Did you read the title of this post? Then when reading the rest of this review, you should not expect any twists! That is the downfall of the film. But allow me to jump to the middle, much as the movie believed leaping between parts of the story added to the unfolding of the plot.
I expect there will be two forms of critiques by the movie-going audience. First will be the GED crowd that claims the complexity of the movie will challenge the audience to discover the plot-twists-- but they amazingly figured it out! These viewers normally delight themselves by opening packages and using products without first reading the directions. "I plugged in my lamp without reading how to plug in my lamp! Aren't I amazing!?" The second form of critique shall be issued by the literate who realize those directions are for those just mentioned. These viewers can not help but scoff at the film, which tells only a story about itself and divulges the "twists" in the beginning.
So, here we go. I dislike those films with simple stories that take sections of an otherwise linear plot and blend them for the sake of "effect." That is what The Prestige attempts. It fails. I also dislike a film that gives what one stretches to call "hints" ad nauseam. "Look how clever we are!"
The Prestige is an adaptation of a novel by the same name authored in the mid-90's by Christopher Priest. The story follows the adult lives of two magicians as portrayed by Christian Bale ("Borden") and Hugh Jackman ("Angier"). The setting is the Victorian era of the late 19th century to the early 20th century, although the film denotes 1887 for the scenes set in its present. The two main characters of Borden and Angier are proclaimed magicians, better described as illusionists, whose competition leads to obsession.
The first failure of the plot is the inability to discern a protagonist. One easily assumes the brash, lower-class Borden will be the underdog protagonist as easily as one assumes he could be a spiteful antagonist, as well. The problem lies in that the audience is never given the opportunity to sympathize with the character. Neither are we given the opportunity to recognize blatant and conscious evils performed by the character in order to identify him as an antagonist. Similarly, Angier can neither be liked nor disliked as his character never develops. He remains static throughout the film, although one may easily attribute this to the acting abilities (or lack of abilities) of Jackman. When a character played by Jackman is angry, he raises the volume of his voice. When sad or regretful, he lowers his voice. Sometimes, if he finds the right motivation, he will blink. So, where are all his oscars? …waiting for him on daytime television.
Where were we? Oh yes, non-linear plot devices. These aren't confusing, yet they never worked to hide the ball in the film, so the viewer isn't astounded as they would be in a Kubrick or Lynch classic. Instead, The Prestige viewers are simply bored. The movie drones on just over two hours. This means the audience discovers the "twist" in the beginning, hops around for two hours, then sees the “twist” they were expecting. Where's the gripe? Well, a director should be restricted when calling something we all expect a “twist.” For instance, if you know young Bobby fell, then you expect him to have reached the ground (read “ground” as a general term for anything that stopped his act of falling). You could begin with the fall, then describe the rock that set in motion the act of falling, and relate that Bobby was aware of the rock beforehand, but you still know Bobby hit the ground. There's no twist or surprise there. This is especially true when every other line and parallel reference alludes to that ending. If this was an emotional or, in some way, spiritual story where we were held clueless to the motivations of the characters, the scene-leaping may have remained neutral. In The Prestige, it only proved annoying.
Misplacement and the poor portrayal of Tesla also proved annoying. Just as a comment, the only members of the audience that would recognize the parallel reference to Tesla would be those already familiar with Tesla's life and relationship with Edison. The three minutes we spend with Tesla on the screen is a disservice. We can only assume this was an effort by the director to sustain Tesla’s reputation as an enigma. First, in 1887, the time given by the film, Tesla had yet to make any claims regarding teleportation, and he never claimed the possibility that human cloning existed. That arose through the steampunk comics. Second, Tesla only stayed in Colorado Springs from 1899 to 1900. Finally, although bad blood existed between Edison and Tesla, neither sabotaged the other. The only character for whom I sympathized in this film was Tesla, and that constituted a bleeding heart weeping for Bowie-- was he duped into playing the role? Generally, I felt a degree of righteous indignation on behalf of the real Tesla… even if I disagree with his opinion of relativity.
As stated earlier, the non-linear format will not confuse the audience or lead to the failure of the film in itself. However, the alternating points of view when leaping between times and the experiences of the characters leave something to be desired, especially when one must tolerate the rampant use of voice-overs. In the end, this is not a film intended to elicit suspense, and one could hardly label it an “action” film, so the slow pace is forgiving of these overly-exploited tools. Apparently, the Nolans simply remained too committed to Priest’s novel, and in doing so took advantage of literary tools better omitted from screenplays.
As to the cinematography, the costumes and sets were exquisite in their accuracy and use, save minor exceptions (apparently Tesla used tape almost 30 years before it was invented—would that be electrical tape? Hahaha). I do reserve one caveat: I grow tired of the constant under-lighting in films generally. The gloom, if one can call it that, has grown trite and hardly conjures anything resembling a foreboding atmosphere. In the case of The Prestige, the Victorian setting allows the lighting to add to the realism of the sets. Edison, after all, did not produce a practical incandescent bulb until the 1870’s (No, he didn’t "invent" the light bulb). Anyway, the dim atmosphere added a touch of realism. The bad aspect is that Nolan always uses the same lighting technique! The idea should amaze us that every theatre, alley, restaurant, bedroom, and so on all look the same! Just like every Nolan film!
If you have an entire Sunday (the movie is just over two hours in length), and you enjoy a simple drama, this is a movie for you. Don’t expect amazing twists, and be prepared for a movie of such pretentiousness that it makes references to its ending throughout. I will say that the reference to science as the new magic of the second industrial revolution was accurate. All in all, the film will pass the time, and since success is a relative term, you may rest assured that this film is better than many of its counterparts. Overall, I give it a 6/10… because I’m a fan of Bale and, naturally, Caine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment