The Prestige - Spoilers

I think you have an interesting theory, but I think you're just looking too deeply. I take Nolan & Cutter at face value when he says "You dont want to figure it out, you want to be fooled" - ie you dont want to know he's killing clones, you're better off just thinking "gee how did he do that!" because the movie's reality is too awful. I believe the movie was meant all along to have a sci fi level in it, and not our real world reality, which is why many found it so disappointing. I'd love to read what Nolan says about it, you;'d think if he meant there to be a hidden level he would've alluded to it in an interview somewhere.

 

This film has no flaws , I thinks it is fabulous.

The era it is set in was a time when electricity was seen as a wonder cure/ magical instrument. Van der Graff generators etc.

I see comparisons with Frankenstein, the ego of one man leading to a creation/creations out of his control.

 

They can't dump the tank and get rid of the body, refill it, and do the trick over again?

But they're still transporting a dead body. My way... there'd be no dead body. There'd be two living magicians -- much simpler, much easier, much more productive.

It's a silly story. You're trying to see something profound and meaningful in the ending when instead all there is is this:

 

Yeah, maybe you could teach Nolan how to make good movies.

Either that or you could revisit this one and realize your comments are kind of off the map.

 

Man, Vidiot, when even the guy that throws out one of the major plot points of the film says you're wrong...

 

Naaaa, Nolan's a brilliant guy who makes terrific films. I can't wait to see the new Dark Knight Rises film, and I bet his script for the forthcoming Man of Steel reboot on Superman will be amazing. Nolan also has a script on the later years of Howard Hughes called Mr. Hughes, and I don't doubt it'll be a very compelling film about a fascinating, twisted, screwed-up guy. Nolan is so good, I'd say to me, even his flawed films are better than some directors' best work.

I just think The Prestige is a very well-made film that falls apart at the end. Nolan shot the book -- the author's own ending was not very good. This is a movie idea whose very concept was flawed; I would've rather he just make a different film, because this one didn't cut it for me.

Memento was fascinating, makes sense, and is never boring; same with Inception, a unique, unusual, many-layered film that I called one of the best movies of the year. I think King's Speech appealed to the "artsy" crowd, and Social Network (which I also loved) had a hip, cutting edge tech quality, and you can't beat Aaron Sorkin for dialog. But Inception was a movie that took more guts to make than either, because it's so unlike so many films out there.

The Prestige was hurt by coming out around the same time as The Illusionist, which I think is not as good a film, but at least made more sense. The Prestige is a far more interesting, stylish, and more compelling film... but the Illusionist went from point A to point B in a more logical way. Neither made much money.

Anything I say here is just an opinion -- it's neither right nor wrong. You can spend two weeks and 5,000,000 words trying to convince me that butter pecan ice cream is better than chocolate chip, and you'll never win. Neither of us is wrong; it's just an opinion.

If I say for a fact such-and-such a movie did not make money, or Director X was fired from Movie Y, or a show used a specific camera or visual effects technique, then that's a statement of fact. Whether or not The Prestige made sense is purely a judgement call, a matter of taste. I've backed up my opinion by pointing to reviews from Daily Variety and Roger Ebert (who has at least one more Pulitzer Prize than I do), who support my opinion.

 

Well, Roger has been known to be wrong. From time to time.

He's changed his tune on "Blue Velvet" for example.

Give it some time and he might change his mind.

 

Doubtful, from a relatively minor six-year-old movie. I think Roger's got bigger issues to worry about.

 

"Quote"

But they're still transporting a dead body. My way... there'd be no dead body. There'd be two living magicians -- much simpler, much easier, much more productive.


Simpler yes but if I remember correctly Angier longed for the thrill of "The Prestige' of seeing with his own eyes the crowd reaction. Was this not his strongest motivation?

 

The movie is good, but it was kinda disappointing to me after hearing so much praise. I liked it much better than The Illusionist though, that one really irritated me...

 

There were many things to like about "The Illusionist" but it was a fairly predictable film. The big question is how with the technology of (this this is more of a "reality" based movie than "The Prestige") for magicians at the time did the magician pull off the last trick?

"The Illusionist" had its moments but it's "ah-hah!" moment with the detective at the end was sooooo predictable (at least to me). Everything that he thought of was like...too little too late.

Then again he was a character IN the film and not privy to all the actions OF those in the film so I might be a bit harsh.

Still enjoyed it.

 

Yes, those were my main problems as well, the whole movie is set up around that plot twist which was very predictable. It's my subjective opinion of course because I've really gotten sick of big surprise end twists (especially when they're elaborately explained in a flashback), a trend that Fincher, Shyamalan and The Usual Suspects started in the '90s. Saw movies are the worst excesses of it...

 

Forget the overrated Batman trilogy.... this was an excellent Christopher Nolan film.

 

This is the Nolan film I've enjoyed the most and the only one I've felt the need to revisit.

 

Saw this today for the first time and really enjoyed it. For some reason I was avoiding it. The topic never interested me, but as I've enjoyed everything Nolan has done so far, I gave it a shot. Only thing that bothered me was I saw it on Starz and I thought the framing seemed a bit claustrophobic. Sure enough, the movie has a 2.39:1 (or 2.35:1 for home vidoe) aspect ratio, but Starz zooms in and crops off the side so as not to confuse the idots who think there's only one kind of widescreen.

One thing I might have missed was what happened to Olivia? Did she ever figure out the secret to Borden/Fallon and did she just leave?

Did Alfred and Frederick (Albert and Fallon) ever switch places once one of them was in prison, or did it just work out that the one who hung was the one who loved Olivia and the one who lived was Jess's father?

 

I know this post is old, but the answer is because it is a movie. Tesla, this mysterious scientific genius invented this machine that none of us no about today. Tesla's name gives weight to the premise. There is no need for a real world explanation. I loved the twist.

I also think this is one of the best movies since 2000.

 

I agree. I still think it's a terrific film.

It is, however, a science fiction period film (one could argue that there are elements of Steampunk to it as well) and a very well made one that examines the price of fame, ego and deception. It's very well made and still one of my favorite Nolan films. There's a consistent theme that runs through his work related to deception in all of his work and the price of one's ego.

The themes that were in "Following" are still somewhat present in this film and, to a degree, in "Interstellar" (and the films in-between).

 

I suspect that the one who hung himself was the one who loved Olivia (but this is certainly open to interpretation) as she left him without discovering the secret although, no doubt, she suspected something was amiss just as the wife did. I think the one who hung himself was the one in love with Olivia and that the one who survived was Jess' father.

 

I had assumed the one who survived was Jess's father, but the one who was in prison to hang really seemed to care about the young girl, so maybe it was the other way around. Remember the pains he went through to see her before hanging and how upset he was when he figured out who Caldlow was.

 

Yes that's what I thought as well but it would be hard to tell because they might not know when conception occurred so they both consider themselves the "father". I want to correct my previous post as I put hung himself when I meant to say was hung. Tired mind and fingers do strange things.

I don't know how they would have switched places but it is a tantalizing question considering he showed how easy he could take the guards keys away and his ability to disguise himself.

 

Good point. I hadn't thought about that. I was just assuming the one who meant it when he would tell Sarah he loved her was the father, but I guess there would be no way to know, depending on how far they took that brother switching thing. And since his whole thing was that they had to "live the trick", I'm sure they both played each relationship to the hilt, even if the women could tell something was off. No wonder it drove Sarah mad and she hung herself. Or did she actually discover there were to brothers and what she had been put through?

I need to watch this again.

 

Yes, we can all agree it's one of the best movies in recent decades. But if you know about Tesla, you'll know that he was hard up for cash and died penniless. He had the motive to fool Angier, and the hats and cats (symbols of magic and deception) were staged. The bit about Edison's men is all based on real events. There is need for a real explanation because everything that came before in the movie sets that up--magic tricks are based in logic and misdirection. Michael Caine's character takes great pains explaining to Angier that he doesn't know any other way to do the transported man trick other than having a double. And from his experience using a double, Angier knows he will never be able to trust that person. The only explanation of the machine working comes from Angier's own diary that he gives to Borden in jail--which isn't a reliable narrative of what really happened.

 

That doesn't explain the conclusion either--where Borden goes to Angier and discovers the multiple copies of him produced each time he did the performance nor the fact that Angier makes the comment about not knowing who he is anymore --the copy or original. All of that portion takes place outside of the diary. As we've discussed before, the "trick" was played by Borden--he did go to see Tesla but Tesla actually made the device as per his agreement. The hats and cats were not designed to deceive--they were used to try out the device. The ability of finding cats that are identical in color in every to "fool" Angier (who, as I recall, is never told nor about the experiment nor given a context for it and the demonstration that they were going to do is only done the one time not dozens of times with each) would be difficult to say the least particularly in such an isolated area as they were in (although certainly not impossible but improbable given that when cats have kittens they aren't all identical).

As far as earlier, the film is fiction (as is the novel which it is based on)--using historical figures doesn't mean that Tesla HAD to invent the machine in the real world-- In fact, it plays with the fact that Tesla may have had inventions that we know nothing about and speculates on that. Tesla isn't a central figure to the story. Yes, it is about deception, misdirection and illusion all of which Borden did but the misdirection of the film itself isn't about Tesla deceiving Angier it's about deceiving ones self (Angier believing that he is doing what he is doing so he can become the best and to avenge the death of his wife as a means of revenge--taking everything that matters to Borden away including his best "trick"--and Borden's IS a trick). Angier went to Tesla because he was fooled by Borden that he had gotten his "trick" from him (when he just borrowed the idea of using electricity).

You can interpret the film in a variety of fashions on themes, etc. but what you're proposing isn't what Nolan is doing with his film. The "illusion" here is that Nolan made a film that is a Victorian drama when, in fact, he's made a Victorian Science Fiction movie with the shift happening once Tesla has invented the device and Angier has used it for the first time creating a duplicate of himself. From there on in, it's a very different film in terms of genre but it is also still about the obsessive anger and desire for revenge that drives Angier.

 

Well, that settles that.

 

It's still just Angier trying to push his deception. He would never admit to having hired and murdered each of those body doubles, but that's the only logical explanation. The sci fi explanation--that Angier really was being telecopied by the machine--is certainly a neater story. It just doesn't pay off the thesis of the film about watching closely and about each of the three turns of the trick having a logical basis.

As you reference below, Borden's trick was to hand Angier the word TESLA as the key to deciphering the stolen notebook, and use Tesla's electrical inventions as deception--to throw Angier on a wild goose chase. Hats and cats are symbols of deception and magic tricks. Since they are all commonly found in black, it would not be difficult to use them in a trick within a trick. The characters were all involved in the engineering of magic tricks; why would Tesla be any different this narrative?

Granted, but certainly procuring the hats and cats is a plausible explanation and a path to get Angier's money, whereas telecopying them is not possible.

Absolutely, but the film is set up to have an undercurrent of logic and of rational explanation for each trick. This becomes a recurring theme: "The secret impresses no one. The trick you use it for is everything." I suppose it's how you interpret the secret, but it sure seems like a cop-out to ask "are you looking closely" and tell the audience "you want to be deceived" and then have the trick be pure sci fi rather than a rational misdirection.

I know what you're saying, but I think it's multilayered. Ultimately the entire film is the Nolans deceiving the audience. Nothing was as it appeared on the surface. Tesla isn't central, but interpreting his motives and his skillset as being based in reality (science) versus magic (sci fi) is every bit the key to deciphering the film as his name was the key to decoding Borden's notebook.

It's the same film. The same challenge to the audience spoken at the beginning is spoken at the end. "Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled." Why issue this challenge if the machine does exactly what Angier claims? What's the secret in that case? There is none.