"Are you watching closely?"
You'll need to when watching this masterpiece. Christopher Nolan has yet again set himself apart when it comes to the new breed of directors. While this film is reminiscent of M. Night Shyamalan, it would be an insult to Nolan to compare the two. After exploding on the scene with his time shifting Memento, Nolan proved he wasn't a flash in the pan with Insomnia which earned him the honor of directing everyone's favorite version of the Dark Knight: Batman Begins. While not quite attaining a Hitchcockian or Spielburgian level, Nolan isn't many rungs away on the ladder of directors.
I'm going to do my best to review this film without giving away any spoilers. It is that worth it. In interviews, Nolan claimed this film didn't really have a genre. He couldn't be more wrong [and frankly, it made me a little disappointed that he didn't recognize the bullseye he'd struck when so many other directors miss the target entirely when aiming for this genre (Yours truly included)] The Prestige is a fantastic example of a Film Noir.
Set in turn of the century London, two rival magicians attempt to make each other disappear. So, what makes this a Film Noir? The Anti-Hero is a requirement for a Film Noir. Nolan executed this aspect so perfectly that it's nearly impossible to determine which magician is our hero! Is it the one bent on revenge? Or the one who mistakenly wronged him? Is it the one setting London a-buzz with his impossible new trick? Or the one spending all he has trying to steal it? Is it the one who's dead? Or the one accused of his murder? (Trust me, I've given nothing away that we don't learn in the first 2 minutes of the film). During the course of the film I found it difficult to empathize with either character. Only one other author has told a story where I was unable to root for one side or the other: Shakespeare.
A Film Noir is characterized by plot twists, changes in alliances, and mistaken identity. The Prestige has all of these. Not only that, but the film manages to weave them into the story in such a way that they aren't forced, unbelievable, or contrived. This is the hardest thing to do with these types of plot points.
The Femme Fatale is a staple of the Film Noir. Scarlett Johansson portrays the woman caught between these to masters of illusion. Whose side is she on? With most Film Noirs the Femme Fatale is out for her own interests. No spoilers here.
Nolan is partially forgiven for the "written and directed by" status that he allowed for two reasons: It's an adaptation from a book. Because it is not his original story it isn't a pure "W&DB." Second, he had a co-writer. Two heads are better than one. In actuality, this film had three: The original author, the co-writer, and the director.
Part of the beauty of this film is the changes in time, like most of Nolan's films this story is not told in a linear fashion. However, unlike Nolan's independent movie Following, where the non-linear timeline was pointless and contrived, his use of the technique in The Prestige adds another level of tension, drama, and insight. Don't confuse what I'm praising as flashbacks. There is a difference between non-linear storytelling and inserting a moment from the past in a linear narrative.
One of the major themes of the movie is said very early on:
"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man... The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. 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 know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."
There are a few faults in this film. Several times we are asked if we are "watching closely." We are told that we "don't want to find the secret." We are fooled right along with most of the other characters (only three know one "truth," only 2 know the other). The problem is that Nolan, unlike Shyamalyn (Sixth Sense? Figured it out. The Village? Got it from the previews.), does not give enough clues for the audience to decipher what the "Prestige" of the movie is. Truth be told, there were a few hidden elements that were unveiled at the end of the film, but one was the catalyst to the story and that one was not sufficiently revealed throughout the story.
The other difficulty that I had revolved around the specifics of the trick "The Transported Man." I'm not going to go into it because it'll ruin that aspect of the film. Just take my word for it: there wasn't enough thought put in to certain discontinuities, let's call them.
As soon as this movie was over, I wanted to watch it again. With more twists than taffy and fantastic performances by Jackman, Bale, Johansson and Caine, (Even David Bowie put forth a commendable effort) The Prestige ranks right up there with The Usual Suspects and Twelve Monkeys.
The second viewing was lacking, however, because of the sheer lack of nods to the major twist of the movie.
Overall, though:
4.75 out of 5.
9 comments:
I agree; it was a good film, but I didn't bother watching it a second time. I was caught off guard by the final series of revelations on how they both made the trick work. Although, then again it's been a year or so since I saw it and now your post makes me want to revisit it!
It totally bums me out when Marc "gets it" before I do! He was busily explaining things to me while we wrapped up the movie. And I was glad...but I want to do that sometimes!
I totally enjoyed the movie - I loved all the twists & turns. I wasn't sure who I should be rooting for either, but I did pick the "right" guy in the end!
Wow, it is such a treat to read a review of something you like! The praise seems completely warranted and it was fun to read. More of those, please! :)
I think I have seen this, but I also confuse it with The Illusionist (I think that's what it's called - with Jessica Biel & Paul Giamatti) - so I'm imagining both films as I contemplate your review.
But I greatly enjoyed learning about the facets of the noir, and think it'd be cool if you chose movies from other genres that meet the "requirements" nicely. I'd learn a lot and find out more about the movies you enjoy!
(ie. "A staple of the Comedy is that it makes the viewer laugh. Caddyshack, because of its classic one-liners and stellar delivery with just the right mix of apathy and sarcasm, succeeds in this regard.")
:)
Even better, how about some lists? In your opinion, what are the best comedies, dramas, thrillers, etc?
Best actors of our time?
Best popcorn flicks?
etc.
I'm a sucker for a good list. Just ask V.
Loved it! T. and I watched it sometime last year and I LOVED the ending. I described the ending as monstrous. It reminded me of how I felt watchin Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. The ending was such a powerful picture of the lengths to which man will go to "win" even if it means losing themself along the way. (that doesn't really give anything way, right? )
I thought it was a very powerful film and I love your review.
Marc,
When I saw this film sometime last year, I immediately thought of you and how much you would enjoy trying to "get it." It comes as no surprise that you managed to do that before the movie was over. I enjoyed the movie and am glad that you did too! Nice to see such a positive review on here. I haven't seen the Illusionist yet, but I'd be interested on how they compare, which is better, etc. (same idea, right?)
anyway, I hope you're doing well!!
Can't comment all the time, but I do read and touch base from time to time.
:)
Jenna
OH MY GOSH. I just saw that you saw License to Wed. I'm amazed that you're even admitting it on the blog. CRAPola!!! I thought I could get through it okay because it has John Krasinski in it (beloved Jim from my beloved Office), but I daresay my respect for him went down a notch.
wow. (in betraying none of my own personal feelings towards the movie...) what didn't you like about it?
it's been a couple of months since we watched it. so my memory may be hazy. but it made me (and dave) so mad! in bullet points:
* robin williams as the clergy. ugh. that should have tipped us off right there.
* the way the priest was portrayed was so much of a ridiculous caricature. i like a fair amount of ridiculous movies and i understand what suspending my disbelief is - but this was stretched way too far. i hate manipulative characters that keep the two main leads apart in a series of lame plot contrivances for approx. 85 minutes of a movie, so that we can have the characters break up and then reconcile just in time for the end. tedium at its worst.
* if i remember right, the fiancee (mandy) kept defending the priest rather than believing or trusting her fiance. and he started playing secretive games with her as well, rather than everyone communicating about it effectively. it was like a parade of dumb people doing dumb things. which is what was supposed to be funny.
but it wasn't.
(hope it's not your new favorite or anything. if so, sorry!)
Post a Comment