Walking and talking is characterization. That doesn't mean it's a layered or complex character, and all the things I mentioned except the badass action sequence are really basic and predictable responses. "Holy shit, this man is attracted to pretty girls! So complex."
We know that he and Cobb go way back, so it's reasonable to infer that it's because they're friends.
Or it could be that they were business colleagues, and he sticks with the best extractor and architect in the business for the money. Or that Arthur was Mal's friend, and he protects him for Mal and her kids. Interesting stories, but that doesn't mean they were in the movie. For all we know, Arthur is Arthur Cobb and they're brothers.
He was chided for his lack of imagination, which is pretty much what improvisation needs. He was the one who wanted "specificity", he was the one saying this couldn't be done and shouldn't be done, the lone naysayer in the group, the one told to "dream bigger". Sure, he'd probably improvised before (as it seems that extractions going wrong isn't exactly a novelty), but at this scale, with so much at stake? Probably not.
He was certainly not keen on doing the job, thought it was ridiculously dangerous and Cobb was too unstable. And he wasn't wrong, was he? And demanding specifity and pointing out dangers and flaws is surely part of the point man's job. Liking a plan doesn't mean you can't improvise; it just means you like a plan. A character who's not keen on planning and likes to tease teasing Arthur about being way into planning doesn't make Arthur some kind of rigid robot who needs imagination.
It seems like you don't think loyalty is a real character trait, while greed and self-preservation is? I can't agree.
I think that showing interest in one's continued existence and one's own interests gives depth to a character, while unquestioned unexplained loyalty to someone who's lying to you and whose subconscious is trying to murder you is flat, yes.
In the opening sequence he is captured by the mark and a projection. That's a cock up.
The only reason he got captured was because of Mal, who was not supposed to be there and had yet to establish herself as a big threat. Cobb told him to go and said he would handle her - he didn't. The screw-up was Cobb's.
Oh, you're bullshitting me now. It wasn't Arthur's fault he got captured by the enemy? Sure, Cobb screwed up and was ridiculously irresponsible. That doesn't mean it wasn't Arthur's fault they captured him. He's supposed to be, you know, able to defend himself and Cobb. That's his job.
It's arguing that finding that particular information might actually be impossible unless you're extremely lucky. There's "hard" and then there's that.
Both Cobb and Arthur expected him to be able to find out that information, and hinted he'd done it before; I'm inclined to trust their judgment on whether a job is doable. The two experts seem in agreement that Arthur cocked up. "Writer's intent doesn't get much more clear than that."
To be picky: Yusuf screwed up by driving off the bridge too early.
Yeah, his driving would be 'very competent' not 'perfect', as his job is chemist (and the sedative worked perfectly). They were not expecting a militarized subconscious, they were expecting a quiet week in the lower level. Evasive driving under gunfire was something he had to do off the cuff and was not prepared for.
We do know that Eames - who doesn't even like Arthur
Eh? What are you basing that on? That he teases Arthur? And two screw-ups, because getting caught by the enemy is a screw-up. And how, exactly, does it 'prove the rule'? Not every exception proves the rule, you know. Some are just exceptions.
On a less tangible note, I think Arthur just radiates competence visually with his alert demeanor and sharp suits, which is probably why fandom's latched on to that particular aspect.
Well, I've never believed dressing well means anything other than that you can dress well.
no subject
Walking and talking is characterization. That doesn't mean it's a layered or complex character, and all the things I mentioned except the badass action sequence are really basic and predictable responses. "Holy shit, this man is attracted to pretty girls! So complex."
We know that he and Cobb go way back, so it's reasonable to infer that it's because they're friends.
Or it could be that they were business colleagues, and he sticks with the best extractor and architect in the business for the money. Or that Arthur was Mal's friend, and he protects him for Mal and her kids. Interesting stories, but that doesn't mean they were in the movie. For all we know, Arthur is Arthur Cobb and they're brothers.
He was chided for his lack of imagination, which is pretty much what improvisation needs. He was the one who wanted "specificity", he was the one saying this couldn't be done and shouldn't be done, the lone naysayer in the group, the one told to "dream bigger". Sure, he'd probably improvised before (as it seems that extractions going wrong isn't exactly a novelty), but at this scale, with so much at stake? Probably not.
He was certainly not keen on doing the job, thought it was ridiculously dangerous and Cobb was too unstable. And he wasn't wrong, was he? And demanding specifity and pointing out dangers and flaws is surely part of the point man's job. Liking a plan doesn't mean you can't improvise; it just means you like a plan. A character who's not keen on planning and likes to tease teasing Arthur about being way into planning doesn't make Arthur some kind of rigid robot who needs imagination.
It seems like you don't think loyalty is a real character trait, while greed and self-preservation is? I can't agree.
I think that showing interest in one's continued existence and one's own interests gives depth to a character, while unquestioned unexplained loyalty to someone who's lying to you and whose subconscious is trying to murder you is flat, yes.
In the opening sequence he is captured by the mark and a projection. That's a cock up.
The only reason he got captured was because of Mal, who was not supposed to be there and had yet to establish herself as a big threat. Cobb told him to go and said he would handle her - he didn't. The screw-up was Cobb's.
Oh, you're bullshitting me now. It wasn't Arthur's fault he got captured by the enemy? Sure, Cobb screwed up and was ridiculously irresponsible. That doesn't mean it wasn't Arthur's fault they captured him. He's supposed to be, you know, able to defend himself and Cobb. That's his job.
It's arguing that finding that particular information might actually be impossible unless you're extremely lucky. There's "hard" and then there's that.
Both Cobb and Arthur expected him to be able to find out that information, and hinted he'd done it before; I'm inclined to trust their judgment on whether a job is doable. The two experts seem in agreement that Arthur cocked up. "Writer's intent doesn't get much more clear than that."
To be picky: Yusuf screwed up by driving off the bridge too early.
Yeah, his driving would be 'very competent' not 'perfect', as his job is chemist (and the sedative worked perfectly). They were not expecting a militarized subconscious, they were expecting a quiet week in the lower level. Evasive driving under gunfire was something he had to do off the cuff and was not prepared for.
We do know that Eames - who doesn't even like Arthur
Eh? What are you basing that on? That he teases Arthur? And two screw-ups, because getting caught by the enemy is a screw-up. And how, exactly, does it 'prove the rule'? Not every exception proves the rule, you know. Some are just exceptions.
On a less tangible note, I think Arthur just radiates competence visually with his alert demeanor and sharp suits, which is probably why fandom's latched on to that particular aspect.
Well, I've never believed dressing well means anything other than that you can dress well.