Image Credit: Solarpix/PR PhotosFor those of you who are still scratching your heads over the ambiguous spinning-top ending of this summer’s mind-bender Inception, one of the film’s stars, Sir Michael Caine, has weighed in with his own explanation of what it all means. (For anyone who hasn’t seen the movie yet: SPOILER ALERT!) In an interview with BBC Radio, Caine — who plays Leonardo DiCaprio’s character’s father-in-law and mentor in the film — revealed that, as he sees it, the end of the movie isn’t just a dream (within a dream within a dream within a dream…). “[The spinning top] drops at the end, that’s when I come back on,” Caine explained. “If I’m there it’s real, because I’m never in the dream. I’m the guy who invented the dream.”
So if the top dropped and didn’t keep spinning, then DiCaprio’s character really is reunited with his kids at the end, which would certainly make sense in a Hollywood-happy-ending kind of way. But what do you think? Does Caine’s theory work for you? What do you think he meant by the fact that his character “invented the dream”? Do you have a different theory?
No offense to Caine (who is terrific), but this is just his opinion/interpretation, and I don’t really put any stock in it.
It actually reminds me of a special feature on the “Usual Suspects” Special Edition DVD in which Gabriel Byrne is still kinda convinced that he’s Keyzer Soze: it’s great that he thinks that, but it doesn’t make it so.
(Yikes, I just re-read my comment and I sound a kinda prick-y. It’s not like his take actually “explains the ending of ‘Inception.’” (Took the headline too literally.)
Should’ve just said that his interpretation, while interesting, is in no way the definitive word…and I LOVE that there’s no definitive word.)
I honestly love that you don’t want to sound prick-y. I wish all posters were more like you!
Well, it’s not like I’m immune to being a prick. I just don’t need to be directing it at Michael Caine, of all people.
I agree, Mr. Holloway. I like his interpretation, but it is just that. And I also love that there is no definitive word.
Mr. Holloway, you sounded fine! An astute comment too.
If he is in the dream, it does not necessarily mean it’s real. If it’s Leo’s dream, Leo can still include his father-in-law in it, right? Caine does not have to be connected in order for Leo to dream about him.
I love both your posts, Mr. Holloway! And agree with both/love your fear of prickishness.
No, in the interview he never said it was his opinion. It’s what he and the entire cast and crew picked up from the script. I’d say they’re better experts on the material than any of us.
I don’t always state that what I’m about to say is my opinion before I say it. Doesn’t mean it’s not just my opinion.
The movie sucked.
cccloc, Just because you cannot use your brain to imagine and interpret does not mean the movie sucked
Didn’t know that about Byrne! And I love love love the Usual Suspects. Boy, that movie never gets old.
f u holloway! and call me sir.
My apologies, Sir Michael Caine.
you’re doubting sir machael caine’s explanation who was actually in the movie!?!?!?!
i think you need to wake up from your nightmare
Like “Blade Runner: The Directors Cut” before it, I am perfectly happy with the ambiguous ending. I still love to argue theories about it with my friends.
It’s entirely possible! I actually thought the coolest thing would’ve been if Michael Caine had palmed the top at the end — suggesting that he was, in fact, the ‘architect’ of the entire scenario, and either the film’s real hero or real villain. We could have debated that forever, too!
OH yesss nice. Yeah a palming of the top by Michael Caine would really be so awesome in all sorts of ways.
His explanation makes complete sense, I don’t know why I didn’t think of it sooner! But I still like the open to interpretation ending, I like how Nolan left it for the audience to decide how it ended or if it ever really ended.
But his explanation does not make complete sense if DiCaprio’s character was in the dream state for the entire movie. Caine could believe he was not in a dream sequence, when he was.
That is also true. People actually use his first scene with Di Caprio, where he asks him to come back to reality, as an argument that Di Caprio’s character is in fact dreaming.
As the writer of the author notes that Caine’s opinion is “as he sees it”. It’s his guess, opinion, hypothesis, etc. It’s not as if Nolan has given some definitive final call on it and probably never will because the point of it was to leave a sense of mystery to it. For the life of me I don’t understand why this concept has been difficult for viewers to understand. A movie that had dream sequences throughout the movie and had characters that had difficulty discerning the two has and ending that leave viewers having difficulty discerning whether it’s a dream or not was pretty much a no-brainer. How could you not see that coming? The spinning top was 100% telegraphing and expected. Quit spending so much time being confused by a clear ending to the movie that’s a B- at best.
@JJ are you the same jj who always thinks that americans are stupid?
They are aren’t they?
I liked the ambiguous ending, and I hope that it leads to a sequel that answers the questions from movie one and raises new ones.
For The Record I am of the belief that it was a dream.
Check Out GenerationGossip.com
The interesting thing about this is the idea that the audience was the recipient of the “inception”. By going to black and leaving things “open”, Nolan planted the idea in our minds that the end is still a dream. Brilliant direction.
Precisely! It was the fact that it was ambiguous that was brilliant, not that it can be used as an argument to support the view that the entire movie is a dream (which I also find fascinating).
Then whey were the kids the same age wearing the same clothes playing in the yard?
Listen to the interview; he explains that.
To the stupid people who keep saying the kids were the same age in the end, no they were not as confirmed by the end credits, which list two set of kids. Thanks for contributing further stupidity to an already stupid argument.
Example! Mr Holloway!!! lol
Dude, they list two sets of kids because of labor laws. They are limited as to how much time a kid can be used on a set so pretty much any production (tv or movie) that has kids in it, use twins.
While I don’t like the ‘different children as proof’ argument, the kids were listed as their characters’ names, with the age. I don’t remember the kids’ names, but it was “So and So (Age 3)” and “So and So (Age 5)”. Different ages were cast.
I’ve never thought that the ending was a dream.
The top IS NOT his totem. It was his WIFE’S. His totem, you can kind of surmise, is his wedding ring (he’s wearing it in every dream sequence, he’s not wearing it in “real life” sequences). He’s not wearing it at the end, ergo, it’s not a dream. And as other people have mentioned, two sets of actors play his children, meaning that they DID age.
I never noticed the ring. Nice catch.
Yep, I came across that theory reading up on the film after seeing it once. I saw it again to specifically watch for the ring, and it’s true. I think that’s also why Nolan puts such emphasis on his hands — holding the wine glass, the coffee cup, how his hand falls when he falls asleep in the airplane.
I stared at his hand the entire time during the ending sequence. They never showed his hand to verify if there was a wedding ring on it. The spinning top never stopped. It bobbled….but it kept spinning…..
That is very interesting. My first thought when I saw the movie was that the end was not a dream. But I read subsequent analysis that it was, and I was fascinated by the idea, even though it did not entirely convince me.
I don’t know how anyone can say that the ending was “ambiguous” or “open to interpretation.” It’s pretty clear what happened; you just need to put it together.
(Hint: He wasn’t dreaming.)
That comment served no purpose whatsoever except to make you seem arrogant.
It’s just nice to know that there’s a movie still generating debate three or so months after it came and went. Most movies disperse like a bad fart – you suffer a few seconds, then it’s gone.
Now that’s he’s cleared this up, how about tackling the unanswered questions from LOST for us?
Okay, now I have to watch it again. Thank you Mr. Caine for adding more mud to the water…just another reason this is cool-a55 movie.
The one question I still haven’t heard answered… who was Michael Caine? Cobb’s father-in-law? Father? What scene / line of dialogue points directly at either?
For some reason I thought he was meant to be his father-in-law. He had familiarity with the children, and it seems like his wife (i.e. Mal’s mother and the kids’ grandmother) and Dom had a rift between them, and Miles acted as a mediator.
I agree. Also, Mal was French, and Michael Caine, though English, lived in Paris, which would explain his daughter’s accent.