Inception (2010). Aside from the first layer of awesomeness and the second layer of basic psychological issues that we see dealt with, wrestled with, and overcome... there is also a working thesis presented... (spoiler alert)
The Psychological Process of "Letting Go."
When you're in a relationship, living and building upon a shared dream together, and one person abandons or leaves, it takes a lot of work and layers to work through before you can let go of that dream you shared. In that process, you definitely encounter a lot of layers and psychological issues that may have been left buried (or imprisoned) deep below, that have never been fully dealt with. But before you can dream again, on your own, live freely, or be fully present for your children, you have to let that dream you dreamed together die. If you don't, it will forever sabotage anything you endeavor to do.... it becomes nothing more than an autonomous shadow self.
I appreciated how the shadow-self was personified in Mal, locked in the basement, as Robert A. Johnson writes, "The shadow gone autonomous is a terrible monster in our psychic house." Masculine psychology is everywhere in this film as well. I think it's important to note the transformation that took place with Robert Fischer, Jr. and his father. The memetic inception of the film was that we each have full authority and control over the deep wounds buried in our subconscious. And that if something is awry, all we need to do is to confront those old wounds, speak life to them, affirmations, and transform them into something meaningful to us. This is what we see (assuming that everyone in the film was a projection of Cobb's subconscious) when Fischer, Jr. reconciles himself with his father and the father-wound.
What really got my attention to evaluate this film as a work of pop-psychology was toward the end, when Cobb goes back to "save" Saito and they exchange a dialogue from earlier in the film:
Cobb : I came here to tell you... something. [pause] Cobb: Something that... you once knew to be true. Saito: [remembering] Impossible...
It's the story of The Fisher King played out with different faces! Actually a lot of the film seems like it was built around this ancient story. I could even pull a Glenn Beck and say that it's an interesting coincidence that we see the last name "Fischer" in the film at all. But that's not the main crux. I would argue that what we witness is more like a journey through the three levels of masculine consciousness.
Dreams are where we work out a lot the mental and emotional issues that are too painful for us to confront consciously. A friend of mine told me that Christopher Nolan got the idea from the film when he was younger. He had a dream, woke up, fell back asleep and went back to where he was in the dream and changed it. I'm sure we've all had an experience like that. It was pretty cool to see it played out in a feature presentation. I loved it.
Anytime I see a church go through a process of "re-branding" I find myself shaking my head in disappointment. In the Protestant Christian faith there are multiple variations, or denominations, of a common brand name: Christianity. Throughout history one of the enduring strengths of what has made this brand of faith so unique is its unwavering commitment to its essence. This essence is founded upon very specific traditions, architectural aesthetic, and unique sensory experiences. The groupthink in contemporary Protestant/Evangelical denominations is to discard their essence and "re-brand" themselves using contemporary marketing techniques.
It's a lot like Starbucks... or St. Arbucks. What made Starbucks so unique was its initial focus on the complete sensory experience of premium coffees and tea. Today it's categorized as fast food. As soon as Starbucks opened up stores with a drive-thru, they gained customers, but they sacrificed their essence. In less than a decade the company traded its highbrow status for mass appeal. And they've suffered for it ever since.
A lot of mainstream Christian churches are hurdling themselves down a similar path. And note: this practice of "re-branding" is completely different from the development of hybrid services that blend together traditional elements with pop-culture. In a lot of churches these are called "contemporary services" and although it can be argued that there are similarities in appealing to a broader audience, that's not what I see happening, because these kinds of churches don't lose their essence, they build upon it.
When Starbucks began to open up stores with a drive-thru their business exploded... and then it rapidly declined in what felt like an almost overnight kick... A lot of churches that label themselves "seeker-friendly" are currently experiencing the same kind of boom in business that Starbucks had before it almost died. But what the leaders in these churches don't understand is that as soon as they jump on board with current marketing techniques- they've signed their own death warrant.
Contemporary marketing strategies focus primarily and almost exclusively on audio/visual branding. This kind of branding strategy is rapidly becoming obsolete. It may not look like it but think about this: everyday we are bombarded by audio/visual advertisements. For centuries churches have been a refuge from modern society. And for centuries, as a brand, they have also appealed to every single one of our senses: incense, stained glass windows, hard wood floors, high ceilings, red wine, bread, liturgy, hymns (audio, visual, tacticle, olfactory, taste). It's almost ironic that the forward-thinking marketing firms are looking back at the endurance of religious institutions, such as Christianity, and drawing upon their essence... while simultaneously more and more churches are discarding the very elements that makes their brand so unique... !
In July of 2010, the pop-artist Prince made a bold statement about the future of the music industry, and although I don't think his assumptions on the music industry are correct, I do believe that there is truth to his statement in regards to the future of marketing. "The Internet's completely over,” Prince told British tabloid publication, The Mirror, in his first newspaper interview in 10 years. “I don't see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won't pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can't get it.” Prince is currently set to release his latest album, “20Ten,” for free through various European print media, including the Daily Mirror and its Scottish affiliate, the Daily Record. Fans can snag their copy this Saturday via the different press outlets, but you they certainly won’t find any of the new material online. Prince has banned both YouTube and iTunes from using his music, calling the web obsolete. “The Internet's like MTV,” he told the Mirror. “At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can't be good for you." (http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/06/prince-the-internet-is-dead/)
Consumers, churchgoers, society- they are all becoming immune to audio/visual branding. Church leaders may argue that their institutions provide community services and a place to belong. But people are also looking for more than just a participatory experience. Even that strategy is being overused. For example, at Starbucks you can purchase a bottle of Ethos water and when you purchase this water, you get the pseudo-experience of participating in an act of charity. As you drink that water and carry the bottle with you it stands as a symbol of participation. But it still only appeals orally and emotionally.
The future success of churches depends not on technology and audio/visual "re-branding" but a complete overhaul on getting back to the basics of what makes a Christian Church unique. Starbucks had a moment in 2008 when they toyed around with the idea of "getting back to the basics." A month later they launched smoothies, protein supplements, and breakfast sandwiches. They missed it. Most churches are missing it too.
Consumers are looking for a virtual reality. They are yearning for an overall sensory experience that is unique to a brand and it needs to be a very real experience in a virtually artificial environment (artificial because the environment is set up in such a way that it lends itself solely to the experience of the brand).
When churches establish themselves as being no different than a theater, art gallery, coffeehouse, cinema, or business, they sacrifice their essence by blending in with the white noise of contemporary commercialism and dated marketing techniques. Dressed up in religious language, under the guise of "freedom," these institutions begin to slowly decay into nothing more than posh hype severely lacking in substance.
Inception (2010). Aside from the first layer of awesomeness and the second layer of basic psychological issues that we see dealt with, wrestled with, and overcome... there is also a working thesis presented... (spoiler alert)