schmevil | so what are their jobs anyway?

Entry tags:

f: inception

so what are their jobs anyway?

Some rambling, idle thoughts about extraction teams in Inception.

In Inception, Arthur's job is point man. This seems to refer to two different forms of 'taking point': he's got an analytical and a combat role on extraction teams, and in both cases he's supposed to be out in front, taking the greatest risk of physical harm. I think Cobb's role as extractor puts him at added risk of psychological harm.

He does the primary research and analysis for Cobb's team, drawing on (one assumes) computer and investigatory skills and a network of contacts. We also see him acting as Cobb's bodyguard, a distraction, and holding the line against projections. First one in, last one out? (Arthur as ex-Marine would make so much sense, will have to expound on this later).

Cobb's role as extractor parallels Arthur's double role as point. He's the idea man, responsible for finding the jobs and sketching out an initial approach. And he's the key team member in dreams, the one who actually performs the extraction, and the one who really gets inside the target's subconscious.

If you add to that Cobb's former role as architect, they'd make a solid two person team. I kind of imagine Cobb bringing a potential job to Arthur with a vague idea of how they can run it. Arthur then does the research and presents a variety of options to Cobb, who fleshes out a plan while Arthur tests it for weaknesses. For most jobs, all they'd need is each other.

So then you have to ask yourself, if Cobb is both extractor and architect, and Arthur is researcher and muscle, what was Mal responsible for?

The constantly reiterated two-halves-of-a-whole, Mal&Cobb-ness of the movie, combined with what little we can infer about Mal from Cobb's memories and her shade, makes me think that maybe she was also extractor and architect. We know Mal built extensively in limbo. We can maybe infer from her shade that she's a good psychological operator. That could just as equally be a reflection of Cobb, though.

Regardless, Arthur's presence makes it obvious what Mal wasn't: point man. Otherwise Mal&Cobb would have had no need of him.

There's also the matter of Cobb incepting Mal - did he have more skill as an extractor? Or did he just hang on to reality that much harder? Other possibilities include Mal as chemist, forger, or jack of all trades.

Mal as forger is interesting, if you believe that Cobb dreams the whole plot of Inception. It bolsters the 'Ariadne is Mal' theory, and adds an interesting layer to Mal as shade. She was a forger but Cobb remembers her in one form. He's pinning down her memory - making it easier to hold onto? A kind of denial of Mal's full self that the movie constantly gets up to.

Mal as chemist makes sense as well, though I'm kind of reticent about it because it puts her in a support role. While a chemist is necessary to extraction, zie is not quite as central to the actual job. Mal's pushed out of the spotlight enough, amirite? One interesting possibility is Mal as psychitrist/chemist, making her Cobb's equal or superior to Cobb in extraction, and an essential part of a formidable and independent three person team.

All of this really makes me curious about Cobb's background. How is he a skilled architect and extractor? Apparently the best in the business, even. These are such disparate skill sets. You're kind of forced to take the position that he came in with one set, and picked up the other while exploring dream sharing technology. It's unlike Arthur's analyst/soldier combo, which could easily come from being in the military, where that primary/secondary skill set isn't so uncommon.

One angle that seems likely is that Cobb was an ambitious young architect before he got into dream sharing, and had a bit of business ruthlessness in him. It's easy to imagine Saito becoming a good extractor, and he and Cobb really connect - they have a kind of understanding that none of the other characters seem to. Ariadne comes to know Cobb, but it's Cobb and Saito who have the beginnings of a relationship of mutual respect and understanding. By the end, with Cobb coming for Saito in limbo, it's got a kind of brothers in arms quality to it. They aren't friends and won't be friends, but they can rely on each other mid-crisis. It's fun though that one of the best ways to dig deep into the Inception characters is to treat them as parts of Cobb's subconscious, reflecting different aspects of his character.

Aaaaand I've gotten completely off track now, haven't I?

So yeah. It seems to me that the core of an extraction team is: extractor and point man, with an architect and a chemist in a supporting role. From the Cobol job we know that an on-call chemist like Yusuf isn't common. Yusuf was around during Inception because he was building a new compound, and because the job was complicated enough to require extra bodies. Having a chemist of your very own though, would ensure a reliable supply of somnacin. Reliability is great in crime! From the Cobol job we also know that Nash went into dreams with Cobb and Arthur, to keep control of the top level dream. I'm thinking that Nash was a bit of a rare bird, because it would make a lot more sense for the architect to build the dream levels and then depart, in a solidly supporting role. But--

We also know that there's a certain amount of flexibility in the make up of teams, and in how jobs overlap. Eames is a forger (infiltration specialist?), an idea guy, and has a damn fine grasp of how the human mind works. Cobb of course, has been an architect and extractor at once. And being that extraction is a field that requires small teams and involves high risk, overlapping skill sets would be so very important. You'd want the best specialists you could find, but you'd also want team members who could step up should they be killed. Over specialization would absolutely mean death for extraction teams.

And ok, I think that's enough rambling for now.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Interesting thoughts. Are we really sure that Mal was working in the extraction business, though? I can't recall that being mentioned.

Point! She could have just experimented with her husband. I prefer to think she was a more active partner though.

I'm really puzzled by all the Arthur love, because that was the shallowest character of all. Also, he cocked up his job twice in the movie. JGL is hot and all, but wow.

Perhaps Mal and Cobb were either both extractors or both architects; they wanted to work together because they loved each other, so one (or both) of them needed another skillset. (Also, there's no reason Mal couldn't have been a point man; Arthur can do architecture too, we see him teach Ariadne. They could all have doubled up when necessary.)

SCREW YOU I LIKE QUIET MILITARY TYPES D:

Er... yeah. But Cobb, Mal and Saito are for sure my favourites. I think that's where the meat of the story is. (Screw Fisher!) Ariadne isn't so much a character we get to know, as a character who opens up other characters and situations for us.

It's possible that Mal was point, but I think that's a less interesting possibility tbh. I mean, point is just the person who supports the extractor. I get itchy about things that smack of Mal existing to support Cobb, considering the movie's treatment of her. Arthur's entire reason for being is to be Cobb's assistant, and that doesn't bother me one bit. I'm obviously biased.

Putting that aside, it's certainly possible she was point and Arthur picked it up after she died. There's nothing to suggest otherwise, I don't think...

XD

I kind of like the idea of Mal being a badass ninja. Also, an architect is just as much support for the extractor; everyone but the extractor is support for him/her. Oh, and it explains how Arthur was so easily captured in the opening sequence; Mal is better than him, because he's only been doing it since she died. And it's why they both look so stricken when they're yelling about Fischer's militarized subconscious; they're both thinking Mal wouldn't have missed it. Oh, and it explains why Shade Mal is viciously deadly; that's how Cobb thinks of her, but now it's turned on him.

/fanwanks hard

It's a good theory. Now go write the fic! :DDD

Only if it's a Marvel crossover. Mal can be on the Avengers.

No I like this, but you have to make Ariadne her sidekick and/or protege.

I bet Saito would hire the the team to extract how to build arc reactors. *pokes crossover ideas*

Saito would demolish Tony. He could be his new Stane or Hammer. But Tony would pull some whackadoodle SCIENCE victory out of his ass.

I'm really puzzled by all the Arthur love, because that was the shallowest character of all.

I don't think Arthur was more shallow than any other character - he just had a very simplistic front. If anything, I think he was one of the more layered ones - prickly, but also surprisingly loyal (in a field where that seemed to be a rare trait - Nash sold them out, Eames was ready to bail on them once things got dangerous and made it clear that he'd have no qualms about selling Cobb to Cobol, and then there was Yusuf, who was bought with Cobb's share). He showed a gentle side with Ariadne, we saw Eames get under his skin, we saw him humbled and tested; the guy who wanted everything planned out was eventually thrown into a situation where he had to improvise. It made him, aside from Cobb and Fischer, the only character in the movie who got any kind of development, really - not counting Mal, as she was really just part of Cobb.

Then there were little moments like the smile he had on his face in the van while dreaming about fighting crooks in the hotel and his kiss scene with Ariadne, that showed that he was more than just a stiff.

And, of course, looking striking while kicking butt in zero gravity helps, too.

Also, he cocked up his job twice in the movie.

I can only recall the one time where his research failed and

zanzando made a lovely meta post about why that might not be as big a cock-up as it first seems.

Thanks for the link! Gosh, I need to make more Inception friends...

it would never occur to me that someone in the dream extraction business would not be accustomed to improvising

I should clarify, it wouldn't occur to me unless there were more clues than 'likes to have a plan when about to embark on incredibly difficult mission to carry out believed-impossible objective' and 'doesn't like it when partner abandons plan to flirt with dead wife'.

There's no indication Arthur is unduly obsessed with planning, and when it all goes tits-up, he takes it calmly in stride and comes up with a brilliant and off-the-wall plan, with no indication he's doing anything unusual. Never has a man wandered through constantly shifting gravitation while beating up goons to tie his comrades into a lump and blow them up in a lift with greater sang-froid, and while that's charming, it's not exactly the sign of a man who's not comfortable with improvising.

I think we should start a Big List of Information About Mal. Apparently Mal was originally going to be a male coworker of Cobb and Arthur's - go figure.

I don't think there are any fleshed out characters in Inception outside of Cobb, with Saito and Fisher a distant second. Even they are types to a large extent, which the supporting characters (Ariadne through to Yusuf) are for sure. And honestly I don't think Eames is better developed than Arthur, or Yusuf more developed than Miles - they aren't given much attention, and that's exactly how Nolan wanted it. The only place I see him falling down on the characterization job is with Ariadne, but it's Nolan and his female characters' moments in the sun are usually hard won. :/

Well, that would be... interesting. :/ Would've changed an awful lot about the plot.

I don't think any of them are very developed, but I do think Arthur, then Ariadne are the flattest - they seem to have virtually no existance outside the plot. (Yusuf has his basement of dreamers, Eames has his Mombasa hijinks to indicate a larger world they partake in.) Which for Ariadne could be suddenly getting wrapped up in a whole new world and a mysterious angsty guy, but Arthur not so much. Arthur... wears a waistcoat, thought Mal was lovely. (Also, I think a lot of Saito's depth is in Ken Watanabe's performance, rather than the script; which means while he feels real, there's not much one can point to as concrete characterization. In many ways, he's a classic stereotype of a ruthless Asian business man with some philosophy going on.)

I mean, I'm not saying anyone shouldn't like Arthur - blank slates are easier to attach backstories too, after all. I'm just puzzled by how little of Arthur is actually present in the movie, compared to how much people see there.

I disagree with you. It seems to me like you're projecting stories on to the character that aren't present in the movie. He flirts with a smart, pretty girl, he gets slightly annoyed when teased, he's embarrassed when he cocks up, he has a badass action sequence. I don't find that evidence of a layered character.

Everything you mentioned is characterization. Nolan didn't put those scenes in there just for the heck of it - his actions in those situations show who he is. He didn't have to flirt with Ariadne, he could have lashed out at Eames or left in a huff, he could have gotten in Cobb's face about all the times he screwed up, he could have said "screw you, I'm out of here" once he found out Cobb was going through with the Inception job etc.

I especially don't find the idea of him having to improvise to be character development; they all plan, and they all improvise, and it would never occur to me that someone in the dream extraction business would not be accustomed to improvising.

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.

As for his loyalty, I would say his devotion to Cobb is a lack of characterization, a flatness, as we have no idea why or how he feels that way;

We know that he and Cobb go way back, so it's reasonable to infer that it's because they're friends. Still, not everyone would go to those lengths for their friends, so here's where the road forks: Cobb could just have been an absolutely awesome friend before Mal (but there's no evidence of this, really) or loyalty could just be a character trait of Arthur's. The latter seems more in line with the movie than the former.

Eames' 'disloyalty' to a team that has already lied to him (Cobb) and made major errors in the planning (Arthur) seems quite reasonable. He did not sign on for brain death, and his concern for his own continued existence seems more like characterization than Arthur's unwavering loyalty.

Not really, that seems like the default setting to me, especially for a criminal. Every man for himself. While ditching the team when Cobb's lies were revealed isn't damning, he was also perfectly ready to sell Cobb's life before that for no provocation at all, other than money. It seems like you don't think loyalty is a real character trait, while greed and self-preservation is? I can't agree.

(And Yusuf is disloyal for doing what Cobb wanted and keeping his secret? I don't follow that logic, and again the presence of Yusuf's own interests and how they affect his actions seem like characterization.)

Again, I don't think liking money or having a professional interest amounts to characterization. And the point is not that Yusuf is disloyal, but that he's in it for himself and the only person in the group (other than Ariadne and she's not even in the business) who's not in the project for themselves, is Arthur. He can't be in it for the money, because he didn't even want to do it.

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.

And while the meta post is certainly informative, it seems to be arguing that Arthur cocking up is not a big deal because his job is hard?

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.

Well, yes, it's hard. He still cocked it up. I'm not arguing that he's an incompetent idiot, but I find it odd that fandom fetishizes his competence when he cocks up twice, when Yusuf and Eames not only do their jobs perfectly but prove very competent outside their main jobs.

To be picky: Yusuf screwed up by driving off the bridge too early. But the thing is: there's no point in comparing the jobs, because it's apples to oranges. We do know that Eames - who doesn't even like Arthur and had every reason to downplay his competence - said without hesitation that Arthur's the best at what he does. Writer's intent doesn't get much more clear than that. The screw-up was then put there as an exception that proved the rule.

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.

I don't think any of them are very developed, but I do think Arthur, then Ariadne are the flattest - they seem to have virtually no existance outside the plot. (Yusuf has his basement of dreamers, Eames has his Mombasa hijinks to indicate a larger world they partake in.)

How is being Cobb's point man for years a less valid background than being a chemist or living in Mombasa? Arthur must have a hell of a network to be a good point man and he learned those martial arts skills somewhere. And Ariadne studied to be an architect - they all had lives outside of Inception. You may think their backgrounds are less interesting, but that's another matter.
Characterization and background may be connected, but they're not one and the same.

Everything you mentioned is characterization.

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.

Because we don't see any of it. We don't see his network, his background, or his martial arts training, we just have to assume it exists. That's not background. One could certainly make a great background taking in how he developed his network and learned martial arts and grew to be the best in the business, but for all we see in the movie he could have sprung fully formed from the head of Zeus.

Ariadne's introduction as one of Miles' students is one reason why I placed her as slightly less flat than Arthur - the other being that the character has more reason to suddenly become entirely absorbed in Cobb and his world.

OK, I'm done arguing this, because we obviously see the movie two completely different ways and there's no point in dragging this out. I walked out of the theater loving Arthur's character and not just because of his suits. I'm not saying he's an immensely layered and complex character, because he's not - none of them are, not even Cobb, really. But I think he was one of the more interesting ones and I know I'm not alone in that. You don't agree - fine. Once the word "bullshit" is used in a discussion, it's time to let it go.

Oh, please. Don't act like your pure ears have been sullied with a naughty word when you were happy to make snide, passive-aggressive suggestions that I "don't think loyalty is a real character trait, while greed and self-preservation is". Now that was an insult, and I let it slide, but now you're trying to assume the high road? You're fooling no one but yourself.

You don't agree - fine.

Next time, why don't you tell yourself that before you makes swipes at a stranger's moral character?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

so what are their jobs anyway?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject