Director Christopher Nolan conjures cinematic magic

Magic is the art of entertaining an audience to divert their attention and subsequently give the impression that something impossible has taken place right before their eyes. “The Prestige,” released into theaters on Oct. 20, tells the tale of the escalating rivalry between two London magicians at the turn of the 19th century. Director Christopher Nolan constructs the narrative analogous to the magician’s illusions, triggering the expectation of an extraordinary, revelatory twist. But the final act is not a shock at all—the attentive viewer will have figured it out long before the exposition. The real magic is that the resultant predictability does not detract from Nolan’s highly engrossing film.
The film, based on the novel by Christopher Priest, opens with the death of illusionist Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) while his foe, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale), bears witness to his demise. The ensuing stories, cross-cut in semi-chronological order, follow the trial of Borden for Angier’s death, the formation and intensification of their rivalry, and Angier’s quest to commission a contraption he hopes will outshine his adversary.
Nolan, famous for his convoluted narratives (most notably in “Memento,” and “The Following”), employs a triple-narrative structure to parallel the idea that every magic trick is composed of three acts. This principle is uttered twice in the film by Cutter (Michael Caine), who designs the devices used by the magicians for their illusions. The three acts, he says, are the pledge (“where the magician shows you something that seems ordinary, but probably isn't”), the turn (“where the magician makes his ordinary something do something extraordinary”), and the prestige (“the part with the twists and turns…you see something shocking you've never seen before”).
Though Nolan’s narrative structure loops back and forth, bending time into a knot, the viewer is never befuddled. The non-sequential account actually serves to lock the viewer into the present tense of the film’s reality allowing what could have been a commonplace story to become an intriguing exploration.
On top of his penchant for complex narratives, Nolan has also mastered the art of establishing unlikable lead characters. The viewer’s sympathies are constantly thrown between Borden and Angier and never resolve to side with one or the other. This puts the viewer in a constant state of dissonance and creates a tension that furthers the sinister atmosphere of the film.
Jackman and Bale are equally impressive in the title roles. Jackman terrifically portrays Angier as man on a downward spiral into pure obsession and madness. And Bale has the remarkable chameleon-like ability to absorb whatever character he is playing to a degree that the viewer forgets every role he has played before it.
The women of “The Prestige” play their roles with varying degrees of greatness. Rebecca Hall, as Borden’s wife Sarah, leaves a lasting impression; she craftily portrays her character’s emotional battle with her husband’s on-off detachment and makes it evident with every part of her body. Scarlett Johansson, usually an actress of great depth and talent, relies solely on her pouty lips, good looks and raspy voice to play Angier’s assistant, Olivia; as Cutter tells Angier before she is hired, “a good looking assistant is the best distraction,” and, regrettably, Johansson is not much more than a distraction in the film.
David Bowie is the most eccentric casting choice made in “The Prestige,” but that fact only adds to his extraordinary turn as famous inventor Nikola Tesla. As an electrical engineer during the Industrial Revolution, Tesla represents the real magic of scientific invention over the prestidigitator’s illusions. Tesla and his famous competitor, Edison, act as counterparts for the film’s main characters Borden and Angier; Tesla, like Borden, was a genius who lacked the presentation and expediency of his rival Edison, who shares with Angier the gift of showmanship and practicality.
The dutiful viewer, taking a cue from the film’s opening line (“are you watching closely?”), will recognize the many cinematic foreshadowing elements and visual metaphors that Nolan utilizes to solve the riddle long before the “prestige” is revealed, but Nolan’s storytelling is so riveting, the acting is so phenomenal, and the pacing is so perfect, that not a minute of the film’s finale will be spent unimpressed.

Let's stay together

I was a bit nervous to watch "The Break-Up," not only because of the horrible reviews and pans from my friends, but even more so because of my whole disillusionment with the romantic-comedy genre which I feel normally enforces unrealistic notions about romance and perpetuates the "prince" complex for their leading women who can only be happy when they find love. I find it especially annoying, then, that these films get passed off as "chick flicks" that women either are supposed to love, or even worse, believe.
With that said, I was pleasantly surprised by "The Break-Up." It was horribly mismarketed as a comedy in trailers, but the film is actually a more serious look at modern relationships. I rarely ever find myself sympathizing with or understanding the characters in most romantic comedies, but in "The Break-Up" they are much more realistic people. Yes, the size of their apartment and the lifestyle they live in terms of the money they make is completely unbelievable, but I think we've all come to expect that in films and television, even if we don't forgive it. But the actual arguments they have and the actual progression of their split was pretty accurate. Break-ups, like relationships, don't just happen over night. They build up and even after the splitting words have been said, the emotional separation takes time.
Even more impressive is that this film doesn't pander to the idea that women just need a man to be happy and also that we are very complex. Anniston does a great job in this film and really separates herself from her role in "Friends." Yes, these characters are ultimately a bit selfish and shallow, but they are honest and real.
And the ending? Phenomenal. Most people hated it because it wasn't the traditional Hollywood happy-ending, but I found the ending not only fitting, but also uplifting.
This film does for women what "High Fidelity" did for men (another fabulous film): it is an honest look at relationships and break-ups. For those who love pure escapist entertainment that doesn't really reflect true life, rent a different romantic-comedy -- this one's not for you.

No thank you...

I just finished watching “Thank You for Smoking,” which I meant to see when it came out, but missed it before it left theaters. Anyway, I was very excited to see the film, both because of what I had read prior to its release and the reviews I read after it came out. The film received quite a bit of praise from critics and audiences alike and while I am not one to trust everything I read, I was still excited to see what may be a good satire (a genre that I feel is sadly lacking). Needless to say, my expectations for the film were fairly high.
Aaron Eckhart, as tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor (Nic-otine Nailer), was fabulous and I must admit that I did laugh out loud several times watching the film (something I am less likely to do when I am alone.) Rob Lowe as a Hollywood agent was fabulous, even with only a few minutes of screen time. But I found the film, in general, a bit tame. If you’re going to make a satire about the moral flexibility of lobbyists and politicians, I say go full force, no holds barred. I wanted to be offended by the film’s unwillingness to back down and mostly, I want to feel a ping of guilt for laughing – but I didn’t.
Indeed, the first half of the film seemed to be building momentum to the hysterical, yet guilty laughs I was craving, but instead shifted focus to the relationship between Eckhart and his teenage son. It is here that the film became less satire and more about the moral redemption his character receives – he isn’t completely redeemed by the film’s end, but the film still seems to be peddling a message, which felt kind of unnecessary and actually a bit annoying. I didn’t want to leave this film with some ‘moral of the story.’ Sure, smoking is unhealthy and lobbyists and politicians alike are corrupt, but we all know that. I found Eckhart’s eventual abandonment of Big Tobacco for his son’s sake to be unbelievable and I felt a bit betrayed.
In fact, the people that end up looking the most unethical by the film’s end are journalists and women – as a female journalist I must admit I was a bit insulted. Katie Holmes plays journalist Heather Holloway who uses not journalistic integrity and wit to get the story on Nick Naylor, but instead uses her “great tits” (as the character’s constantly call them) and sleeps with him to get him to reveal his secrets. So if lobbyists and politicians are bad, journalists are just plain evil as they will apparently stop at nothing to get the story.
Whereas Nick Naylor is redeemed by the end of the film and moves on to a bigger, better job (his own business), Heather instead is shown degraded as a weathergirl caught in a storm. The women in the film in general are either one-dimensional characters, evil seductresses, whores, clueless idiots (as is Nick’s ex-wife) or in the case of Maria Bello’s character they have just become “one of the guys.” I could go on for pages about how this movie objectifies, vilifies and generally dismisses women, but this blog is getting a bit long and I feel I’ve made my point.
In the end, the movie reminded me of an episode of “The Family Guy” where Peter’s company is taken over by a tobacco company and he becomes president and spokesman. “The Family Guy” is never forgiving, everyone is fair game – that episode is particularly merciless. I recommend renting that instead of “Thank You for Smoking” if you want good satire.

Got Grudge?

Milk may do a body good, but the maker’s of “The Grudge 2” want you to know that over consumption of the bovine fluid may also lead to death.
“The Grudge 2,” which appropriately opened Friday the 13th, is a sequel to 2004’s “The Grudge,” which is a remake of the 2003 Japanese film, “Ju-on.” If that sounds confusing, then the film’s plot is nothing short of a Gordian knot, woven with one-dimensional characters, crater-size plot holes and laughable death sequences.
The film attempts to weave three storylines, two in Japan and one in Chicago. The characters are connected only by the ghosts that haunt them, but the film’s director, Takashi Shimizu (who also directed “The Grudge” and “Ju-on”), annoyingly cross-cuts the stories with fade-outs every five to fifteen minutes.
The resulting film is more parody than sequel. Shimizu rips entire scenes from his previous films and tries to pass them off as revelatory. He doesn’t stop there; he also shamelessly steals entire scenes from unconnected places. The opening sequence is an almost verbatim reproduction of a scene from “Six Feet Under.”
Shimizu uses the appropriate horror movie formula – mix two parts scantily-clad women (here cheerleaders and catholic school girls), one part ghosts (mother-ghost having bad hair day joined by mewing son), and a dash of creepy noises (here, throat-clicking) – but he completely neglects the art of suspense; the product is laughable at best.
Death by milk may be original, but that doesn’t make it an effective scare technique. The comic death scenes, poor acting and absent plot joined by peek-a-boo with an elderly man on a bus and an old lady who talks like Swan from “Mad TV” and looks like the shop owner from “Gremlins,” and you get not a horror movie, but a hysterical comedy.