Speaker 1: Film Spotting is presented by Regal Unlimited, the all you
Speaker 1: can watch movie subscription pass that pays for itself in
Speaker 1: just two visits. See any standard two D movie anytime
Speaker 1: with no blackoutdates or restrictions. Sign up now on the
Speaker 1: Regal app or at the link in our description and
Speaker 1: use code film spot twenty six to receive fifteen percent off.
Speaker 1: What kind of a show you guys putting on here today?
Speaker 2: You're not interested in art?
Speaker 3: Now? No, Look, we're going to do this thing. We're
Speaker 3: going to have a.
Speaker 1: Conversation, Josh.
Speaker 2: Our review of The Odyssey is coming. Yes, it opened
Speaker 2: last weekend. You've seen it. By the time people hear this,
Speaker 2: I will have seen it, and in fact we will
Speaker 2: have recorded our review. But it will be coming to
Speaker 2: the film Spotting feed officially on Friday. We thought we
Speaker 2: would go back into the archive for this drop and
Speaker 2: look to our Nolan review. The only good thing about
Speaker 2: twenty twenty was having the opportunity to revisit every Christopher
Speaker 2: Nolan film and do the blank check thing and take
Speaker 2: each one of them in order, looking at the filmmaker's
Speaker 2: entire body of work.
Speaker 1: The Prestige is.
Speaker 2: A movie that I remember reviewing on the show. I
Speaker 2: don't know if this comes up in this review. I
Speaker 2: don't typically listen to the archive drops ahead of time.
Speaker 2: The Prestige is a film that was reviewed on the show.
Speaker 2: I was positive. I think I was very positive even
Speaker 2: on the film. But I do remember watching this film
Speaker 2: again and feeling like I had a revelatory experience with it,
Speaker 2: feeling like, oh no, the Prestige is great Nolan, this
Speaker 2: is top tier Nolan. And I thought my ranking on
Speaker 2: Letterbox would reflect that I have two Nolan rankings. I
Speaker 2: have the old one and then I have the post
Speaker 2: twenty over review, and there is there is the Prestige
Speaker 2: at number three. On the newer one. I thought, there
Speaker 2: you go. It must have jumped up so much. It
Speaker 2: turns out on the old one it was at number four,
Speaker 2: so it didn't take a huge leap. But I still
Speaker 2: think that as it happens, when you revisit films and
Speaker 2: you get to watch them again, you can still have
Speaker 2: that experience where your eyes are open to so much
Speaker 2: more that you didn't see the first time. That's the
Speaker 2: experience I feel like I had with the Prestige.
Speaker 1: So we'll see. As we we share this review, What
Speaker 1: I'm fascinated by, which is going to take us on
Speaker 1: a total detour, is that that's how you do your
Speaker 1: director ranking lists. You have separate I'm not saying this
Speaker 1: is wrong. I'm reconsidering my process. You know what, I
Speaker 1: don't think I've done it with anybody else. I think
Speaker 1: this is unique. Don't we do the overview? Probably that's right,
Speaker 1: But yeah, I usually and it gets tricky, like you
Speaker 1: might be right, because I usually do it once and
Speaker 1: then update it every time I watch one of their films,
Speaker 1: which makes no sense in the comments then, because people
Speaker 1: are yelling at you for something that is no longer
Speaker 1: necessarily reflective. But yeah, as far as Nolan goes, I
Speaker 1: do think I've always considered it top tier as well. Again,
Speaker 1: haven't listened to what we said in our review before
Speaker 1: this either. Number five for me, which I think speaks
Speaker 1: to Nolan. I'm like, how can I have the prestige
Speaker 1: only at five? And then I look at what's ahead
Speaker 1: of it, It's like, well, okay, that's how that seems.
Speaker 1: That seems about fair. But yeah, agree with you top tier.
Speaker 1: Nolan interested in a lot of the essential questions. His
Speaker 1: best movies are interested in. Yes, which is why I
Speaker 1: think it's a key Nolan film, and I'm sure we
Speaker 1: touch on a lot of that in a review. So
Speaker 1: here from May twenty twenty is that conversation about the
Speaker 1: prestige A real magician tries to invent something new, something
Speaker 1: other magicians will scratch their heads over. I suppose you
Speaker 1: have such a trick as sure there someone They're gonna
Speaker 1: remember me for.
Speaker 2: What happened.
Speaker 4: It was the greatest magic trick I've ever seen.
Speaker 2: Every great Christopher Nolan movie consists of three parts or acts.
Speaker 2: The first part is called the Pledge. The filmmaker shows
Speaker 2: you something ordinary with his fifth feature. Set in late
Speaker 2: nineteenth century London, it's two rival magicians, Hugh Jackman's sophisticated
Speaker 2: showman Robert A Jeer and Christian Bale's committed professional Alfred Borden.
Speaker 2: The filmmaker shows you these characters. Perhaps he asks you
Speaker 2: to watch them to see if they are indeed real,
Speaker 2: unaltered normal, but of course they probably aren't. The second
Speaker 2: is called the Turn. The filmmaker takes these characters and
Speaker 2: makes them part of something extraordinary. Our period piece becomes
Speaker 2: gothic science fiction, a meditation on the moral limits of
Speaker 2: science and pursuit of knowledge, the consequences of obsession. Now
Speaker 2: you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it
Speaker 2: because of course you're not really looking. You don't really
Speaker 2: want to know. You want to be fooled, but you
Speaker 2: wouldn't clap yet because one of our magicians finally winning
Speaker 2: isn't enough. Our minds have to be blown. That's why
Speaker 2: every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part,
Speaker 2: the part we call the prestige. Fairly early in the film,
Speaker 2: Borden's wife, Sarah played by Rebecca Hall, reveals he's going
Speaker 2: to be a father. He shows her the trick that's
Speaker 2: going to put food on their table, a bullet catch,
Speaker 2: which he performs for her.
Speaker 1: To prove it's safe.
Speaker 2: Like any of us observing a great trick, she wants
Speaker 2: to know the secret and insists she can't comfortably allow
Speaker 2: him to do it unless she understands the mechanics of it.
Speaker 2: He relents, she replies, disappointedly, once you know it's so obvious, Josh,
Speaker 2: any rewatch of the prestige requires that you know the twist,
Speaker 2: and equipped with that knowledge, it does all seem well
Speaker 2: pretty obvious, Like, Sarah, did that leave you disappointed or
Speaker 2: even more impressed with Nolan's sleight of hand.
Speaker 1: I am really glad you asked this question because it
Speaker 1: helped me clarify a little bit. It helped me locate
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why. And I'll stay at the
Speaker 1: say at the front here. This is still top tier
Speaker 1: Nolan for me really love this film. I think it's
Speaker 1: incredibly strong, but your question helped me locate one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why I might have liked it a little
Speaker 1: bit less this time around. And it's not so simple
Speaker 1: as knowing the twists or knowing the surprises, because confession,
Speaker 1: I don't think I watched The Prestige since two thousand
Speaker 1: and six, and I had mostly forgotten how everything unfolded. Now, yeah,
Speaker 1: the hints and clues. I pieced it together in advance
Speaker 1: in a way that I did not in six. But
Speaker 1: it's different from not knowing anything. So I was still
Speaker 1: pretty much in the dark as this movie began. So
Speaker 1: it's not just that I knew the answer. It's and
Speaker 1: I'm not sure it disappoints even in terms of its reveals,
Speaker 1: but in comparison to something like as before we started recording,
Speaker 1: you had mentioned the sixth cents, So comparison to something
Speaker 1: like that, which we did revisit just last year and
Speaker 1: is another case where it hugely depends on its reveals,
Speaker 1: it's twists, its turns, its surprises. I do think in
Speaker 1: comparison to something like that, the Prestige is a little
Speaker 1: bit less rewarding the second time. And the basic reason
Speaker 1: for me is that my sixth sense rewatch had more
Speaker 1: esthetic clues to soak up that were related to the mystery.
Speaker 1: So things like the color red, remember we talked about that,
Speaker 1: or even the cold breath that you were curious about
Speaker 1: the first time, and it was a visual element that
Speaker 1: late you realize, oh, that represents the dead and you
Speaker 1: can look for that and feel it on the screen.
Speaker 1: So those were esthetic clues to soak up, whereas here
Speaker 1: in The Prestige they're more narrative clues or or just
Speaker 1: narrative reveals to remember, so not so much to experience.
Speaker 1: But as I was watching the Prestige, it would be
Speaker 1: like when they revealed that, oh, yeah, that's what this means.
Speaker 1: And as an example of this, I would say the
Speaker 1: journal entries a lot of this unfolds as competing journal entries,
Speaker 1: and it's revealed that the writer knows the reader will
Speaker 1: read it one day, right twice in both cases. In
Speaker 1: both cases we get that, and that's kind of a
Speaker 1: narrative plot reveal, or even Bail's explanation at the very end,
Speaker 1: And here fair warning to listeners if you have not
Speaker 1: seen the prestige, we are going to get into spoilers.
Speaker 1: Just seems natural for this overview and for this type
Speaker 1: of film in particular, So maybe watch the film and
Speaker 1: come back to this conversation. But another example of this
Speaker 1: I would give is Bail's explanation at the very end
Speaker 1: that he's a twin when he explains this all to Jackman, Right,
Speaker 1: that's kind of it's a cool twist, and if you
Speaker 1: hadn't pieced it together before, it's it's exciting to understand.
Speaker 1: But it's also something of a narrative explanation rather than
Speaker 1: an esthetic surprise or something that's a little more textured.
Speaker 1: So I'd say it's still rewarding to watch those clues
Speaker 1: be cleverly set in place. One example, to go back
Speaker 1: to Rebecca Hall's character, I really loved how she would
Speaker 1: repeatedly say to Bail's character today, you mean it yet,
Speaker 1: My Love's Time. Yeah, yeah, because the first time I
Speaker 1: watched that that was just kind of like a curiosity,
Speaker 1: and the second time it holds much more power. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I do appreciate it still, but it's not quite
Speaker 1: as formally interesting as the sixth Cents. So I think
Speaker 1: that's a distinction between the two and maybe why the
Speaker 1: revisit for six Cents was was a little bit more enjoyable,
Speaker 1: even though again really love this film.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll definitely talk a little bit more about Rebecca Hall.
Speaker 2: And I think I had the slightly opposite experience to you, Josh. Ironically,
Speaker 2: maybe I was more disappointed the first time I saw
Speaker 2: the film as we got to the reveal and all
Speaker 2: of that new information, as I got the exhilarating thrill
Speaker 2: of that twist. I looked back at my notes from
Speaker 2: my original review, and I was positive here on the show,
Speaker 2: but I wasn't gushing, and I specifically said, at least
Speaker 2: in my notes that in the end, I guess I'm
Speaker 2: stealing from myself, just like these magicians in the movie. Josh,
Speaker 2: I felt a little bit like Sarah once the trick
Speaker 2: was revealed to me. I actually just felt kind of stupid.
Speaker 2: I wasn't amazed at the artistry. I was just kind
Speaker 2: of mad at myself for not figuring it out. But
Speaker 2: I do think, if I'm being honest, there was a
Speaker 2: complicating factor there, and that was I probably was a
Speaker 2: little bit mad at myself and feeling like an idiot,
Speaker 2: because I'm pretty sure I did not fully figure it
Speaker 2: out even as Nolan laid it all out the characters
Speaker 2: gave it to me. Yeah, I still was swimming a
Speaker 2: little bit ahead. Was swimming mull it over when you
Speaker 2: got an idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was in the same exact But let me
Speaker 1: ask you this, because I think this is interesting. You
Speaker 1: described in your setup how we you know, audiences riffing
Speaker 1: on the film they want to be fooled, And I
Speaker 1: feel like people can watch movies like this two different ways.
Speaker 1: I'm curious which type of person you describe yourself as,
Speaker 1: the person who does want to be fooled or the
Speaker 1: person who loves to figure it out along the way,
Speaker 1: because I'm more of the want to be fooled person
Speaker 1: me too.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, so that's completely and that's why I
Speaker 2: fall for a movie like this, even when I'm watching
Speaker 2: it for a second time. The first time sinso six.
Speaker 2: But I'm seeing it again and I fundamentally know what
Speaker 2: the trick is.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: I still am willing to basically forget that and play along. Yeah,
Speaker 2: And so if you do see it as a trick,
Speaker 2: if you see it as at the end, okay, Nolan
Speaker 2: pulled one over on us and I should have caught
Speaker 2: on to Boreden's secret, then I can understand some dissatisfaction.
Speaker 2: But I think the benefit for me of seeing it
Speaker 2: again and knowing where it was going is that I
Speaker 2: could focus on, hopefully what the movie is really about,
Speaker 2: what the ramifications of the twist are, and the ideas
Speaker 2: it raises. To use the line from the movie, it's
Speaker 2: what I think Bail says one point, The secret impresses
Speaker 2: no one. The trick you use it for is everything, which,
Speaker 2: as we'll probably also get into, that could just as
Speaker 2: easily be Nolan talking about the trick of filmmaking, right
Speaker 2: that you can fool people or while people with certain gimmicks,
Speaker 2: maybe even like a reverse chronology in a film like Memento.
Speaker 2: But it's the trick you use it for that is
Speaker 2: really key. And in fact, Josh, what occurred to me
Speaker 2: this time is that Borden's secret, his grand sacrifice, this
Speaker 2: notion that he's really been living his whole life. I
Speaker 2: was gonna say it's a double life, but it's actually
Speaker 2: a half life. You know, it's a part of him,
Speaker 2: and he never actually gets to fully explore the other
Speaker 2: part of him because he's divided up everything, his family
Speaker 2: and his arts, even as a magician. But that sacrifice,
Speaker 2: even though it does feel like it's the final reveal
Speaker 2: of the film, you discover it's actually kind of the misdirection,
Speaker 2: and I think the real secret to wrestle with. And
Speaker 2: again we're in full spoiler territory here is in jeer sacrifice.
Speaker 2: Not just how complicated and involved and difficult this scheme is,
Speaker 2: which obviously took so much time in planning to undo Borden,
Speaker 2: but that in finally doing what Bordon always accused him
Speaker 2: of not doing, finally committing to his craft, finally getting
Speaker 2: his hands dirty, he doesn't just compromise his morals. He
Speaker 2: doesn't just compromise the basic laws of human morality. Yeah,
Speaker 2: he destroys all notions of human morality. It's actually, if
Speaker 2: you sit back and think about it, fully comprehend it,
Speaker 2: it's actually astonishing to put yourself in Angier's shoes and
Speaker 2: consider the literal act of self destruction. He makes the
Speaker 2: decision to go through with it, and I didn't recognize that,
Speaker 2: and I didn't reckon with it the first time I
Speaker 2: saw this movie. I think I was too caught up
Speaker 2: in some of the other reveals. I was too caught
Speaker 2: up in Boredon's secret and in the one upman ship.
Speaker 2: I think he got me. Nolan got me with his
Speaker 2: sleight of hand, a little bit, maybe to the movie's
Speaker 2: own detriment, because I didn't fully think about the ideas
Speaker 2: at its core, and since we are in spoiler territory
Speaker 2: in case it's not clear to someone, the implication for
Speaker 2: me of the end of the film, what we learn
Speaker 2: about Anger is is that Angier that we're seeing get
Speaker 2: shot by Borden is not the Angeer we open the
Speaker 2: movie with. No that's my understand that it's a clone
Speaker 2: that's the clone of Anger, and it might be at
Speaker 2: least the hundredth maybe more clone, like he has decided
Speaker 2: that for this act, and we do see the scene
Speaker 2: in a flashback where he does have to kill that
Speaker 2: clone for the first time, and he doesn't really have
Speaker 2: much of a decision to make right, but he clearly
Speaker 2: then does make the decision after that, Well, once I've
Speaker 2: gone past that line, why not just keep crossing it?
Speaker 2: And every night is this act of self annihilation for
Speaker 2: his art, So following through on that theme it is,
Speaker 2: That's what's truly mind blowing for me when I think
Speaker 2: about it. And to go back to the sixth sense,
Speaker 2: as you brought that up, I think too, maybe you're right,
Speaker 2: maybe some of the craft elements aren't there, some of
Speaker 2: the visual aesthetics to really queue you in or to
Speaker 2: be a little bit more rewarding.
Speaker 1: But I did appreciate that.
Speaker 2: I think he did make it fairly obvious, like we
Speaker 2: know what Angier is doing from the moment he gets
Speaker 2: the box and the moment he embarks on, well, we
Speaker 2: should final tour.
Speaker 1: We should know from honestly, we should know from the
Speaker 1: cat and the top hats. That's exactly what I mean. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right at least from that point.
Speaker 2: But once he decides to take the box and we
Speaker 2: know what it does because we saw the top hats
Speaker 2: and the cat, then we know that he's made a
Speaker 2: decision to do this every night.
Speaker 1: But when I didn't know. This goes back to you
Speaker 1: feeling I didn't put that together, even though you're right
Speaker 1: we should have.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't either, And so now you see it
Speaker 2: and you realize that that's laid out for you, was
Speaker 2: still twenty or thirty minutes left in the movie that
Speaker 2: the Fallon character is so hidden by the camera and
Speaker 2: edit it around so we don't as viewers study him
Speaker 2: too closely because partly two, if we did, we'd probably
Speaker 2: catch on that he's really Christian Bale. How about cutter
Speaker 2: Michael Caine telling us early on in the film. I
Speaker 2: know how he does it. He just tells Anger it's
Speaker 2: a double. That is what it is. He knows it's
Speaker 2: a double. And I think that like Angeer, we as viewers,
Speaker 2: we want to be fooled and we want to be
Speaker 2: like Malcolm Crow in the sixth sense. We see what
Speaker 2: we want to see. We embrace the lie. I think
Speaker 2: our reasons are slightly different as viewers. I think that
Speaker 2: might be just how we're wired as audiences to give
Speaker 2: the benefit of the doubt to the narrative and want
Speaker 2: to believe it is relatively straightforward and linear in a way.
Speaker 2: But for Angeer Man, I already mentioned Memento. He's just
Speaker 2: like Leonard. The lie is what gives his life, meaning,
Speaker 2: it's what gives him purpose, that line he has, I'm disciplined.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about Leonard here in momento. I'm disciplined and organized.
Speaker 2: I use habit and routine to make my life possible.
Speaker 2: I mean that's a injeer certainly, but also it speaks
Speaker 2: for Bordon. So I guess in short, what I'm saying
Speaker 2: is I thought that one of the great tricks of
Speaker 2: the sixth sense. We talked about this a lot as
Speaker 2: part of our nine for ninety nine last year, was
Speaker 2: em Ni Shaum wants putting it all out there for you,
Speaker 2: and he's putting you in the same position as his
Speaker 2: main character. All the evidence is there, and we choose
Speaker 2: to overlook it, just like he does. We want to
Speaker 2: believe what we're being given, what's being put in front
Speaker 2: of us, and here I think we're actually in a
Speaker 2: similar position to Angier.
Speaker 1: Well, the full reality of his monstrousness is something that
Speaker 1: I think maybe it's denial, Maybe it's a form of
Speaker 1: denial we have where we don't want anyone, even someone
Speaker 1: who's you know, sort of a not a hero, but
Speaker 1: a protagonist for sure in this movie, and someone who's
Speaker 1: charming to a certain degree, as played by Hugh Jackman.
Speaker 1: We don't want to admit he would do something like this,
Speaker 1: So it takes getting out of the theater and recognizing
Speaker 1: that he has been if not I mean committing murder
Speaker 1: slash suicide on a nightly basis. And I did have
Speaker 1: like kind of a nerdy question about that this time around.
Speaker 1: So my understanding, based on what we see that first
Speaker 1: time when he does shoot the clone, is that whoever
Speaker 1: steps into the box on stage is the person who
Speaker 1: will die that night. But I do that's my understanding.
Speaker 1: But there is a line of dialogue he says, how
Speaker 1: about how it took sacrifice and it took it was
Speaker 1: dangerous because he never knew if he'd be the man
Speaker 1: in the box, which I'm still trying to unpack. I
Speaker 1: feel like and maybe a listener will will be able to,
Speaker 1: you know, explain this who's paid closer attention. But I
Speaker 1: feel like that's a conflict and my understanding was and
Speaker 1: to me, it strikes me as more powerful if the showman,
Speaker 1: the stage guy getting all the applause, it goes back
Speaker 1: to him being underneath and not hearing the applause. Knew
Speaker 1: each night to keep this ruse going, this long con
Speaker 1: to get bored and required nightly suicide. And that is,
Speaker 1: you know, equally monstrous, but kind of a different, differently
Speaker 1: monstrous conundrum. So I don't know if you it sounds
Speaker 1: like you had the same reading I did on that otie. Yes,
Speaker 1: I definitely did.
Speaker 2: And to go back to your point too, about what
Speaker 2: we as viewers we want to accept or don't want
Speaker 2: to accept the Tesla line played by David Bowie here
Speaker 2: where he says you're familiar with the phrase man's reach
Speaker 2: exceeds his grasp and he says it's a lie. Man's
Speaker 2: graphs exceeds his nerve. That's surely what we see play
Speaker 2: out over the course of the movie. And ultimately Angier
Speaker 2: realizes that he has the nerve. Yeah, and he steals
Speaker 2: himself to do this every night. But I think we
Speaker 2: as viewers almost are are that man. We just don't
Speaker 2: have the nerve to do what Angrew is capable of,
Speaker 2: and we don't even want to believe that someone like
Speaker 2: him or anyone is capable of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, So let me back up and state, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of where I was at with a film in
Speaker 1: two thousand and six, And why for me to say
Speaker 1: that this was a little bit less of an experience
Speaker 1: is not a slight on the film at all, because
Speaker 1: I think at the time, again, coming after Batman Begins,
Speaker 1: I would have claimed this was Nolan's best film in
Speaker 1: six and I think that was partly because for me,
Speaker 1: it was a return to Memento form. I had loved Memento.
Speaker 1: Was thrilled by Batman begins again as sort of a
Speaker 1: kid who grew up on super heroes and this was
Speaker 1: a new way to approach them, I thought. But both
Speaker 1: Batman Begins in Insomnia comparatively to Memento, we're pretty straightforward.
Speaker 1: And I was so excited about this new filmmaker who
Speaker 1: made Memento that when I got this and it seemed
Speaker 1: much more in the vein of Memento, but maybe a
Speaker 1: little more I don't know if polished is the right word,
Speaker 1: but it's a bigger scale, bigger production. It just it
Speaker 1: knocked me out and I loved it. Now, even if
Speaker 1: I don't say it's probably maybe not Nolan's best film,
Speaker 1: I do think it might be his most nolan esque
Speaker 1: and that's because it's got the narrative layers and the
Speaker 1: convoluted timeline. We think of these themes. You and I
Speaker 1: have already discussed obsession, mainly in the lengths the Place's
Speaker 1: Obsession will take men. We have more traumatized protagonists, both
Speaker 1: of them doubly traumatized, you know, triply if you include
Speaker 1: the Boord and twins. And then adding on top of
Speaker 1: this these bold visuals that we've come to a scribe
Speaker 1: or expect from Nolan. Here, maybe there aren't a ton
Speaker 1: of them, but the ones that we get, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to go back to the top hats. Those top
Speaker 1: hats in the field or the light bulbs glowing in
Speaker 1: the snowy field are just when you say the Prestige,
Speaker 1: instantly I see the top hats, and so I think
Speaker 1: for me, even thinking about the films that are to
Speaker 1: come in our overview, but obviously you and I have
Speaker 1: both seen The Prestige maybe remains the most Nolan esque
Speaker 1: film in his filmography.
Speaker 3: I'm Ry Woodson and I'm Tamara Williamson. And this is
Speaker 3: born to the game where legacy meets identity. What does
Speaker 3: it really mean to be born into legacy but still
Speaker 3: have to find your own identity. We share the real
Speaker 3: stories of the children of iconic athletes, entertainers, and cultural
Speaker 3: figures and what it actually takes to step outside of
Speaker 3: that legacy and build something of your own. Listen to
Speaker 3: Burn to the Game on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts
Speaker 3: or wherever you get your parts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think we'll obviously have a clearer answer
Speaker 2: to that as we do get through these movies. But sure,
Speaker 2: I would say, at least right now, if we didn't
Speaker 2: know Inception was coming, for example, Yeah, then we would
Speaker 2: have to say, well, this feels like the culmination of
Speaker 2: his career, you know, as we're now back to going
Speaker 2: in order, it feels like every film we've seen has
Speaker 2: been building to this one, and we are out of
Speaker 2: order a little bit because we talked about all three
Speaker 2: of the Batman films together. But it was funny for
Speaker 2: me even watching the way Bordon and and Jeer keep
Speaker 2: trying to essentially settle the score with each other until
Speaker 2: it gets so bad that we're in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Speaker 2: territory right as we touched on with all these compromises,
Speaker 2: and all I could hear in my head is Commissioner
Speaker 2: Gordon talking about the Joker, or Alfred talking about the
Speaker 2: Joker and the idea of escalation right like from the
Speaker 2: Dark Night, it's just a constant state of escalation once
Speaker 2: you realize that something is possible. It really is in
Speaker 2: this terrain, this idea that once there was some kind
Speaker 2: of harmony that was established in Gotham, well then something
Speaker 2: had to come along and break that all up and
Speaker 2: turn it into chaos. And we had to have an
Speaker 2: agent of chaos who is someone who has the nerve
Speaker 2: to do all the unthinkable things that the Joker does.
Speaker 2: So that was definitely in my mind watching it, and
Speaker 2: I'm thinking about Bruce Wayne, I'm thinking about Leonard, I'm
Speaker 2: thinking about Will Dormer. Guys all again driven by vengeance,
Speaker 2: as both of these guys are right and by guilt,
Speaker 2: and they're actual They are performers, right, They're not just
Speaker 2: Bruce Wayne putting on the cowl to go out and
Speaker 2: fight crime. They're performers on a stage and they've created
Speaker 2: this whole act and this whole world around them that
Speaker 2: allows them to act on their pain, basically to make
Speaker 2: sense of their pain, which seems so fundamentally true to
Speaker 2: Christopher Nolan, and I'm going to take this back to
Speaker 2: a conversation we had that some of our listeners heard
Speaker 2: our family members on Patreon. This past weekend, we recorded
Speaker 2: a conversation with our producer Sam about The Life Aquatic
Speaker 2: with Steve Zisu, a film I was hoping I would
Speaker 2: love after years of thinking it was Anderson's worst. And
Speaker 2: as you know, I've talked about inception on the show
Speaker 2: before and that analogy of Cobb the dream maker and
Speaker 2: the world creator as filmmaker. Right, and then you guys,
Speaker 2: just the same day I saw The Prestige. I watched
Speaker 2: it the night after we tape that conversation, and I've
Speaker 2: got ringing in my head, you and Sam putting forth
Speaker 2: this position that The Life Aquatic seems like such a
Speaker 2: personal Wes Anderson film, maybe his most personal Wes Anderson film,
Speaker 2: as it's about a movie maker. And you've got this
Speaker 2: director in Marie's character, having to deal with the personal
Speaker 2: cost of his art and the responsibility that he accepts
Speaker 2: or doesn't accept for his crew. Just the weight of
Speaker 2: all that and trying to reconcile what kind of man
Speaker 2: you are with what kind of artist you are, because
Speaker 2: it seems that it may be impossible to be both
Speaker 2: a good man and a great artist. And whether I
Speaker 2: don't know if you guys use the term an apology
Speaker 2: or or whether it's an actual reconciliation that Anderson over
Speaker 2: the course of that film does come to terms with
Speaker 2: that idea. That's all in my head is I'm watching
Speaker 2: this film and I'm thinking, well, then, what do we
Speaker 2: make of the prestige? What do we make of what
Speaker 2: Christopher Nolan might be doing from a personal standpoint with
Speaker 2: this material? Is it an actual apology where he's saying
Speaker 2: this is it, this is the life of the artist,
Speaker 2: and I'm committed to it just like bored and jeer r.
Speaker 1: Is it a validation?
Speaker 2: This is a pretty cynical view in terms of understanding
Speaker 2: what Nolan might be like as a man.
Speaker 1: It's not very charitable, but he's.
Speaker 2: Saying, yeah, you know what these great feats are really
Speaker 2: what it's all about, and if there are sacrifices you
Speaker 2: make along the way, personal costs, that's all worth it.
Speaker 2: Or do you do what we probably have to do
Speaker 2: because it's fruitless to try to imagine who Christopher Nolan
Speaker 2: is as a person. We take it out of that
Speaker 2: realm of trying to understand his psychology, and we just
Speaker 2: look at it as an exploration of these ideas, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, at the end we get that line where
Speaker 2: he says the audience knows the truth, and Jeer says,
Speaker 2: the audience knows the truth.
Speaker 1: The world is simple. It's miserable, solid all the way through.
Speaker 2: But if you could fool them even for a second,
Speaker 2: then you can make them wonder. And that sure seems
Speaker 2: compatible with a filmmaker, with the idea of a filmmaker
Speaker 2: like Nolan making all these films we're talking about that
Speaker 2: are so bleak, that have in a lot of ways
Speaker 2: a very miserable, pessimistic worldview, but as a filmmaker he
Speaker 2: does try to make us wonder, and that might be
Speaker 2: the only real grace we ever get is through art,
Speaker 2: through the type of art that he is striving for.
Speaker 1: Well, so that's bringing us to one of the criticisms,
Speaker 1: or at least descriptions of Nolan as a cold filmmaker.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if I've ever been tempted to
Speaker 1: read one of his films as some sort of personal
Speaker 1: statement or even an expression of a personal experience, because
Speaker 1: I just haven't gotten that vibe from any of them.
Speaker 1: I think you're probably right to point to Inception as
Speaker 1: the one that most closely could be the analogy for filmmaking.
Speaker 1: And that's personal, it's professional personal, right, But these other
Speaker 1: concerns that are more private, personal or psychological personal, those
Speaker 1: elements are in his movies. But I do think it's
Speaker 1: something that is not one of the strengths of his movies.
Speaker 1: Let's put it that way. Maybe a Memento is the
Speaker 1: one that registers where the emotions and the experiences are
Speaker 1: so raw I feel them. The Prestige is another movie
Speaker 1: again for how much I like it, where I would
Speaker 1: say the emotions are somewhat mechanical or they almost feel required,
Speaker 1: because Nolan as a filmmaker knows, especially when he's working
Speaker 1: at this scale. You know, you're a mass audience filmmaker
Speaker 1: at this point, and there are elements people are going
Speaker 1: to expect, and some of that might be romance, some
Speaker 1: of that might be you know, family relationships, and I
Speaker 1: think we get to you know, one thing that struck
Speaker 1: me with The Prestige is that the dead wife or
Speaker 1: the dead lover thing. It's a little more problematic in
Speaker 1: retrospect and by that, I mean before this was something
Speaker 1: we got pretty much just in Memento, right if we
Speaker 1: had come to the prestige new in six. But now
Speaker 1: we're watching it again in light of the dark Knight rises,
Speaker 1: where that happens, in light of Inception, where that happens, right,
Speaker 1: if I'm remembering Inception correctly. So this also brings us
Speaker 1: to the performances I think, and back to Rebecca Hall,
Speaker 1: who I know you wanted to get back to. I
Speaker 1: think she is giving the best performance in the film,
Speaker 1: yet she's not quite able to carry all that emotional weight.
Speaker 1: She can't herself as good as good as it is unfair,
Speaker 1: that's the perfect word for it. And so for me
Speaker 1: and I am connecting this back to your point about
Speaker 1: this being a personal expression, because that's what we're as people,
Speaker 1: as humans, and relationships, that's where we're going to connect. Right.
Speaker 1: We can't all connect with you know, not even magicians,
Speaker 1: but let's just say broader artists or people with creative
Speaker 1: aspirations or any sort of aspirations that we might become
Speaker 1: obsessed by. We could connect with that, but those are
Speaker 1: sort of professional, even though they're intricately connected with who
Speaker 1: we are as people too. The relational stuff is where
Speaker 1: the movie still falls a little short, and I think
Speaker 1: a lot of his movies do. The whole business between
Speaker 1: her and Scarlet Johansson, her character and Scarlet Johansson's character
Speaker 1: and Bail's two characters just feels rush to me, not
Speaker 1: convincingly handled. I think it feels all the more so
Speaker 1: with Hall's sudden suicide, and so I think that is
Speaker 1: something that is lacking here and is maybe a different
Speaker 1: answer to what you're bringing up. But for me, that's
Speaker 1: where the personal element comes into play, and it just
Speaker 1: doesn't register as strongly as I wished it would.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I will say I never thought of Nolan,
Speaker 2: I suppose, as a personal filmmaker in the way we
Speaker 2: typically think of filmmakers who kind of just open a vein.
Speaker 1: And bleed on. Right, Yeah, let's go about that.
Speaker 2: But that had never occurred to me until I saw
Speaker 2: the Prestige. I watched it in this context and saw
Speaker 2: that these meta elements that we have touched on throughout
Speaker 2: this entire series, they're so blatant here that acknowledgment of
Speaker 2: the audience, including even the framing device of Michael Caine's voiceover,
Speaker 2: which is just acknowledging the role that the filmmaker is
Speaker 2: in and we as audience members. So it did really
Speaker 2: hit me this time. But Josh, I'm completely with you.
Speaker 2: There's a line in this movie that really stuck with
Speaker 2: me this time. And I don't think it's just because
Speaker 2: for reasons I'll explain. I don't think it's just because
Speaker 2: I've heard this word cold also thrown out as a
Speaker 2: criticism of Nolan, and I don't know if that was
Speaker 2: a common criticism of him back at the time this
Speaker 2: film came out to or something that has grown since then.
Speaker 2: It also is a word that a lot of people
Speaker 2: have attached, of course to Stanley Kubrick, who's someone we
Speaker 2: know that Nolan does revere on some level as a filmmaker,
Speaker 2: and a lot of comparisons are made to him. There's
Speaker 2: a line that Scarlett Johanson has in this movie talk
Speaker 2: about another character who gives a great performance that isn't
Speaker 2: really a fair fight. She has a mine when she
Speaker 2: finally says goodbye to Borden and she says, you could
Speaker 2: be in some other cafe saying the same thing about
Speaker 2: me right now. It's inhuman to be so cold, and
Speaker 2: that really felt to me with this swirling in my head,
Speaker 2: it felt like Nolan put that line in as if
Speaker 2: as if he had someone in his life say that
Speaker 2: exact phrase to him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a bit of year.
Speaker 2: Yeah, self critique that he puts, he puts in the film.
Speaker 2: And I'll say about Johansen too. She's so good as
Speaker 2: an actress, even in two thousand and six, and she
Speaker 2: has so much life brimming through her that I do
Speaker 2: believe her even though the movie completely marginalizes her. I
Speaker 2: believe every moment that she expresses anything that seems like
Speaker 2: an actual human emotion in this film. And so that's
Speaker 2: what I want to get to. Where the coldness does
Speaker 2: creep in for me Josh in this movie is that
Speaker 2: if Nolan really wanted to reconcile I think in a
Speaker 2: truly meaningful way the man in the art personal happiness
Speaker 2: versus professional success and ambition, if you want to make
Speaker 2: it more cliche, the head versus the heart. He gives
Speaker 2: us the elements, and he even tries to make them
Speaker 2: very prominent. Yes, but it turns out they're just window dressing.
Speaker 2: They're parts on the chessboard for him. And I am
Speaker 2: talking about Borden's daughter, and I'm talking about Sarah. There
Speaker 2: should be if you really do think about the end
Speaker 2: of this film and process everything, which is hard to do.
Speaker 2: As we've said, even on a second viewing, there should
Speaker 2: actually be a powerful happy aspect to the end. That's
Speaker 2: after Borden and Jeer destroy themselves one part of Borden,
Speaker 2: the twin lives and through the destruction of his brother
Speaker 2: and in the reunion with his daughter, he finally gets
Speaker 2: to be his whole self. That's what Bordon says to
Speaker 2: him from jail. He says, go live your life in full,
Speaker 2: this idea that, now unencumbered by obsession his or his brothers,
Speaker 2: he gets to finally go and live that moment at
Speaker 2: the end when the daughter and the father reunite. That
Speaker 2: should stir something in me as a viewer, just like
Speaker 2: it should stir something in me when I see Sarah
Speaker 2: hang herself when she dies. I should really feel something
Speaker 2: and I never do. There is a truly mechanical aspect
Speaker 2: to it. Your word there, Josh is right. And this
Speaker 2: is a film I've touched on already. It feels the
Speaker 2: most like Memento to me. And some of that is
Speaker 2: the flashback structure where You also feel like you pop
Speaker 2: in sometimes on discussions from a character's pass only so
Speaker 2: Nolan can provide a story element that's necessary to pull
Speaker 2: off the grand trick. But there's nothing about those scenes
Speaker 2: that does actually have emotion underpinning it, and it does
Speaker 2: all feel too cold and too calculated. And I think
Speaker 2: that's a sacrifice Nolan makes that's unfortunate because the film
Speaker 2: would be stronger for it.
Speaker 1: Well, it's unnecessary, is what it is. So you're right.
Speaker 1: I had the same response. And what that's a reveal.
Speaker 1: You know, that's kind of a tell in this movie
Speaker 1: of tricks that it's not really what the movie is
Speaker 1: interested in. It's not interested it's in the family or
Speaker 1: the daughter. It feels like, as you said, it needs
Speaker 1: to be. Now, let me be clear, I also don't
Speaker 1: think Nolan has to be interested in that. I am
Speaker 1: not saying that every great movie has to have a
Speaker 1: strong marital relationship or a strong family dynamic. Again, I
Speaker 1: get the sense that as a filmmaker, perhaps he felt
Speaker 1: this was a necessary element in this story. As I
Speaker 1: don't think we've mentioned yet, this is adapted from a book,
Speaker 1: so maybe it was in the book that is by
Speaker 1: Christopher priest. Nolan wrote the screenplay with his brother Jonathan,
Speaker 1: and so they're just including it as part of the
Speaker 1: story because it was originally there. But let me, you know,
Speaker 1: not to get ahead of ourselves. And I'm curious to
Speaker 1: see if I have this reaction when I see Dunkirk again.
Speaker 1: But I think one of the things I love about
Speaker 1: Dunkirk in retrospect, Adam, he doesn't even try to include
Speaker 1: that stuff. And that's why I love Memento and he
Speaker 1: does as well. He doesn't have to do try there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he doesn't have to in dun Kirk because obviously, you know,
Speaker 1: it's men in battle the whole time, so it wouldn't
Speaker 1: make sense to kind of foist that upon the film.
Speaker 1: But yeah, and Memento has a little bit more of
Speaker 1: it as sort of you know again that the dead
Speaker 1: wife syndrome, but not as much as here. And so
Speaker 1: this isn't something if it's not a strength of yours
Speaker 1: as a filmmaker, maybe you don't have to try to
Speaker 1: include it, although it's also admirable to see if you
Speaker 1: can pull it off. You know, So you'll have to give.
Speaker 2: This just enough to care about the characters, but really
Speaker 2: only to care about them when we realize that they're
Speaker 2: not characters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I'm gonna have to And I'm a big
Speaker 1: fan of Scarlett Johansson and have been for a long
Speaker 1: long time, but I do have to disagree. I just
Speaker 1: don't think the movie serves her poorly. But I don't
Speaker 1: find her convincing in her scenes either. And maybe it's
Speaker 1: especially that moment where she has to be an unconvincing
Speaker 1: actress with Borden, you know, and we're supposed to see
Speaker 1: that she's a bad actress, and it's just too close
Speaker 1: to some of the other scenes that we get. I
Speaker 1: don't know if I had that reaction to just speaking
Speaker 1: on her. I mean, it's more on the movie, I
Speaker 1: should say, than her, to be fair.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I think just two different versions of that scene,
Speaker 2: even like I don't really know in some ways what
Speaker 2: I think they would be, the bad acting versus the
Speaker 2: good acting.
Speaker 1: Well, and I think they use Maybe that's part of
Speaker 1: the problem. I think they use the same exact footage
Speaker 1: and so because they know they can. But I think
Speaker 1: we should get to the talk about Bail and Jackman
Speaker 1: as co leads because I'm someone who has and I
Speaker 1: haven't quite specified exactly what it is, but a little
Speaker 1: bit of an aversion to Christian Bale. I think he
Speaker 1: just he just tries so hard, so obviously hard. But
Speaker 1: I think he's great here. I think he's perfectly cast
Speaker 1: as this obsessive risk taker, as the pure artist. You know,
Speaker 1: you get a sense like this is how Bail would
Speaker 1: talk about acting, the way that his character talks about
Speaker 1: magic and performing. And so I'm with him all the
Speaker 1: way in this film, Jackman, I think is great. What
Speaker 1: he's the showman on stage, like that's probably what got
Speaker 1: him the part, right, Yes, when the Great Denton is
Speaker 1: supposed to be exactly this guy who would bring in
Speaker 1: the crowds, and he's just there's there's a big gap
Speaker 1: between that and say, the scenes where he's reading those
Speaker 1: journals and suddenly understands he's been had and he blurts
Speaker 1: out the anger a very you know, that's got to
Speaker 1: be one of the hardest sort of scenes to perform,
Speaker 1: is you're all alone, no one to react off, and
Speaker 1: you're responding to a piece of paper, so you know,
Speaker 1: more power to him, but it's there's a big gap
Speaker 1: between that and when he's on stage.
Speaker 4: Ladies and gentlemen much of what you've seen tonight may
Speaker 4: be turned as illusions or entertaining trifles. Alas I cannot
Speaker 4: claim this next feet as a loser. Watch careful, you'll
Speaker 4: see no trickery. No trickery is employed, merely a technique
Speaker 4: familiar to certain citizens of the Orient and various holy men.
Speaker 3: Of the Himalayas.
Speaker 2: So that's another part of this film, Josh, that we
Speaker 2: saw exactly the same way. I was really surprised because
Speaker 2: I can't recall ever having a negative reaction to Hugh Jackman.
Speaker 2: And it's not as if I'm negative overall or think
Speaker 2: it's a terrible performance, but in comparison to Bail, it
Speaker 2: really doesn't hold up at all. And I think that,
Speaker 2: you know, Bail's giving a great film performance. He's playing
Speaker 2: someone who's a little bit impenetrable, and as an audience member,
Speaker 2: we're just we're staring at that camera and we're trying
Speaker 2: to understand what's in his head.
Speaker 1: And Jackman, I agree.
Speaker 2: I think he's expressive and too theatrical to a fault.
Speaker 2: I felt like the performance, I suppose was a little
Speaker 2: bit too hammy, and that does work when he's the
Speaker 2: great dan Ton on stage, but off stage it doesn't.
Speaker 2: So I too was really struck by the disparity in
Speaker 2: those performances. And I think we're both acknowledging they're very
Speaker 2: different characters. But even in those moments where a Jeer
Speaker 2: is supposed to be just as dark and brooding, that's
Speaker 2: what it is and enigmatics as Borden. He's just not
Speaker 2: giving you that element, unfortunately, to play off of as
Speaker 2: a viewer.
Speaker 1: Now, it's funny.
Speaker 2: I was having a conversation over Slack with Sam and
Speaker 2: he liked the movie but didn't love it. This is
Speaker 2: definitely mid or second or third tier Nolan for him.
Speaker 2: And he's doing the same thing when there's a movie
Speaker 2: like this that he's just not buying. He's nitpicking it apart, right,
Speaker 2: So all weekend we're going back and forth on different things,
Speaker 2: and most of it I'm arguing with him on or
Speaker 2: trying to explain that it's all accounted for, that it
Speaker 2: does make sense. It's in the movie and we're talking
Speaker 2: about Jackman, and I say to him, I can't believe
Speaker 2: you haven't pointed out the biggest actual flaw with this movie,
Speaker 2: which is the performance that he gives as Root the actor,
Speaker 2: Like how all of a sudden, it's just a Saturday
Speaker 2: Night Live character who shows up in eighteen nineties London
Speaker 2: and brings some levity. That's so no, I know it's
Speaker 2: Sam of course, yeah, Sam, of course, just like you
Speaker 2: Josh Wright's back and goes of course.
Speaker 1: I loved it. Yes, it was like, I mean, we're
Speaker 1: really due for a little bit of lightness. And then
Speaker 1: he shows up and I thought, I thought it was
Speaker 1: great man his teeth well, and I don't know, you know.
Speaker 1: And one more performance we should note is Bowie. I mean,
Speaker 1: how good is Bowie in a couple of scenes? And
Speaker 1: precisely because you would never know it was David Bowie.
Speaker 1: Nothing is impossive with mister Angia. What do you want
Speaker 1: is simply expensive. If I were to build for you
Speaker 1: this machine, you would be present to get merely as illusion.
Speaker 4: Oh people, I actually believe the things I did on stage,
Speaker 4: they wouldn't clap that scream.
Speaker 1: I mean, think of sawing a woman in half ange.
Speaker 1: Have you considered the cost of such a machine?
Speaker 4: Price is not an object, perhaps not, but have you
Speaker 4: considered the cost?
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously there are a few features that maybe
Speaker 1: would give it away if you didn't know going into it,
Speaker 1: but really it's the it's the sort of subdued presence
Speaker 1: and serene and kind of resigned to the state of
Speaker 1: the world, but pursuing his obsessions anyway that he brings
Speaker 1: a full character in just a couple of scenes. So
Speaker 1: I want to just note on hit a few notes
Speaker 1: of sort of technical things we've been tracing throughout our overview,
Speaker 1: like cinematography, music, editing, because it's interesting to see Nolan's
Speaker 1: collaborators and who he's working with here. The cinematography by
Speaker 1: Wally Fister Memento, Insomnia, did the Batman films. Those foggy
Speaker 1: Colorado scenes I've already mentioned him, I think are the
Speaker 1: visual high point for me. Just gorgeous. And really, how
Speaker 1: about that lamp coming on at the train station when
Speaker 1: Angier arrives and just tells you something magical and also
Speaker 1: scientific is happening here right. The music is interesting because
Speaker 1: it is David Julian, so not Hans Zimmer who's always
Speaker 1: associated with Nolan, but Julian did Following, He did the
Speaker 1: music for Following, he did the music for Memento and
Speaker 1: the music for Insomnia. It has similar ominous tones. I
Speaker 1: think to Zimmer's work, but is probably a bit more
Speaker 1: restrained in its employment of them. And then one more
Speaker 1: thing I wanted through out there is just the editing
Speaker 1: by Lee Smith, who joins Nolan on Batman begin so
Speaker 1: the previous film and then sticks with him since there's
Speaker 1: a really nice sequence here when Michael Kine is training
Speaker 1: Jackman with a disappearing dove trick, and the way they
Speaker 1: show us is we go back and forth to Jackman
Speaker 1: learning it from Kin and then demonstrating it himself later
Speaker 1: to a theater owner trying to book the theater. That
Speaker 1: was a really skillful way of taking us as viewers
Speaker 1: through the process of the trick and then also moving
Speaker 1: the narrative long because I did feel, you know, this
Speaker 1: is a plot heavy film and one of the sort
Speaker 1: of hiccups I had is getting through all the machinations
Speaker 1: of the plot could be a bit of a slog
Speaker 1: at certain points, but here it was a real skillful
Speaker 1: way to kind of just move us quickly through it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's a great point.
Speaker 2: And I had two quick hits and one of them
Speaker 2: was definitely tied to the editing. There is a real
Speaker 2: con to me to it that I appreciate. And I'll
Speaker 2: give one example, though there are many, the fact that
Speaker 2: we discover Borden on stage at some point has now
Speaker 2: rebranded himself as the Professor, and the movie doesn't devote
Speaker 2: any time to that. We don't get that aha moment.
Speaker 2: It's not like he's sitting in the workshop one day
Speaker 2: and he says, I need to create this persona and
Speaker 2: this is what I'm going to call myself. He just,
Speaker 2: all of a sudden is that on stage, And we
Speaker 2: understand as viewers based on the science aspect, at least
Speaker 2: the way he's kind of fooling the audience with the theatrics,
Speaker 2: it seems scientific, so he's going to call himself the professor.
Speaker 2: The movie doesn't otherwise get bogged down in it. There
Speaker 2: are a bunch of scenes like that and moments that
Speaker 2: Nolan gives you maybe about twelve seconds, and just in
Speaker 2: that twelve seconds or less, we really do get everything
Speaker 2: we need to know to get us through the rest
Speaker 2: of the narrative.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it goes back to that are you watching closely idea,
Speaker 1: which is it should not only be a tagline for
Speaker 1: our overview, but really it's it's kind of it is
Speaker 1: true of every film, you know, because it's not just
Speaker 1: because they're tricky, but they often kind of formally and
Speaker 1: they reward that sort of attention. I think of Bail
Speaker 1: at one point saying, a real magician tries to invent
Speaker 1: something new. And that's maybe for me the key line
Speaker 1: in terms of this being about filmmaking, because I think
Speaker 1: what we've seen so far, even with something like Insomnia,
Speaker 1: which is many respects a genre film, but there are
Speaker 1: elements to that where you can see him trying to
Speaker 1: invent something new. Certainly did what Batman begins. It seems
Speaker 1: to be what he sets out to do with each
Speaker 1: of his movies.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I mean, really, it is probably what any filmmaker,
Speaker 2: what any artist should always endeavor to do. The other
Speaker 2: part I wanted to mention is that touch of the
Speaker 2: blind assistance and that when that blue light crackles and
Speaker 2: you see it reflected in their eyes. I mentioned in
Speaker 2: the setup this going into gothic horror territory, and there
Speaker 2: is of course, undeniably that Frankenstein aspect to it, and
Speaker 2: that's the moment where it becomes true horror almost.
Speaker 1: It's great.
Speaker 2: Really, it really does give you that sense that Oh
Speaker 2: Angeer has turned into something demonic. He's gone somewhere to Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's somewhere so dark he is he has crossed over
Speaker 2: into another realm when we see those blind assistance in
Speaker 2: their eyes.
Speaker 1: So that that reminds me of a question I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you actually back to Angeer, do you think
Speaker 1: he's he's essentially I mean, we do see that he's
Speaker 1: the real villain, right. The whole narrative kind of goes
Speaker 1: that way. But I wonder if you think it's not
Speaker 1: so much that he's monstrous a murder in the ways
Speaker 1: we've discussed, But do you think it's because he's cheated
Speaker 1: in the magic world, because he's he's essentially employed science, right,
Speaker 1: rather than deception or illusion, or do you think what
Speaker 1: he's doing it's still a form of deception. I guess
Speaker 1: I don't know. It struck me if that was like,
Speaker 1: maybe that is an that's on top of his other
Speaker 1: sins is the sin of cheating at magic in a
Speaker 1: way by using this this box, it's interesting to think about.
Speaker 1: For me.
Speaker 2: I just can't help but tie it to that idea
Speaker 2: that Borden expresses at the beginning, which is the whole
Speaker 2: act is really just commitment. It's all about committing your
Speaker 2: entire life to it. So he's a bad so he wins.
Speaker 2: He wins that way, like even though you're right, he's
Speaker 2: the villain and he's broken all sorts of, as we said,
Speaker 2: laws of humanity. Somehow he's the most professional. He proves
Speaker 2: himself to be the most professional.
Speaker 1: Commitment. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I guess that's true.
Speaker 4: No more secret secrets in my life.
Speaker 2: The Odyssey coming Friday. We hope you enjoyed that conversation
Speaker 2: from our archive about the prestige. If you would like
Speaker 2: to access archive reviews like that at your fingertips anytime,
Speaker 2: you can do that by becoming a Film Spotting Family member.
Speaker 2: You get bonus shows, a weekly newsletter, and more. Learn
Speaker 2: more at Filmspotting Family dot com. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 4: This conversation can serve no purpose any more.
Speaker 1: Good Bye,