In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Ask FlickChick
Now You See It, Now You Don't: Bad Mojo in The Prestige
Send your movie questions to FlickChick.
The Illusionist and The Prestige: Two Hollywood movies about turn-of–the-century magicians in one year — how'd that happen? Not that it's unusual for competing projects about the same or similar subject matters to go into development, but rarely do both stay the course: A star drops out, financing dries up, someone blinks and then there's only one film left. This week's DVD Tuesday pick is The Prestige, which isn't to say The Illusionist is a bad movie; in fact, they make a great double bill. But The Prestige has a bracing mean streak that warmed the cockles of my dark, dark heart.
Impoverished cockney Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and well-born American "Robert Angier" (Hugh Jackman) — he uses a pseudonym so as not to embarrass his family — once worked together under the tutelage of Harry Cutter (Michael Caine), a renowned ingeneur, or a guy who devises and builds mechanical illusions. Both are talented, but in completely different ways: Alfred is the better technical magician, Robert is the superior showman. And while they used to be friends, they became bitter rivals, trapped in an ever-escalating rivalry that leaves Robert dead and Albert in jail for his murder. But as Cutter warns in the film's puzzling prologue, you have to watch closely: Nothing is exactly as it seems.
It's a tricky narrative that jumps back and forth in time behind the scenes and can never be taken at face value — this is, after all, the work of Memento's Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, working from Christopher Priest’s 1995 novel. It also has top-flight performances from Jackman, Bale and Caine, Scarlett Johansson playing a slippery beauty, and a behind-the-scenes tour of prestidigitation at its most callous. All this, and Nikolai Tesla (David Bowie), too. And did I mention that it's flat-out gorgeous?
Every illusion, says Cutter, has three parts: The "pledge," an ordinary object or action; the "turn" that startles (and misdirects) the audience; and the "prestige," the final, unpredictable reveal that leaves them gasping. The Illusionist ends with a clunky montage that explains way too much, but the reveal at the end of The Prestige gave me a first-rate "didn't see that coming... but should have" thrill. The combination of utter outrageousness and meticulous setup is hard to beat.
THINGS TO CONSIDER:
Are magic and movies an inherently bad match? Much of the thrill of magic acts is seeing the apparently impossible in real life, but just about anything can be faked on film.
Assuming that the storyteller is playing fair, do you like unreliable narratives in which you have to constantly re-evaluate the telling to get to the tale? Or do they make you feel like throwing a "who cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?" hissy fit?
If you've seen one movie on a subject — say, Capote — are you interested in seeing another, like Infamous? Why or why not?
If you've seen both The Prestige and The Illusionist, how do you think they compare?
Remember: Send your movie questions to FlickChick.
Previous DVD Tuesday blogs:
13 Tzameti
The Departed
Suspiria
Kiss and Make Up
Kiss Me Deadly
The Long Good Friday
What Alice Found
The Devil's Backbone
The Descent
The Devil Wears Prada
Pandora's Box
The Thief and the Cobbler
Nashville
Panic in the Streets/Jack Palance Interview
The Pusher Trilogy
Scarface
Slither
Sunset Blvd.
In Cold Blood
Brick
Also: This week's new DVD releases
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2007 6:25 PM
|
I haven't yet seen The Prestige (Maitland is right... horrible name) so I have to be very careful reading the DVD Club posts this week. Please be spoiler-alert-y fellow posters!
Magic on screen can be a bit of a bore. It's better to show us the behind the scenes stuff of how the trick is done. It's been a while since I've seen Houdini with Tony Curtis but I think this is what they did. It's been even longer since I have seen Penn and Teller Get Killed. I can't even remember if they shook things up in that one.
Again, taking us behind the scenes is one way to make magic compelling on screen. Another is to have the characters use their "magic" in the plot. The best example of this sort of thing is F/X where the "movie magic" was used to further the plot and as part of the action. It's the same as a movie like Sneakers except subsititute "magic" for "espionage". Hell, it even reminds me of M when the underground castoffs use their special skills to catch the killer.
Second: I have no problem seeing a biography covering the same subject. For example, I did not see all of Man in the Moon (and I liked what I saw), but I would like to see another, less-surreal take on the surreal Andy K!
|
|
Feb 26, 2007 8:01 PM
|
|
Add in Woody Allen's Scoop, and that's 3 magician movies in 2006 (two with both Johansson and Jackman). While all the movies have characters who are illusionists/magicians, the themes of each movie was so completely different -- The Illusionist is a love story, The Prestige is about jealousy, and Scoop is an old-fashioned murder mystery.
|
|
Feb 26, 2007 8:25 PM
|
Apropos spoilers -- you know from the beginning of The Prestige that that Robert is dead and Alfred has been arrested and found guilty of his murder, so that's not a spoiler... just want everyone to know that I haven't spilled the beans on something important.
I love to know the end of a story before I start, because I feel it frees me to concentrate on the telling. But I also know that not everyone feels that way.
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 12:16 AM
|
Maitland, how can you even stand to do that (read the end of a mystery novel as you mentioned on the Podcast)? I love mysteries and half the fun is trying to figure things out! On the rare occasions that I beat Agatha Christie at her own game, I feel so happy. But it's just as fun to be unable to solve the crime.
On the other hand, gotta love Columbo! In the end, I guess it's really just all about how the deed was done...
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 2:24 AM
|
It happens I did see both of these films one after another. While I enjoyed much of The Illusionist I found The Prestige to be more meaty and satisfying. One problem, if you could call it that, is that I figured out the conceit of both movies a little early on. At least I think it was early on. I must admit that I had figured out more of the 'what' than the 'how'.
That didn't really spoil either film for me and like you Maitland, I loved the way both (but especially The Prestige) looked. Made me really want to see Prague while it still looks as it did in the film.
SPOILER ALERT!!!
Without giving too much away I did have a couple of questions that maybe you can answer:
Was Michael Caine a double agent at the end of Prestige? And in The Illusionist, when Ed Norton asks his former manager to do him "a favor" what exactly was the favor? I feel the answer should be 'obvious' (like the key to The Prestige especially) but as to Norton's request of his former manager I just missed it.
Like achyfakey I have no problems with one similarly themed film following on the heels of another. The only real complaint I have is that sometimes the better film can be overshadowed by a star driven bigger budgeted better distributed film. Sometimes too, if the bigger film is markedly inferior the better, smaller film can be a victiim by association. And if I do see more than one of a type I like to see the better one last. The jury is still out re: Capote and Infamous. I liked Capote and I'm in the middle of Infamous now. So far so good. Toby Jones is a hoot.
If a film is about the magicians and not about the magic itself I'm okay with cinematic 'tricks' to make it work. But having the actors come as close as possible to being able to duplicate some things really helps. I understand that Ed Norton performed most of his "close-up" i.e sleight of hand tricks himself. That made his performance more convincing. Same principle is in effect when an actor plays a musician and learns at least how to relate hand movement and breathing to the sounds that are played.
A friend of mine won an Oscar for his work on the soundtrack to The Buddy Holly Story and he told me that Both Don Stoud and Charles Martin Smith learned to play, respectively, drums and bass from scratch. Gary Busey had experience as a drummer and some familiarity with the guitar but really woodshedded for his role. In the scene at the skating rink where they play "Rockin' Around With Ollie Vee" the three are playing the music themselves without augmentation. They came off very much like a hungry young talented but rough edged band which was exactly what they were supposed to be. My friend says that while Stroud and Busey where augmented to varying degrees throughout the film Smith played a majority of his own bass throughout.
On the other hand while Sean Penn did a good job, a very good job, of moving his fingers when they should be moved in Sweet and Lowdown he didn't do such a good job of putting them where they should go. As a guitar player it was hard for me not to notice that often his left hand was at the wrong (low) end of the guitar when he was playing high notes and vice versa when he was playing low notes. Mosty likely non players weren't paying that much attention and the discrepancy wasn't enough to spoil Penn's performance for me. Since director Woody Allen is also a musician I imagine he made a judgement call as to just how close he had to come to total accuracy and still be convincing. It was close enough for me. Same with Wood Harris in Hendrix. Both seemed more convincing than some real musicians used to back in the days of the rock-sploitation quickies of the 1960's (Having A Wild Weekend, Get Yourself A College Girl etc.) which had bands playing electric instruments out on beaches without amplifiers and the sound of string and horn sections coming frominvisible instruments.
But there is a thrill in seeing the "real thing". I'm not a big martial arts film fan but I enjoyed knowing that up until some recent exceptions, Jackie Chan was for the most part actually doing what was onscreen. Chan's films aren't exactly Citizen Kanes so it was his skills that were the drawing point for me. For that reason I have to say that films like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon didn't draw me in as much as I would have liked them to. Yes, I realize we are supposed to be drawn into the dreamworld of the film and I can see that happening but I would have to be completely swept away by other aspects of the film for that to happen. I don't have a big complaint with Dragon but I just wasn't as involved as I would like to have been.
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 2:49 AM
|
I don't mind knowing the end as achyfakey mentions, it worked well for Columbo. And when you're watching a film based on a real incident you likely know the outcome anyway so the telling in such cases is definitely the thing.
But I don't like it when I'm not supposed to know the ending but can figure it out. I love it when a film engages me so completely that I stop trying to figure it out too far ahead. Being completely drawn in and taken over by a film is one of the great joys of movies.
A great film can bring you back regardless of what you know about its secrets. Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane are only two of the most obvious esxamples. And every time I watch The Great Escape I still root for Steve McQueen to clear that fence. And sometimes the less jaded movie lover in me still thinks that this time he just might do it.
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 2:59 AM
|
I've seen both movies, and I've seen Scoop as well.
I loved the look of both movies. I liked the story in The Illusionist but the performances in The Prestige. I thought David Bowie was brilliant and would have nominated him for an Oscar if I could. As a matter of fact, I liked both of these movies better than Babel and would have put either one in its place on the nominee list.
I figured out The Prestige when they found the objects in the woods. I don't want to spoil it any more for any one who hasn't seen it. My husband didn't figure it out as quickly as I did. But I think they really handed it to you and the rest was just the specifics. I didn't think Michael Caine was a double agent, but it's possible. That is one of those things left open to interpretation, I believe.
As far as magic and movies, are any of us fooled or do we not realize that it isn't real? I mean, when we were kids we were fooled. But as adults we know magicians use illusions, so I don't see why magic doesn't make a good movie. I enjoyed The Illusionist, The Prestige and Scoop - although Scoop had little to do with magic and more to do with a mystery. I knew in The Illusionist it had to end the way it did, but I didn't figure out the exact way it would get there. However, you put Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale in the same movie and I am there - no matter what the topic. 
We also need to remember that movies are made and held sometime for years. Capote and Infamous were made about the same time, in development for much longer. So, can you tell one production company they can't develop something when someone else is doing so at the same time? I don't think that would be good. I try to watch them all and judge on the merit of the movie, not the subject matter.
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 3:46 AM
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie. One thing, tho. Hugh Jackman's Robert (although you said Roger) was the showman, and Christian Bale's Alfred was the more technical magician, not the other way around, as you stated.
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 9:14 AM
|
Maitland, I was thrilled to see that The Prestige is your DVD pick of the week. I loved this movie when I first saw it in theaters. I really like the dark streak in the movie, and was shocked at what lengths each character would go to to get revenge on the other.
I actually bought the DVD this weekend, and am ecstatic that it's finally on DVD. It's one of those movies that I wanted to watch again immediately after I saw it the first time, and now I can! 
I did get most of the twists ahead of time, except for the finding things in a field Cindy mentioned. I didn't get that till the very end, but I tend to be a little slow at figuring out mysteries anyway.
Thanks for the great blog and bringing this movie to the attention of others. It's a ride that no one should miss!
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 10:36 AM
|
I was annoyed by the Illusionist and enjoyed The Prestige. I just felt that the story was not that impressive in Illusionist; it felt predictable and boring to me.
The Prestige was much more interesting and had a better plot that was actually more about magic, IMO. I guessed about halfway through about the "trick" to Christian Bale's magic, but still enjoyed the movie.
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 12:17 PM
|
bantling -- thank you for catching that typo!
clrk03 -- For me, The Illusionist is the classic example of a movie that becomes less interesting as the story unfolds. I though Edward Norton was great as Eisenheim, though: Sinister and melancholy and a very convincing performer. Great Rufus Sewell turn as the crown prince and terrfific work from Paul Gaimatti as the Inspector. I wish I could say something nice about Jessica Biel, but I thought she was utterly unconvincing as an Austrian aristocreat -- unlike the blond-haired, pale child who played her as a young girl but bore absolutely no resemblence to her supposed adult self.
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 1:50 PM
|
SPOILER: DaMess -- I believe the favor Eisenheim asks of his manager was to take over his finances again, I guess in today's world, it would be like giving him power of attorney. I'm not 100% positive though, so don't hold me to it.
Maitland, for me, I enjoyed both movies. I've always loved Edward Norton and Hugh Jackman impresses me more and more. Not a big fan of Jessica Biel, but she did an OK job IMO. Scarlett Johansson was better, but then again, isn't she always?
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 2:22 PM
|
|
I only saw "The Prestige" (based on reviews I read beforehand) and it appears that I made the right choice. Plus, I am a definite Hugh Jackman fan which might have also influenced my choice. As noted, the look was beautiful and the performances were wonderful. The power of jealousy and the dark places it will take a person is always a rich subject for an emotional journey. Very scarey! As for the story itself, I didn't completely figure it out which suited me just fine. I like being pulled into a confusing/challenging story that takes me by surprise. And, yes, the ending was totally "didn't see that coming" for me, too! A great movie experience! Thanks for picking it for your Tuesday DVD viewing, Maitland!
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 6:42 PM
|
The question about magic in film is an interesting one, and I think both these movies are perfect examples of how it can work, and how it can fail miserably.
In The Illusionist, you can barely believe any of the tricks, because there are some tricks that are so blatantly CGI that it ruins the whole thing. The Orange Tree is a perfect example. That illusion is possible using some nifty machinery (enter the ingeneur), but it is clearly not possible in the way that the movie portrays it. I mean, actual oranges grew out of it. If they would have done that how a real illusionist would have, it wouldn't have been as impressive a trick, but the impact on the movie-watchers would have increased tenfold because we would have known it was real.
As an example, the tricks that are real in the illusionist are spectacular, even if they aren't as grandiose. There is an awesome trick Eisenheim does where he tosses a red ball from one hand to the other and it decelerates in mid air. That was almost certainly real (either using some sort of string or by moving his hands in a special way creating an optic illusion) and it is one of the coolest, if not the coolest, thing in the movie.
The Prestige, by contrast, is very honest with its magic. It reveals how many tricks are done, and they are still spectacular, and the tricks they don't reveal even more so. You never feel that the filmmakers are cheating with the illusions. The one trick that is obviously not possible ("The Real Transported Man!") you also accept because we are never lead to believe that it is anything other than steampunk. And that is a suspension of disbelief you are willing to make, because Nolan never pretends that it is something different.
For illusions to work on film, the director must really want to "woo" the people watching. The audience goes in with a much stronger unwillingness to be fooled and in these movies and the filmmaker must work extra hard to earn their suspension of disbelief. It is much harder to do than in any other kind of movie. The way to do that is to be honest about what kind of techniques you are using and not use CGI when you shouldn't. The audience will spot it in a second, and they won't be willing to be fooled again.
|
|
Feb 27, 2007 7:20 PM
|
|
|
