The Prestige
Nov. 5th, 2006 08:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zalenaI finally went to see The Prestige yesterday, and other than a case of the icks, (and figuring out the secret about 3/4 of the way through the film,) it was really good. The last twenty minutes in which the filmmaker keeps going over and over the secret so the less observant members of the audience could figure out what was going on were slightly annoying, (and more than a little unsettling,) but I think the film is destined to become a classic. There's an s/f aspect that's simple, elegant, and slightly depraved. And that's all I can say about that, because the rest of you should go see it without knowing the secret.
I kept thinking what a wonderful short story it would make, but also how much easier it would be to take as a story on paper, rather than images on a screen. There is a definite nightmarish quality to the film. There are a number of points in the film in which imagery outpaces logic. Marla pointed out one of these saying that another choice would make more sense if one was truly committed to villainy. I replied, "Yes, but Y choice makes for a better cinematic image. Like a nightmare."
This is the second 19C magic film I've seen this fall. I think it far outstrips The Illusionist which I found rather boring. The Illusionist depends on a realistic premise. I figured it out about 1/4 into the film and was totally irritated by the inspectors dependence on circumstantial evidence. Let's just put it this way, he obviously hadn't read much Shakespeare.
A good puzzle film doesn't necessarily require that the solution remain obscured to the audience. I thought Matchpoint was an excellent film, not because you wonder *how* he does it, that's all made clear on the screen, but because you wonder whether or not he will get away with it.
I think one of the reasons critics have preferred The Illusionist to The Prestige is because they like realism. The Prestige depends on a fictional device to work. However, I think most audiences will prefer The Prestige because the fictional device and the *ick* factor in how it is used is much more interesting than a tired old Elizabethan plot re-dressed in the costumes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. (And as much as I like Rufus Sewell, his villainous crown prince was silly, and just a mustache twirl short of melodrama.)
Of course, The Illusionist is a better love story. So if your date prefers gooey love stories to icky, nightmarish, puzzles, The Illusionist, is your movie. But The Prestige makes for better conversation during drinks afterwards, and my money's on the saucy wench who has a few nightmares of her own to keep life, and love, interesting.
P.S. Do not give Scarlett Johansson lines, or let her move much on camera. She's pretty to look at and the vacant gaze can suggest depth, but she walks like a duck, and is about as dramatically convincing as one when she recites her lines in her "husky" monotone.
Something happens to young actresses once they start getting a lot of attention. They become stiff and self aware. There performances lose their natural flow. This happened to Natalie Portman and Julia Stiles. One wonders which is worse for a developing young starlet: age or attention.
I kept thinking what a wonderful short story it would make, but also how much easier it would be to take as a story on paper, rather than images on a screen. There is a definite nightmarish quality to the film. There are a number of points in the film in which imagery outpaces logic. Marla pointed out one of these saying that another choice would make more sense if one was truly committed to villainy. I replied, "Yes, but Y choice makes for a better cinematic image. Like a nightmare."
This is the second 19C magic film I've seen this fall. I think it far outstrips The Illusionist which I found rather boring. The Illusionist depends on a realistic premise. I figured it out about 1/4 into the film and was totally irritated by the inspectors dependence on circumstantial evidence. Let's just put it this way, he obviously hadn't read much Shakespeare.
A good puzzle film doesn't necessarily require that the solution remain obscured to the audience. I thought Matchpoint was an excellent film, not because you wonder *how* he does it, that's all made clear on the screen, but because you wonder whether or not he will get away with it.
I think one of the reasons critics have preferred The Illusionist to The Prestige is because they like realism. The Prestige depends on a fictional device to work. However, I think most audiences will prefer The Prestige because the fictional device and the *ick* factor in how it is used is much more interesting than a tired old Elizabethan plot re-dressed in the costumes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. (And as much as I like Rufus Sewell, his villainous crown prince was silly, and just a mustache twirl short of melodrama.)
Of course, The Illusionist is a better love story. So if your date prefers gooey love stories to icky, nightmarish, puzzles, The Illusionist, is your movie. But The Prestige makes for better conversation during drinks afterwards, and my money's on the saucy wench who has a few nightmares of her own to keep life, and love, interesting.
P.S. Do not give Scarlett Johansson lines, or let her move much on camera. She's pretty to look at and the vacant gaze can suggest depth, but she walks like a duck, and is about as dramatically convincing as one when she recites her lines in her "husky" monotone.
Something happens to young actresses once they start getting a lot of attention. They become stiff and self aware. There performances lose their natural flow. This happened to Natalie Portman and Julia Stiles. One wonders which is worse for a developing young starlet: age or attention.
