| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 03/14/2007 : 13:11:05
|
I thought THE ILLUSIONIST was far superior because it could have happened; THE PRESTIGE relies on sci-fi mumbo-jumbo. Both are beautifully produced, but I felt gypped at the end of THE PRESTIGE.
EDIT: If you're interested in Victorian magic [the true glory days of the art], go back to my post on page 1 of this thread for the titles of two wonderful books on the subject. |
Edited by - randall on 03/14/2007 13:16:10 |
 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 13:33:20
|
| I maintain that The Illusionist could NOT have happened -- a great majority of his tricks are just flat-out impossible. At least The Prestige owns up to its implausibility. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 13:36:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
One imagines that the free twin would present himself for the sake of the jailed twin, but he doesn't.
You know, I had never thought about that before, but you are right. Even in Victorian times, I doubt that they would have executed two men for the same murder just because (they thought) they knew that one did it. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 13:38:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I maintain that The Illusionist could NOT have happened -- a great majority of his tricks are just flat-out impossible. At least The Prestige owns up to its implausibility.
This is my take on it too. Spoiler: The ghost stuff could only work in a sci-fi way, but it presents it as having an unspecified conjuring-trick method behind it. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 13:46:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I maintain that The Illusionist could NOT have happened -- a great majority of his tricks are just flat-out impossible. At least The Prestige owns up to its implausibility.
Well, I don't want to split hairs [that's Salopian's department], but "great majority"? The only one that truly baffles me is the immovable sword, but then magnetism was well known and studied at the time [just a guess]. The books I referred to above show that the proverbial "smoke and mirrors" could have produced the ghostly theatrical illusions depicted. It would take perfect timing, perfect angles, perfect lighting, but even Victorian "covert operatives" were very, very good, and they were starting to develop illusions that fool us even today. [David Copperfield can "vanish" the Statue of Liberty only because of pioneering technical work done around the turn of the century; see HIDING THE ELEPHANT.]
You say THE PRESTIGE "owns up," I say it "cops out." It's simply a matter of perspective, and opinions are wonderful because everyone can have his or her very own. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 14:12:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I don't want to split hairs [that's Salopian's department]
Spoilers: Hhmmm, I really cannot see how 'smoke and mirrors' could do all aspects of the ghosts - what about the little boy who walks past the audience, for example? If the sword trick happened somewhere chosen by the magician, I think magnetism would be more possible; as it is, I think it's highly unlikely, but I'll give it you as a possible. The mechanical explanation of the orange tree is simply ridiculous. No engineer could come anywhere close to creating a machine like that even now. I cannot even see how the locket is possible, though I am more likely to be missing something in that case. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 15:12:31
|
Here's an explanation for just one illusion: [MAGIC SPOILER AHEAD]
I attended a performance by the master illusionist Ricky Jay [he has assisted David Mamet in many of his films, and in fact Mamet directed Jay's two stage shows which have reached NYC] in which my own wedding ring was used in a contraption much like the orange tree.
How did my ring get into Jay's act?
An assistant walked up to me at intermission and asked if I would give Mr. Jay permission to make my wedding ring disappear in the second act. He said it would be perfectly safe and I would get it back after the illusion. I said sure. He said, shortly after the act begins, Ricky Jay will ask to borrow a wedding ring from someone in the audience. Hold up your hand, and he will call on you. Jay first palmed my ring expertly to vanish it, then a few moments later it appeared atop an elaborate flowering Victorian contraption. Then he gave it back to me. [I got to shake his hand!]
Why was I chosen?
The assistant was obviously looking at left hands to find a ring that looked exactly like the one already hidden in the mechanical tree. Mine is a simple gold band, very common. The tree was theater. My ring was never in it at all. A sophisticated sleight-of-hand artist like Ricky Jay, or the Ed Norton character in THE ILLUSIONIST, can perform the switch at any time during the patter. A sophisticated covert operative can even hide a ring inside an orange [using razor cuts and re-sealants that you don't notice], a banana, whatever.
I'm the only audience member who talked to the assistant; only my wife and I knew I was a "plant." To the rest of the audience, I had appeared to be picked randomly.
A few years ago, a dear friend of mine entered a Broadway theater for the first time in his life and wound up onstage as the featured audience member in a Penn & Teller trick. Because of this unique perspective, he was able to tell me how it was done, but it sure fooled everybody else, and it was also a simple switch at an instant when everyone was distracted. Some people are deflated hearing stuff like this, but great magicians are all about the theater surrounding rather simple movements [albeit requiring dexterity that can only be achieved by years of practice].
The Norton character could easily have performned the orange tree in real life, in that time period. |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 15:22:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
One imagines that the free twin would present himself for the sake of the jailed twin, but he doesn't.
You know, I had never thought about that before, but you are right. Even in Victorian times, I doubt that they would have executed two men for the same murder just because (they thought) they knew that one did it.
That's true. Although, I still say the mistake they made was having Christian Bale's character try to smash the glass to get Jackman out of the tank. Why would he do that, had he been the one to switch the lock? He did not appear guilty and yet they sentenced him to hang. They should have had him run away, instead of try to save Hugh. Then he would have looked more responsible.
EM :) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 16:45:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Then he would have looked more responsible.
And he also would have been partially responsible. Letting someone die is immoral too. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 16:46:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
The Norton character could easily have performned the orange tree in real life, in that time period.
O.K., you must have a much more sophisticated knowledge of machinery than me then. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 17:20:58
|
I was writing a reason why the tree couldn't actually work and realised perhaps it could, but you have to excuse the CGI elements from the film and assume that is not what the audience would have actually seen - this beautifully flowing timelapse growth is for our benefit and suggests something of what the audience would have experienced watching the trick. From there it is a matter of hydrolic tubes expanding and inflatable oranges inside the ends of the branch tubes which are palmed on picking and replaced with real oranges which are thrown to the audience.
Because Ricky Jay was the techninal advisor on the film for magic you have to assume that he approved or disproved the possibility of the tricks that are shown. Unfortunately because they are not actually done on screen we can't join in with the wonderment of the audience. We're harder to satisfy now.
However the ghosts - I still don't buy that part of the story - mainly because of the spirits walking through the space and interacting with the audience. Smoke and mirrors doesn't cover it - the example shown to Uhl was quite plainly not the way it was being done, and in that example (the best his scientific advisors could come up with) in one position, with low definition. Only advanced projection equipment from today could feasibly work, and even then projecting a live performance, not a pre-recorded one. I think it was a step too far to introduce something that implausible. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 17:39:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
you have to excuse the CGI elements from the film and assume that is not what the audience would have actually seen - this beautifully flowing timelapse growth is for our benefit and suggests something of what the audience would have experienced watching the trick.
O.K., yes, I can buy this. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 18:20:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I was writing a reason why the tree couldn't actually work and realised perhaps it could, but you have to excuse the CGI elements from the film and assume that is not what the audience would have actually seen - this beautifully flowing timelapse growth is for our benefit and suggests something of what the audience would have experienced watching the trick. From there it is a matter of hydrolic tubes expanding and inflatable oranges inside the ends of the branch tubes which are palmed on picking and replaced with real oranges which are thrown to the audience.
Because Ricky Jay was the techninal advisor on the film for magic you have to assume that he approved or disproved the possibility of the tricks that are shown. Unfortunately because they are not actually done on screen we can't join in with the wonderment of the audience. We're harder to satisfy now.
However the ghosts - I still don't buy that part of the story - mainly because of the spirits walking through the space and interacting with the audience. Smoke and mirrors doesn't cover it - the example shown to Uhl was quite plainly not the way it was being done, and in that example (the best his scientific advisors could come up with) in one position, with low definition. Only advanced projection equipment from today could feasibly work, and even then projecting a live performance, not a pre-recorded one. I think it was a step too far to introduce something that implausible.
Oh, now I understand what you're saying. Yes, the CGI is used to simulate the astonished Victorian audience's perception of the illusion. My apologies. Of course it wouldn't look exactly like that [nor would any Victorians be as close to the illusion as the camera position showed us], but we're in the 21st century; the effect looked like that to the audience. Similarly, the projections could be made to appear in the aisle as well as the stage, with judicious smoke [for reflection], mirrored glass and lighting [to obscure the stage machinery], and angle [to make the "ghosts" visible to the entire audience]. It's been months since I saw THE ILLUSIONIST, but did anyone actually touch the ghosts? Remember, upon reflection we must assume they were played by live actors in Norton's theater, who could perfectly well interact with audience voices. Should someone try to touch, their hands would simply pass through the "apparitions," as they "should."
CGI aside [few of us would buy the machine-like growth of the orange today, though Jay's live contraption with "my wedding ring" emerged in a steady flowing motion that caused gasps], I stand by my statement that Norton's basic illusions could have been performed by a Victorian magician. [I can't explain the sword, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation...thus my labored description of Ricky Jay's "mystifying" "orange tree" gag.] THE PRESTIGE's key illusions could not have been performed back then, nor could they be now, because of the added supernatural element which is just as bogus then as now. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 18:42:52
|
There's also the butterflies with the hanky, there's Biel's weird reflection in the mirror, the orange tree and ghosts aren't the end of it. The sword thing I'm willing to buy -- most of the others I'm not. And more honestly, I simply can't buy that I'm "watching it like Victorian audiences would watch it" because 1) I'm not a Victorian audience no matter how many tricks Neal Burger wants to throw at me, and 2) the last scene pulls up the curtain, supposedly showing us the reality behind the illusions, so I'm not willing to buy into the magical fantasy the same way you can in, say, Finding Neverland or Bridge to Terabithia.
Moreover, I still feel this whole argument is a sidetrack to the real issue, which is that this movie is dramatically inert. |
|
|
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 18:43:16
|
| WHAT??? This movie was about magicians? Thanks for ruining it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
THE PRESTIGE -- MAJOR SPOILER ALERT
