanation is abortion is necessary as a backup when contraception fails. This is why the abortion rates go up in states which permit easier access to birth control.