The film The Prestige is unfortunately dying at the box office. It dropped from first place to third in its second week, and dropped down to sixth in its third week.

Its total gross after three weeks is only $39.1 million--not quite meeting its $40 million dollar budget.

(Studios generally spend another 20 to 40 million on publicity when a movie like this opens.)

It's quite possible The Illusionist will end up as the more profitable movie since it had a much small budget (half that of The Prestige) and it has so far taken in $38.8 million.

I, for one, am not surprised. I found The Illusionist to be far more satisfying a movie than The Prestige....and word of mouth can make or break a flick after the first week or two.

I must agree with Ken.

The prestige was disjointed, and extremely hard to follow. An elderly friend went to see it and told me he really didn't understand it, but his son was with him and explained.

GO

I agree with Ken. While I liked The Prestige, I have little desire to see it again. But I enjoyed The Illusionist so much that I want to see it again and again.

One of the reasons for that, I think, is that The Illusionist at least could have happened. The Prestige, on the other hand, is pure fantasy—not “our kind of magic” per se.

It is too bad, though, that the movie is dwindling so fast. It’s certainly worth seeing and not waiting for it to come out on HBO.

Dustin

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANY SPOILERS IN THIS THREAD. I'VE ALREADY HAD TO DELETE TWO.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call the Prestige "pure fantasy." And even if one does think so, how does that detract from the film?

Regarding realism in the Illusionist, unless I'm unfamiliar with a technique beyond Pepper's Ghost, how realistic was it to have a manifistation of the boy walking towards the stage as spectators passed their hands through him?

That said, I enjoyed both films, as did many non-magician friends of mine.

PT Widdle, the effects seen in The Illusionist are presented from the point of view of a laymen--in other words, they demonstrate a laymen's impression of what he or she is seeing.
So, the child walking down the aisle of the theater is an impression that a laymen might have of the effect.

In my view the Illusionist was a better story with a more satisfying end. Just watching Paul Giamatti was a treat in itself.

The Illusionist had characters that were sympathetic, far more so than The Presitge...and it was easy enough to follow the motivations of the characters in The Illusionist as opposed to The Prestige.

At bottom, it was easy to follow the story line in The Illusionist as opposed to The Prestige.

A film, to be considered successful, usually has to pull in two to two and one-half times cost. DVD and foreign sales will doubtless pump up the current numbers for both films.

I don't know how big a boost Hollywood films get from foreign box office, but that is one advantage the Prestige will have.

I believe the Prestige opens here on Friday, whereas the Illusionist never made it, and probably never will.

Personally I enjoyed the movie up to the point it turned out to be a SciFi movie... this is not what I was planning to see.

Sorry Richard, I didn't even think of that!

GO

The book is even more so. It's a tale to unravel for the active reader or viewer. The film version makes things more direct even though some things are not spelled out explicitly. A nice trade where visuals can offer a quick reference to what was only described elsewhere in words.

Both films are fairy tales. The Illusionist is a much simpler tale as told by the inspector. The Prestige is a tale pretty much told by the Michael Kane character.

I think one needs to look beyond the sci fi element (if you can). I saw it as a device, creating a backdrop for some kind of moral comparison of the antagonists.

Agreed. The saw about the coward dying a thousand deaths while the hero does only once comes to mind. Also the question about the distinction between the words cost and price pretty much demands some consideration in context.

Thats apt -- a lot of heroic attributes seen. Still wondering about the knot affair, foolish accident vs. dastardly deed -- a lot hinges on that before the hero label seems applicable and the story redemptive.

That says it all for me Michael - the obsessive/competive battle between the two magicians is both awful and thrilling - to be sure it's a hyperbole IMO, but go back to the film and look at the analysis of Chung Ling Soo there.

Also, if you think back to one of the secrets, the Knot mystery is clearer.

(S/B no spoliers here...)

The Prestige was not a well-written story. I cannot give particulars as they would doubtless be seen as spoilers, but the story has several major plot logic holes. The lack of sympathetic characters - other than the two wives - renders the end of the film unsatisfying, which is, I think, the main reason why it is failing.

Superficially, it has a great look and feel and the actors, generally, do a decent job with what they were given. Unfortunately, like many of our effects, a second, deeper look shows that beyond the surface, there isn't much there.

I enjoyed the film. the sci-fi touch didn't bother me too much.

The film is broken in few parts yes, but I'm going again to see it.

Amazing...

A film about magicians who act like magicians which also has some "real" magic and...

the crowd pans it.

It's not my hands that feel dirty.

It opens here in Australia this week. I managed to get a bunch of tickets from the distributor which I sent out to local magicians. Unfortunately the spoilers here and on other forums have pretty much blown the surprises for me and I imagine many others.

Timothy

You are assuming the spoilers are the movie. Remember the old adage "It's the journey not the destination." What's important is the movie as a whole NOT the surprises at the end.
I mean, who really cares that Christian Bale's character is a descendant of Merlin? Does knowing that mean the movie sucks now?

Gord

Movies are made to be seen cold, knowing nothing about them, without having read reviews and pointless jibber-jabber on websites like this.
The revelation of ANY plot points ruin what the film maker is trying to do. How would you like it if someone stood up seconds before you're going to do a trick and explained what happened at the end?

I have to agree with Tim--the spoilers here have ruined it for me.

I'd still go see it. I read the book and enjoyed it a great deal even though there were no real surprises.

What spoilers here? IMHO it seems pretty quiet about plot and storyline.

I want to say that this film gave me and my wife hours of interesting discussion. Comparing it with The Illusionist is not at all fair. Its not warm and glowy, but dark and brooding. Its deep and interesting and if you like deep and interesting you will probably not be disappointed.

Jonathan, even just the mention of the surprise genre shift, mentioned above a couple of times, really will have me watching it in a different light.

Heck, I'm still going to enjoy it, especially with free tickets and the fact that 30 Australian magicians owe me a drink, but I hope you see my point.

Timothy

(BTW I have been meaning to PM you, but your segments in the Sept Issue, were the most fascinating magical reading I've had in a long time.Thank you)

I can't speak to what David Alexander said about the film not being well written, because I did not read the script, but I echo everything else he said.

In my opinion, the ILLUSIONIST was a better structured story. I thought the PRESTIGE was too long and could have been told better. I loved the mood it set though, not one for dark but I liked how it was done here. Every twist I saw coming a mile away (the writing and directing hints were too on the nose for me) although not to the extent that came out in the final exposition. I enjoyed the PRESTIGE, but for my film taste I enjoyed the ILLUSIONIST more. I was also surprised that in retrospect the ILLUSIONIST was a more comercial film as well.

I recently saw the Prestige for the second time, and honestly found it unsatisfying...among other things, the holes in the plot were just too big! (the Lord Coldwell bit especially.)
However before seeing it the first time I had re-read the book, and liked the book better the second time around. So go figure.
Here's one thought I'm sure others have had: since they introduced Chung Ling Soo, why not include the fact that he dies in the bullet catch? And/or that he wasn't really Asian. It seems that would have aided the impact of the story.
But of course, I'm not writing movies...

Well, I haven't seen it yet, but as far as spoilers I don't think anything posted was a suprise to me based on the trailers I had seen. I know what to expect, and am looking forward to it on DVD (with a 1 year old I have to pick and choose what I see, and it wasn't in the drive-ins.) When I saw Fight Club, I had no idea what was going to happen, and the previews didn't help spoil it. I think the trailor for the film alone did this. Anyway, I just got done ready the article on the Prestige in Magic, and it seems that several more movies will be coming out based around "magician" characters, so at least we will have much more to discuss in the future.

The book was a far richer experience than the movie.

Plot holes large enough to see the Grand Canyon through tend to diminish the movie experience even when it is a movie about magicians.

Just a comment on spoilers and such. I purposely avoided any forum mentioning The Prestige until today. I just saw it yesterday. I'm pretty much a purist when it comes to movies....i even go get popcorn or Jr Mints during the previews. Sometimes that makes it hard to know what I want to see though!

Anyway, for you purist out there, make the effort to avoid spoilers...it's worth it!

I enjoyed both movies. I did enjoy the Illusionist more but I thought I would have been in the minority. Glad to see I am not alone.

John, I found the Soo references to be about reinforcing the notion of total committment to living the role, in such a way as to cover the MO. The bullet catch could be seen by the author or director as distracting attention from that important thread in the story.

Michael, I agree on how adding the bullet catch references would unnecessarily complicate the movie. I do think the references to Soo's "real life" would have been very interesting, but may have been too much "foreshadowing." It was easy enough to guess what was to come. That was probably my biggest complaint with The Prestige. The Illusionist cuaght me offguard much more.

Just got to see it yesterday on a rare visit to London (in the most fantastic little old-fashioned cinema in Notting Hill - I thought they had all died out and been turned into bingo halls years back!) so thanks for weeding out the spoilers Richard otherwise it would have blown it for me last week!

I quite enjoyed it, despite the sci fi aspect - but then I am always more willing than some to suspend belief for a while in the cause of being entertained. The amazing thing was my muggle wife - who had accompanied me under sufference (oh... a MAGIC movie... how interesting...) loved it too. She thought it was a good story, very dark and tragic. And she loved the bits of magic and effects too.

Definitely one to see again, and will be buying the DVD.

Bob

Really? I thought The Illusionist was much more predictable than The Prestige. So did the non-magician friend that I saw both movies with.

I haven't seen it yet, but like you my layperson wife saw it yesterday (and, like you, also in London), with a group of friends. They liked it. My wife is sure that I'll enjoy it, and I trust her opinion.

Dave

Same here. With The Illusionist my wife and I had both figured out where things were going early on. The Prestige held no surprises for me, but my wife and son, who haven't read the book, had no clue what was coming.

I would highly recommend the following link for magicians interested in critical sci-fi:
David Langford's Ansible column.

http://www.ansible.co.uk/index.html

Here. for example, is Dave's interview with Christopher Priest in 1995:

In The Prestige I was struck by what seems a highly significant anecdote about a Chinese stage magician who all his life pretended to be virtually crippled as part of the deception that made his best trick work. A real story?

"Yes, that anecdote is genuine, and was what originally suggested the idea of the book. This particular magician is often muddled up with another one with an almost identical name, who is in some ways even more interesting. `Chung Ling Soo' was actually an American (real name William Campbell) who performed as a Chinese, in a direct lift from my man, Ching Ling Foo. It was `Soo' who was famously shot while trying to catch a bullet in his teeth."

Another link to reality is the memoir on stage magic by your character Borden, with a supposed modern edition from Dover Publications Inc. I idly wondered whether you had in mind the Dover reprint of the 1898 Magic by Albert A.Hopkins, of which I've got a copy?

"I used the Hopkins book, but the real influence was another Dover facsimile, called Exclusive Magical Secrets by Will Goldston. This provided the model for the book within the book. Goldston's original was sold with a lock and key (nodded at in the novel, when we learn a particular notebook has a lock), whereas Borden's book is described as `oath protected'; they seem to have gone in for these gimmicks in the past. Dover are just about the only mainstream publisher with a magic list."

Did you go to magicians' performances as part of your research? If so, were you still impressed, amazed, baffled?

"Last year's meeting of the I.B.M. (International Brotherhood of Magicians) was in Eastbourne, just down the coast from here, so I grabbed the chance and went to their gala show. Ninety-nine per cent of the audience was made up of professional magicians, and highly appreciative they were too. This tends to underline the fact that performance skills matter more than secrets (since presumably most of them would know how the tricks were `done').

"I quickly found my boredom threshold for sleight of hand is very low indeed. About half the show consisted of people doing clever but tedious things with playing cards. What I preferred were the big illusions, which is what my novel is really about."

One of Somerset Maugham's stories opens by summing up the dread card trick syndrome: "`Do you like card tricks?' `No, I hate card tricks.' `Well, I'll just show you this one.' He showed me three...." What was your favourite large-scale illusion?

"There was one that really intrigued me. Very briefly, a young woman wearing a bare-minimum stage costume was trussed arm-and-leg in ropes, so tightly she could hardly stand. Her colleague then went into the audience, and grabbed one of the men as a volunteer. They went back on stage, where there was a sort of tent arrangement, barely big enough for one person. The woman in the ropes was bundled into this tent, and then so too was the man from the audience, shoved in beside her. The flap of the tent was zipped up, and either by accident or design the man's head was caught in it, so it remained in sight. There was then evidence of furious activity inside the tent!

"It all happened in less than five seconds. Next thing, the flap was unzipped, and the man stumbled out on the stage, looking dazed. The jacket of his suit was missing. Then the woman in the ropes staggered out too ... she was still trussed exactly as before, but now she was wearing the man's jacket, under the ropes! They got a lot of applause."

Presumably, having swotted up on millions of magical effects for the novel, you saw through this in a trice....

"Not exactly! I was extremely intrigued by it. But you know something like that is just a trick, and that what you saw isn't necessarily what actually happened. There's a rational explanation somewhere, and you can't help wondering what the hell it is! By this time I'd done so much research into techniques that I felt I ought to be able to solve it ... so I thought and thought about it, and finally worked it out. The funny thing is, I think they were using the same method that my chap in The Prestige was using! There are only about six different methods, anyway. Everything depends on the performance, and on the audience thinking: There's only one way that could be done, but they wouldn't have gone to that much trouble! Or would they ...? But the thing is they usually would."

In The Prestige you yourself seem to play the part of stage-magician, with teasing misdirection, devious truths and surprises from unexpected directions. People who like neat genre pigeonholes will be left uncertain for a long time, and then made uncertain again. Fair comment?

"All fiction misdirects the reader, or it can do. You hear thriller writers talking about it. What they mean is laying false clues, and all that.

"But when a magician uses `misdirection' he's up to something more subtle and interesting. A magician plays on the audience's own assumptions so they misdirect themselves. The deck of cards still in its seal (so it must be brand new), the pitcher full of water (so it must be heavy to lift), the rope that has no knot (so it must be all one piece).

"That was the kind of thing I was trying to get at in The Prestige, but as I say it's not all that unusual in fiction. The narrative voice is comparable with a magician's act ... exactly as you were saying, about devious truths. Most people reading a novel told in the first person singular will reasonably assume that it's truthfully or reliably reported, or that only one person is writing it, or that no one apart from the narrator has tampered with the text before it was printed, and so on, but to me these assumptions open possibilities for a few sneaky reversals. All in the cause of keeping people awake!"

It kept me awake well past bedtime, so I'm not complaining! Some people seem to have the dark suspicion that any such literary tricks are effete, artsy-fartsy decoration, when in fact they can help you construct a really gripping story. And there's an unmistakable science-fictional device lurking there too, with a nice Wellsian flavour. Not invisibility ... but did I catch an allusion to The Invisible Man?

"Yes, but almost all sf devices refer back, ultimately, to H.G. Wells. Him being the main man, and all that. Actually, this particular referral was through another of my own books, The Glamour."

Everyone in sf owes a lot to Wells. But, er, the specific device also set Langford the Ex-Physicist thinking on perhaps unfair and smartarse lines. A rough calculation led me to reckon that one electrically-powered stage illusion you describe, supposedly performed around the turn of the century, would demand something like the full output of a modern gigawatt power station operating for well over two centuries....

"I am, as you know, dedicated to the strict observance of scientific accuracy at all times. Ruthless for the truth, is what they say about me. But sometimes it doesn't half get in the way of a good story."

The Prestige story got me curious about the author's other works.

I picked up and enjoyed his The Inverted World and will be starting on The Space Machine in a few days.

I may wind up sending him a note of thanks for the story and perhaps a copy of a certain issue of Genii Magazine.

Finally found time to watch the DVD of The Prestige this evening.

I have seen all of director Christopher Nolan's previous films and had high expectations, even though a major plot was revealed in this thread before I deleted it.

I was extremely disappointed. The editing and twisting of the narrative wasn't hard to follow, but watching a film over two hours long about two asshole magicians who are a pair of conceited bastards was extremely tedious. The fact that the authors (this would include the novelist and screenwriters, one of whom is also the director) feel that one of them is actually a hero to be saved while the other deserves a less pleasant fate actually made me angry because both characters were equally unpleasant.

Thinking about it now, you have to wonder if the author knows about the famous illusionist in our field who uses exactly the ploy explained at the end of this movie. Of course most people in our field don't even know about it.

The ploy used...is this about Abner the Eccentric?

To what, specifically, are you referring?

The wife and I bought the DVD and we both enjoyed it. The twist at the end is something we enjoy. Basic Training with Travolta & Jackson had it.

As far as the battling magicians go, please, there have been several books come out that describe the outright animosity and theft of illusions in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

I was referring to the personalities of the two magicians--both extremely unlikable. It's hard to make a movie that people care about without a likeable antagonist.

Jonathan--I can't explain the ploy without giving away an important plot twist. See the movie and you'll understand.

Richard, it's interesting you mention the real magician in our midst who uses the same ploy as The Prestige's Alfred Borden.
Abb Dickson first informed me of this when I was still a wet-behind-the-ears magician.
If we're talking about the same man (and I think we are), I, too am amazed at how few know. And it's to his credit that this is so. It would be a great temptation to abuse this gift and readily expose it in one's haste to take full advantage of the possibilities that would present themselves.

I had such high hopes for this movie, and a (non-magic) friend summed it up: "I wanted to like it, but they were both such horrible bastards!"
I couldn't disagree.

I have to say, I really enjoyed the movie.
Michael Caine is always a joy to watch.

Watched the movie last night and I want to say I agree with Richard. I found the movie very unsatisfying.I had enjoyed The Illusionist but other than seeing Ricky Jay, I did not like this movie at all.

It was different than what I thought it would be. But I still liked it. Nothing spectacular, but it was still good.

I may be one of the few who thinks The Prestige was a whole lot better than the Illusionist.

I was especially curious to see how the film (as a medium) would play the same trick on the audience as the book did to the reader.

Anyone who has read the book should realize it is extremely hard to translate into screenwriting. (It kind of reminds me how I always wondered how Ira Levin's "A kiss before you die" could be translated into a movie. The answer in that case was it couldn't...)

As for the two unlikable characters, that may be a problem for some. Not for me though, and I have to admit that my altime favorite movie is Sergio Leone's Once upon a time in America. A movie which doesn't have a single sympathetic character in it.

Funny that Richard mentions one of the premises as related to a well known performer. I once assumed to shake hands with that person after seeing him perform, while leaving the theater. Only when I noticed his eyes (like a deer caught in the headlights of a car) and a very weak handshake, I experienced the same revelation as did Angiers, at the end of the Prestige.
Maybe that is why I like the movie so much! I can relate to it!

I agree about The Prestige.
I preferred it to The Illusionist, which I also liked very much.

And it was nice that it was not exactly as the novel. I actually enjoyed the differences.
I don't mind unsympathetic characters, but I found Borden (at least the one who loved his wife) to be a sympathetic character.

I felt a surge of joy as he was reunited with his daughter.

Richard K.,

You cheeky devil, you. Not only did you elude to the famous magi that uses the "Prestige" principal, you used one of his names in a post on this same thread!

Tony Brent
Outta Control Magic Show
Orlando, Florida

The Prestige made me think - The Illusionist made me sleep.

Good catch, Tony!
That slipped right past me.

my copy of the film should be with me this evening.I didnt go to see it at the movies, because, i wantedto critisise it in the comfort of my own home

Richard said- In this case it wasn't hard, it was impossible. Real magic would be transforming this into a movie people would want to see more than once.

Guys,
Are you refering to a magicing using this 'ploy' that is still alive? I'm aware of one past performer that used the idea but is no longer alive.

What does THAT mean?

On another note, I'm one of the (apparently) few who preferred The Prestige to the Illusionist. I thought the Illusionist was a big snooze-fest.

This is tough one for me. Which did I enjoy more? Well, I do not like either Edward Norton or Jessica Biel, but there was something in The Prestige that struck me wrong. Maybe it's because I had finished the book the night before I saw it (I loved the book BTW).
Truthfully, I have to go for The Illusionist. Rotten acting aside (Jessica Biel is a future paper bag accident waiting to happen) it was, to me, the better ride.

Gord

I agree with my favorite movie reviewer, Duncan Shepherd of the San Diego Reader, that Scoop was the best of the bunch.

His consideration of all three is at

http://www.sdreader.com/php/mvdisplay.php?&id=PRESTIGE

and his consideration of Scoop on its own is at

http://www.sdreader.com/php/mvdisplay.php?&id=SCOOP

I liked the prestige - I agree with Peter Duffie - it made me think and I like that - I can understand how the unlikeability of the two main characters may be a turn off for some - te intricate plot twists and turns was great -
I love the metaphors used ie. bird cage et all!!!

think I may have a bash at the book but wish i'd read it first now.

The costumes in The Prestige were more authentic than the ones in The Illusionist. Whoever selected the bowlers for the Illusionist should have looked at more photographs of 1890's hats.

Modern bowlers have a crown about 2 inches shorter than the 19th century hats. But the 19th century style is available if you know where to look for it.

That still does not negate all the holes in both movies, including the antagonists in The Prestige.

Both "protagonists" of The Prestige, in the movie as well as in the novel, were despicable, no doubt about it. However, there is precedent for this. All of the characters of Seinfeld were poor excuses of humanity, yet this was one of the best shows around. The character's very dispicibleness (is that a word?) made it funny.

Don't know what my point was, but maybe someone can find it.

John R

How specifically were the characters in "The Prestige" despicable or even out of character for their time?

For example, let's imagine that one character's father invented a gene-therapy for fertility that had the side effect of producing twins. Perhaps they were the instigator of a certain aspect of the legal issue of the story. Would that make them a villain?

Likewise do we wish to look at the English custom of nobility and rights of property and its attendant social customs as automatically creating villains from all involved?

Okay... where's the despicable dimension?

The characters are just egomaniacal assholes with few redeeming personal qualities. You've got to identify in a sympathetic way with someone in a story, but every character in The Prestige with the exception of Tesla is a greedy [there was a naughty word here] out for his own advantage, and that includes the characters played by Scarlett Johanson and Michael Caine.

Having just finished the Prestige about 10 minutes ago, and having seen the Illusionist, I want to weigh in (not that anyone cares).

I found the Illusionist interesting on several levels. I enjoyed the magic (I didn't realize that the Orange Bush really used Butterflies as a revelation, but after looking it up I was surprised to find it did!), and the story line. What I DIDN'T enjoy was the acting of Edward Norton, whom I usually like. And it ruined the movie for me (although I didn't dislike it, I wouldn't watch it twice...)

The Prestige suffered from a disjointed plot. I watched it with several people, all bright, and I had to stop the film several times to clarify things. The only reason I feel I could is that I knew the plot and some key elements in advance. Saying that, the acting was superb, as was the story, and I literally gasped in surprise SEVERAL times. It was well done, and, as the box advertises, even though I just finished it, I want to re-watch it already.

So I cast my vote for the Prestige, for whatever it is worth.

Yeah, the Prestige was g*d awful, but the book was exquisite.

In the book it didn't matter so much that the two main characters were such jerks... the ideas and language wove a spell.

I know a few magicians that fit the above description. I thought I was watching a documentary.

LOL!

I thought that too. Yet another point why I can relate to that movie.

Ive now watched it. The first viewing i thought, what a crock! But something made me watch it again, and on it's second viewing i got it. Its not a bad film, and your sympaty does go out to one of the characters, once you see it that second time, and realise exactly whats going on. Shame i cant spoil it here, because then you would only have to watch it once

Am I the only other magician that saw himself in one of the characters?

I saw myself in the one who drowned in the tank. :help:

John R

I've just finished listening to the audiobook, (available from audible.com) and I found it very interesting reading/listening. I _am_ hesitant to see the movie now -- I remember how I felt about Chitty Chitty bang bang as a kid. <g>

The book has an interesting setup and a lot of the feel of Rashomon. It's also amazing how often your sympathies change, and how neatly the puzzle begins to fit together as the story unfurls. The personalities of the performers are, alas, devastatingly accurate portrayals of the psyche of performers. I actually work with someone who is very much of the same midset as one of the character, though not quite to the extreme.

For me, though, it's been a great listen. If you have a longish daily commute or any 12 randoom hours available, I recommend it. The reader is outstanding, his vocal characterizations are good, and there was a point where the character's situation was so uncomfortable that I had to switch it off for a while. In the book, there are alos a couple of nice "a-ha" moments.

FWIW,

Pix