![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Prestige: Watch closely... they might do a trick
So here's my review of The Prestige...
“Are you watching closely?” That question frames the film, and it is the essence of this singular piece of conjuring. This is not a movie you can watch while doing hand projects; you must pay close attention constantly, or you will miss something vital (and probably something whose full significance will only later be understood). It is the story of 19th c. stage magicians Borden and Angiers, how an accidental death turns their friendly rivalry into an obsessive and dangerous quest for revenge. The movie has a coiled, nested narrative structure which interleaves and overlaps different time periods and perspectives like the layers of an onion: it begins with Borden being tried for Angiers' murder, and for most of the movie, Borden reads and reacts to Angier’s diary in which Angiers reads and reacts to Borden’s diary! This is convoluted, but intriguingly so; keeping track of which timeline and which perspective you’re in takes effort, but it’s a satisfying effort, a story that gives you something to think about. I was actually glad I saw it on video so that I could rewind at various points for clarity (not just plot clarity—the dialogue is a bit indistinct at times).
The cast is quite good: the always photogenic Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman as the rivals, the irrepressible Michael Caine as the crusty ingeneur who designs the mechanisms for their acts, Scarlet Johanssen as a dual love interest, and an extremely subdued David Bowie (who else?) as Nikola Tesla. If the movie has a flaw, the first time through, it’s that sometimes events and characterization are told more than shown. For instance, very little of the stage magic is shown on screen, perhaps in part because Victorian theatricals are bound to look dated and bland to modern eyes. The sense of wonder these men work so hard to evoke is mostly absent on screen; this is not a movie about spectacle, but the gritty motivations behind the scenes, underneath the stage. Even there, I was at first frustrated at how some characters’ inner workings remain opaque. For instance, we are told more than shown that Angiers is a great showman, that Borden is a better craftsman. A certain secondary character is not developed. But eventually we learn these are all deliberate omissions. It wasn’t till much later that I realized we are NEVER fully shown Borden’s lauded signature trick, which means we can only evaluate it through the characters’ reactions. The nature of the storytelling means that, Rashomon-like, we can never be sure of the objective truth of most of what we have seen. Another way the director withholds information is by cutting away from scenes, then later showing you the scene again, but with a little more footage which then completes or complicates its meaning. All that is necessary to the film’s final feat of substitution, its real sleight of hand, by which the apparent hero and the apparent villain are painfully reversed.
Some reviewers complain the movie "cheats" because there is an element that is never fully explained, because it is actually science fiction--stealth steampunk, if you will. I have no problem with the sf element, and I don't think the movie cheats at all; I think those reviewers missed the point, which Borden states early on: "The secret impresses no one. The trick you use it for is everything." In that, the movie utterly succeeds.
In all, this film is an admirable puzzle, pleasurably unsettling. The hushed, atmospheric soundtrack helps sustain the mood. I kept expecting the tension and momentum to build as the movie progressed, but it doesn’t; instead it keeps up a steady simmer of suspense, or a slow burn, like a long fuse. Yet the last moments are not a wild explosion, but two appallingly quiet revelations that throw new light onto everything before. Throughout the movie, I kept thinking, ‘this is good, but not quite great.’ But that final, dual twist is very very good indeed. The potency of secrets is the engine that drives the film—and the payoff is the best kind of answer, one that’s been under our noses all along. Like the Sixth Sense (but much more complex), this is a movie you watch and then, after the big reveal yanks the ground from under you, you want to watch all over again, and it’s even better the second time as the nuances and ironies show their full depth, as you realize how many times the director showed you an image before you realized the import of what you were seeing. The best part about that slow burn that never reaches an explosion, that simmer that never quite breaks a boil, is that it keeps on simmering long after the movie is done. Days later, I’m still thinking about it. In fact, I can’t seem to get it out of my head. The wicked ingenuity of the presentation, the unsettling implications for each man’s lives (and I do mean lives, plural) keep unfolding in my mind. This movie doesn’t tick; it coils. It keeps on slithering through my mind long after the indelible last image has left the screen.
“Are you watching closely?” That question frames the film, and it is the essence of this singular piece of conjuring. This is not a movie you can watch while doing hand projects; you must pay close attention constantly, or you will miss something vital (and probably something whose full significance will only later be understood). It is the story of 19th c. stage magicians Borden and Angiers, how an accidental death turns their friendly rivalry into an obsessive and dangerous quest for revenge. The movie has a coiled, nested narrative structure which interleaves and overlaps different time periods and perspectives like the layers of an onion: it begins with Borden being tried for Angiers' murder, and for most of the movie, Borden reads and reacts to Angier’s diary in which Angiers reads and reacts to Borden’s diary! This is convoluted, but intriguingly so; keeping track of which timeline and which perspective you’re in takes effort, but it’s a satisfying effort, a story that gives you something to think about. I was actually glad I saw it on video so that I could rewind at various points for clarity (not just plot clarity—the dialogue is a bit indistinct at times).
The cast is quite good: the always photogenic Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman as the rivals, the irrepressible Michael Caine as the crusty ingeneur who designs the mechanisms for their acts, Scarlet Johanssen as a dual love interest, and an extremely subdued David Bowie (who else?) as Nikola Tesla. If the movie has a flaw, the first time through, it’s that sometimes events and characterization are told more than shown. For instance, very little of the stage magic is shown on screen, perhaps in part because Victorian theatricals are bound to look dated and bland to modern eyes. The sense of wonder these men work so hard to evoke is mostly absent on screen; this is not a movie about spectacle, but the gritty motivations behind the scenes, underneath the stage. Even there, I was at first frustrated at how some characters’ inner workings remain opaque. For instance, we are told more than shown that Angiers is a great showman, that Borden is a better craftsman. A certain secondary character is not developed. But eventually we learn these are all deliberate omissions. It wasn’t till much later that I realized we are NEVER fully shown Borden’s lauded signature trick, which means we can only evaluate it through the characters’ reactions. The nature of the storytelling means that, Rashomon-like, we can never be sure of the objective truth of most of what we have seen. Another way the director withholds information is by cutting away from scenes, then later showing you the scene again, but with a little more footage which then completes or complicates its meaning. All that is necessary to the film’s final feat of substitution, its real sleight of hand, by which the apparent hero and the apparent villain are painfully reversed.
Some reviewers complain the movie "cheats" because there is an element that is never fully explained, because it is actually science fiction--stealth steampunk, if you will. I have no problem with the sf element, and I don't think the movie cheats at all; I think those reviewers missed the point, which Borden states early on: "The secret impresses no one. The trick you use it for is everything." In that, the movie utterly succeeds.
In all, this film is an admirable puzzle, pleasurably unsettling. The hushed, atmospheric soundtrack helps sustain the mood. I kept expecting the tension and momentum to build as the movie progressed, but it doesn’t; instead it keeps up a steady simmer of suspense, or a slow burn, like a long fuse. Yet the last moments are not a wild explosion, but two appallingly quiet revelations that throw new light onto everything before. Throughout the movie, I kept thinking, ‘this is good, but not quite great.’ But that final, dual twist is very very good indeed. The potency of secrets is the engine that drives the film—and the payoff is the best kind of answer, one that’s been under our noses all along. Like the Sixth Sense (but much more complex), this is a movie you watch and then, after the big reveal yanks the ground from under you, you want to watch all over again, and it’s even better the second time as the nuances and ironies show their full depth, as you realize how many times the director showed you an image before you realized the import of what you were seeing. The best part about that slow burn that never reaches an explosion, that simmer that never quite breaks a boil, is that it keeps on simmering long after the movie is done. Days later, I’m still thinking about it. In fact, I can’t seem to get it out of my head. The wicked ingenuity of the presentation, the unsettling implications for each man’s lives (and I do mean lives, plural) keep unfolding in my mind. This movie doesn’t tick; it coils. It keeps on slithering through my mind long after the indelible last image has left the screen.