Reflection on Inception

The first time I watched  the film Inception was a couple of years ago; all I can remember from that experience was that I was just really confused.  Since it was so long ago, I figured that I would be just as confused watching it a second time.  But as Nabokov said, the best readers will reread and reread a story many times to understand its full meaning. Even though I did not fully understand the movie the second time through( quite frankly I don’t think anybody does completely understand it), I did grasp some of its deeper meaning as well as the many modernist attributes in the movie.

                One idea that really confused me while watching the movie the first time was why Mal locked her top inside the limbo of her mind. After watching it for a second time, and learning about modernist attributes, I realize now that this is symbolic of Mal's disillusionment.  Mal decided to accept that her dream was reality so she locked up her one reminder of reality and convinced herself that she could live in her dream forever.

                Cobb was forced to kick Mal back to reality by running her over with a train, telling her that death is the only escape from this dream. Unfortunately this idea grows in Mal's head and she is lead to further disillusionment. She believes that reality itself is not real. This leads her to take her own life, believing that she will wake up from another dream.

                My favorite part, which was another modernist attribute , was the very last scene. This final scene was an ambiguous ending and also included that symbolic top. As described throughout the movie, in a dream the top will spin forever whereas in reality, it will eventually fall over. After Cobb leaves the frame to see his kids for the first time in years, the focus turns back to the spinning top. Right before the scene cuts out, the top wavers but does not yet fall; then everything goes black.  This left me with in a highly confused and wondrous state at the end of the movie. Is it actually reality or not? We will never know…

Nabokov and Jury Nullification

                In his lecture, "Good Readers and Good Writers, Vladimir Nabokov expresses his many views on how works of literature should be approached and analyzed. Apart from a disturbing amount of "fondling", Nabokov also says that the "best temperament for a reader to have, or to develop, is a combination of artistic and scientific one".   He means that if a book is read artistically that the reader will be too subjective in his attitude towards the book. However, if the reader reads too scientifically or logically, then  he will not understand the book in its entirety. This surprised me because I always had thought of reading as a solely emotional and artistic endeavor. It just had never occurred to me that a work of fiction could also be viewed in a logical and analytical manner.  Coincidentally, this same sort of realization  occurred in another class this week, Law.

                This week in Law we studied the juries, and the role that they played within courts and trails. Everybody knows what a jury is; it is a group of people who listen to both arguments of a court case, consider the evidence, and deliver a verdict. Most people believe that juries are expected to act completely objectively towards the case. I myself thought that as a juror, your job was to ignore subjective opinion and base the decision on evidence alone. However, as I learned this week, there are  instances in which the case can be view in a more subjective manner to make a verdict.

                This is called jury nullification. Although a judge will never tell a jury about it, it is right that belongs to every juror. Sometimes this right can be abused; like when racial or ethnic prejudice can affect a jury's verdict. However, in the past decades this power has been used to look pass the law because the law did not fairly treat the accused. The case of Leroy Reid is a perfect example of jury nullification. Reid was charged with possession of an illegal firearms. Although there was no doubt that he did in fact posses  this weapon, the jury acquitted Reid because they felt that the law did not fairly apply to him; given his immature mental state, his almost retardant neurological condition the jury decided that he was most likely unaware that he was not allowed to purchase a gun. Also the jury decided that because Reid apparently purchased the gun with good intentions, and complied with the rest of the law- handing in the gun, complying with officers and officials, etc- that this law should not apply to harmless people such as Reid. Personally, I don't agree with the not guilty verdict, and I was shocked that a jury could LEGALLY acquit a person who had clearly committed the offense.

                It is strange how these two ideas, the Nabokov  theory of literature and the idea of jury nullification, both changed my perception on how their subject could be viewed. And in the same week no less! I had thought that literature and fiction was only supposed to be analyzed artistically and subjectively. However, Nabokov says it can, and should be approached logically as well. Likewise, I previously thought that a jury was only allowed to act objectively and logically towards a case, but jury nullification says that it is legal to view cases somewhat subjectively as well.