The Prestige: the Magic of Filmmaking in Three Acts

If you haven't seen "The Prestige", which is Christopher Nolan's new film, stop reading this spoiler-filled entry and WATCH IT NOW.

Of course a great reason to watch this is to fawn over Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale, but the real meat to this is the masterful storytelling that Nolan achieves.

If you've seen it, proceed and let the melting pot of ideas brew.



Many people have discussed the merits of the film, but the most baffling aspect of it is the nature of the character/s of Borden.

I don't believe in a "good" or "bad" twin, simply because it's too simple, for a person to be black and white.




I see this movie as having three inherent themes:

1. MAGIC: The movie itself as a magic act, wherein Nolan is the illusionist- many reviews have already said this, but what takes it further is that, the movie itself has it's own Pledge, Turn and Prestige.

It's easy to talk about the Turn and Prestige.

The Prestige for each character is when Angier appears as Lord, "coming back from the dead" and when Fallon appears to shoot Angier. From a narrative point of view, it's when the two "come home" or apparently reveal their true selves.


The Turn is when the "ordinary" object, in this case the film (or the journals, as these are the ones that tell the bulk of the story) do something extraordinary. I think this is shown for both characters when each character discovers the end of the "self-aware" journals. It is when the audience is left baffled after being led to believe that film was going down this one road.

The Pledge is this one road, we are led to believe, initially that Alfred Borden is guilty of murdering Angrier. Most of us probably never questioned that idea, because all that is revealed to us initially is how Angier perceives the events.

However, remember that as a magic act, the audience believes what we want to believe.

Nolan's genius is that scene where the young boy cries at the disappearance of the bird in the cage. "He killed it!" the boy cried. I don't know about you, but the majority of the audience in the theater, myself included, chuckled at that ridiculous thought. After all, it's only magic right?

Cut to the reveal of the bird carcass being thrown to the rubbish bin.

We are instantly revealed of being guilty of believing what we want to believe. It is the innocent, "ignorant", young boy who was right all along. This is because he values the bird inside the cage, or the man inside the box.

In our desire to want to see magic, we believe many things. I think Nolan pulled this off throughout the entire film, not just in the plot itself, but in the characters.

2. OBSESSION/PASSION: It depends on how you want to look at it, if it's healthy it's a passion, but the moment it becomes scary, it is an obsession. This idea is also pretty obvious as the idea is thrown around a lot. How far would you go to achieve your goal?

The movie clearly presents Angier's answer. He would kill himself, or rather sacrfice other people. I don't think he really cared that much about those other Angiers. I have entertained the thoughts of the original Angier being killed off initially or when he presents himself to the producer, but for the strength of this point does not depend on what really happens, but rather why they happen.

He was willing to get his hands dirty. Ultimately, I think Angier is more selfish than Borden. He willingly kills people. Now I'm not saying Borden's a saint, but the respect that was unwilling to give his double. Borden's in it for the applause. He's a showman after all. Borden's in it for the illusion itself.


3. IDENTITY: This hasn't been discussed yet, but is an important point when you consider the nature of all the discussions on the twin/clone agruments.

What is the nature of Identity? This is especially important in the parting words of the condemned Borden to Fallon. Live for the both of us.

What kind of a brother would do that? What kind of a clone would do that? In both cases, the answer is still unclear. Either way, the answers will be unclear, unless you consider one possiblity.

There is no such person as ALFRED.

Let's re-examine the Pledge of the film. Most of us entered the cinema knowing that the plot involved two rival magicians. Of course in the end, we realize that there are actually three. It is the nature of the third one that is in question.

We are definitely sure that there is a Rupert Angier/Lord Codlow. I don't think there will be many arguments on this point. However what about Borden?

Most people look at it this way, there is Borden and Fallon. Two distinct people, but both of them have been played by both individuals.

What then would drive a person, or rather two persons to carry on this burden? The answer of course is Obsession/Passion. To live your art.

I believe that many of those vaudeville Chinaman/Oriental (forgive me Edward Said) performers ham up their acts. They capitalize on their "exotic" features and force themselves to live heavily altered existences. Their lives have become an act.

The great act is not so much the Transported Man, but the character of Alfred Borden. He is the shared work of two magical geniuses, who share an obsession with their art. The only thing that they don't share is their love.

I personally believe that the distinct difference between Borden and Angier is that Borden has always been a "natural magician" and Angier a "nurtured magician." In addition to this, I think clones, seeing that they share memories, will also share the same tastes. So right now in my head, the clone theory (which was the one I leaned towards initially) doesn't hold water.

For their magic act to work, and for them to share the glory as well (as shown by them switching disguises), they must create a new character. Angier does this as well, hence the adopting the name the Great Danton or something like that. The twins, must create a new person whom they can both play and live out. Assuming that Freddy is the one that loves Olivia and Fallon is the one that loves Sarah, one can take the first syllables of their name and they can be combined to form one name. FAL-FRED. Cut the F, and you get their alter ego, Alfred. Someone they can both control, unlike the stand-in that Rupert Angier had.

What's important to look for in a second viewing of the movies is who is who? Who is Freddy (the dominant one) and who is Fallon (the subdued one)? I don't think this overanalyzing (if this is overanalyzing, then we'd all have been long guilty of it) because there have been many texts, films, books, studies that have dealt with twins assuming one personality and with twins having dominant and subdued personalities. Much like Chung Ling Soo, their magic will only work if the public believes what they want them to believe.

Why then did Freddy ask for Fallon's forgiveness? How could Fallon let Freddy die? This is because at this point, they've become individuals. The magic act is over. Freddy is apoligizing because his death is the death of their act, or rather their final act of "The Transported Man" - from gallows to theater. It's "all right" for Freddy to die because it was his "fault" for nibbling on the bait that Angier dangled. It doesn't make it just, but if the trick requires one brother to die, then so be it. The difference between the Bordens and Angier is the consent (or at least acceptance of his fate) that Freddy has as opposed to the Angier clones who were esentially trapped into the water tanks.

The limitation to this theory is that since they both played Alfred and Fallon, then Fallon himself must be a character as well. I think that the series of events, particularly the suicide of Sarah and the execution of Freddy, lends credence to the idea that Fallon could have been based on the personality of one of the twins.

The questions of identity is this, what is one's the real identity? The one we show to other people? Or the one we are inside?

In magic, it doesn't really matter. It's the trick that entertains and enthralls us, not the secret.

Oh yeah, and what would you do in bed with two Christan Bales?

And so we continue to discuss.