BSG Watch: A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away :: Tuned In - TIME.com: "Earth is a dream. One we've been chasing for a long time. We've earned it. This is Earth."
The very end, with Angel Baltar and Angel Six walking through Times Square, which was disappointingly tell-don't-show and on-the-nose for a show as sophisticated as BSG: "The question remains—does all this have to happen again?" I half expected Angels Six and Baltar to turn to the camera and say, "Well, will you? WILL you break the cycle?"
~this is wh interests me here, the extent to wh the show did do this, "integrate into our world" (comment below), turn to us.
...
Earlier this season, I hit on something about the destroyed "Earth"--not that I was the only one to notice this--that I wish I had followed up on more: There were certain things that simply did not add up if it was our Earth, and we were the Cylons. "Now that we know the origin of the Cylon models, " I wrote, "what does this mean about the relationship of BSG's "Earth" to our Earth? Is it our Earth or, as it would now seem, a similar planet that, in this story, happens to have the same name? That is, the Earth Cylons, if I'm not mistaken, knew that they were Cylons, and knew how they came to Earth, correct? They didn't believe they had evolved from Australopithecines and later come to discover their true origins, right?"
I didn't guess, though, that the Galactica would discover Earth where 'Earth' means: the promised land. an inhabitable planet. and even: with human life already present for a second time, and find ours. So: points for surprising me.
The longstanding prophecy was that Starbuck would lead the fleet "to its end." And she did, in an unexpected way: the fleet decided to commit a sort of cultural suicide, giving up its technology and blending in with Earth humanity's hunter-gatherer forebears.
OK, intellectually, narratively, structurally that makes sense. The story ends where ours begins. Kara leads them to their end, but it's a voluntary one. The war-ravaged civilizations choose en masse to strip away everything that led them to war and start again, and hopefully start better. They become us; we never know they existed. It ties up nicely. And it syncs nicely with the opening credits of the original BSG. ("There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans...") huh: so that suggestion in the original series was in the right direction. the forefathers. not the descendants, which is what it seemed, right? that these characters were in our future, the far future, with a mythology that told them they had come long long ago from a place called Earth. and they had. but: suprise! flip: they then came to a place that they called Earth *after* the original Earth, and lived there, and 150,000 years later had become us.
...
I guess my issues with the ending amount to this: the Times Square scene, the robot montage, flying the fleet into the sun--it all put the emphasis on runaway technology getting ahead of morality. That's an ancient sci-fi theme, but it's not the BSG that I know. Lee talked about jettisoning the machines so that the newcomers could give our ancestors "the best part of us." But so much of what we've seen in BSG says that the problems of man and Cylon ultimately come down to what's inside of them. You can toss away your jump drives, but if you don't fix your soul, you've fixed nothing. Over four seasons of this fine series, the warning hasn't been: Don't lose control of your robots. It's been: don't lose control of your gods.
That part—the human part (in the broad sense)—has always been what BSG has done best. And it was what was best in this finale, so let's get back to that. Starting with Adama and, especially Roslin. Mary McDonnell has owned this series, and here you could practically feel her shaking flesh and sense the cells dying as she willed herself into a few more days of life to see her people through until the end. But for me her crowning moment was that last scene, sitting outside with Bill, minutes of breath left in her. She admires the herd of antelope. He asks her if she'd like to get a better look. There's this wonderful sly flash in her eye as she says yes. She's tired, she's dying—and yet, for a flash, she's that cougar who took her old student to bed, she's a young woman on a date, she's a girl seeing the world for the first time again.
Which, of course she is.
Like a lot of finales, this one seemed to have a lot of ending scenes before it actually ended, and I'm fine with that. Tyrol's closure—not regretting killing Tory, but realizing that a life among other people was no longer for him—was suitable and sad. (There were fewer deaths of major characters than I expected, but in a way, and ending like his—essentially accepting his stay on Earth as a kind of prolonged suicide—was even more wrenching.) I was deeply relieved to see Helo (who I thought was going to bleed out), Sharon and Hera together and happy on Earth—even if I believe they must have a rough existence ahead of him before Hera goes on to have a million Earth babies and become great-great-grandma to all of us.
I even found myself mourning characters I didn't like that much in the series' run. Anders was always a bit of a blank space for me, but his 2001-like starchild ending was, if nothing else, beautiful. Likewise, I never cared much for Lee Adama, but his final scene moved me—probably because it was also Starbuck's. Katee Sackhoff has been the Kiefer Sutherland of this series, playing with such intensity and commitment that she completely sells a character who, with another actor, might have seemed over-the-top in her pathos. I suspect some fans may not be happy with her just vanishing while Lee's back is turned, but what matters to me is her resolution: "I'm done here. I've completed my journey. It feels good."
And then there's the old man. There are several scenes I could single out here—his last moments on Galactica, "She will not fail us if we do not fail her," that gorgeous, awful pullaway from him at Laura's grave—but I have to come back to watching the antelopes with Laura, when she asks him what this beautiful planet is called, and he says, "Earth." She laughs. He's serious. All they have lost and suffered, everyone they have lost, have brought them to this tauntingly living planet. No: it is Earth. "Earth is a dream. One we've been chasing for a long time. We've earned it. This is Earth."
That, to me, more than any part of the ending, is pure BSG, a distillation of why I love this series. What finally makes your destiny is not prophecy, not gods, not a certain set of coordinates and constellations. What tells you you have reached the place where you should be is that you journeyed there. You fought and grieved and loved, did the right thing as much as you could, did the wrong thing more often than you care to remember, and did the necessary thing as often as it took. You spent nearly every ounce of life and will and got somewhere with as many people you loved as you could bring along with you. You have expended yourself and provided for the next generation and are getting ready to die, and you are in your last place.
And that place is Earth, no matter what planets were destroyed, no matter what prophecy says otherwise. It is Earth because it is where you are. It is Earth because you have made it so. It is Earth because you say so.
nice write up.
-chriskw: If the show did integrate into our world I am assuming that the Colonials really weren't speaking English. That basically we heard them speaking that way so we could understand them, kind of like when animals talk in cartoons but then don't when around humans. when *around* us. hee. (like that far side with the cow lookout who tells the other cows when to get down on all fours and stop talking, bcs a car is coming).
to his point: when we thought the Colonials were in our far-future, our descendants, then it made sense that they would actually speak English? maybe.
and, as in our far past, as our ancestors, seems to make sense that the language of these ~40,000 people would become the language of the natives, who they explicitly said did not then have language. oh but I see the objection: in our actual history, there were no English-speakers in the early years. so yes okay it's like talking animals.
-archstanton68: given what we know about early humanity's migration and the idea of Hera being mitochondrial Eve, are we to assume that only the contingent that settled in Africa survived? tough break for the settlers on the other continents, if so.
-kemper: If you would have told me after season 2 or so that the explanation for the way Baltar and Caprica 6 saw each other in visions was that they were 'angels', and that Starbuck would ultimately die and become another type of these angels, I probably would have quit watching the show right there. But I actually liked it. The show was always about religion in one form of another. For the big reveal to be that there is a 'god', and that post-death Starbuck, and the visions Baltar & 6 had were agents of that god to lead humanity to a new beginning is a pretty epic and bold wrap-up to a show that was originally about killer robots.
Re: James P.'s note that the idea that everyone would just drop their technology and walk off into the jungle was unbelievable. I had the same thought at first. But I changed my mind after considering it for a while. If I'd had seen my entire civilization destroyed (because of runaway technology), then lived on a tin can in space for four years while in constant danger from my enemies and the odd coup or mutiny, endured a hellish occupation the first time I tried to settle down and build new cities, seen my biggest hope for a new future turn out to be irradiated ash and essentially been stuck in space with no other options and realizing that humanitity was going to wither and die out there, I very well might have chucked the laptop and cellphone to go gather berries when a new home is found via a 'miracle'.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
What's Alan Watching?: Lost, "He's Our You": The prisoner:
"Because, Sayid, to put it simply: you're capable of things that most other men aren't. Every choice you've made in your life -- whether it was to murder or to torture -- it hasn't really been a choice at all, has it? It's in your nature. It's what you are. You're a killer, Sayid." -Ben
'He's Our You' was, in many ways, our first old-school 'Lost' episode of the season. Where most other episodes have either featured lots of time travel, or two distinct storylines involving characters on the island versus those in the real world, this reverts to the original model of a story on the island where one character's struggle (in this case, Sayid's) is illuminated by flashbacks from their life on the mainland. yes. and it was better than the other episodes, really, wasn't it? as something to watch more than once? bcs it told a story about a character.
This was structured similarly to a first season episode, down to the potentially stunning moment at the end, when Sayid calmly put a bullet in the chest of 12-year-old Ben Linus and staggered off through the jungle.
How stunning that moment was, and how impressed I was by "He's Our You," well I was impressed in any case and stunned for the moment, which was worth it, even though confident Ben is not dead will depend on a couple of things that we won't know for another week at the earliest. First, and most obvious, is whether Sayid was able to disprove Faraday's closed-loop theory of time travel by killing someone we know to be alive 30 years in the future. no.The second is whether there's anything more to tell about Ben and Sayid's falling-out on the mainland. ah ha. yes. the Nadia manipulation (and murder). we're missing the answer to why Sayid turned so completely against Ben. the rest of the episode distracted from this questn. and it did remain unanswered didn't it?
We have plenty of past evidence (Locke and Christian's resurrections, Michael's failed suicide attempts) that the island has the power to raise the dead and/or prevent the deaths of people it has a use for. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see, early next week, young Ben getting up in amazement, then reveling in the realization that he was "special" and chosen by the island for some great purpose.
And if the closed loop then keeps spinning, then the Ben who "meets" Sayid in season two remembers him well as the man who tried to kill him, and when he calls Sayid a killer in Santo Domingo, he's only throwing Sayid's own 30-year-old words to Ben. to Ben the words are 30 yrs ago. for Sayid he at that moment has not said them back in his face. so that they both are quoting the other.
Sayid's scenes with Hurley bridging the end of last season with the start of this one implied that Sayid discovered Ben had significantly betrayed him, or tricked him, or in some other way so thoroughly violated his trust that Sayid would warn Hurley to always do the opposite of what Ben says. yes yes yes.From what we know of Ben, that's sound advice under any circumstances right, but Sayid acted as if Ben had gone beyond even his usual evil machinations, or that Sayid had uncovered yes incontrovertible proof that Ben had played him. exactly. thank you.
But all we saw here was Ben discarding rightSayid after he killed all of the men allegedly loyal to Widmore --not that we yet know who they really were and whether they posed any kind of threat to the Oceanic Six-- followed by Sayid trying to ease his killer's guilt by building houses in Santo Domingo. That doesn't seem to track with what the previous episodes implied, and if that's all there is, I feel let down. aah. thank you. after the shock of the ending, Sayid shooting Ben seemingly to kill (and, as I keep noting, Sayid does not miss his aims), after that, this question came back to life for me and I was afraid it was supposed to be answered, and felt as if I had missed something, but nobody else noticing that we got no sufficient answer. on twop, I saw nothing about this! overshadowed by the shooting of young Ben. so am very glad to read this articulated. thank you.
Yes, Ben has screwed the Lostaways over six ways from Sunday, but for Sayid to feel such hate for him -- to feel the need to kill him as a boy, before he's ever done anything to anyone -- he has to feel a bone-deep hatred for adult Ben, and being turned into a hired gun without some additional newly uncovered trickery treachery in the using of him as a hired gun [Nadia!]doesn't seem like remotely enough motivation to me.
Maybe there are other pieces to the puzzle, but but if so, we're not going the episode should have more strongly implied that they were missing. the word Nadia d n appear in Sepinwall's rvw here, or any of the current first 23 comments. so I take it I did *not* miss a reveal about this. but it must be coming. and I'm confident some of the next 100+ comments will suggest so also. and the concern for me is not necess th episode shld have implied what remained missing, but that the later reveal will have to fit with Sayid not greeting Ben at Santo Domingo with absolute and , one would expect, murderous hatred. so: he finds out that Ben played him by & probably himself caused Nadia's death only after that scene? I'm betting on that.
I doubt there's going to be an opportunity to loop back to Sayid's backstory anytime soon. no there could be. someone asks, why did you try to kill Ben? and he says, He killed Nadia! with a lot of angst.
Still, it's fun to watch Sayid be suave, and to suffer torture if need be, particularly with the introduction of Oldham, the Dharma bunch's own interrogation expert, and the "he" of the episode's title. William Sanderson is at least the fourth "Deadwood" alum to turn up on "Lost" (after Kim Dickens as Sawyer's baby mama Cassidy, Robin Weigert who appears in the latest epsd of USofTara also and I had to search mind to recall her as the Lieutenant in Life, and who I know also played Calamity Jane in Deadwood as Juliet's sister Rachel and Paula Malcomson as murdered Other Colleen Pickett), and he made a quick and memorable impression. I suspected that Sayid would wind up simply telling Horace the truth and being disbelieved, but it was still a great sequence, alternately disturbing and funny (just as Sayid found it).
Some other thoughts on "He's Our You":
• The more I see of Radzinsky, the more I begin to wonder if he actually committed suicide in the Swan, or if Inman blew his partner's brains out just to shut him up.
• Am I the only one who briefly wondered if the much-talked-about Oldham would turn out to be Faraday? nice. I didn't think that, but I would have enjoyed thinking it. imagining Faraday emerging from that teepee in the woods.
• Have we ever seen the adult Ben use the move he was so impressed to see Sayid use to take down Jin?
COMMENTS
-Didn't Ben use Sayid's move that time fighting those goons in Tunisia?
-I really hope they stick with the 12 monkey's formula, because it is a much more clever and difficult manner of storytelling. Every piece has to fit, and there is little room for cheating.
-Sawyer now has a choice between Juliet, who has dedicated herself to bringing life and paid a huge price for it, and Kate, who burned her own father alive and got away with it.
-Kate doesn't deserve either Jack or Sawyer. Juliet is too good for either of them.
-Now DHARMA is going to blame the Hostiles for shooting Ben. Truce over. The shiznit is about to go down.
-I admittedly didn't get to any of the concerns about the simplicity of Ben&Sayid's troubles in my own review, and looking back you're right: we're missing something, and I think you're right that it just might not be out there to find.no no no. not just bcs I hope they'll fill it in, but at this point I am convinced that there is a big reveal of a deception re Nadia's death.
-I was at first also saying "that's it?" regarding the falling out between Ben and Sayid but the more I thought about it, the more I appreciate the subtly of it.All his life, Sayid has been convinced he's a good man who's been pushed to torture and kill in order to get things done. He was going along with Ben's plan to be hitman extraordinaire because he thought it was for a good reason. But then, when it's over, and Ben tells him he's good at murder, Sayid is faced with a hollowness. The fact that his mission is over, but also that maybe he just ends up in situations that require torture and murder because he *likes* it. This staring into the abyss, obviously, upsets Sayid so much that he wants to atone by building houses in the Dominican Republic. And much like how we hate the person who points out all that we're ignoring about ourselves, he comes to realize that Ben knew all along that Sayid enjoyed the murder and the torture and exploited it. yes. but there was a turn. there was a turn! there's more. I buy it, but if they fill in more, I won't be opposed.
-I agree that there is still a piece missing between the habitat for humanity Sayid and when he breaks Hurley out. I share the hope that we get to see it.
-I had the same reaction to Ben v. Sayid. I like the idea of Sayid recognizing his hollow shell of a life, but to adamantly tell Hurley not to trust Ben doesn't seem to have any basis in what Ben did to Sayid. right. Ben helped Sayid get revenge for Nadia's death, and Sayid offered to go on a killing spree. Crappy way to live? Yes. Ben's fault? No.
-rj: The Ben & Sayid flashbacks omitted references to Nadia, the reason Sayid started working for Ben in the first place. The clear implication once Sayid turned on Ben was that Ben had lied about Nadia's murderer and was likely himself Nadia's murderer (or so I've always thought). there we go.
-Chaddogg said... A couple thoughts on this episode (which I will probably also post over at Poniewozik's Tuned In site later.....but which I have to post here because his Time overlords put Idol in front of Lost in terms of importance right I saw that TunedIn announcement post. my loyalty also is first to the Tuned In LDG ~best signal:noise ratio. top-notch comments from chaddogg, tom shaw, dave, matt, antilles13, others.. and more of a discussion, with back & forth responses. but, Sepinwall comes through with very good recaps very quickly, and a fair number of good comments amid more comments overall than any of the few other tv blogs I check. ok chaddogg take it away!:
From a pure shock value assessment, I think this episode's ending is only surpassed by the Season 3 finale with Jack saying "We have to go back!" yes. agreed. there may have been some pretty good dramatic episode endings in S1 too ~ but I suppose not with the game-changer feeling. (even if Ben is not dead, and he's not, it still had that feeling Honestly, is anything MORE of a game changer in this show's shocking history than the possibility that Sayid just irrevocably altered the future? nay obliterated the Lostiverse as a comment on twop said (no Ben, probably no 815 crash, and certainly evth else very very different) Other than, of course, the idea that Jack and Kate and some of the Oceanic 815ers *left the island* but left some others behind? right. have to remember how unexpected it was that anyone would actually get off the island before the end of the series.
-m: I'm with rj that "The clear implication once Sayid turned on Ben was that Ben had lied about Nadia's murderer and was likely himself Nadia's murderer." I can't see Sayid greeting Ben as calmly he did in Santo Domingo if he already knew or suspected that Ben played him by means of & probably caused Nadia's death. So I am betting that he discovers something to that effect between then and showing up to get Hurley. A reveal about Nadia answers exactly to my sense of what was missing in this episode to cause Sayid's distinct turn against Ben. And, thank you Alan for articulating the question of "whether there's anything more to tell about Ben and Sayid's falling-out on the mainland." This question got a bit lost for me in the dramatic ending, then resurfaced as I started reading reactions to the episode -- but no one was talking about it! so it was great to find you highlighting it.
Also totally agree with Chaddogg about this episode ending's shock value. I'm pretty committed to the close loop time theory, and trusting that the show takes place in such a world, and so while I think Ben cannot die as a boy, that just made the event all the more of shock. That can't happen! But it just did! Sure, a person might survive getting shot -- but by Sayid? If anyone is accurate (in everything he does, including killing), it's Sayid, right? Now that I'm a few hours out, I've imagined & seen the speculation of others about how Ben could still be alive, but nonetheless the moment was terribly dramatic. As were each of the youngBen-Sayid scenes.
-
"Because, Sayid, to put it simply: you're capable of things that most other men aren't. Every choice you've made in your life -- whether it was to murder or to torture -- it hasn't really been a choice at all, has it? It's in your nature. It's what you are. You're a killer, Sayid." -Ben
'He's Our You' was, in many ways, our first old-school 'Lost' episode of the season. Where most other episodes have either featured lots of time travel, or two distinct storylines involving characters on the island versus those in the real world, this reverts to the original model of a story on the island where one character's struggle (in this case, Sayid's) is illuminated by flashbacks from their life on the mainland. yes. and it was better than the other episodes, really, wasn't it? as something to watch more than once? bcs it told a story about a character.
This was structured similarly to a first season episode, down to the potentially stunning moment at the end, when Sayid calmly put a bullet in the chest of 12-year-old Ben Linus and staggered off through the jungle.
How stunning that moment was, and how impressed I was by "He's Our You," well I was impressed in any case and stunned for the moment, which was worth it, even though confident Ben is not dead will depend on a couple of things that we won't know for another week at the earliest. First, and most obvious, is whether Sayid was able to disprove Faraday's closed-loop theory of time travel by killing someone we know to be alive 30 years in the future. no.The second is whether there's anything more to tell about Ben and Sayid's falling-out on the mainland. ah ha. yes. the Nadia manipulation (and murder). we're missing the answer to why Sayid turned so completely against Ben. the rest of the episode distracted from this questn. and it did remain unanswered didn't it?
We have plenty of past evidence (Locke and Christian's resurrections, Michael's failed suicide attempts) that the island has the power to raise the dead and/or prevent the deaths of people it has a use for. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see, early next week, young Ben getting up in amazement, then reveling in the realization that he was "special" and chosen by the island for some great purpose.
And if the closed loop then keeps spinning, then the Ben who "meets" Sayid in season two remembers him well as the man who tried to kill him, and when he calls Sayid a killer in Santo Domingo, he's only throwing Sayid's own 30-year-old words to Ben. to Ben the words are 30 yrs ago. for Sayid he at that moment has not said them back in his face. so that they both are quoting the other.
Sayid's scenes with Hurley bridging the end of last season with the start of this one implied that Sayid discovered Ben had significantly betrayed him, or tricked him, or in some other way so thoroughly violated his trust that Sayid would warn Hurley to always do the opposite of what Ben says. yes yes yes.From what we know of Ben, that's sound advice under any circumstances right, but Sayid acted as if Ben had gone beyond even his usual evil machinations, or that Sayid had uncovered yes incontrovertible proof that Ben had played him. exactly. thank you.
But all we saw here was Ben discarding rightSayid after he killed all of the men allegedly loyal to Widmore --not that we yet know who they really were and whether they posed any kind of threat to the Oceanic Six-- followed by Sayid trying to ease his killer's guilt by building houses in Santo Domingo. That doesn't seem to track with what the previous episodes implied, and if that's all there is, I feel let down. aah. thank you. after the shock of the ending, Sayid shooting Ben seemingly to kill (and, as I keep noting, Sayid does not miss his aims), after that, this question came back to life for me and I was afraid it was supposed to be answered, and felt as if I had missed something, but nobody else noticing that we got no sufficient answer. on twop, I saw nothing about this! overshadowed by the shooting of young Ben. so am very glad to read this articulated. thank you.
Yes, Ben has screwed the Lostaways over six ways from Sunday, but for Sayid to feel such hate for him -- to feel the need to kill him as a boy, before he's ever done anything to anyone -- he has to feel a bone-deep hatred for adult Ben, and being turned into a hired gun without some additional newly uncovered trickery treachery in the using of him as a hired gun [Nadia!]doesn't seem like remotely enough motivation to me.
Maybe there are other pieces to the puzzle, but but if so, we're not going the episode should have more strongly implied that they were missing. the word Nadia d n appear in Sepinwall's rvw here, or any of the current first 23 comments. so I take it I did *not* miss a reveal about this. but it must be coming. and I'm confident some of the next 100+ comments will suggest so also. and the concern for me is not necess th episode shld have implied what remained missing, but that the later reveal will have to fit with Sayid not greeting Ben at Santo Domingo with absolute and , one would expect, murderous hatred. so: he finds out that Ben played him by & probably himself caused Nadia's death only after that scene? I'm betting on that.
I doubt there's going to be an opportunity to loop back to Sayid's backstory anytime soon. no there could be. someone asks, why did you try to kill Ben? and he says, He killed Nadia! with a lot of angst.
Still, it's fun to watch Sayid be suave, and to suffer torture if need be, particularly with the introduction of Oldham, the Dharma bunch's own interrogation expert, and the "he" of the episode's title. William Sanderson is at least the fourth "Deadwood" alum to turn up on "Lost" (after Kim Dickens as Sawyer's baby mama Cassidy, Robin Weigert who appears in the latest epsd of USofTara also and I had to search mind to recall her as the Lieutenant in Life, and who I know also played Calamity Jane in Deadwood as Juliet's sister Rachel and Paula Malcomson as murdered Other Colleen Pickett), and he made a quick and memorable impression. I suspected that Sayid would wind up simply telling Horace the truth and being disbelieved, but it was still a great sequence, alternately disturbing and funny (just as Sayid found it).
Some other thoughts on "He's Our You":
• The more I see of Radzinsky, the more I begin to wonder if he actually committed suicide in the Swan, or if Inman blew his partner's brains out just to shut him up.
• Am I the only one who briefly wondered if the much-talked-about Oldham would turn out to be Faraday? nice. I didn't think that, but I would have enjoyed thinking it. imagining Faraday emerging from that teepee in the woods.
• Have we ever seen the adult Ben use the move he was so impressed to see Sayid use to take down Jin?
COMMENTS
-Didn't Ben use Sayid's move that time fighting those goons in Tunisia?
-I really hope they stick with the 12 monkey's formula, because it is a much more clever and difficult manner of storytelling. Every piece has to fit, and there is little room for cheating.
-Sawyer now has a choice between Juliet, who has dedicated herself to bringing life and paid a huge price for it, and Kate, who burned her own father alive and got away with it.
-Kate doesn't deserve either Jack or Sawyer. Juliet is too good for either of them.
-Now DHARMA is going to blame the Hostiles for shooting Ben. Truce over. The shiznit is about to go down.
-I admittedly didn't get to any of the concerns about the simplicity of Ben&Sayid's troubles in my own review, and looking back you're right: we're missing something, and I think you're right that it just might not be out there to find.no no no. not just bcs I hope they'll fill it in, but at this point I am convinced that there is a big reveal of a deception re Nadia's death.
-I was at first also saying "that's it?" regarding the falling out between Ben and Sayid but the more I thought about it, the more I appreciate the subtly of it.All his life, Sayid has been convinced he's a good man who's been pushed to torture and kill in order to get things done. He was going along with Ben's plan to be hitman extraordinaire because he thought it was for a good reason. But then, when it's over, and Ben tells him he's good at murder, Sayid is faced with a hollowness. The fact that his mission is over, but also that maybe he just ends up in situations that require torture and murder because he *likes* it. This staring into the abyss, obviously, upsets Sayid so much that he wants to atone by building houses in the Dominican Republic. And much like how we hate the person who points out all that we're ignoring about ourselves, he comes to realize that Ben knew all along that Sayid enjoyed the murder and the torture and exploited it. yes. but there was a turn. there was a turn! there's more. I buy it, but if they fill in more, I won't be opposed.
-I agree that there is still a piece missing between the habitat for humanity Sayid and when he breaks Hurley out. I share the hope that we get to see it.
-I had the same reaction to Ben v. Sayid. I like the idea of Sayid recognizing his hollow shell of a life, but to adamantly tell Hurley not to trust Ben doesn't seem to have any basis in what Ben did to Sayid. right. Ben helped Sayid get revenge for Nadia's death, and Sayid offered to go on a killing spree. Crappy way to live? Yes. Ben's fault? No.
-rj: The Ben & Sayid flashbacks omitted references to Nadia, the reason Sayid started working for Ben in the first place. The clear implication once Sayid turned on Ben was that Ben had lied about Nadia's murderer and was likely himself Nadia's murderer (or so I've always thought). there we go.
-Chaddogg said... A couple thoughts on this episode (which I will probably also post over at Poniewozik's Tuned In site later.....but which I have to post here because his Time overlords put Idol in front of Lost in terms of importance right I saw that TunedIn announcement post. my loyalty also is first to the Tuned In LDG ~best signal:noise ratio. top-notch comments from chaddogg, tom shaw, dave, matt, antilles13, others.. and more of a discussion, with back & forth responses. but, Sepinwall comes through with very good recaps very quickly, and a fair number of good comments amid more comments overall than any of the few other tv blogs I check. ok chaddogg take it away!:
From a pure shock value assessment, I think this episode's ending is only surpassed by the Season 3 finale with Jack saying "We have to go back!" yes. agreed. there may have been some pretty good dramatic episode endings in S1 too ~ but I suppose not with the game-changer feeling. (even if Ben is not dead, and he's not, it still had that feeling Honestly, is anything MORE of a game changer in this show's shocking history than the possibility that Sayid just irrevocably altered the future? nay obliterated the Lostiverse as a comment on twop said (no Ben, probably no 815 crash, and certainly evth else very very different) Other than, of course, the idea that Jack and Kate and some of the Oceanic 815ers *left the island* but left some others behind? right. have to remember how unexpected it was that anyone would actually get off the island before the end of the series.
-m: I'm with rj that "The clear implication once Sayid turned on Ben was that Ben had lied about Nadia's murderer and was likely himself Nadia's murderer." I can't see Sayid greeting Ben as calmly he did in Santo Domingo if he already knew or suspected that Ben played him by means of & probably caused Nadia's death. So I am betting that he discovers something to that effect between then and showing up to get Hurley. A reveal about Nadia answers exactly to my sense of what was missing in this episode to cause Sayid's distinct turn against Ben. And, thank you Alan for articulating the question of "whether there's anything more to tell about Ben and Sayid's falling-out on the mainland." This question got a bit lost for me in the dramatic ending, then resurfaced as I started reading reactions to the episode -- but no one was talking about it! so it was great to find you highlighting it.
Also totally agree with Chaddogg about this episode ending's shock value. I'm pretty committed to the close loop time theory, and trusting that the show takes place in such a world, and so while I think Ben cannot die as a boy, that just made the event all the more of shock. That can't happen! But it just did! Sure, a person might survive getting shot -- but by Sayid? If anyone is accurate (in everything he does, including killing), it's Sayid, right? Now that I'm a few hours out, I've imagined & seen the speculation of others about how Ben could still be alive, but nonetheless the moment was terribly dramatic. As were each of the youngBen-Sayid scenes.
-
5-10: "He's Our You" 2009.03.25 - TWoP Forums p13:
-Does Horace have any idea what Pierre Chang is up to? I have been led to believe that Horace was in charge, and doesn't his job say 'Mathematician'? So isn't he involved in any of the top-level stuff? Just a thought....
--Yeah, but theoretically trying to send some bunnies 20 seconds into the past in a lab is quite different from a drugged-up Iraqi telling you he's from the future.
In fact, I wonder if maybe the Lostaways are why the Dharma Initiative gets so into time travel in the first place? Sayid mentioned the Incident, so when that occurs, Horace is probably going to remember.
Miles called Sawyer 'Sawyer' at least once in earshot of Amy (right after they killed the two Others) back when they first arrived in 1977. I wonder if she'll mention that when her husband inevitably starts rewinding the interrogation in his head and wondering who 'Sawyer' is?
And didn't Martin Candle/Chang say in one of the videos that, after the Incident, the entire complex had to be monitored 24/7? As in, we had some traitors once, we have to watch you all the time to make sure you are who you say you are? mm. interesting. [p15: -Wow, I never thought of that!! I always assumed "The Incident" was some experiment that went horribly wrong. This is a whole new slant.] well let's say the incident involves ~the wheel or somehow the Losties returning to their proper time, and some electormagnetism complications. but also, I suppose, the infiltration.
p15 ---Point taken, BUT just pretend for a second you are Horace. You're on an island that had to be found in the first place by some super genius physicist because it moves (the Lighthouse). You're there thanks to funding from The University of Michigan and some reclusive European billionaire who made his money selling guns to the resistance in WWII (not that odd but noteworthy). Your buddy Pierre Chang is working on TIME EXPERIMENTS (with bunnies, sure) and looking (or found) a frozen donkey wheel with heiroglyphs all over it that glows light blue and hums. Your group is studying powerful electomagnetics, not to mention sharks with cool tatoos and ESP. There's a cloud of black smoke that ticks and howls and will rip people's arms off if it loses in chess to them, not to mention smash a guy on the ground and throw women up in the air so they hit the ground oh the woman w Rousseau's group. Plus there's that whole Valenzetti equation thing that you are working on trying to change the factors so the human race will survive. OH, AND there's a group of indigenous peoples that live out in the jungle who will kill you if you go out for a picnic (and who wear eyeliner).
With all that (and probably more) a "drugged up Iraqi" telling you he's from 2007 probably isn't the weirdest thing you've heard all week. And I'm no history major, but weren't Iraqis in 1977 on "our side" if not just "there"? Kind of like saying a drugged up Dane today.
-Does Horace have any idea what Pierre Chang is up to? I have been led to believe that Horace was in charge, and doesn't his job say 'Mathematician'? So isn't he involved in any of the top-level stuff? Just a thought....
--Yeah, but theoretically trying to send some bunnies 20 seconds into the past in a lab is quite different from a drugged-up Iraqi telling you he's from the future.
In fact, I wonder if maybe the Lostaways are why the Dharma Initiative gets so into time travel in the first place? Sayid mentioned the Incident, so when that occurs, Horace is probably going to remember.
Miles called Sawyer 'Sawyer' at least once in earshot of Amy (right after they killed the two Others) back when they first arrived in 1977. I wonder if she'll mention that when her husband inevitably starts rewinding the interrogation in his head and wondering who 'Sawyer' is?
And didn't Martin Candle/Chang say in one of the videos that, after the Incident, the entire complex had to be monitored 24/7? As in, we had some traitors once, we have to watch you all the time to make sure you are who you say you are? mm. interesting. [p15: -Wow, I never thought of that!! I always assumed "The Incident" was some experiment that went horribly wrong. This is a whole new slant.] well let's say the incident involves ~the wheel or somehow the Losties returning to their proper time, and some electormagnetism complications. but also, I suppose, the infiltration.
p15 ---Point taken, BUT just pretend for a second you are Horace. You're on an island that had to be found in the first place by some super genius physicist because it moves (the Lighthouse). You're there thanks to funding from The University of Michigan and some reclusive European billionaire who made his money selling guns to the resistance in WWII (not that odd but noteworthy). Your buddy Pierre Chang is working on TIME EXPERIMENTS (with bunnies, sure) and looking (or found) a frozen donkey wheel with heiroglyphs all over it that glows light blue and hums. Your group is studying powerful electomagnetics, not to mention sharks with cool tatoos and ESP. There's a cloud of black smoke that ticks and howls and will rip people's arms off if it loses in chess to them, not to mention smash a guy on the ground and throw women up in the air so they hit the ground oh the woman w Rousseau's group. Plus there's that whole Valenzetti equation thing that you are working on trying to change the factors so the human race will survive. OH, AND there's a group of indigenous peoples that live out in the jungle who will kill you if you go out for a picnic (and who wear eyeliner).
With all that (and probably more) a "drugged up Iraqi" telling you he's from 2007 probably isn't the weirdest thing you've heard all week. And I'm no history major, but weren't Iraqis in 1977 on "our side" if not just "there"? Kind of like saying a drugged up Dane today.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
5-10: "He's Our You" 2009.03.25 - TWoP Forums p11:
-Season 1-2-3-4 and first half of season 5 Ben (no matter what year) had no idea that Sayid shot him at age 12, because it hadn't happened yet. To Sayid or Ben. It just happened during this episode (no matter what year) and now we are safe to assume that 'just crashed on the hydra island and got lumped up by a boat oar thanks to action Sun' Ben NOW remembers it because it just happened. Remember when Desmond suddenly woke up with Penny and 'remembered' that Daniel Faraday knocked on the hatch door back in 2002 or 2003 or 2004? He didn't know Daniel Faraday did that until that point because it hadn't happened yet....again: Time does not equal a straight line.
-NotSure:
ITDA. From Ben's perspective, it HAD happened already: he was only 15 or so when it happened, and his personal timeline was much older in the first few seasons. It HAD NOT happened yet for Sayid: his personal timeline is only now reaching this point. So Ben would have remembered (barring amnesia), whereas Sayid would not. good. distinguish btw personal timeline (lifestream) and chronology.
And you can't compare any timeline issues of Desmond with anything that happens to anyone else. His circumstance is explicitly unique. right.
There is no 'alternate universe', no 'course correction' needed here. I joked earlier about Paradoxia, but I'm certain that either Ben is not dead or that he is fully revived somehow (naturally or supernaturally) and lives whatever life we have already seen him live. He was always shot by Sayid, and it seems likely that this contributed to his future mental issues. We are seeing the rich storyline of Sayid helping to create the monster he loathed.
good. int how the rxns to Lost this season seem to fall (too easily for me?) into 'gets it' or just doesn't. re the time. it's just irritating (mildly) to me to read the comments like above. I'm dismissive. if commenter does not understand or does not subscribe to 'whatever happened, happened.' (or: the 12 monkeys theory of time. closed loop.) it seems like not understanding, rather than not subscribing, bcs have not read a well writ proposal of an alternative theory. always just seems confused, like the person has not thought it through.
unclosed loops just don't make any sense to me. very basic. says x does not equal x. the back to the future model just does not seem to take time seriously. it pretends it's not what it is.
this is really the same allegiance as my old one to what I found articulated in Leibniz (the notion of the person containing evth the person does as certain; d n mean un-free), and really even in Heidegger and back to Aristotle: what is, is.
anyway I've enjoyed Lost bcs seems totally in the whatever happened, happened world; which is any world I've yet seen as possible. so tonight was a shocker. maybe my first experience of actually being left hanging, as from a cliff. actually unhappy that have to wait a week to see, what? twop p1 "Uh, that can't happen, can it?" but it did! now relieved by having seen that next week's episode is *called* Whatever Happened, Happened. (and by having read tvguide's logline.) nice move having the next episode an explicit (in the title!) answer to the seeming challenge in this episode to the time theory.
I do think it will be tough to convincingly present Sayid's shot as not fatal. I mean, if anyone is a sure shot, it's Sayid, right? He is the most skilled, accurate, capable, proficient character ~ever. and that was a shot at close-ish range to the chest, left side. Sayid wld know how to hit the heart.
but what maybe no one is a sure shot? and the island protects its children. (still, while the island may be the power that saved Locke's life when Ben shot him at the pit, the island only had to be the luck that Locke was shot where his missing kidney was not. so, his surviving was accomplished through ~natural means. )
I thought this episode was a heck of a show.
mainly: the scenes with Sayid and young Ben.
father Roger berating Ben, Sayid in his cell rising to his feet. the humanity he showed to the kid, along with the decision yes to kill him.
I liked Sayid here more than I ever have. appreciated getting to be be confident in how totally sharp this char is. 'nothing much gets past this guy.' no.
if there's a way to get the drop on these Dharma folks, he will. 'get the drop' ~?
~better than Jack Bauer, why? because his gaze seems more strikingly intelligent, taking everything in.
with the suspense of the end dulled by looking at tvguide for upcoming two episodes, the remaining question for me is, how did what we saw in tonight's flashbacks explain Sayid's turn from working for Ben to telling Hurley never to trust him? he was left seeming lost and alone when Ben said their work was done. "what will I do now?" "live your life. you are free." and then what, because left with his guilt, he was disgusted with Ben and with himself for doing his bidding? and~or Ben then showing up & telling him that who he is is a killer, that made him disgusted with working for this "liar and manipulator" as he said to Illana? point is: we did not see anything overt to cause a turn, no revelation of a lie or manipulation by Ben that undercut their alliance. just the way Sayid probably always felt about Ben coming to the fore? once the work was not providing a way at channelling his grief over Nadia. or did I miss sth? Sayid did not discover anything new about Ben in the flashbacks, did he? .............it's as if I missed a revelation that Ben had set Sayid up to think that Widmore's people, who they were allied against & Sayid was killing on Ben's orders, had killed Nadia. when in fact Ben had. *that* would explain Sayid's total turn against Ben the manipulator. it wld so well answer my qstn here that I am just about convinced I did somehow miss that. (cld have been said in the moments after a commercial break that I was flipping to other channgels? how do I miss sth like that in moments? that's huge. but it seems it must have happened. or: it was not revealed here, but will be. ~ I dunno. if Ben actually is responsible for Nadia's death, and Sayid knew that, hard to believe adult Sayid would not have immediately killed adult Ben, not calmly spoken to him when he showed up in Santo Domingo.)
...numerous notes at dlcs pagemarks of twop thread p1-4, 11, 13-16
-Season 1-2-3-4 and first half of season 5 Ben (no matter what year) had no idea that Sayid shot him at age 12, because it hadn't happened yet. To Sayid or Ben. It just happened during this episode (no matter what year) and now we are safe to assume that 'just crashed on the hydra island and got lumped up by a boat oar thanks to action Sun' Ben NOW remembers it because it just happened. Remember when Desmond suddenly woke up with Penny and 'remembered' that Daniel Faraday knocked on the hatch door back in 2002 or 2003 or 2004? He didn't know Daniel Faraday did that until that point because it hadn't happened yet....again: Time does not equal a straight line.
-NotSure:
ITDA. From Ben's perspective, it HAD happened already: he was only 15 or so when it happened, and his personal timeline was much older in the first few seasons. It HAD NOT happened yet for Sayid: his personal timeline is only now reaching this point. So Ben would have remembered (barring amnesia), whereas Sayid would not. good. distinguish btw personal timeline (lifestream) and chronology.
And you can't compare any timeline issues of Desmond with anything that happens to anyone else. His circumstance is explicitly unique. right.
There is no 'alternate universe', no 'course correction' needed here. I joked earlier about Paradoxia, but I'm certain that either Ben is not dead or that he is fully revived somehow (naturally or supernaturally) and lives whatever life we have already seen him live. He was always shot by Sayid, and it seems likely that this contributed to his future mental issues. We are seeing the rich storyline of Sayid helping to create the monster he loathed.
good. int how the rxns to Lost this season seem to fall (too easily for me?) into 'gets it' or just doesn't. re the time. it's just irritating (mildly) to me to read the comments like above. I'm dismissive. if commenter does not understand or does not subscribe to 'whatever happened, happened.' (or: the 12 monkeys theory of time. closed loop.) it seems like not understanding, rather than not subscribing, bcs have not read a well writ proposal of an alternative theory. always just seems confused, like the person has not thought it through.
unclosed loops just don't make any sense to me. very basic. says x does not equal x. the back to the future model just does not seem to take time seriously. it pretends it's not what it is.
this is really the same allegiance as my old one to what I found articulated in Leibniz (the notion of the person containing evth the person does as certain; d n mean un-free), and really even in Heidegger and back to Aristotle: what is, is.
anyway I've enjoyed Lost bcs seems totally in the whatever happened, happened world; which is any world I've yet seen as possible. so tonight was a shocker. maybe my first experience of actually being left hanging, as from a cliff. actually unhappy that have to wait a week to see, what? twop p1 "Uh, that can't happen, can it?" but it did! now relieved by having seen that next week's episode is *called* Whatever Happened, Happened. (and by having read tvguide's logline.) nice move having the next episode an explicit (in the title!) answer to the seeming challenge in this episode to the time theory.
I do think it will be tough to convincingly present Sayid's shot as not fatal. I mean, if anyone is a sure shot, it's Sayid, right? He is the most skilled, accurate, capable, proficient character ~ever. and that was a shot at close-ish range to the chest, left side. Sayid wld know how to hit the heart.
but what maybe no one is a sure shot? and the island protects its children. (still, while the island may be the power that saved Locke's life when Ben shot him at the pit, the island only had to be the luck that Locke was shot where his missing kidney was not. so, his surviving was accomplished through ~natural means. )
I thought this episode was a heck of a show.
mainly: the scenes with Sayid and young Ben.
father Roger berating Ben, Sayid in his cell rising to his feet. the humanity he showed to the kid, along with the decision yes to kill him.
I liked Sayid here more than I ever have. appreciated getting to be be confident in how totally sharp this char is. 'nothing much gets past this guy.' no.
if there's a way to get the drop on these Dharma folks, he will. 'get the drop' ~?
~better than Jack Bauer, why? because his gaze seems more strikingly intelligent, taking everything in.
with the suspense of the end dulled by looking at tvguide for upcoming two episodes, the remaining question for me is, how did what we saw in tonight's flashbacks explain Sayid's turn from working for Ben to telling Hurley never to trust him? he was left seeming lost and alone when Ben said their work was done. "what will I do now?" "live your life. you are free." and then what, because left with his guilt, he was disgusted with Ben and with himself for doing his bidding? and~or Ben then showing up & telling him that who he is is a killer, that made him disgusted with working for this "liar and manipulator" as he said to Illana? point is: we did not see anything overt to cause a turn, no revelation of a lie or manipulation by Ben that undercut their alliance. just the way Sayid probably always felt about Ben coming to the fore? once the work was not providing a way at channelling his grief over Nadia. or did I miss sth? Sayid did not discover anything new about Ben in the flashbacks, did he? .............it's as if I missed a revelation that Ben had set Sayid up to think that Widmore's people, who they were allied against & Sayid was killing on Ben's orders, had killed Nadia. when in fact Ben had. *that* would explain Sayid's total turn against Ben the manipulator. it wld so well answer my qstn here that I am just about convinced I did somehow miss that. (cld have been said in the moments after a commercial break that I was flipping to other channgels? how do I miss sth like that in moments? that's huge. but it seems it must have happened. or: it was not revealed here, but will be. ~ I dunno. if Ben actually is responsible for Nadia's death, and Sayid knew that, hard to believe adult Sayid would not have immediately killed adult Ben, not calmly spoken to him when he showed up in Santo Domingo.)
...numerous notes at dlcs pagemarks of twop thread p1-4, 11, 13-16
Powell's Books BLOG: Book News for Monday, March 9, 2009 - by Brockman:
For Whom the Rooster Crows: The 2009 Morning News Tournament of Books is underway! The first round pits Roberto Bolaño's ginormasticalacious 2666 against Fae Myenne Ng's sadly overmatched Steer toward Rock. There isn't really much of a contest here, and the first-round judge (some snarky lit-blogger nobody's ever heard of) rules along predictable lines.
However, I smell a whiff of high-school book-report panic in the judge's overextended (according to commentator Kevin Guilfoile) basketball metaphor.
[Kevin: Man, there was a lot of basketball stuff going on in Brockman’s judgment there. I know we kind of invited that with our March Madness-like brackets and our play-by-play commentary, but there might be such a thing as carrying an already thin metaphor too far. I’m just saying, you know, for future reference.]*
One almost gets the impression the judge *started* every book of 2666, but couldn't quite make it to the end of any of them. One senses he was maybe a little too intimidated to admit he couldn't see the luxurious robes word emperor's robes situation the literary establishment (and some of his *uber*-literary coworkers) were shrieking about — he just saw a naked emperor with knobby knees. It could be the judge was partly baffled that this "all-time greatest masterpiece of our century" wasn't even able to give the literary critics in the first book distinct personalities — you could only distinguish them because one was a woman, one was in a wheelchair, and the other two...weren't. There's no denying that the intensity builds stronger in the later books, especially the much-written-about third one (despite the ultimately numbing effect of a subject that should retain its shock), but perhaps the judge kept wishing a writer with a better sense of drama and character were at the helm — like Richard Price (see Lush Life, whose absence from this year's TOB is really a crime). And so, like a public schooler who's terrified to admit he doesn't think A Farewell to Arms is hot snot and, not wanting to be the idiot who didn't "get it," tries to cover it up by writing his book report in a too-clever satire of Hemingway's style, one can glimpse the Round One judge cowering behind his own metaphor.
In fairness, although the judge may have succumbed to cowardice in failing to present these quibbles, he really did like 2666 more than Steer toward Rock. So, the outcome is not a lie by any means. It's just a shame that Guilfoile and John Warner's comments ended up much closer to the judge's *full* opinion than the printed verdict.
For Whom the Rooster Crows: The 2009 Morning News Tournament of Books is underway! The first round pits Roberto Bolaño's ginormasticalacious 2666 against Fae Myenne Ng's sadly overmatched Steer toward Rock. There isn't really much of a contest here, and the first-round judge (some snarky lit-blogger nobody's ever heard of) rules along predictable lines.
However, I smell a whiff of high-school book-report panic in the judge's overextended (according to commentator Kevin Guilfoile) basketball metaphor.
[Kevin: Man, there was a lot of basketball stuff going on in Brockman’s judgment there. I know we kind of invited that with our March Madness-like brackets and our play-by-play commentary, but there might be such a thing as carrying an already thin metaphor too far. I’m just saying, you know, for future reference.]*
One almost gets the impression the judge *started* every book of 2666, but couldn't quite make it to the end of any of them. One senses he was maybe a little too intimidated to admit he couldn't see the luxurious robes word emperor's robes situation the literary establishment (and some of his *uber*-literary coworkers) were shrieking about — he just saw a naked emperor with knobby knees. It could be the judge was partly baffled that this "all-time greatest masterpiece of our century" wasn't even able to give the literary critics in the first book distinct personalities — you could only distinguish them because one was a woman, one was in a wheelchair, and the other two...weren't. There's no denying that the intensity builds stronger in the later books, especially the much-written-about third one (despite the ultimately numbing effect of a subject that should retain its shock), but perhaps the judge kept wishing a writer with a better sense of drama and character were at the helm — like Richard Price (see Lush Life, whose absence from this year's TOB is really a crime). And so, like a public schooler who's terrified to admit he doesn't think A Farewell to Arms is hot snot and, not wanting to be the idiot who didn't "get it," tries to cover it up by writing his book report in a too-clever satire of Hemingway's style, one can glimpse the Round One judge cowering behind his own metaphor.
In fairness, although the judge may have succumbed to cowardice in failing to present these quibbles, he really did like 2666 more than Steer toward Rock. So, the outcome is not a lie by any means. It's just a shame that Guilfoile and John Warner's comments ended up much closer to the judge's *full* opinion than the printed verdict.
*not too clever! not over-extended. that's what was remarkable!
-maro: just piping up here to say that I loved your execution of the basketball metaphor. I just read your judgment through for the first time, and I was totally impressed with your writing. I'm here checking out the archive of your Powells blog posts for that reason! I think what impressed me was exactly that the metaphor never seemed over-extended or forced. I expected that it would, at that length, but you kept the description of court action vivid *and* clearly representative of actual qualities in the narratives of the two books. I have not yet read the commentary from the box, but before having Kevin Guilfoile's opinion mix with my reaction (and then maybe I'll weigh in there with a late comment), I want to say to you Bravo! a top-notch, totally enjoyable bit of writing. thanks!"
__________________________________________
Tournament of Books - 2666 v. Steer Toward Rock - From the Booth - Reader Comment
On March 9, 2009 at 8:24 PM Zach Soldenstern said… [in rxn to criticism by Commentators
KEVIN GUILFOILE & JOHN WARNER]
I think I can kill a few birds with one stone here, though they may not stay dead for you. First: I'm 99.9% certain that the sex/hours thing (with the exception of the Hungarian 'horse') is a joke - the kind that gets funnier each time it's told. In this case, the exformation (the little bit that gets left out, which is why it's funny), is that this is exactly how men (particularly adolescents or grown men stuck in adolescence) want to think about sex - just as teenagers always drank 14 beers last night, or stayed up until 5 a.m. studying. And so this is how the voice, first person or third person free indirect, records it - as wish fulfillment. The same joke crops up in The Savage Detectives a lot. "She came three times." I don't think we're meant to believe, necessarily, that she came even once. I don't think we're meant to believe that the men can get beyond their own needs long enough to even care. In 2666, though, the joke deepens into tragedy, because in the third, fourth, and fifth sections (which you read, right?) we see "misogyny" (a quality of the characters, and sometimes of Bolano, but usually not of both at the same time) get played out physically, rather than merely verbally.
Bolano calls an equal amount of tension to his impossible-to-picture similes, about the foul air and what not - there are literally hundreds of them in the book, often strung together with an "or," as if the narrator knows that he's coming nowhere close to capturing what he wants to. These are, in part, a joke, too - a joke about writing, and about life - albeit a more difficult to unpack joke.
If you can appreciate Bolano's near-constant sense of humor, as slippery as Kafka's, but much more dependent on being able to distinguish narrator from author, the book is indeed fun. A lot of fun. As well as being very, very intense.
If not, not. You might see Sam Sacks' review at Open Letters the new press where Chad Post of Dalkey Archive now is right?~founded. in Rochester? monthly for an exemplary critique, albeit one that also missed the humor. But it's important to at least entertain the "it's me, it's not the book posture," because with a novel like this, mere contrarianism can be toxic. It licenses people inclined to write the book off to do so without giving themselves the chance to be proven wrong. Granted, having to read 900 pages just to be proven wrong may hold little appeal.
ok. well said. I'll back off my sense that there are no robes. or at least not robes I'd find beautiful in any way. ---but maybe I would. very well writ and usefully corrective comment.
Dancing with the Stars 2009
Gilles Marini & Cheryl *QuickStep* DWTS week 2
Gilles performed this superman quickstep after Melissa did her salsa (prvs pgmrk), ending the night I think. Melissa had gotten the first 9s of the season along w one 8 and then Gilles got all 9s! seemed totally deserved to me. I'll be surprised if I enjoy any dance this season more than this one (thought I exect to enjoy all of Gilles's & Melissa's performances). I love this: the costumes (Clark Kent w glasses & green tie, Cheryl's lovely matching green dress), the music "if I go crazy will you still call me Superman? (you're my) Kryp-to-NITE!!, the choreography w his slide at the end opening shirt to reveal purple-green superman shirt under. and I think I really like the quick step. my fvr moment is just past 2:15 where they pull together, hold, then move again: I love how his shoulder bend forward just for a moment in starting the movement.
Melissa Rycroft & Tony Dovolani *Salsa* DWTS week 2
lots of fun to watch. they got the first 9s of the season, two of them I think: 9 8 9. and to be fair (re Carrie Ann seeming oddly unkind in rxn statemts first & third week), here Carrie Ann is totally complimentary ~ to Tony as well re the choreography "way to bring it to the floor!", though I've read sth re how her seeming toughness twd Melissa in esp may be bcs of standing diffs w Tony
Gilles Marini & Cheryl *QuickStep* DWTS week 2
Gilles performed this superman quickstep after Melissa did her salsa (prvs pgmrk), ending the night I think. Melissa had gotten the first 9s of the season along w one 8 and then Gilles got all 9s! seemed totally deserved to me. I'll be surprised if I enjoy any dance this season more than this one (thought I exect to enjoy all of Gilles's & Melissa's performances). I love this: the costumes (Clark Kent w glasses & green tie, Cheryl's lovely matching green dress), the music "if I go crazy will you still call me Superman? (you're my) Kryp-to-NITE!!, the choreography w his slide at the end opening shirt to reveal purple-green superman shirt under. and I think I really like the quick step. my fvr moment is just past 2:15 where they pull together, hold, then move again: I love how his shoulder bend forward just for a moment in starting the movement.
Melissa Rycroft & Tony Dovolani *Salsa* DWTS week 2
lots of fun to watch. they got the first 9s of the season, two of them I think: 9 8 9. and to be fair (re Carrie Ann seeming oddly unkind in rxn statemts first & third week), here Carrie Ann is totally complimentary ~ to Tony as well re the choreography "way to bring it to the floor!", though I've read sth re how her seeming toughness twd Melissa in esp may be bcs of standing diffs w Tony
Saturday, March 21, 2009
.....The Prestige ~residual followup
#imdb faq: How closely does the film follow the novel?
Those who have both seen the movie and read the book say that the two are quite different. There are some themes & ideas taken from the novel and many of the same character names are used, but the story is very different and even the characters themselves are different individuals.
In the book: Julia does not die. Sarah does not die. Borden is not hanged; he is not even convicted, tried, or accused of killing Angier. Borden & Angier are not colleagues as they are in the movie only briefly, working as plants in the audience for Milton; they barely know each other. Cutter is only a minor character.
Cutter convinces Angier relatively early in the novel that the Bordens are identical twins. Later Angier investigates the birth records and discovers that there is no record of a twin, only that Albert has a brother Freddy who is two years younger, and a photo shows that they look nothing alike. In the novel, these records are later revealed to have been doctored, showing that the twins Albert & Freddy had planned their trick from an early age.
Another major change involves the working of the Tesla machine. In the novel, the machine is clearly shown to be a teleportation device but not a duplicator: rather, when the item or person in the machine is teleported to a new location, some residue of what is transported is left behind. Angier in the book refers to these residues as "the prestige materials." ok right in the movie he uses this phrase to mean the dead duplicate men in the tanks. While each residue looks like Angier, it is not made up of human remains: it is not a dead Angier but some shadow or afterimage of him. The prestige materials do not decompose over time even after a century.
The only thing close to "duplication" in the novel is when an incomplete teleportation occurs because Borden turns off Angier's machine in mid-teleport. Most of Angier stays behind where the residue would be, but a small mass apparent as a ghostly image is teleported. The result is two distinct minds with similar memories but with very different bodies.
At the end of the novel, the ghostly transported Angier is in fact still alive a century after the novel's main Victorian events. what happened to the 'most of Angier' that stayed behind when the teleporation was interrupted? the prestige material that is still most of the person? I think I read swhere that this is the corporeal Angier who persists in his life, but sickly, and dies soon after. The novel suggests that there is a psychic link btw the teleported body & the residual prestige material, such that each of the residues created may think and feel to some extent. so the movie just made this much more overt by making it a full copy of the man. but the idea of the self that suffers when left behind was there in the book. It makes the ending of the novel more haunting as we imagine he may have lost a part of his "soul" with each teleportation.
#imdb faq: What does Tesla's machine do?
It seems clear in the movie that the Tesla machine, whatever it was designed to do simply transport, results in two identical copies (including memories, personalities) of an object or being; one in the machine, one a short distance away.
There are three main possibilities. The original stays in the machine and a duplicate is created at the destination, the original is teleported and a duplicate is created within the machine, or the original is destroyed and two copies are created, one in the machine and the other at the destination.
___________________________________________________
.....may also want to look a bit more at imdb board looooong thread re alt ending. w spliff's answer wh I am happy to take as dfntv already included in 2nd top post. but am int ~rdg more re that last speech, re an alternate underst of th ending where indeed it is always & only illusion.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Alternative Ending Theory?
-Those interviews only state that there is a supernatural ~ superscientific element in the film. I don't think anyone denies this: it is claimed a teleportation device is invented. Whether this element is true within the story itself is debatable. huh? d n think this is a film vs book distinction so wh mean by 'within the story'?
Christian Bale http://www.media.christian-bale.org/view/15/good-morning-america-prest ige-october-18-2006 [video clip] puts forward an alternate view.
...............and look at other comments from directors (& maybe actors?) via the wkp footnote links, incl in first post.
+ imdb user cmmts = rvws.
+ az movie cust rvws.
+~ az book cust rvws. already a dlcs pgmrk (only Prestige dlcs mark thus far) for these: RLS: self. 2 contrasting estimatns of bk vs film. that may be sufficient for my int.
...& wkp re the film ~skim this - & note esp re reception:
Author Christopher Priest saw the film three times as of January 5, 2007, and his reaction was "'Well, holy shit.' I was thinking, 'God, I like that,' and 'Oh, I wish I'd thought of that.'" cool. [57]
.............and then I'll be done! oh and read the script. :) ok print it out tomorrow, pdf. I like the beginning, what Bale says, how they all speak. I like it. it really holds up to a second viewing. of course my first viewing was out of order (came in at middle of first airing in backtoback on FX) and disrupted as I switched channels. so this viewing on cmptr I saw several scenes for first time, all of wh seemed pivotal! or at lst v int., incl:
-Borden walking Sarah to door, saying goodbye, then being inside making tea.
-Cutter showing the machine to the judge.
-Angier walking off from Tesla's failed attempt to transport a cat, and finding outside a double (or two) of the cat (who better be okay!) among many many copies of his top-hat, which is what Tesla had previously repeatedly tried to transport. A shot of the many black hats on the mountainside was also the opening shot of the film, after title, in silence: really very good.
________________________
and after The Prestige, other to do:
#Lost epsd Namaste rxns:
sepinwall 150+ cmmts. tunedin cmmts. completely lost recap plus last few posts back to recap of LeFleur.
#TheMorningNews tournament of books.
maybe will find a 2008 novel of int to me among these, of wh the ones I've encountered have not ~yet appealed.
Those who have both seen the movie and read the book say that the two are quite different. There are some themes & ideas taken from the novel and many of the same character names are used, but the story is very different and even the characters themselves are different individuals.
In the book: Julia does not die. Sarah does not die. Borden is not hanged; he is not even convicted, tried, or accused of killing Angier. Borden & Angier are not colleagues as they are in the movie only briefly, working as plants in the audience for Milton; they barely know each other. Cutter is only a minor character.
Cutter convinces Angier relatively early in the novel that the Bordens are identical twins. Later Angier investigates the birth records and discovers that there is no record of a twin, only that Albert has a brother Freddy who is two years younger, and a photo shows that they look nothing alike. In the novel, these records are later revealed to have been doctored, showing that the twins Albert & Freddy had planned their trick from an early age.
Another major change involves the working of the Tesla machine. In the novel, the machine is clearly shown to be a teleportation device but not a duplicator: rather, when the item or person in the machine is teleported to a new location, some residue of what is transported is left behind. Angier in the book refers to these residues as "the prestige materials." ok right in the movie he uses this phrase to mean the dead duplicate men in the tanks. While each residue looks like Angier, it is not made up of human remains: it is not a dead Angier but some shadow or afterimage of him. The prestige materials do not decompose over time even after a century.
The only thing close to "duplication" in the novel is when an incomplete teleportation occurs because Borden turns off Angier's machine in mid-teleport. Most of Angier stays behind where the residue would be, but a small mass apparent as a ghostly image is teleported. The result is two distinct minds with similar memories but with very different bodies.
At the end of the novel, the ghostly transported Angier is in fact still alive a century after the novel's main Victorian events. what happened to the 'most of Angier' that stayed behind when the teleporation was interrupted? the prestige material that is still most of the person? I think I read swhere that this is the corporeal Angier who persists in his life, but sickly, and dies soon after. The novel suggests that there is a psychic link btw the teleported body & the residual prestige material, such that each of the residues created may think and feel to some extent. so the movie just made this much more overt by making it a full copy of the man. but the idea of the self that suffers when left behind was there in the book. It makes the ending of the novel more haunting as we imagine he may have lost a part of his "soul" with each teleportation.
#imdb faq: What does Tesla's machine do?
It seems clear in the movie that the Tesla machine, whatever it was designed to do simply transport, results in two identical copies (including memories, personalities) of an object or being; one in the machine, one a short distance away.
There are three main possibilities. The original stays in the machine and a duplicate is created at the destination, the original is teleported and a duplicate is created within the machine, or the original is destroyed and two copies are created, one in the machine and the other at the destination.
___________________________________________________
.....may also want to look a bit more at imdb board looooong thread re alt ending. w spliff's answer wh I am happy to take as dfntv already included in 2nd top post. but am int ~rdg more re that last speech, re an alternate underst of th ending where indeed it is always & only illusion.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Alternative Ending Theory?
-Those interviews only state that there is a supernatural ~ superscientific element in the film. I don't think anyone denies this: it is claimed a teleportation device is invented. Whether this element is true within the story itself is debatable. huh? d n think this is a film vs book distinction so wh mean by 'within the story'?
Christian Bale http://www.media.christian-bale.org/view/15/good-morning-america-prest ige-october-18-2006 [video clip] puts forward an alternate view.
...............and look at other comments from directors (& maybe actors?) via the wkp footnote links, incl in first post.
+ imdb user cmmts = rvws.
+ az movie cust rvws.
+~ az book cust rvws. already a dlcs pgmrk (only Prestige dlcs mark thus far) for these: RLS: self. 2 contrasting estimatns of bk vs film. that may be sufficient for my int.
...& wkp re the film ~skim this - & note esp re reception:
Author Christopher Priest saw the film three times as of January 5, 2007, and his reaction was "'Well, holy shit.' I was thinking, 'God, I like that,' and 'Oh, I wish I'd thought of that.'" cool. [57]
.............and then I'll be done! oh and read the script. :) ok print it out tomorrow, pdf. I like the beginning, what Bale says, how they all speak. I like it. it really holds up to a second viewing. of course my first viewing was out of order (came in at middle of first airing in backtoback on FX) and disrupted as I switched channels. so this viewing on cmptr I saw several scenes for first time, all of wh seemed pivotal! or at lst v int., incl:
-Borden walking Sarah to door, saying goodbye, then being inside making tea.
-Cutter showing the machine to the judge.
-Angier walking off from Tesla's failed attempt to transport a cat, and finding outside a double (or two) of the cat (who better be okay!) among many many copies of his top-hat, which is what Tesla had previously repeatedly tried to transport. A shot of the many black hats on the mountainside was also the opening shot of the film, after title, in silence: really very good.
________________________
and after The Prestige, other to do:
#Lost epsd Namaste rxns:
sepinwall 150+ cmmts. tunedin cmmts. completely lost recap plus last few posts back to recap of LeFleur.
#TheMorningNews tournament of books.
maybe will find a 2008 novel of int to me among these, of wh the ones I've encountered have not ~yet appealed.
... The Prestige
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Am I the only one to have noticed this ...:
[why do people at the prison not recognize Lord Caldlow as Angier, the famous Great Danton?]
-Famous then and famous now are two completely different things! Unless you'd actually seen his show you'd probably have no idea who he was.
Spliff_The_Cimmerian Sat Jan 31 2009 06:39:43:
There's also the fact that, for obvious reasons, the movie exercises a bit of poetic license about disguises.
When Angier and the Bordens put on disguises, they have to look 'disguised' enough that we know the other characters aren't supposed to recognize them, but the movie audience also has to be able to tell who they are. They're deliberately 'disguised' in a way that leaves them recognizable to us. In the world of the movie, Lord Caldlow probably doesn't 'really' look quite so much like Angier.
The movie also performs a similar, but much more difficult, feat in the other direction when Hugh Jackman plays Root disguised as Angier. In those scenes, we in the movie audience have to be able to tell that Root is not Angier and yet be able to accept that the people attending Angier's show won't be able to spot the differences. (And incidentally, the fact that we see this happen supports both Orlando_Gardner's and Mentrilo's points: the movie establishes that Angier's audiences don't know the precise details of his appearance well enough to spot when he's using a double.) The fact that some viewers aren't certain it's really Jackman playing Root is a testimony to its success.
At that point in the movie, Jackman is pretending to be a man (Root) pretending to be a man (Lord Caldlow) pretending to be another man (Angier). Not only do he and the filmmakers pull it off amazingly well, that has to be some kind of record for "disguise depth."
-mad weather: Root pretends to be Angier, while "Angier" himself is a fictional persona of Caldlow's making.
yes Root is imitating the mannerisms & voice of Robert Angier, which we know is affectation assumed by Caldlow, inasmuch as at least the American accent is.
and, as a flourish to the observed disguise complexity: Root is pretending to be Angier (the false identity of Caldlow) in his stage persona of The Great Danton. but that, I suppose, is just a name, and not further depth.
but yes Spliff_The_Cimmerian goes on to note this as well in further post:
So Jackman the actor is playing a man Root who is serving as a double for a man Caldlow who is himself using a false identity Angier the Great Danton. Angier is also using his stage name at the time, so Jackman is playing Root posing as (Lord Caldlow pretending to be "Angier" performing under the name "The Great Danton").
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Who's side were you on?
Which one did you support throughout the movie? 11 page thread, w sympathies divided btw Angiers & Borden ~ fr skim of first & last page comments, no clear majority answer. good testament to the movie's & characters' compexity.
p7 -We start out thinking that Borden is the obsessive one and even a murderer, when in fact Angier is the most murderous. Borden tries to save Angier when he sees him drowning yes "Where's the key? where's the key?!", and has a lifelong dedication to the sacrifice that his art and act requires.
-I soon despised Angier, simply because of my personal taste: he the glamorous American stage performer, and Borden the hard working underdog, the wonderful magician and awful showman. he really was not an awful showman. he was quite good as the professor eg his interruption of Angier's show where he strung Root up & came out in his place, advertising his own show across the street. but ok this was after Olivia joined him, saying she could help him with showmanship, so I suppose we are to think this is to her credit. Until now I could see nothing but utter madness, cruelty, coldness, and obsession in him drowning a version of himself again and again, but what you write about him hating himself, too, for his obsession, and punishing himself by drowning the same way his wife did -- heck, this is so obvious, but I totally missed it. Magic.
p10 -Most of the time I was on Angier's side, bcs Borden killed his wife: intentional or not, it happened, so I understand Angier becoming consumed .
-By the end, I was definitely on Borden's (the one who loved Sarah) side. Albert (in the book, I take it), where the one who loved Olivia & died in the end was Freddy, and they lived in turns as Alfred.
-Did you ppl see how Borden (& his brother) treated his wife?? she killed herself bcs of it. How could you be on that guy's side?
p11 -The Borden brothers in the end each redeemed themselves. For the Bordens, magic takes sacrifice but Angier never sacrificed and always took the easy way out. In the end, Angier lost body and soul.
-Definitely Tesla. Because Edison was a badass thug.
[why do people at the prison not recognize Lord Caldlow as Angier, the famous Great Danton?]
-Famous then and famous now are two completely different things! Unless you'd actually seen his show you'd probably have no idea who he was.
Spliff_The_Cimmerian Sat Jan 31 2009 06:39:43:
There's also the fact that, for obvious reasons, the movie exercises a bit of poetic license about disguises.
When Angier and the Bordens put on disguises, they have to look 'disguised' enough that we know the other characters aren't supposed to recognize them, but the movie audience also has to be able to tell who they are. They're deliberately 'disguised' in a way that leaves them recognizable to us. In the world of the movie, Lord Caldlow probably doesn't 'really' look quite so much like Angier.
The movie also performs a similar, but much more difficult, feat in the other direction when Hugh Jackman plays Root disguised as Angier. In those scenes, we in the movie audience have to be able to tell that Root is not Angier and yet be able to accept that the people attending Angier's show won't be able to spot the differences. (And incidentally, the fact that we see this happen supports both Orlando_Gardner's and Mentrilo's points: the movie establishes that Angier's audiences don't know the precise details of his appearance well enough to spot when he's using a double.) The fact that some viewers aren't certain it's really Jackman playing Root is a testimony to its success.
At that point in the movie, Jackman is pretending to be a man (Root) pretending to be a man (Lord Caldlow) pretending to be another man (Angier). Not only do he and the filmmakers pull it off amazingly well, that has to be some kind of record for "disguise depth."
-mad weather: Root pretends to be Angier, while "Angier" himself is a fictional persona of Caldlow's making.
yes Root is imitating the mannerisms & voice of Robert Angier, which we know is affectation assumed by Caldlow, inasmuch as at least the American accent is.
and, as a flourish to the observed disguise complexity: Root is pretending to be Angier (the false identity of Caldlow) in his stage persona of The Great Danton. but that, I suppose, is just a name, and not further depth.
but yes Spliff_The_Cimmerian goes on to note this as well in further post:
So Jackman the actor is playing a man Root who is serving as a double for a man Caldlow who is himself using a false identity Angier the Great Danton. Angier is also using his stage name at the time, so Jackman is playing Root posing as (Lord Caldlow pretending to be "Angier" performing under the name "The Great Danton").
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Who's side were you on?
Which one did you support throughout the movie? 11 page thread, w sympathies divided btw Angiers & Borden ~ fr skim of first & last page comments, no clear majority answer. good testament to the movie's & characters' compexity.
p7 -We start out thinking that Borden is the obsessive one and even a murderer, when in fact Angier is the most murderous. Borden tries to save Angier when he sees him drowning yes "Where's the key? where's the key?!", and has a lifelong dedication to the sacrifice that his art and act requires.
-I soon despised Angier, simply because of my personal taste: he the glamorous American stage performer, and Borden the hard working underdog, the wonderful magician and awful showman. he really was not an awful showman. he was quite good as the professor eg his interruption of Angier's show where he strung Root up & came out in his place, advertising his own show across the street. but ok this was after Olivia joined him, saying she could help him with showmanship, so I suppose we are to think this is to her credit. Until now I could see nothing but utter madness, cruelty, coldness, and obsession in him drowning a version of himself again and again, but what you write about him hating himself, too, for his obsession, and punishing himself by drowning the same way his wife did -- heck, this is so obvious, but I totally missed it. Magic.
p10 -Most of the time I was on Angier's side, bcs Borden killed his wife: intentional or not, it happened, so I understand Angier becoming consumed .
-By the end, I was definitely on Borden's (the one who loved Sarah) side. Albert (in the book, I take it), where the one who loved Olivia & died in the end was Freddy, and they lived in turns as Alfred.
-Did you ppl see how Borden (& his brother) treated his wife?? she killed herself bcs of it. How could you be on that guy's side?
p11 -The Borden brothers in the end each redeemed themselves. For the Bordens, magic takes sacrifice but Angier never sacrificed and always took the easy way out. In the end, Angier lost body and soul.
-Definitely Tesla. Because Edison was a badass thug.
The Prestige (3rd post) ~ the world is solid all the way through
___________________________new The Prestive post: Ebert's rvw: good sum esp of beginning of film (the two chars working as fake volunteers in Ricky Jay's char's show, where Cutter is also working as manager~ illusion designer), int re actual magicians actually before he turns to the movie itself , Ebert's disappointment w the machine as real (sci-fi style) *not* an illusion.
The Prestige :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews
We meet two apprentice magicians, Robert Angier and Alfred Borden, who work as fake "volunteers" from the audience for Milton the Magician (the invaluable actual performing magician Ricky Jay). They assist in tying up a helpless damsel, in reality, Robert's wife, Julia (Piper Perabo) and lowering her into the Chinese Water Torture box. Concealed by curtains, she somehow escapes, as Houdini always did, but one night, Alfred ties her knots too tightly, she cannot escape, and by the time a manager (Michael Caine) rushes onstage with an ax, it is too late to save her from drowning.
This takes place in Victorian London, at a time and place where seances & magic were believed in by the credulous.
Somerset Maugham's novel The Magician captures that period perfectly in its fictional portrait of Aleister Crawley "the most evil man in the world" who created the illusion that he really was an occult practitioner of dark forces.
These days, when most of us are less superstitious, it is the technical craft of a David Copperfield that impresses us. We see the trick ie the feat? done, but do not for a moment believe it what we see (as a trick-magic or as a feat? I suppose Ebert is saying the latter. we do not believe he is capable of what we he see him to be doing) is happening.
Houdini, the great transitional figure between "magical" acts and ingenious tricks, was at pains to explain that everything he did was a trick; he offered rewards, never collected, for any "supernatural" act he could not explain. performed by him or by anyone? I assume the first (weren't there any others performing tricks he did not know the secret of? *a magician is a man with a secret*) so did Houdini actually explain all his tricks? I take it he did...
The Amazing Randi carries on in the same tradition, bending spoons as easily as Uri Geller. (how?)
And yet in Houdini's time, there were those who insisted he was doing real magic; how else could his effects be achieved? Daniel Mark Epstein wrote about the Houdini believers in a 1986 issue of the New Criterion, which I read as I read everything I can get my hands on about Houdini. huh. hm think I gave away my Adam Phillips book that was re Houdini, right? probably had int discussion of the performances (along with their use as a metaphor, juxtaposition w psychological performance 'magic tricks'). The thing was, Houdini really did free himself from those fetters & chains & sealed trunks dropped into the river how?! he explained?, and survived the Chinese Water Torture drowning tank (an effect used prominently in "The Prestige" night after night). But there were those who argued his tricks were physically impossible, and thus must be supernatural.
Houdini would have been active at the time of "The Prestige," but his insights would have been fatal to the movie's plot, which is the problem with the plot. ~nah. his insight, that the world is solid all through, is the point-of-view of the movie. it is all tricks, devices, the creation of illusions. that's even still Angier's point-of-view at the end, his final speech.
Ebert just d n like that movie includes *the introduction* into this point-of-view of a machine wh can do sth previously not tht possible (transportation by-and duplication). so, right, the Real Transported Man is not an illusion: the machine actually causes Angier to appear on the balcony, transported 50 yards in 1 second. but this does not change the point-of-view of the characters. it is a new fact introduced, encountered by them.
One can imagine Houdini discovering a physical (as here, electrical) capability not prvsly known.
It is not made impossible to discover sth just because one does not expect it, does not think it will be possible.
that's my point, over against Ebert.
and of course, more largely, this goes to one of my old fvr points, my old over against almost everybody points: the world that includes such a machine is still 'solid all the way through' as much as it ever was. electricity. gravity. which Newton could not believe was actually action at a distance, and therefore posited a fluid medium conveying the action, despite having no other reason to conceive of such a medium, other than to save his notion that all action is mediate, is through apparent matter. but how is one thing moving another by touching it any less 'magic' than moving it without touching it? only in that we've seen the former, we are used to it. Chesterton: fairy tales say rivers run with wine to make us realize it's remarkable that rivers run with water. the boy blows a horn and the witch disappears, and we do not imagine that this cause & effect is sth we can understand. like any cause & effect, we can only describe. we think that if we have described a mechanism, we have reduced it to something non-magic. but we have only reduced it to something we are used to: this gear moved this gear. but how does anything touch, how does anything move anything? describe: this does this which does this. how? the final answer is always: because that is how the world is. how we find the world to be.
and we discover new aspects of how the world is -magnetism, electricity, gravity- and we may call these new aspects 'magic' until we have described the actions we witness in terms of aspects of the world we are already familiar with. and then once we have described, we say that it is simple, solid all the way through. and it is, just as much as it is not-solid all the way through. Newton wants to explain all force as a quality of 'matter'. but could just as well, and I even prefer (since thinking at it this way d n puport to be the obvious, nautral, only way), to explain all matter as force. (whatshisname: Boscovich? ~ force atoms) you feel the table because it resists you reaching your hand down through it. it holds the drinkglass set on it bcs of the same ~upward pressure. you see the table because of an effect it has on your eyes. your experience of the table is because of its powers, its force, what it does. or you can call this its 'thereness' but that does not make it any simpler. matter is force, force matter.
"beauty is truth, truth beauty." ~to mind as a parallel just of cadence, though I suppose if wanted to could make the analogy btw supposedly simple beauty-matter and supposedly underlying truth-force. what you suppose is (conceive of as) the apparent aspect and what you suppose is (conceive of as) the underlying aspect are not always (stimes there is a distinction to be made, a mask on a face, one really is the outer and one the underlying) but often the same. matter, force. appearance, truth. it is what it is.
what is, is. *that* is as close to a final answer as I always, always come to.
________
imdb faq: Why do people suggest that the Nolans cheated in this film?
R.J. Carter, a science fiction author, describes being cheated more explicitly than Ebert does.
Carter's review of the DVD: "So why do I feel cheated?... Because after committing so much time and faith to the plot, I find out that the story is one of science fiction. Don't get me wrong: I love a good science fiction story; just tell me in advance." you want to know in advance if the story is going to include sth as possible that is not possible in our world. fair enough I suppose. I do note again that the characters in the movie encounter it in the same way we do, as sth they do not know & do not believe to be possible, until they encounter it.
The Prestige :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews
We meet two apprentice magicians, Robert Angier and Alfred Borden, who work as fake "volunteers" from the audience for Milton the Magician (the invaluable actual performing magician Ricky Jay). They assist in tying up a helpless damsel, in reality, Robert's wife, Julia (Piper Perabo) and lowering her into the Chinese Water Torture box. Concealed by curtains, she somehow escapes, as Houdini always did, but one night, Alfred ties her knots too tightly, she cannot escape, and by the time a manager (Michael Caine) rushes onstage with an ax, it is too late to save her from drowning.
This takes place in Victorian London, at a time and place where seances & magic were believed in by the credulous.
Somerset Maugham's novel The Magician captures that period perfectly in its fictional portrait of Aleister Crawley "the most evil man in the world" who created the illusion that he really was an occult practitioner of dark forces.
These days, when most of us are less superstitious, it is the technical craft of a David Copperfield that impresses us. We see the trick ie the feat? done, but do not for a moment believe it what we see (as a trick-magic or as a feat? I suppose Ebert is saying the latter. we do not believe he is capable of what we he see him to be doing) is happening.
Houdini, the great transitional figure between "magical" acts and ingenious tricks, was at pains to explain that everything he did was a trick; he offered rewards, never collected, for any "supernatural" act he could not explain. performed by him or by anyone? I assume the first (weren't there any others performing tricks he did not know the secret of? *a magician is a man with a secret*) so did Houdini actually explain all his tricks? I take it he did...
The Amazing Randi carries on in the same tradition, bending spoons as easily as Uri Geller. (how?)
And yet in Houdini's time, there were those who insisted he was doing real magic; how else could his effects be achieved? Daniel Mark Epstein wrote about the Houdini believers in a 1986 issue of the New Criterion, which I read as I read everything I can get my hands on about Houdini. huh. hm think I gave away my Adam Phillips book that was re Houdini, right? probably had int discussion of the performances (along with their use as a metaphor, juxtaposition w psychological performance 'magic tricks'). The thing was, Houdini really did free himself from those fetters & chains & sealed trunks dropped into the river how?! he explained?, and survived the Chinese Water Torture drowning tank (an effect used prominently in "The Prestige" night after night). But there were those who argued his tricks were physically impossible, and thus must be supernatural.
Houdini would have been active at the time of "The Prestige," but his insights would have been fatal to the movie's plot, which is the problem with the plot. ~nah. his insight, that the world is solid all through, is the point-of-view of the movie. it is all tricks, devices, the creation of illusions. that's even still Angier's point-of-view at the end, his final speech.
Ebert just d n like that movie includes *the introduction* into this point-of-view of a machine wh can do sth previously not tht possible (transportation by-and duplication). so, right, the Real Transported Man is not an illusion: the machine actually causes Angier to appear on the balcony, transported 50 yards in 1 second. but this does not change the point-of-view of the characters. it is a new fact introduced, encountered by them.
One can imagine Houdini discovering a physical (as here, electrical) capability not prvsly known.
It is not made impossible to discover sth just because one does not expect it, does not think it will be possible.
that's my point, over against Ebert.
and of course, more largely, this goes to one of my old fvr points, my old over against almost everybody points: the world that includes such a machine is still 'solid all the way through' as much as it ever was. electricity. gravity. which Newton could not believe was actually action at a distance, and therefore posited a fluid medium conveying the action, despite having no other reason to conceive of such a medium, other than to save his notion that all action is mediate, is through apparent matter. but how is one thing moving another by touching it any less 'magic' than moving it without touching it? only in that we've seen the former, we are used to it. Chesterton: fairy tales say rivers run with wine to make us realize it's remarkable that rivers run with water. the boy blows a horn and the witch disappears, and we do not imagine that this cause & effect is sth we can understand. like any cause & effect, we can only describe. we think that if we have described a mechanism, we have reduced it to something non-magic. but we have only reduced it to something we are used to: this gear moved this gear. but how does anything touch, how does anything move anything? describe: this does this which does this. how? the final answer is always: because that is how the world is. how we find the world to be.
and we discover new aspects of how the world is -magnetism, electricity, gravity- and we may call these new aspects 'magic' until we have described the actions we witness in terms of aspects of the world we are already familiar with. and then once we have described, we say that it is simple, solid all the way through. and it is, just as much as it is not-solid all the way through. Newton wants to explain all force as a quality of 'matter'. but could just as well, and I even prefer (since thinking at it this way d n puport to be the obvious, nautral, only way), to explain all matter as force. (whatshisname: Boscovich? ~ force atoms) you feel the table because it resists you reaching your hand down through it. it holds the drinkglass set on it bcs of the same ~upward pressure. you see the table because of an effect it has on your eyes. your experience of the table is because of its powers, its force, what it does. or you can call this its 'thereness' but that does not make it any simpler. matter is force, force matter.
"beauty is truth, truth beauty." ~to mind as a parallel just of cadence, though I suppose if wanted to could make the analogy btw supposedly simple beauty-matter and supposedly underlying truth-force. what you suppose is (conceive of as) the apparent aspect and what you suppose is (conceive of as) the underlying aspect are not always (stimes there is a distinction to be made, a mask on a face, one really is the outer and one the underlying) but often the same. matter, force. appearance, truth. it is what it is.
what is, is. *that* is as close to a final answer as I always, always come to.
________
imdb faq: Why do people suggest that the Nolans cheated in this film?
R.J. Carter, a science fiction author, describes being cheated more explicitly than Ebert does.
Carter's review of the DVD: "So why do I feel cheated?... Because after committing so much time and faith to the plot, I find out that the story is one of science fiction. Don't get me wrong: I love a good science fiction story; just tell me in advance." you want to know in advance if the story is going to include sth as possible that is not possible in our world. fair enough I suppose. I do note again that the characters in the movie encounter it in the same way we do, as sth they do not know & do not believe to be possible, until they encounter it.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Prestige (2nd post) ~ answers
The Prestige (2006) - FAQ:
Magnifique! the movie, and these answers (satisfying all my questions?! that I noted in prvs post)
#Are there alternative theories for Angier's trick?
The surprising answer is yes. Many of the things presented within the film can be viewed as ambiguous, even though most do not see it as the intent of the filmmakers. This raises a question better left for the boards, whether it should be seen as their intent or why we would want to.
In interviews it has been suggested that the movie is meant to be ambiguous. There is an article here which supports the premise of the idea of alternate interpretations:
#How can the movie be explained without a duplicator? oh good. ie the alternative theory:
This question is frequently asked on the boards and debated, making many wonder if this was the Nolan brother's intent in creating the film. In this theory:
Borden never met Tesla, but sends the gullible Angier on a wild-goose chase to America
The money-strapped Tesla sees how gullible that Angier is and decides to con him out of some money.Tesla strings Angier along taking his money and showing him a light show with the Tesla coil, until Angier starts to suspect and then they use the cat to lead Angier to the field. The hats and the cat in the field are placed there by either Tesla or Alley to try and convince Angier (after he is lead there) that the machine duplicated. When Tesla believes that he has milked all the money he can out of Angier he gives him the machine.
Angier realizing he was conned, decides to convince Borden of the same con, believing that if he could convince Borden the trick was not an illusion but "real magic" it would prove that Angier was the better illusionist.
He works up a better trick, using the device and presumably a double. but of course nothing in film suggests that he does get another double to work with him here.
He plans the trick and also has dummies in tanks created well this is the implausible bit , hoping that the curious Borden, would follow the tanks to the warehouse and see the "corpses on display" and suspect duplication. ~ well not totally implausible if figure there is only one double and the drowned corpses are wax. but then how is there a living man drowning in the tank when Borden sneaks beneath the stage?* well:
In addition, he plans a secondary trick for Borden, in case he goes backstage. If Borden investigates during the act, Angier plans on killing the double, believing that Borden would be found guilty even if the jury only believed it was accidental, caused by sabotage. It did not even matter to him if the dead body was identified as him or a double.
Cutter identifies the dead body as Angier's, so Angier decides to remain "hidden" and moves on in his real life as Lord Caldlow. [see next question]
When Borden is in jail, Angier again tries to convince Borden of the "duplication", by providing a journal which suggests how Tesla created a duplicating machine. Borden is never convinced, realizes he was conned, and is hanged.
Borden's twin (who were both taking turns as "Borden" and "Fallon") goes to the warehouse and shoots Angier. Angier finally realizes the simplicity of Borden's trick. Angier realizes he is dying and has lost so tells Borden how his goal was always to make the audience believe in the magic and try and forget that it was only an illusion. always and only an illusion.no I think this theory is not supported by the film. a shame, bcs this last speech of Angier's is suggestive, and yes it wld be int if somehow even this teleportation-dupication machine is an illusion, with a simple mechanism: solid all the way through.
#How did Angier became Lord Caldlow?
The truth is that, as he explains near the end, he was always Lord Caldlow. Early on in the film Angier's wife says that he is living a double life. ah very good. Angier responds to this by saying that he only did that to "spare my family the embarassment of my theatrical interests." Angier is the heir to the Caldlow name. He adopted the identity of Robert Angier a supposed American because he wanted to pursue a career in magic and such a career would have embarrassed his aristocratic family. At the end of the film he simply reclaims his original identity. Also, note that at his wife's suggestion of calling himself The Great Danton he seems to takes offense at being associated with the French, which would likely be more of an insult to an Englishman rather than an American in the period in which the film is set. Also, during his wife's funeral Angier's accent noticeably slips from American to English proving a further clue to his real identity.
#What did Cutter mean when he told the judge that the machine is real and has no trick?
At this early point in the film, Nolan is trying to convince the audience that the machine is a real teleporter. Ackerman who? is also used later to further this misdirection. The movie is suggesting that Cutter knows the secret of the trick, that the machine can truly teleport a person. This is actually a red herring and is done to the audience so that they will be surprised when Nolan reveals at the end that Cutter (and Ackerman) had been fooled by the trick and that the machine was not a teleporter but actually was a DUPLICATOR and that Angier was drowning a duplicate for every performance of the trick. (unless he wasn't, and it was neither a teleporter nor a duplicator per the alternate theory above, but no that theory not plausible in film as is~. and so the contention here is that Cutter believes the machine to be *only* a transporter when in fact it is a transporter& duplicator: it can only transport at the same time as it duplicates, which Angiers deals with by killing the untransported one of the two resulting Angiers)
*re alternate theory IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Alternative Ending Theory?:
Spliff_The_Cimmerian Tue Nov 11 2008 06:04:35 first rate answer:
I'd say it can be disproven. If nothing else, there's the flashback scene in which one Angier shoots the other. That scene isn't narrated in a diary/notebook (Angier deliberately stops just short of that scene in his diary narrative) and it doesn't illustrate anything Angier is saying to Borden, nor does it make sense as anything either character is thinking. (It might make sense as something Angier is remembering, but in that case it really happened.) Even if we decide to distrust all the other evidence, that one scene nails it down: it's a veridical flashback for the benefit of the audience, just like the corresponding veridical flashbacks of the Bordens and their secret.
________________
#What were Borden's last words?
Right before Borden is hanged he mumbles "Abracadabra".
#What is the truth of Borden's Trick?
There is a suggestion introduced into the film that Borden may have met Tesla and had a device, but we are shown that this is a misdirection by the Bordens. By the end of the film it is clear that Borden and Fallon are identical twins who have been trading off lives and performing the Transported Man trick in a conventional manner involving no supernatural explanations.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Borden and Fallon:
-Upon additional viewings, are we supposed to be able to tell what Borden twin is on screen in every scene? Some of the scenes are clear because they involve Sarah and Olivia. But some not so much-other than the fact that the Borden twin who had the affair with Olivia is much more hotheaded and gets them into trouble most of the time. Is there anything else unique to one but not the other?
Spliff_The_Cimmerian 5 days ago Sat Mar 14 2009 17:03:33: very very good answers
It's possible to tell with a high degree of probability which one is which in any given scene cool, although there are one or two about which there's no consensus and there are arguments on each side. Basically, in my opinion:
The one who loves Olivia is the more headstrong and reckless one, more adept at performing tricks oh ok he's the better performer bcs more bold but not as good at figuring out how to do them. He's
the one who ties the Langford Double on the night Julia drowns,
the one who chisels off his fingers,
the one who is buried alive
and the one who sneaks below stage at Angier's show and is hanged as a result. ah well it's nice that it is the ~nicer, quieter lover of Sarah who is united with daughter at end:
The one who loves Sarah is the ingenieur of the act, the one who works out how to do tricks and how other magicians do them, but who (at least initially) isn't quite as adept at performing them. He's
the one who says he doesn't know which knot was tied,
the one who gets his fingers shot off by Angier,
the one who tells Angier that "Tesla" is the key to his trick*,
and the one who tells his brother to leave Angier to his trick. and is united with daughter at end.
*my impression is vice-versa re burial scene, such that: it's the brash, loud, lover of Olivia who meets with Angier "I'm impressed. You finally got your hands dirty." and writes Tesla (yes yes this fits with the reveal at end of his journal that he told Olivia to give Angiers the journal, and rid thmslvs of Angiers by sending him on a wild goose chase to the States to find Tesla. not only is the brash Borden twin the one likely to come up with that plan, he is the one who loves Olivia & would be arranging this with her) on the paper he gives to Angier in exchange for 'Fallon': "where's my ingenue?" he's not lying, it really is his ingenieur who is buried. (whichever Borden might refer to Fallon as his ingenieur, but it's only accurate when it's the brash fellow as Borden and the quieter ingenius fellow as Fallon.)
what's clear is that it is the brash fellow that evening who has dinner with and offends Sarah. and I think when he says that he had an ordeal that day, he tht he lost sth v precious to him, he means his brother & ingenieur (perhaps wh is so precious is his own ability to do the transported man trick, and his brother's ingenuity. but maybe that is cynical and what is precious to him is his brother himself. no, I think more the former aspect is what he is referring to. but of course all aspects are involved). by Spliff's conception, when he says he tht he'd lost sth v precious, he means his own life.
You can work out who's who in most of the other scenes. Most of the exceptions don't matter, but one of them is an important scene: the one in which Borden says "It's the wrong knot" and insists that the Langford Double "will hold tighter." I think that's the brother who loves Sarah (the ingenieur proposing what he thinks is the better knot even though he's not as adept at tying them; remember he "dropped the knot" in the performance that night). But there are good arguments for each one.
-I've heard people saying Borden had a duplicate rather than a twin, and vice versa, which is true? Now if he had a twin that would make sense given the fact of what he said about the chinese magician. BUT I have further questions:
1. Which Borden tied the knot?
2. Which Borden attended the funeral and why didn't he know what knot he tied? good was he stressed or was it not him tied it?
3. If Tesla is the method and cypher for his journal than that leads us to believe he has met Tesla since he was at one of his shows. If not then is he simply an admirer of Tesla or did he duplicate himself at one point in time?
4. When Borden and his twin are cracking their heads over Angier's trick which is which?
5. Whats the relation between Borden and Tesla? and why send Angier all the to Colorado?
Spliff_The_Cimmerian 2 days ago Tue Mar 17 2009 15:24:45:
1. Most of us are pretty sure it's the Borden who loves Olivia who ties the knot . . .
2. . . . and the other brother who attends the funeral, and genuinely doesn't know which knot was tied.
3. Angier and (one) Borden do attend one of Tesla's shows, but only to get ideas for how to capture the imagination of a public increasingly fascinated by scientific wizardry. As for duplication, there are already two Bordens from the beginning, while they're working for Milton with Cutter, Angier, and Julia; we see them do an early version of their trick at Sarah's apartment.
4. I think the Borden shouting Why can't you out-think him? is the one who loves Olivia. It's the one who loves Sarah who's good at figuring out both how to do tricks and how other magicians do them.
5. There's no relationship between the Bordens and Tesla; they just know that Angier will accept Tesla as a plausible explanation of their teleportation trick (because he really is a plausible explanation of it). good, okay. They send him to Colorado to get him out of their hair for a while, and since they believe he's American, they probably hope he'll just stay there.
>IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Big plot hole (spoiler) x 2: So Angier was tricked to go to Tesla to get him out of the way - send him all the way to America on a wild goose chase by planting that information in his diary. But then Tesla actually creates a cloning device? Quite the lucky coincidence there I think. that was my concern. but I find the answers here satisfying:
Spliff_The_Cimmerian 21 minutes ago Fri Mar 20 2009 16:52:04:
Well, sort of, but not quite. The Bordens sent Angier to Tesla because Tesla was the one man in the world who really might be able to build a working teleporter; they knew Angier would accept him as a plausible explanation because he really was one. They just didn't count on his actually building one.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Big plot hole (spoiler) x 2 Mentrilo:
It is a coincidence. But not a great stretch as such. In Victorian times electricity was a new frontier. For many people the possibilities were endless. They actually believed electricity could be used to teleportation, it could help them fly, it could do anything.
Obviously we know now that isn't the case. But at the time, while it was thought everything was possible, it wasn't thought by everyone. I'm sure Borden thought it was a flight of fancy, that it was impossible to actually teleport.
However, he needed to pick a person who Angier would believe was capable, and if anyone in those times would be a believable source of teleportation, it would have been Tesla.
Magnifique! the movie, and these answers (satisfying all my questions?! that I noted in prvs post)
#Are there alternative theories for Angier's trick?
The surprising answer is yes. Many of the things presented within the film can be viewed as ambiguous, even though most do not see it as the intent of the filmmakers. This raises a question better left for the boards, whether it should be seen as their intent or why we would want to.
In interviews it has been suggested that the movie is meant to be ambiguous. There is an article here which supports the premise of the idea of alternate interpretations:
Some of the more popular theories involve whether or not the machine actually duplicates since there is nothing within the film that requires a working duplicator, everything can be explained presuming the machine is simply a prop. Thus there are some who believe that Nolan intended the twist to be that the machine is a prop.
As he wrote, [Jonathan] Nolan never shied away from letting the audience draw their own conclusions about all that is going on in the raging battle between Angier and Borden. I love contentious stuff, he admits. Chris and I still argue about aspects of Memento and we've had arguments about The Prestige as well.
#How can the movie be explained without a duplicator? oh good. ie the alternative theory:
This question is frequently asked on the boards and debated, making many wonder if this was the Nolan brother's intent in creating the film. In this theory:
Borden never met Tesla, but sends the gullible Angier on a wild-goose chase to America
The money-strapped Tesla sees how gullible that Angier is and decides to con him out of some money.Tesla strings Angier along taking his money and showing him a light show with the Tesla coil, until Angier starts to suspect and then they use the cat to lead Angier to the field. The hats and the cat in the field are placed there by either Tesla or Alley to try and convince Angier (after he is lead there) that the machine duplicated. When Tesla believes that he has milked all the money he can out of Angier he gives him the machine.
Angier realizing he was conned, decides to convince Borden of the same con, believing that if he could convince Borden the trick was not an illusion but "real magic" it would prove that Angier was the better illusionist.
He works up a better trick, using the device and presumably a double. but of course nothing in film suggests that he does get another double to work with him here.
He plans the trick and also has dummies in tanks created well this is the implausible bit , hoping that the curious Borden, would follow the tanks to the warehouse and see the "corpses on display" and suspect duplication. ~ well not totally implausible if figure there is only one double and the drowned corpses are wax. but then how is there a living man drowning in the tank when Borden sneaks beneath the stage?* well:
In addition, he plans a secondary trick for Borden, in case he goes backstage. If Borden investigates during the act, Angier plans on killing the double, believing that Borden would be found guilty even if the jury only believed it was accidental, caused by sabotage. It did not even matter to him if the dead body was identified as him or a double.
Cutter identifies the dead body as Angier's, so Angier decides to remain "hidden" and moves on in his real life as Lord Caldlow. [see next question]
When Borden is in jail, Angier again tries to convince Borden of the "duplication", by providing a journal which suggests how Tesla created a duplicating machine. Borden is never convinced, realizes he was conned, and is hanged.
Borden's twin (who were both taking turns as "Borden" and "Fallon") goes to the warehouse and shoots Angier. Angier finally realizes the simplicity of Borden's trick. Angier realizes he is dying and has lost so tells Borden how his goal was always to make the audience believe in the magic and try and forget that it was only an illusion. always and only an illusion.no I think this theory is not supported by the film. a shame, bcs this last speech of Angier's is suggestive, and yes it wld be int if somehow even this teleportation-dupication machine is an illusion, with a simple mechanism: solid all the way through.
#How did Angier became Lord Caldlow?
The truth is that, as he explains near the end, he was always Lord Caldlow. Early on in the film Angier's wife says that he is living a double life. ah very good. Angier responds to this by saying that he only did that to "spare my family the embarassment of my theatrical interests." Angier is the heir to the Caldlow name. He adopted the identity of Robert Angier a supposed American because he wanted to pursue a career in magic and such a career would have embarrassed his aristocratic family. At the end of the film he simply reclaims his original identity. Also, note that at his wife's suggestion of calling himself The Great Danton he seems to takes offense at being associated with the French, which would likely be more of an insult to an Englishman rather than an American in the period in which the film is set. Also, during his wife's funeral Angier's accent noticeably slips from American to English proving a further clue to his real identity.
#What did Cutter mean when he told the judge that the machine is real and has no trick?
At this early point in the film, Nolan is trying to convince the audience that the machine is a real teleporter. Ackerman who? is also used later to further this misdirection. The movie is suggesting that Cutter knows the secret of the trick, that the machine can truly teleport a person. This is actually a red herring and is done to the audience so that they will be surprised when Nolan reveals at the end that Cutter (and Ackerman) had been fooled by the trick and that the machine was not a teleporter but actually was a DUPLICATOR and that Angier was drowning a duplicate for every performance of the trick. (unless he wasn't, and it was neither a teleporter nor a duplicator per the alternate theory above, but no that theory not plausible in film as is~. and so the contention here is that Cutter believes the machine to be *only* a transporter when in fact it is a transporter& duplicator: it can only transport at the same time as it duplicates, which Angiers deals with by killing the untransported one of the two resulting Angiers)
*re alternate theory IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Alternative Ending Theory?:
Spliff_The_Cimmerian Tue Nov 11 2008 06:04:35 first rate answer:
I'd say it can be disproven. If nothing else, there's the flashback scene in which one Angier shoots the other. That scene isn't narrated in a diary/notebook (Angier deliberately stops just short of that scene in his diary narrative) and it doesn't illustrate anything Angier is saying to Borden, nor does it make sense as anything either character is thinking. (It might make sense as something Angier is remembering, but in that case it really happened.) Even if we decide to distrust all the other evidence, that one scene nails it down: it's a veridical flashback for the benefit of the audience, just like the corresponding veridical flashbacks of the Bordens and their secret.
________________
#What were Borden's last words?
Right before Borden is hanged he mumbles "Abracadabra".
#What is the truth of Borden's Trick?
There is a suggestion introduced into the film that Borden may have met Tesla and had a device, but we are shown that this is a misdirection by the Bordens. By the end of the film it is clear that Borden and Fallon are identical twins who have been trading off lives and performing the Transported Man trick in a conventional manner involving no supernatural explanations.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Borden and Fallon:
-Upon additional viewings, are we supposed to be able to tell what Borden twin is on screen in every scene? Some of the scenes are clear because they involve Sarah and Olivia. But some not so much-other than the fact that the Borden twin who had the affair with Olivia is much more hotheaded and gets them into trouble most of the time. Is there anything else unique to one but not the other?
Spliff_The_Cimmerian 5 days ago Sat Mar 14 2009 17:03:33: very very good answers
It's possible to tell with a high degree of probability which one is which in any given scene cool, although there are one or two about which there's no consensus and there are arguments on each side. Basically, in my opinion:
The one who loves Olivia is the more headstrong and reckless one, more adept at performing tricks oh ok he's the better performer bcs more bold but not as good at figuring out how to do them. He's
the one who ties the Langford Double on the night Julia drowns,
the one who chisels off his fingers,
the one who is buried alive
and the one who sneaks below stage at Angier's show and is hanged as a result. ah well it's nice that it is the ~nicer, quieter lover of Sarah who is united with daughter at end:
The one who loves Sarah is the ingenieur of the act, the one who works out how to do tricks and how other magicians do them, but who (at least initially) isn't quite as adept at performing them. He's
the one who says he doesn't know which knot was tied,
the one who gets his fingers shot off by Angier,
and the one who tells his brother to leave Angier to his trick. and is united with daughter at end.
*my impression is vice-versa re burial scene, such that: it's the brash, loud, lover of Olivia who meets with Angier "I'm impressed. You finally got your hands dirty." and writes Tesla (yes yes this fits with the reveal at end of his journal that he told Olivia to give Angiers the journal, and rid thmslvs of Angiers by sending him on a wild goose chase to the States to find Tesla. not only is the brash Borden twin the one likely to come up with that plan, he is the one who loves Olivia & would be arranging this with her) on the paper he gives to Angier in exchange for 'Fallon': "where's my ingenue?" he's not lying, it really is his ingenieur who is buried. (whichever Borden might refer to Fallon as his ingenieur, but it's only accurate when it's the brash fellow as Borden and the quieter ingenius fellow as Fallon.)
what's clear is that it is the brash fellow that evening who has dinner with and offends Sarah. and I think when he says that he had an ordeal that day, he tht he lost sth v precious to him, he means his brother & ingenieur (perhaps wh is so precious is his own ability to do the transported man trick, and his brother's ingenuity. but maybe that is cynical and what is precious to him is his brother himself. no, I think more the former aspect is what he is referring to. but of course all aspects are involved). by Spliff's conception, when he says he tht he'd lost sth v precious, he means his own life.
You can work out who's who in most of the other scenes. Most of the exceptions don't matter, but one of them is an important scene: the one in which Borden says "It's the wrong knot" and insists that the Langford Double "will hold tighter." I think that's the brother who loves Sarah (the ingenieur proposing what he thinks is the better knot even though he's not as adept at tying them; remember he "dropped the knot" in the performance that night). But there are good arguments for each one.
-I've heard people saying Borden had a duplicate rather than a twin, and vice versa, which is true? Now if he had a twin that would make sense given the fact of what he said about the chinese magician. BUT I have further questions:
1. Which Borden tied the knot?
2. Which Borden attended the funeral and why didn't he know what knot he tied? good was he stressed or was it not him tied it?
3. If Tesla is the method and cypher for his journal than that leads us to believe he has met Tesla since he was at one of his shows. If not then is he simply an admirer of Tesla or did he duplicate himself at one point in time?
4. When Borden and his twin are cracking their heads over Angier's trick which is which?
5. Whats the relation between Borden and Tesla? and why send Angier all the to Colorado?
Spliff_The_Cimmerian 2 days ago Tue Mar 17 2009 15:24:45:
1. Most of us are pretty sure it's the Borden who loves Olivia who ties the knot . . .
2. . . . and the other brother who attends the funeral, and genuinely doesn't know which knot was tied.
3. Angier and (one) Borden do attend one of Tesla's shows, but only to get ideas for how to capture the imagination of a public increasingly fascinated by scientific wizardry. As for duplication, there are already two Bordens from the beginning, while they're working for Milton with Cutter, Angier, and Julia; we see them do an early version of their trick at Sarah's apartment.
4. I think the Borden shouting Why can't you out-think him? is the one who loves Olivia. It's the one who loves Sarah who's good at figuring out both how to do tricks and how other magicians do them.
5. There's no relationship between the Bordens and Tesla; they just know that Angier will accept Tesla as a plausible explanation of their teleportation trick (because he really is a plausible explanation of it). good, okay. They send him to Colorado to get him out of their hair for a while, and since they believe he's American, they probably hope he'll just stay there.
>IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Big plot hole (spoiler) x 2: So Angier was tricked to go to Tesla to get him out of the way - send him all the way to America on a wild goose chase by planting that information in his diary. But then Tesla actually creates a cloning device? Quite the lucky coincidence there I think. that was my concern. but I find the answers here satisfying:
Spliff_The_Cimmerian 21 minutes ago Fri Mar 20 2009 16:52:04:
Well, sort of, but not quite. The Bordens sent Angier to Tesla because Tesla was the one man in the world who really might be able to build a working teleporter; they knew Angier would accept him as a plausible explanation because he really was one. They just didn't count on his actually building one.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Big plot hole (spoiler) x 2 Mentrilo:
It is a coincidence. But not a great stretch as such. In Victorian times electricity was a new frontier. For many people the possibilities were endless. They actually believed electricity could be used to teleportation, it could help them fly, it could do anything.
Obviously we know now that isn't the case. But at the time, while it was thought everything was possible, it wasn't thought by everyone. I'm sure Borden thought it was a flight of fancy, that it was impossible to actually teleport.
However, he needed to pick a person who Angier would believe was capable, and if anyone in those times would be a believable source of teleportation, it would have been Tesla.
The Prestige (1st post) ~ encounter, notes, qstns
The Prestige (2006) - imdb
see comments, boards, and especially the FAQ
aired on FX last nite. really rather fine. int frame-telling, moving from trial to earlier, and the two journals, mostly following Jackman as Angier ~ but sometimes from Bordens point of view? and fine actors. and the story: the two men, their similarities and differences* ~ doubles ~ magic ~ have to live your act (the old 'china man' who has pretended all his life to be a cripple) ~ the man who does not tell his wife he is not one man.
The Prestige - tvguide: Memento director Christopher Nolan's dark, dazzling head-trip of a movie, adapted from Christopher Priest’s 1995 novel, revolves around two turn-of-the-century magicians trapped in a lifelong game of increasingly dangerous one-upmanship. Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale and Michael Caine star.
it's a book! great. that's what I want, to read it. although maybe the screenplay too. I'm int in the telling. and I have qstns re the story...
az - The Prestige (2006 film) - starring Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Piper Perabo, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, David Bowie
427 customer reviews)
az- The Prestige -by Christopher Priest |Books
Priest writes of a pair of rival magicians in turn-of-the-century London. Each has a winning trick the other craves, but so arcane is the nature of these tricks, so incredibly difficult are they to perform, that they take on a peculiar life of their own?in one case involving a mysterious apparent double identity, in the other a reliance on the ferocious powers unleashed in the early experimental years of electricity.
(92 customer reviews)
az- The Prestige - Screenplay by Jonathan Nolan (Author), Christopher Nolan (Author)
key phrases: machine sputters, abandoned theatre, beneath the stage, Great Danton, Transported Man, Lord Caldlow ...
In late nineteenth-century England, two stage illusionists are drawn into a match of wits, each desiring to annihilate the reputation of the other. Upper-class Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) enjoys worldwide fame, while cockney Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) is his most ardent rival. Their antagonism is also a mutual fascination, but the competition between them leads to evermore dangerous acts of conjuring. When Angier raises the stakes by consulting scientist Nikola Tesla (David Bowie), the potential for a deadly reckoning draws near.
1 cust rvw: One of the best scripts I have read. A page turner with great visuals. Captivating from page one. One can only hope it transfers to the screen with the same brilliance.
The Prestige - Wkp:
Synopsis:
... Borden develops an act called The Transported Man, and an improved version named The New Transported Man, which appears to move him from one closed cabinet to another in the blink of an eye to catch the bouncing rubberball he released before stepping into the one cabinet (and in Angier's first performance, his top hat) and without appearing to pass through the intervening space.
2006 film adaptation:
The complex journal-within-a-journal structure of the novel was consciously translated to the screen as a non-linear, flashback narrative set as three acts to mirror the three acts of a magic trick.[3][4][5] wow I was impressed with the structure without even yet having noticed organized in three acts. So: we have a frame: beginning & ending at same point, with Cutter showing magic to Borden's daughter. and flashbacks, and journal within journal. *and* a three act structure of Pledge, Turn, Prestige? what in the movie constitutes The Turn? Angier's apparent drowning in the tank I suppose. and then we have his prestige, but the real prestige is Borden's ~ The film is thematically faithful to the novel, many plot and structural changes were made, most notably the removal of a subplot involving Spiritualism and the replacement of the novel's modern-day frame story [The frame story involves the great-grandchildren of Borden and Angier and their investigations into how their own lives have been affected by their ancestors' conflict. The events of the past are revealed primarily through each of the magicians' diaries] with Borden's wait for the gallows. good choice, d n need modern day grandchildren coming into this telling.
Also the effect of Tesla's device is changed: the body left behind does not die so in the book it dies? ~seems from elsewh that in the book is not a full 'clone' but a ghostly remnant (sth left behind when Angier is transported. so the device in the books is a transporter & not also a duplicator.), so it has to be killed every night by plunging it into a water-tank below the stage..[2] ooh well that is perhaps the most intriguing part (esp alongside Borden-Fallon two live as one): the thought of killing oneself-as-other and as dying having been killed by oneself-as-other. it's not you, at this moment, you are only the one. but the other in every way is you until this moment when became two. and yet the you that kills does not feel the death of the you that dies. the self-other distinction is no less absolute, although *this* other has the distinction of being yourself. ***
my notes, upon starting to watch film from the beginning...
________________
The movie begins (and ends) with Cutter who is performing a trick for Borden's daughter, explaining that
Every magic trick has three parts or acts:
The Pledge: the magician shows you sth ordinary. a deck of cards, a bird, or a man. perhaps he asks you to inspect it, to see that it is indeed real, ordinary. but of course it probably isn't.
The Turn: the magician takes the ordinary thing & makes it do something extraordinary. you're looking for the secret. but you wouldn't clap yet. it's not enough to make sth disappear.
The Prestige: you have to bring it back.
And during Michael Caine's voiceover of this explanation, we see shots of Angier performing Pledge and The Turn of his last show's last trick The Real Transported Man, and Borden from the audience getting past someone "I'm part of the act, you fool!" to go backstage (under the stage) and seeing Angier drowning in the tank.
-----why does Angier have blind stagehands? Cutter compliments him on the tactic, so I suppose it is so that one's stagehands will not see the secrets. but what are they there to do, at all? (they do not prevent Borden's access.) I suppose they help with transport of each tank (containing a dead man) after each show.
Cutter at Borden's trial agrees to disclose the mechanism of The Real Transported Man to the judge in private.
-----but does he know how Angier did it? does he know that Tesla's machine creates a clone, who then dies by drowning in the tank under the stage? eventually he does know, since we see him tell Angier turned Lord Caldlow to consider his accomplishment, meaning all the deaths of his clones. but if he knows at the trial, then he is lying when he says that the tank was only for the first trick and not this final trick, the transported man. and that Borden must have moved the tank under the stage, thus murdering Angier by causing him to drown. no, he must not know. which is why when he faces Lord Caldlow he is angry that he himself was caused to be part of the conviction and hanging of Borden, taking this father from the little girl. so, at the trial, what would he have to tell the judge? does he think that the Tesla machine simply transports Angier, without creating a clone (who then drowns under the stage)?
toward the end Cutter tells Lord Caldlow that, when Angier's wife died by drowning, and Cutter then told him of the sailor who nearly drowned but after five minutes coughed, and recounted that those drowning minutes felt "like going home", Cutter was lying; really the sailor had said it was agony. ***
Solicitor at the prison visits Borden and gives him Angier's journal, in which he writes of deciphering Borden's own journal and travelling to see Tesla in Colorado.
~----does this solicitor have any import? I suppose not, just contributes to the mystique in the story by his solemn appearance, and, to me, resemblance to Angier.
-----Borden gave Angier the word "tesla" as the key to his journal as well as the secret to his trick, but at the end of the journal, which Angier reads after journeying to America to find Tesla in Colorado, Borden writes that the word is only the key and not the secret; and that Olivia gave Borden's journal to Angier only at Borden's request, proving her loyalty now lies with Borden, and helping to cause Angier to leave England). so: how is it that in fact Tesla the scientist does turn out to be capable of building the transported man machine for Angier? ~surely not just a coincidence that Borden's word 'tesla' did indeed lead to the means for Angier to perform the trick? this is satisfyingly answered at imdb faq & boards. next (above) post.
*the two men, their similarities and differences.
Angier's last words, dying: "You never understood, did you? Why we did this? The audience knows the truth: That the world is simple. Miserable. Solid all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second, you could make them wonder. Then you got to see something very special...You really don't know?"
hmm. not sure that in the film I saw this, Angier as looking for, wanting, seeing the need for this wonder. and as over against Borden not. as if Angier is the one who loves magic truly.
earlier, when Angier as Lord Caldlow presents himself to Borden in prison, he says ~"We both knew you were always the better magician." then, tearing up the paper Borden has offered him in desperation, "But whatever your secret is, you have to agree: mine is better."
so am I to see Borden as the better magician but Angier as the one who loves magic? ~ ~ ~
and also, when Borden first performs his transported man with two cupboards, Angier and Cutter agree that it lacks showmanship, polish, and that Angier can give it that.
~maybe this last speech of Angier's just does not fit with the movie. maybe came from the book?
this descrip fr wkp re the film bears out Borden as the workman magician and Angier as the aristocrat performer. ~but no, not especially the last speech's suggestion of Angier as the lover of making the audience wonder.:
The Prestige (film) - Wkp # Cast & Characters:
Hugh Jackman as Robert Angier, an aristocratic magician with a talent for performance. After reading the script, Jackman expressed interest in playing the part of Robert Angier. Christopher Nolan discovered Jackman was interested in the script, and after meeting with him, saw that Jackman possessed the qualities of stage showmanship that Nolan was looking for in the role of Angier. Nolan explained that Angier had 'a wonderful understanding of the interaction between a performer and a live audience', a quality he believed that Jackman had. Nolan said that '[Jackman] has the great depth as an actor that hasn't really been explored. People haven't had the chance to really see what he can do as an actor, and this is a character that would let him do that." Jackman based his portrayal of Angier on 1950s-era American magician Channing Pollock.
Christian Bale as Alfred Borden, a working-class magician with an understanding of magic. Christian Bale expressed interest in playing the part of Alfred Borden, and was cast after Jackman. Although Nolan had previously cast Bale as Batman in Batman Begins, he did not consider Bale for the part of Borden until Bale contacted him about the script. Nolan said that Bale was 'exactly right' for the part of Borden, and that it was 'unthinkable' for anyone else to play the part.
Michael Caine as John Cutter, the stage engineer who works for Angier. Caine had previously collaborated with Nolan and Bale in Batman Begins, where he played Alfred Pennyworth, the Wayne family butler. Nolan said that even though it felt like the character of Cutter was written for Caine, it was not: the character "was written before I'd ever met him." Caine describes Cutter as "a teacher, a father and a guide to Angier." Caine, in trying to create Cutter's nuanced portrait, altered his voice and posture. Nolan later said that "Michael Caine’s character really becomes something of the heart of the movie. He has a wonderful warmth and emotion to him that draws you into the story and allows you to have a point of view on these characters without judging them too harshly."
and... Piper Perabo as Julia McCullough, Angier's wife. whom I found her ~appealling in Coyote Ugly, if not entirely impressed w her there, and then somewhat appealling in appearance as guest star on House. I liked her here. certainly much more than Scarlett Johansson as Olivia Wenscombe, Angier's assistant & lover and then Borden's. the ~only element of the film I dislike. she was likeable in LostInTranslation but in nothing after that? just evokes in me the feeling that I am ~tired of seeing her. Rebecca Hall as Sarah Borden, Borden's wife. Hall had to relocate from North London to Los Angeles in order to shoot the film, though ironically, the film itself takes place in North London. Hall said that she "was starstruck just to be involved in [the film]." never seen her before, don't think. she was quite good here. yes watching again I am impressed, she has some of the very compelling scenes, with the change of reaction to your husband's 'I love you' from "Not today. Today maybe you love magic more than me. It's okay. I liek being able to tell. makes it more special when you do mean it." to "You mean it today. which just makes it so much harder when you don't."
_______________
***the drowning man No one cares about the man under the stage
Angiers, complaining about being under the stage while Root gets The Prestige ooh gets the prestige:
"No one cares about the man who disappears, who goes into the box; they only care about the one who comes out the other side."
ooh nice Angiers himself becomes the one who is not caring about himself his other self his now-other-non-self his duplicate drowning under the stage. he only cares about the one *who he is* who finds himself & appears to the audience, transported to the balcony.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: something that never makes sense to me ...:
He is kicking and punching the tank like he's trying to get out, if you don't believe me go to the scene.
mad_weather Wed Feb 4 2009 21:39:40:
Of course, he was kicking. He was dying a highly painful death, that's enough of a reason for trying to get out. One thing is planning the act that involved death AND survival at the same time, and it's somewhat another when you're alone in a tank full of water and there's absolutely no {other} perspective for this "you".
--Also, how would the {transported} Angier double know not to appear up on the balcony?good qstn
He could A) see him through disguise when Borden was inspecting the machine on the stage ah.good answer. even better if in the film we see sth suggests that he recognized Borden on stage, and B) hear his yells from below while standing on the balcony getting ready to step forth.
--How could he have been so sure that Bordin was going to show up?
There are various opinions about that. I tend to think that he simply wasn't, and framing Borden actually wasn't Angier's plan from the beginning, he just grabbed an opportunity when it presented itself. the end of Angier's journal, delivered to Bordin in prison by Lord Caldlow's solicitor, says: 'But here at the turn I must leave you [turn of the Real Transported Man trick & the movie: Angier's disappearance by death in the drowning tank] Borden, sitting there in your cell, reading my diary, awaiting your death for my murder' so either he planned it, wh I agree in tending not to think. or he wrote that part of his journal after resuming his life as Lord Caldlow. which he certainly could have, right? so I'm going with that. ..yes, further responses say the same:
-Borden isn't given the Diary until he is in jail. It is given to him by the solicitor Owens (Roger Rees) while he is incarcerated. Angier could write the diary (or at least add pages & possibly rip a few unfitting pages) *after* Borden was jailed. right. it's spooky for Borden who believes Angiers is dead, hence must have written it before the drowning, hence seems to have know about Borden's incarceration ahead of time. but since Angiers in fact was still alive as Lord Caldlow, who sent the journal, he need not have planned ahead of time to frame Borden.
--He said to Cutter "the sort of show Borden can't ignore."
Which doesn't prove he was framing him, only that he wanted Borden to know that he did a hands-down better trick and be properly humiliated.
--I don't understand why there would be "absolutely no perspective", he knew what was going to happen and accepted it every time he stepped into the machine.
When he was stepping into the machine, he still was the one person, who had death AND survival ahead of him. That thought would console him enough to do it. After the split, he was the one that had no chance to survive anymore, AND that just discovered that drowning is not nearly like "going home", but agony.
-listen to mad weather. everything mad weather said is absolutely correct.
Wolvaine Fri Feb 6 2009 17:25:51:
When Angier stepped into the machine, it made a clone of him on the balcony. So every night he was the man on the balcony AND the man in the tank. well the man who stepped into the machine was both men. after the trick, each man is a continuation of that one man, having a continuous extension to all the same experiences. but *now* the two men are two separate men, having two separate continued experiences.
Every night, the Angier who fell into the tank would think 'S***! I'm dyin! The real me is dying!' and every night, the man on the balcony would think 'Result! The real me is stood up here whilst some poor clone is drowning underneath the stage.' Basically, each Angier that survived thought HE was the REAL one, when in fact, they were ALL Robert Angier (just as all the hats were his). Tesla: don't forget your hat. Angiers: which one is mine? Tesla: they're all yours, Mr. Angier.
-Wolvaine has nailed it exactly!
y. but~and then there's four more pages to this thread...
Spliff_The_Cimmerian Wed Mar 11 2009 14:53:56 in this thread & also on IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Who's side were you on? p7 (of 11) re Angier's response to Olivia saying that discovering how Borden does the transported man trick "won't bring your wife back."
"I don't care about my wife. I care about his secret!"
I think Angier starts despising himself at that moment. Watch the series of looks that pass across his face after he says it. That's yet another reason why he chooses to drown one of himself in each performance of the Real Transported Man. He wants to share Julia's fate and punish himself for allowing his obsession to drive out his grief.
He wants to drown himself, to share her fate: Remember when he tries to hold his face in the sink basin? ah good observation.
He also wants to prove -to Borden? to himself?- that he can "get his hands dirty" for the sake of a great trick. yes that's another good scene. Borden in prison: "You're not afraid to get your hands dirty, anymore, are you?" Lord Caldlow: "No. Not anymore."
typing that it occurs to me, don't they have a similar exchange at the burial meeting? if so, does suggest that I am wrong (see above post) to think that the Borden doing the talking there, like at the prison, is the brash twin, while his quieter ingenuier is buried. ..yes at that meeting, the unburied Borden says "I'm impressed. You finally got your hands dirty."
........................................
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Why keep the clones???:
Mentrilo 2 hours ago Fri Mar 20 2009 14:59:35
Probably a collection of reasons:
-Ease. like the other poster says, Angier would have to destroy the bodies himself every night, if Borden follows him to discover the secrets of the trick, it ruins everything. Protecting the trick limits the ways in which he can dispose of the bodies.
-Sentiment. Angier doesn't know if the machine is a teleport that leaves an echo, or a long-distance cloning machine, he doesn't know if he is the original, a clone of the original, a clone of a clone of a clone of a clone of a clone. Every one of those bodies is a part of him. ~no. every one is a him that he stopped being, who became at that moment Other to him, and whom he caused to die.
-Guilt. Every night he creates an Angier then drowns him. Keeping the bodies ensures he is reminded of his sacrifice.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: New (?) Theory:
Mentrilo 4 hours ago (Sat Mar 21 2009 07:05:34)
There's an air bubble in the tank of the drowned Angier when after Borden walks out.
What if he used the machine one last time, so that he could fool Borden into thinking he won. The final two copies of Angier are one in the tank, pretending to be just one of the many corpses, and the other beavering around in the theatre waiting for Borden to come shoot him.
I realise this would need the two copies of Angier to decide between them which has to float in the tank waiting for Borden to leave, and which gets to be shot by Borden that's funny intentional I think "gets to" be shot versus "has to" float in the tank.
just watched the end. the final shot of an Angier in the tank, as the closing credits song begins. I do not see the bubble. so, no, do not think there was any suggestion that any Angier is still living. ~but check back on this imdb board page to see if any eventual responses..
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: What does Borden say... right before he's hanged?
He said abracadabra.
[also note the intitials of the two magicians Alfred Borden Robert Angiers = ABRA. I suppose this is from the book].
I just saw this movie for the first time tonight & was very impressed. I knew that I would enjoy it bcs heard good things about it how is it I'd hrd nothing about it? but I did not expect it to be one of the best movies I've ever seen./y. I think it is one of the best movies I've seen. watching it a ~2nd time (first time in full, straight thr) I kept thinking, This is fantastic.
_____________________________________________
see comments, boards, and especially the FAQ
aired on FX last nite. really rather fine. int frame-telling, moving from trial to earlier, and the two journals, mostly following Jackman as Angier ~ but sometimes from Bordens point of view? and fine actors. and the story: the two men, their similarities and differences* ~ doubles ~ magic ~ have to live your act (the old 'china man' who has pretended all his life to be a cripple) ~ the man who does not tell his wife he is not one man.
The Prestige - tvguide: Memento director Christopher Nolan's dark, dazzling head-trip of a movie, adapted from Christopher Priest’s 1995 novel, revolves around two turn-of-the-century magicians trapped in a lifelong game of increasingly dangerous one-upmanship. Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale and Michael Caine star.
it's a book! great. that's what I want, to read it. although maybe the screenplay too. I'm int in the telling. and I have qstns re the story...
az - The Prestige (2006 film) - starring Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Piper Perabo, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, David Bowie
427 customer reviews)
az- The Prestige -by Christopher Priest |Books
Priest writes of a pair of rival magicians in turn-of-the-century London. Each has a winning trick the other craves, but so arcane is the nature of these tricks, so incredibly difficult are they to perform, that they take on a peculiar life of their own?in one case involving a mysterious apparent double identity, in the other a reliance on the ferocious powers unleashed in the early experimental years of electricity.
(92 customer reviews)
az- The Prestige - Screenplay by Jonathan Nolan (Author), Christopher Nolan (Author)
key phrases: machine sputters, abandoned theatre, beneath the stage, Great Danton, Transported Man, Lord Caldlow ...
In late nineteenth-century England, two stage illusionists are drawn into a match of wits, each desiring to annihilate the reputation of the other. Upper-class Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) enjoys worldwide fame, while cockney Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) is his most ardent rival. Their antagonism is also a mutual fascination, but the competition between them leads to evermore dangerous acts of conjuring. When Angier raises the stakes by consulting scientist Nikola Tesla (David Bowie), the potential for a deadly reckoning draws near.
1 cust rvw: One of the best scripts I have read. A page turner with great visuals. Captivating from page one. One can only hope it transfers to the screen with the same brilliance.
The Prestige - Wkp:
Synopsis:
... Borden develops an act called The Transported Man, and an improved version named The New Transported Man, which appears to move him from one closed cabinet to another in the blink of an eye to catch the bouncing rubberball he released before stepping into the one cabinet (and in Angier's first performance, his top hat) and without appearing to pass through the intervening space.
2006 film adaptation:
The complex journal-within-a-journal structure of the novel was consciously translated to the screen as a non-linear, flashback narrative set as three acts to mirror the three acts of a magic trick.[3][4][5] wow I was impressed with the structure without even yet having noticed organized in three acts. So: we have a frame: beginning & ending at same point, with Cutter showing magic to Borden's daughter. and flashbacks, and journal within journal. *and* a three act structure of Pledge, Turn, Prestige? what in the movie constitutes The Turn? Angier's apparent drowning in the tank I suppose. and then we have his prestige, but the real prestige is Borden's ~ The film is thematically faithful to the novel, many plot and structural changes were made, most notably the removal of a subplot involving Spiritualism and the replacement of the novel's modern-day frame story [The frame story involves the great-grandchildren of Borden and Angier and their investigations into how their own lives have been affected by their ancestors' conflict. The events of the past are revealed primarily through each of the magicians' diaries] with Borden's wait for the gallows. good choice, d n need modern day grandchildren coming into this telling.
Also the effect of Tesla's device is changed: the body left behind does not die so in the book it dies? ~seems from elsewh that in the book is not a full 'clone' but a ghostly remnant (sth left behind when Angier is transported. so the device in the books is a transporter & not also a duplicator.), so it has to be killed every night by plunging it into a water-tank below the stage..[2] ooh well that is perhaps the most intriguing part (esp alongside Borden-Fallon two live as one): the thought of killing oneself-as-other and as dying having been killed by oneself-as-other. it's not you, at this moment, you are only the one. but the other in every way is you until this moment when became two. and yet the you that kills does not feel the death of the you that dies. the self-other distinction is no less absolute, although *this* other has the distinction of being yourself. ***
- ^ Shewman, Den (Sept/October 2006). "Nothing Up Their Sleeves: Christopher & Jonathan Nolan on the Art of Magic, Murder, and The Prestige". Creative Screenwriting Vol. 13:5. this links only to the index page http://www.creativescreenwriting.com/index.html. and no success so far in brief attempt via ggl to find any live or cached webpage of the article.maybe Creative Screenwriting avail only by subscrp
- ^ Levy, Emanuel (2007-02-20). "Interview (with Christopher Nolan)". EmanuelLevy.com. http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=3520. Retrieved on 2007-02-26.
- ^ Murray, Rebecca. "Behind the Scenes of "The Prestige" with Writer/Director Christopher Nolan". About, Inc.. http://movies.about.com/od/theprestige/a/prestigcn101606.htm. Retrieved on 2007-02-26.
- ^ Gilchrist, Todd (2007-02-20). "The Pledge, The Turn, The Prestige, The DVD". IGN. http://dvd.ign.com/articles/766/766063p1.html. Retrieved on 2007-02-26.
my notes, upon starting to watch film from the beginning...
________________
The movie begins (and ends) with Cutter who is performing a trick for Borden's daughter, explaining that
Every magic trick has three parts or acts:
The Pledge: the magician shows you sth ordinary. a deck of cards, a bird, or a man. perhaps he asks you to inspect it, to see that it is indeed real, ordinary. but of course it probably isn't.
The Turn: the magician takes the ordinary thing & makes it do something extraordinary. you're looking for the secret. but you wouldn't clap yet. it's not enough to make sth disappear.
The Prestige: you have to bring it back.
And during Michael Caine's voiceover of this explanation, we see shots of Angier performing Pledge and The Turn of his last show's last trick The Real Transported Man, and Borden from the audience getting past someone "I'm part of the act, you fool!" to go backstage (under the stage) and seeing Angier drowning in the tank.
-----why does Angier have blind stagehands? Cutter compliments him on the tactic, so I suppose it is so that one's stagehands will not see the secrets. but what are they there to do, at all? (they do not prevent Borden's access.) I suppose they help with transport of each tank (containing a dead man) after each show.
Cutter at Borden's trial agrees to disclose the mechanism of The Real Transported Man to the judge in private.
-----but does he know how Angier did it? does he know that Tesla's machine creates a clone, who then dies by drowning in the tank under the stage? eventually he does know, since we see him tell Angier turned Lord Caldlow to consider his accomplishment, meaning all the deaths of his clones. but if he knows at the trial, then he is lying when he says that the tank was only for the first trick and not this final trick, the transported man. and that Borden must have moved the tank under the stage, thus murdering Angier by causing him to drown. no, he must not know. which is why when he faces Lord Caldlow he is angry that he himself was caused to be part of the conviction and hanging of Borden, taking this father from the little girl. so, at the trial, what would he have to tell the judge? does he think that the Tesla machine simply transports Angier, without creating a clone (who then drowns under the stage)?
toward the end Cutter tells Lord Caldlow that, when Angier's wife died by drowning, and Cutter then told him of the sailor who nearly drowned but after five minutes coughed, and recounted that those drowning minutes felt "like going home", Cutter was lying; really the sailor had said it was agony. ***
Solicitor at the prison visits Borden and gives him Angier's journal, in which he writes of deciphering Borden's own journal and travelling to see Tesla in Colorado.
~----does this solicitor have any import? I suppose not, just contributes to the mystique in the story by his solemn appearance, and, to me, resemblance to Angier.
-----Borden gave Angier the word "tesla" as the key to his journal as well as the secret to his trick, but at the end of the journal, which Angier reads after journeying to America to find Tesla in Colorado, Borden writes that the word is only the key and not the secret; and that Olivia gave Borden's journal to Angier only at Borden's request, proving her loyalty now lies with Borden, and helping to cause Angier to leave England). so: how is it that in fact Tesla the scientist does turn out to be capable of building the transported man machine for Angier? ~surely not just a coincidence that Borden's word 'tesla' did indeed lead to the means for Angier to perform the trick? this is satisfyingly answered at imdb faq & boards. next (above) post.
*the two men, their similarities and differences.
Angier's last words, dying: "You never understood, did you? Why we did this? The audience knows the truth: That the world is simple. Miserable. Solid all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second, you could make them wonder. Then you got to see something very special...You really don't know?"
hmm. not sure that in the film I saw this, Angier as looking for, wanting, seeing the need for this wonder. and as over against Borden not. as if Angier is the one who loves magic truly.
earlier, when Angier as Lord Caldlow presents himself to Borden in prison, he says ~"We both knew you were always the better magician." then, tearing up the paper Borden has offered him in desperation, "But whatever your secret is, you have to agree: mine is better."
so am I to see Borden as the better magician but Angier as the one who loves magic? ~ ~ ~
and also, when Borden first performs his transported man with two cupboards, Angier and Cutter agree that it lacks showmanship, polish, and that Angier can give it that.
~maybe this last speech of Angier's just does not fit with the movie. maybe came from the book?
this descrip fr wkp re the film bears out Borden as the workman magician and Angier as the aristocrat performer. ~but no, not especially the last speech's suggestion of Angier as the lover of making the audience wonder.:
The Prestige (film) - Wkp # Cast & Characters:
Hugh Jackman as Robert Angier, an aristocratic magician with a talent for performance. After reading the script, Jackman expressed interest in playing the part of Robert Angier. Christopher Nolan discovered Jackman was interested in the script, and after meeting with him, saw that Jackman possessed the qualities of stage showmanship that Nolan was looking for in the role of Angier. Nolan explained that Angier had 'a wonderful understanding of the interaction between a performer and a live audience', a quality he believed that Jackman had. Nolan said that '[Jackman] has the great depth as an actor that hasn't really been explored. People haven't had the chance to really see what he can do as an actor, and this is a character that would let him do that." Jackman based his portrayal of Angier on 1950s-era American magician Channing Pollock.
Christian Bale as Alfred Borden, a working-class magician with an understanding of magic. Christian Bale expressed interest in playing the part of Alfred Borden, and was cast after Jackman. Although Nolan had previously cast Bale as Batman in Batman Begins, he did not consider Bale for the part of Borden until Bale contacted him about the script. Nolan said that Bale was 'exactly right' for the part of Borden, and that it was 'unthinkable' for anyone else to play the part.
Michael Caine as John Cutter, the stage engineer who works for Angier. Caine had previously collaborated with Nolan and Bale in Batman Begins, where he played Alfred Pennyworth, the Wayne family butler. Nolan said that even though it felt like the character of Cutter was written for Caine, it was not: the character "was written before I'd ever met him." Caine describes Cutter as "a teacher, a father and a guide to Angier." Caine, in trying to create Cutter's nuanced portrait, altered his voice and posture. Nolan later said that "Michael Caine’s character really becomes something of the heart of the movie. He has a wonderful warmth and emotion to him that draws you into the story and allows you to have a point of view on these characters without judging them too harshly."
and... Piper Perabo as Julia McCullough, Angier's wife. whom I found her ~appealling in Coyote Ugly, if not entirely impressed w her there, and then somewhat appealling in appearance as guest star on House. I liked her here. certainly much more than Scarlett Johansson as Olivia Wenscombe, Angier's assistant & lover and then Borden's. the ~only element of the film I dislike. she was likeable in LostInTranslation but in nothing after that? just evokes in me the feeling that I am ~tired of seeing her. Rebecca Hall as Sarah Borden, Borden's wife. Hall had to relocate from North London to Los Angeles in order to shoot the film, though ironically, the film itself takes place in North London. Hall said that she "was starstruck just to be involved in [the film]." never seen her before, don't think. she was quite good here. yes watching again I am impressed, she has some of the very compelling scenes, with the change of reaction to your husband's 'I love you' from "Not today. Today maybe you love magic more than me. It's okay. I liek being able to tell. makes it more special when you do mean it." to "You mean it today. which just makes it so much harder when you don't."
_______________
***the drowning man No one cares about the man under the stage
Angiers, complaining about being under the stage while Root gets The Prestige ooh gets the prestige:
"No one cares about the man who disappears, who goes into the box; they only care about the one who comes out the other side."
ooh nice Angiers himself becomes the one who is not caring about himself his other self his now-other-non-self his duplicate drowning under the stage. he only cares about the one *who he is* who finds himself & appears to the audience, transported to the balcony.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: something that never makes sense to me ...:
He is kicking and punching the tank like he's trying to get out, if you don't believe me go to the scene.
mad_weather Wed Feb 4 2009 21:39:40:
Of course, he was kicking. He was dying a highly painful death, that's enough of a reason for trying to get out. One thing is planning the act that involved death AND survival at the same time, and it's somewhat another when you're alone in a tank full of water and there's absolutely no {other} perspective for this "you".
--Also, how would the {transported} Angier double know not to appear up on the balcony?good qstn
He could A) see him through disguise when Borden was inspecting the machine on the stage ah.good answer. even better if in the film we see sth suggests that he recognized Borden on stage, and B) hear his yells from below while standing on the balcony getting ready to step forth.
--How could he have been so sure that Bordin was going to show up?
There are various opinions about that. I tend to think that he simply wasn't, and framing Borden actually wasn't Angier's plan from the beginning, he just grabbed an opportunity when it presented itself. the end of Angier's journal, delivered to Bordin in prison by Lord Caldlow's solicitor, says: 'But here at the turn I must leave you [turn of the Real Transported Man trick & the movie: Angier's disappearance by death in the drowning tank] Borden, sitting there in your cell, reading my diary, awaiting your death for my murder' so either he planned it, wh I agree in tending not to think. or he wrote that part of his journal after resuming his life as Lord Caldlow. which he certainly could have, right? so I'm going with that. ..yes, further responses say the same:
-Borden isn't given the Diary until he is in jail. It is given to him by the solicitor Owens (Roger Rees) while he is incarcerated. Angier could write the diary (or at least add pages & possibly rip a few unfitting pages) *after* Borden was jailed. right. it's spooky for Borden who believes Angiers is dead, hence must have written it before the drowning, hence seems to have know about Borden's incarceration ahead of time. but since Angiers in fact was still alive as Lord Caldlow, who sent the journal, he need not have planned ahead of time to frame Borden.
--He said to Cutter "the sort of show Borden can't ignore."
Which doesn't prove he was framing him, only that he wanted Borden to know that he did a hands-down better trick and be properly humiliated.
--I don't understand why there would be "absolutely no perspective", he knew what was going to happen and accepted it every time he stepped into the machine.
When he was stepping into the machine, he still was the one person, who had death AND survival ahead of him. That thought would console him enough to do it. After the split, he was the one that had no chance to survive anymore, AND that just discovered that drowning is not nearly like "going home", but agony.
-listen to mad weather. everything mad weather said is absolutely correct.
Wolvaine Fri Feb 6 2009 17:25:51:
When Angier stepped into the machine, it made a clone of him on the balcony. So every night he was the man on the balcony AND the man in the tank. well the man who stepped into the machine was both men. after the trick, each man is a continuation of that one man, having a continuous extension to all the same experiences. but *now* the two men are two separate men, having two separate continued experiences.
Every night, the Angier who fell into the tank would think 'S***! I'm dyin! The real me is dying!' and every night, the man on the balcony would think 'Result! The real me is stood up here whilst some poor clone is drowning underneath the stage.' Basically, each Angier that survived thought HE was the REAL one, when in fact, they were ALL Robert Angier (just as all the hats were his). Tesla: don't forget your hat. Angiers: which one is mine? Tesla: they're all yours, Mr. Angier.
-Wolvaine has nailed it exactly!
y. but~and then there's four more pages to this thread...
Spliff_The_Cimmerian Wed Mar 11 2009 14:53:56 in this thread & also on IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Who's side were you on? p7 (of 11) re Angier's response to Olivia saying that discovering how Borden does the transported man trick "won't bring your wife back."
"I don't care about my wife. I care about his secret!"
I think Angier starts despising himself at that moment. Watch the series of looks that pass across his face after he says it. That's yet another reason why he chooses to drown one of himself in each performance of the Real Transported Man. He wants to share Julia's fate and punish himself for allowing his obsession to drive out his grief.
He wants to drown himself, to share her fate: Remember when he tries to hold his face in the sink basin? ah good observation.
He also wants to prove -to Borden? to himself?- that he can "get his hands dirty" for the sake of a great trick. yes that's another good scene. Borden in prison: "You're not afraid to get your hands dirty, anymore, are you?" Lord Caldlow: "No. Not anymore."
typing that it occurs to me, don't they have a similar exchange at the burial meeting? if so, does suggest that I am wrong (see above post) to think that the Borden doing the talking there, like at the prison, is the brash twin, while his quieter ingenuier is buried. ..yes at that meeting, the unburied Borden says "I'm impressed. You finally got your hands dirty."
........................................
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: Why keep the clones???:
Mentrilo 2 hours ago Fri Mar 20 2009 14:59:35
Probably a collection of reasons:
-Ease. like the other poster says, Angier would have to destroy the bodies himself every night, if Borden follows him to discover the secrets of the trick, it ruins everything. Protecting the trick limits the ways in which he can dispose of the bodies.
-Sentiment. Angier doesn't know if the machine is a teleport that leaves an echo, or a long-distance cloning machine, he doesn't know if he is the original, a clone of the original, a clone of a clone of a clone of a clone of a clone. Every one of those bodies is a part of him. ~no. every one is a him that he stopped being, who became at that moment Other to him, and whom he caused to die.
-Guilt. Every night he creates an Angier then drowns him. Keeping the bodies ensures he is reminded of his sacrifice.
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: New (?) Theory:
Mentrilo 4 hours ago (Sat Mar 21 2009 07:05:34)
There's an air bubble in the tank of the drowned Angier when after Borden walks out.
What if he used the machine one last time, so that he could fool Borden into thinking he won. The final two copies of Angier are one in the tank, pretending to be just one of the many corpses, and the other beavering around in the theatre waiting for Borden to come shoot him.
I realise this would need the two copies of Angier to decide between them which has to float in the tank waiting for Borden to leave, and which gets to be shot by Borden that's funny intentional I think "gets to" be shot versus "has to" float in the tank.
just watched the end. the final shot of an Angier in the tank, as the closing credits song begins. I do not see the bubble. so, no, do not think there was any suggestion that any Angier is still living. ~but check back on this imdb board page to see if any eventual responses..
IMDb :: Boards :: The Prestige (2006) :: What does Borden say... right before he's hanged?
He said abracadabra.
[also note the intitials of the two magicians Alfred Borden Robert Angiers = ABRA. I suppose this is from the book].
I just saw this movie for the first time tonight & was very impressed. I knew that I would enjoy it bcs heard good things about it how is it I'd hrd nothing about it? but I did not expect it to be one of the best movies I've ever seen./y. I think it is one of the best movies I've seen. watching it a ~2nd time (first time in full, straight thr) I kept thinking, This is fantastic.
_____________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)