*** Official The Prestige Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[LordVader]

Ok first off... apologies for bringing this one back... but I just watched the movie the night before for the first time and re-watched parts to confirm something that I wanted to bring up.. and of all the forums I've skimmed this one has the most reasonable and mature people on it by far! (teh innernet FTW!)

Also.. if this was previously mentioned then I'm sorry. I skimmed the 6 pages and may have missed it..

anyway.

The real "Prestige" of this movie seems to have been missed by everyone.
At the beginning and end, when Cutter is doing his dialogue about the Pledge, the turn and the Prestige.. at the end he mentions that nobody is impressed by making something dissapear, but rather when you make it re-appear.

He says this at the end *just* before one of the Borden twins shows up and picks up the daughter.
However... watch the movie again and pay close attention to their left eyebrow. It has a 'scar' on the end of it... you can see where the eyebrow is clearly is broken up.
When the 'surviving' Borden shows up and shoots Angiers and explains it all to him, he has two very solid eyebrows, free of scars or breaks... however the Borden in prison does not.
The Borden who picks up the daughter at the end DOES have a scar.

The *real* prestige here is that both brothers are alive.

 

[Malcolm R]

Or it's simply a continuity error.

 

[LordVader]

That's what i thought at first, but the timing is too good on the whole "bring something back" statement... and the statements made by Bale's character about the prison keeping him in, and the "are you watching closely" comment to the guard.. leads me to think that he's free.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

Sorry but it doesn't make sense. There is no reason for him to be alive and not showing it in the movie. It works better dramatically if he dies.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Coincidentally, when I got home last night, my flatmate was watching the film and it was almost over. So I looked for the eyebrow, but to my eyes at least, he never turns his face fully to the point where you can really see his scar. So I'm not convinced - unless someone can offer a screenshot that clearly shows it.

It was an intriguing idea - especially given the final "Are you watching closely" from the executed Borden - but I don't really see how it could work. Plus, as others have said, it works better dramatically if he dies.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

The "Are you watching closely" perfectly works as it is. It's kind of sarcastic and a nudge to the audience.

Also a question about the eyebrow thing. It really bothers me. If they go to the extent of cutting one brothers finger to resemble each other, why they don’t do the same with the eyebrow? I think that eyebrow thing was a bad idea.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Because the finger is obvious, and the eyebrow is not? I must admit, I never noticed the eyebrow when I watched (but I'm not the most observant person...) So it's a bit of a "cheat", or a clue to the (movie) audience, depending on your point of view. Come to think of it, the fact that it exists is proof to repeat watchers as to what they did, akin to the various clues that were used in Sixth Sense. Internal consistency, if you will.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

Well his wife would have noticed I'm sure!

 

[Nathan Eddy]

I've thought about this movie a lot since watching it. The plot holes bugged me at first, but I've been able to "plug up" those holes with a little critical thinking and suspension of disbelief. All of them, that is, except the most glaring plot hole of all: if Tesla was so hard up for cash, why didn't he just copy some money? Or gold? Or diamonds? Stupid Tesla.

But seriously, there's only one real plot hole that still bothers me. Why did Jackman's character have to die every night? Sure, he couldn't have 100 copies running around--but 100 corpses aren't much better. In fact, he could have simply dropped through the trap door each night before the cloning process was complete. Then he'd only need one clone to do the act, and wait to kill himself only when Borden showed up and actually went below the stage. Heck, he could have even had a third copy there to unlock the tank each night, so that the entire set-up was working and ready to go in the event that Borden showed up. Like I said, having copies around would be problematic, but certainly not more problematic than 100 rotting corpses that look just like you. Even the decomposing ones that no longer resembled him would be a tough thing to explain. The smell alone would have been impossible to hide.

 

[Joe D]

Nathan,

After Angier had his bad experience with his drunk double, he would not have wanted someone else (even if it was himself) to control any part of his life or his show. By using the teleported man with one of duplicates dying, it makes his plans less complicated.

Plus, unlike Borden who was willing to share the prestige, Angier was not willing to ever be the man taking his bows under the stage.

Dealing with blind stage hands and disposing of bodies was the "easiest" route for Angier.

 

[Nathan Eddy]

So taking bows below the stage was worse than drowning himself below the stage. Got it.

No, actually, I don't. I know the guy was crazy, but if having an exact copy of himself taking his bows for him while he thrashed around in a watery grave isn't at least as bad as having another actor take the bows, then the movie just falls apart for me. Perhaps I'm taking it too seriously. I do recognize the thematic beauty of the way the act actually happens. But its logic relies upon the assumption that the "copy" was in fact the original--or at least the ambiguity of the copy/original duality. So if this ambiguity was sufficient to allow his "copy" to take his bows without engaging his "I don't like someone else taking my bows" response, then it should still apply whether he drowns himself or not. The fact that he has to drown himself to make the copy real, in his mind, seems like an admission that the copy isn't real--a denial of its reality or originality. Suicide is not an act of affirmation. It is denial. Maybe that's the point.

Following that point, I suppose one could apply it to the idea of "The REAL Transported Man." He wasn't really transported. But he wanted it to be real badly enough that he'd kill himself to make it real. If only one copy remains, then he has achieved a de facto teleportation.

Perhaps my Tesla-money quandry was the better plot hole after all.

 

[LordVader]

I had the impression from Angiers dialogue that he wasn't always the one in the tank.
I think the machine doesn't always pop the copy somewhere nearby, hence the 50/50 comment he made, and the smoking hats.
Sometimes put the copy somewhere else, sometimes it puts the copy in the original position and transports the original... it's not exact according to Tesla.

 

[Nathan Eddy]

The dialouge about "not always being the one in the tank" is merely a brief glimpse of the philosophical ambiguity. It's his recognition that he can't know if he is the original or the copy. Since both will have exactly the same memories at the moment of being copied, both will think they are they original. Which one is right? The question is probably impossible to answer. It's a classic philosophical conundrum. Tesla's admission that he's not being sure how the machine works only reinforces this ambiguity. If the inventor himself states his uncertainty, then the rest of us are free to speculate without his expertise intruding upon the debate.

 

[LordVader]

good point. Although I'd like to take another look at the smoking hats. I recall the one left on the platform wasn't smoking when the machine was off, but the ones in the pile were smoking... again it may be me looking at too many details, but if that were true then the original was being transported, and the copy left in place... but again, it wouldn't matter since the copies were exact.

 

[EricW]

wow, finally caught this on bluray (BOGO sale from amazon). after reading this thread, there's not too much more to say. obviously the twins were not duplicates (add to the numerous points and the theme of the movie, is that Tesla is introduced after Bale gets the fingers shot off, so a duplicate would have that too, and they wouldn't need the screwdriver scene).
as for the Hackman playing his double, yes it kinda sucked. i'm reminded of Rodrigez's Once Upon A Time In Mexico where they actually got someone who looked like Willem Dafoe to play his onscreen double. THAT was cool

also, when i watched the movie i had thought that Jackman's character simply got his actor double to come back and do the trick, with a better trained accent to pull it off. night after night they'd do the trick, until he sees Bale in the crowd, Angier puts the tank under the stage. that's why the actor/double is surprised when he gets dropped into it. but that theory has a lot of holes itself. but it would have meant the Transporter never worked (realistic alternative), and it would have played the whole "showmanship trumps the craft" theme that made Angier more successful than Borden, as well as Angier needing to kill his double and 'get his hands dirty' to complete his obsessive plan. of course this wouldn't explain how Borden was mystified...

the fact that the movie still works even when most figure out the brother angle (i think any smart writer/director would have to acknowledge that it would happen) makes the movie's achievement more admirable.

one thing i don't understand is why Angier kept reading the diary after the point where Johansen steals the diary. wouldn't it have ended then?