A reaction to the Jungian stuff we discussed today? Agree with the method? Disagree? Is it an effective way to look at film/literature? Do you think Nolan was thinking along these lines when developing the film? Discuss!
I thought this method was a very interesting method that I've never thought about before. It's definitely changed my thinking about films/literature. This was of thinking seemed to work with Inception but the more I thought about it the more it seemed less likely that Christopher Nolan made this movie with Jungian in mind. I could be completely wrong but I don't think Cobb was a developed enough character to view him from that perceptive. I agree with the idea that every person has many sides to them, but we didn't see these sides in Cobb. We only saw one of the sides of Cobb really. The unstable, depressed, trapped, at the risk of. Being unhinged Cobb is really the only side we get to see. While he probably does have a part of him always wanting approval(Fisher/child) and apart of him that is deceptive, funny, and a prankster(Eames/prankster) we don't see these sides of him in the film. I don't think we really got to know Cobb well enough as a character to be able to see all those sides of him. I do however really like this method of thinking and will keep it in mind next time I see a movie/read a book and see if it applies, because it is really an interesting way of thinking.
I am fascinated by the method we discussed in class. It is an interesting idea to spread the hero’s qualities and traits in between different characters. I think it is a very effective method and after our discussion I have been able to recognize it in other stories. I think Christopher Nolan probably did consider this when making the movie. Although I am not completely sure we can tell all of these traits are Cobb’s. I think the qualities represented by the characters are more of what Cobb should be like. These traits may be sides of normal Cobb’s, but currently he has been taken over by guilt for his children, and is dysfunctional. This means he is not showing all his normal sides, and his unhinged side represented by Mal is in control. -Max Schwalbach
Its and interesting way of examining liturature. I think that this method involves a lot stretching to make things fit. I don't think this was Christopher Nolan's aim when directing inception. It's just a coencidence really. A lot of characters have very distinct personallities but to make them represent parts of a hero's personality is very shaky at best. There are way to many inconsistencies to consider. I do think its a great example of thinking outside the box.
I thought the Jungian method we discussed was intriguing, but not quite reasonable. It's not that the method is completely wrong, it just isn't wide enough. It doesn't cover everything and it doesn't always work. It is a pattern not a formula as an analogy to math. It is a helpful way to look at characters, and it brings out some new perspectives, but it still isn't perfect. As another analogy, you should start with wikipedia, but don't end with it. Inception works pretty well using the Jungian method on Cobb, but I don't think Nolan had that in mind. The characters show parts of Cobb, but it's more like Cobb has some of their characteristics, not that they represent his personality. They influence Cobb, but they aren't mirrors of him. Many of the characteristics represented by the characters aren't central at all to Cobb. None of them represent his confusion which I feel is an incredibly prominent trait of his.
I think that using the Jungian types is a very effective way of examining stories, and it seems like they recur in a … thousand places. I doubt that Christopher Nolan set out to include all eight types of character, but he probably has heard of Jung's theories. I think that it makes sense to include certain supporting characters to drive the plot. Other characters obviously help us examine Cobb (Ariadne and Mal in particular). The premise of the dream-world includes characters who are just projections of the leads' subconsciouses. Any similar group of fictional characters can separate into distinctive archetypes. You can probably choose eight characters in almost any work of a certain length and categorize them with limited evidence, so it is possible to read too much into the Jungian characters.
I agree with the Jungian method I suppose. I found it very interesting, but it’s possible it’s one of those things that there isn’t really one right answer so it can be hard to apply to some films, like when we were trying to figure out what the role of Cobb’s dad was we ended up deciding the mentor figure but it was arguable he was the father figure. I think it is very likely Nolan was thinking about these archetypes while he was making the film. He probably wasn’t thinking as in depth about it as we were, but it is definitely something that one must think about when making a movie. Like say Nolan didn’t bother to write Eames into the film the film would have lost that bit of dark humor Eames brings to the story line.
I think that the idea that Cobb’s traits as the hero are spread out over the others intentionally is an interesting one, but not one that is very likely to be true. I think this for one main reason. There was a bit too much interpretation involved in our finding of the various characters’ roles as part of Cobb’s mind. It seemed like the characters did not have a very clear role as a specific part of the human consciousness. I think that it is possible that the various characters were supposed to represent parts of Cobb, and it would be really cool if this was the case because of the whole “losing parts of himself as he descended into the various levels of the dream” dynamic, but I don’t really think that it is true.
I think it may be possible Nolan was thinking of those things, but I sort of doubt it. With George Lucas, Campbell was popular and Lucas really liked what he did. So it stands to reason that Star Wars had a heavy influence that came from Campbell and the hero's journey. But it seems a little bit of a stretch to apply this to Nolan and Carl Jung. He may have been, but just because we can find a connection doesn't mean he was thinking about it. He may have been thinking about the hero's journey, but that feels unlikely in a film that feels very unstructured. We had a bit of trouble finding the hero and their journey, so I still doubt it. I may not agree with the method, but I think what it makes you find when you apply it is very useful and interesting.
I kinda agree with the Jungian method we talked about in class in perspective to the role of the characters in relation to Cobb in Inception. However, I think there were some characters that I didn’t really agree with in connecting with Cobb’s conscious. I felt like we were going way to deep in some of the analysis and by the end of it some of my views on the roles of the characters was much more difficult and complicated even when their character isn’t as complicated as we made it. On the other hand, I do agree with some of the characters and how they relate to Cobb. I don’t think this was Nolan’s direction when making the movie. I think he was aiming some characters to relate to Cobb, but the only character I think that is was Ariande because I do believe she was a huge role in Cobb’s life.
It was interesting to see a method other than the heroes journey in a movie. Before class, I saw Ariadne and Mal as kind of opposing parts of Cobb. I saw Ariadne as the positive, eager part of him that wants to achieve great things. While Mal resembled that struggling part of him, affecting his missions and helping others. It was interesting to see how the rest of the characters were also resembling a part of his personality. My favorite aspect was the idea of Yusef as the bridge and transporter between the two worlds; the dream world and reality. Nolan added so many little details, such as the that the "kick" took place on a bridge, and that the first level of the dream world he drove them around.
Nolan may have been thinking along these lines, but for some reason I doubt it. All the team members seem like relatively good teammates to have if you mean to pull off a successful brain heist. While some of the members, like the thief, are good fits for the Jungian archetypes, others, like the chemist, don't fit as well for me. I would think that identifying the different archetypes would be easy in a movie in which the dream designer is named Ariadne and the memory that hinders the mission is named "bad" in French and Spanish. On the other hand, these blatant references show that Nolan is an educated person, so it is quite possible that he had heard of Jungian archetypes. Maybe he was thinking about them but did not have them right front and center. Maybe he based his characters on the archetypes but then had to change them a bit to fit into the story.
I doubt that Nolan was really thinking along these lines when he made the film. I'm sure he thought about how the characters were significant/important to our hero, Cobb, but I don't think he would have thought of it in such depth and detail. It was interesting to see how each character represented some aspect of the hero's persona and I had never thought of any story line that way before. Like Annice, I thought that some of our connections were questionable and we probably went a little too deep.
I thought this method was a very interesting method that I've never thought about before. It's definitely changed my thinking about films/literature. This was of thinking seemed to work with Inception but the more I thought about it the more it seemed less likely that Christopher Nolan made this movie with Jungian in mind. I could be completely wrong but I don't think Cobb was a developed enough character to view him from that perceptive. I agree with the idea that every person has many sides to them, but we didn't see these sides in Cobb. We only saw one of the sides of Cobb really. The unstable, depressed, trapped, at the risk of. Being unhinged Cobb is really the only side we get to see. While he probably does have a part of him always wanting approval(Fisher/child) and apart of him that is deceptive, funny, and a prankster(Eames/prankster) we don't see these sides of him in the film. I don't think we really got to know Cobb well enough as a character to be able to see all those sides of him. I do however really like this method of thinking and will keep it in mind next time I see a movie/read a book and see if it applies, because it is really an interesting way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteI am fascinated by the method we discussed in class. It is an interesting idea to spread the hero’s qualities and traits in between different characters. I think it is a very effective method and after our discussion I have been able to recognize it in other stories. I think Christopher Nolan probably did consider this when making the movie. Although I am not completely sure we can tell all of these traits are Cobb’s. I think the qualities represented by the characters are more of what Cobb should be like. These traits may be sides of normal Cobb’s, but currently he has been taken over by guilt for his children, and is dysfunctional. This means he is not showing all his normal sides, and his unhinged side represented by Mal is in control. -Max Schwalbach
ReplyDeleteIts and interesting way of examining liturature. I think that this method involves a lot stretching to make things fit. I don't think this was Christopher Nolan's aim when directing inception. It's just a coencidence really. A lot of characters have very distinct personallities but to make them represent parts of a hero's personality is very shaky at best. There are way to many inconsistencies to consider. I do think its a great example of thinking outside the box.
ReplyDeleteHey everyone, sorry for getting this out so late - rough night. This can be finished as late as tomorrow night.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Jimmy Peterson
I thought the Jungian method we discussed was intriguing, but not quite reasonable. It's not that the method is completely wrong, it just isn't wide enough. It doesn't cover everything and it doesn't always work. It is a pattern not a formula as an analogy to math. It is a helpful way to look at characters, and it brings out some new perspectives, but it still isn't perfect. As another analogy, you should start with wikipedia, but don't end with it. Inception works pretty well using the Jungian method on Cobb, but I don't think Nolan had that in mind. The characters show parts of Cobb, but it's more like Cobb has some of their characteristics, not that they represent his personality. They influence Cobb, but they aren't mirrors of him. Many of the characteristics represented by the characters aren't central at all to Cobb. None of them represent his confusion which I feel is an incredibly prominent trait of his.
ReplyDeleteI think that using the Jungian types is a very effective way of examining stories, and it seems like they recur in a … thousand places. I doubt that Christopher Nolan set out to include all eight types of character, but he probably has heard of Jung's theories. I think that it makes sense to include certain supporting characters to drive the plot. Other characters obviously help us examine Cobb (Ariadne and Mal in particular). The premise of the dream-world includes characters who are just projections of the leads' subconsciouses. Any similar group of fictional characters can separate into distinctive archetypes. You can probably choose eight characters in almost any work of a certain length and categorize them with limited evidence, so it is possible to read too much into the Jungian characters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Jungian method I suppose. I found it very interesting, but it’s possible it’s one of those things that there isn’t really one right answer so it can be hard to apply to some films, like when we were trying to figure out what the role of Cobb’s dad was we ended up deciding the mentor figure but it was arguable he was the father figure. I think it is very likely Nolan was thinking about these archetypes while he was making the film. He probably wasn’t thinking as in depth about it as we were, but it is definitely something that one must think about when making a movie. Like say Nolan didn’t bother to write Eames into the film the film would have lost that bit of dark humor Eames brings to the story line.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea that Cobb’s traits as the hero are spread out over the others intentionally is an interesting one, but not one that is very likely to be true. I think this for one main reason. There was a bit too much interpretation involved in our finding of the various characters’ roles as part of Cobb’s mind. It seemed like the characters did not have a very clear role as a specific part of the human consciousness. I think that it is possible that the various characters were supposed to represent parts of Cobb, and it would be really cool if this was the case because of the whole “losing parts of himself as he descended into the various levels of the dream” dynamic, but I don’t really think that it is true.
ReplyDeleteI think it may be possible Nolan was thinking of those things, but I sort of doubt it. With George Lucas, Campbell was popular and Lucas really liked what he did. So it stands to reason that Star Wars had a heavy influence that came from Campbell and the hero's journey. But it seems a little bit of a stretch to apply this to Nolan and Carl Jung. He may have been, but just because we can find a connection doesn't mean he was thinking about it. He may have been thinking about the hero's journey, but that feels unlikely in a film that feels very unstructured. We had a bit of trouble finding the hero and their journey, so I still doubt it. I may not agree with the method, but I think what it makes you find when you apply it is very useful and interesting.
ReplyDeleteI kinda agree with the Jungian method we talked about in class in perspective to the role of the characters in relation to Cobb in Inception. However, I think there were some characters that I didn’t really agree with in connecting with Cobb’s conscious. I felt like we were going way to deep in some of the analysis and by the end of it some of my views on the roles of the characters was much more difficult and complicated even when their character isn’t as complicated as we made it. On the other hand, I do agree with some of the characters and how they relate to Cobb. I don’t think this was Nolan’s direction when making the movie. I think he was aiming some characters to relate to Cobb, but the only character I think that is was Ariande because I do believe she was a huge role in Cobb’s life.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see a method other than the heroes journey in a movie. Before class, I saw Ariadne and Mal as kind of opposing parts of Cobb. I saw Ariadne as the positive, eager part of him that wants to achieve great things. While Mal resembled that struggling part of him, affecting his missions and helping others. It was interesting to see how the rest of the characters were also resembling a part of his personality. My favorite aspect was the idea of Yusef as the bridge and transporter between the two worlds; the dream world and reality. Nolan added so many little details, such as the that the "kick" took place on a bridge, and that the first level of the dream world he drove them around.
ReplyDeleteNolan may have been thinking along these lines, but for some reason I doubt it. All the team members seem like relatively good teammates to have if you mean to pull off a successful brain heist. While some of the members, like the thief, are good fits for the Jungian archetypes, others, like the chemist, don't fit as well for me. I would think that identifying the different archetypes would be easy in a movie in which the dream designer is named Ariadne and the memory that hinders the mission is named "bad" in French and Spanish. On the other hand, these blatant references show that Nolan is an educated person, so it is quite possible that he had heard of Jungian archetypes. Maybe he was thinking about them but did not have them right front and center. Maybe he based his characters on the archetypes but then had to change them a bit to fit into the story.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Nolan was really thinking along these lines when he made the film. I'm sure he thought about how the characters were significant/important to our hero, Cobb, but I don't think he would have thought of it in such depth and detail. It was interesting to see how each character represented some aspect of the hero's persona and I had never thought of any story line that way before. Like Annice, I thought that some of our connections were questionable and we probably went a little too deep.
ReplyDelete