Welcome to The Valve

Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom


Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



About Last Night
Academic Splat
Amardeep Singh
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogging the Renaissance
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Ferule & Fescue
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Planned Obsolescence
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
Say Something Wonderful
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
What Now?
William Gibson

Monday, October 30, 2006

The Illusionist vs. The Prestige

Posted by Amardeep Singh on 10/30/06 at 11:36 AM

Note: I don’t think there are any plot spoilers in the following, though there are “meta-spoilers”—concepts that become apparent after watching each film. If you don’t want your thought-space crowded and intend to see one or both of these films, you might want to skip.

Both movies are actually pretty entertaining. “The Illusionist” has a fairy tale quality and the merits of simplicity; its dominant metaphor is the illusionary quality of cinema. “The Prestige” is more complex and discursive; it’s ruled by the metaphor of electricity—which is to say, invisible power. Christopher Nolan’s film gives a critic much more to chew on, both in terms of its myriad plot twists and concealments, and in terms of the self-reflexivity of its dialogue. “The Prestige” is the kind of film Slavoj Zizek would enjoy, while “The Illusionist” is the kind of film Sigmund Freud would enjoy.

In magic, the illusionist is like a therapist. The audience comes to him to be told that there is in fact still mystery in the world, or at least technical skill so good it passes for mystery. (Even if everyone in the audience knows it’s a trick, a sense of mystery attaches itself to the magician, the performer, who makes the sleight-of-hand seem believable.) This is therapeutic because “we” want to believe in the existence of mysteries, or at least we did at one point in the recent past (modernity). The magician is like a priest, who trades not so much on his audience’s faith but on his audience’s desire—even unconscious desire—that the trick be “real.”

These metaphors are the films’ subjects. The two films are actually quite different when it comes to how they frame the performance of magic. “The Illusionist” aligns itself with the magician-hero, and amplifies the mystery of Edward Norton’s invocation of ghosts--before deflating the mystery at the end. “The Prestige,” on the other hand, proceeds by indirection (like a magician), and gives many indications along the way that its purpose is to show the work “behind the scenes” of magic. The disappearing bird trick is explained, and it turns out to be ghastly: when the magician waves a sheet and then puts his hand down on a flat table where, moments before, a live bird fluttered, he has actually collapsed the cage into the table and killed the bird. The bird that appears, “magically,” in his hand a moment later, is in fact an identical bird, his “brother,” as a distraught child says at one point. The bird becomes a sacrifice—something the magician must destroy to give his audience the illusion it wants. By showing us the trick, the film distances itself from from the performance, which “The Illusionist” avoids doing. But as the ending of “The Prestige” is approached (and I won’t give it away), the film reverses itself, and comes to embrace the aura of “magic” it had earlier been debunking, and it does so, surprisingly, using the idiom of science itself—Nikola Tesla in his latter years.

Which brings us to the present moment, which it might be convenient to call “postmodernity.” Now we happily use IMac’s and drive fancy GPS enabled cars (note: not me), and have only the faintest idea of how they work. We might know the components, but we have neither the technical capability nor any particular interest in knowing how the machines around us are engineered. We’re in a bubble of technical illusions, but we have little to no sense of “mystery” as a result. If in modernity electricity was mysterious ("invisible power"), in postmodernity the functions and devices it enables are merely there. We could extend this to the films themselves, or more specifically the gap between the films’ subjects and the films as we experience them at the present moment: the magicians are mystifiers in modernity (who seem to want to resist it, but in fact depend on it entirely—cinema, electricity), but films about modern magicians are the real mystifiers in postmodernity. They show us illusions of illusion, and we still want (unconsciously, perhaps) to believe they’re real, or at least “real.”


Does The Prestige preserve the novel’s twentieth-century frame narrative? Or is it just the story of the two Victorian magicians?

By Miriam on 10/30/06 at 02:06 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Miriam, no. It’s just two Victorian magicians (with the frame narrative, my point in this post becomes moot.)

I’d actually forgotten that it was based on a novel. (BTW Would you recommend the novel?)

By Amardeep Singh on 10/30/06 at 02:20 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I enjoyed Chrisopher Priest’s novel quite a bit, although I admit not remembering much more about it than that.

A couple of Priest links:

Dave Langford’s review of The Prestige

Priest’s own site, called, hey, “The Prestige”!

A fun John Clute review of a collection of essays on Priest

By Ray Davis on 10/30/06 at 05:31 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Does The Illusionist deflate the mystery in the end? 
Isn’t the ‘explanation’ the Chief Inspector’s, rather than the movie’s?

By on 10/30/06 at 05:58 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Scott, I saw it a couple of months ago, but I seem to recall Ed Norton running off in disguise (and therefore, alive) being shown as a literal event. The reconstruction of what happened leading up to that point is the Chief Inspector’s, but do we have any reason to doubt it?

Ray, thanks for the links.

By Amardeep Singh on 10/30/06 at 06:13 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Amardeep, are you saying that these films about magicians during the first blush of “modernity” are really exhibiting postmodern nostalgia for what uncanniness remained during modernism? That makes some sense; certainly The Illusionist was dipped in a honey glaze of nostalgia. It also explains how magic relates to the sentimental love story that animates The Illusionist.

At the same time, the magicians strike one as symbols of modern “invisible power”—information and ideology. The way that Edward Norton brings down Rufus Sewell has everything to do with his ability to provoke certain interpretations of events by planting evidence and exploiting his celebrity.

That said, The Illusionist has nothing to recommend it; I can’t speak for The Prestige. I think Amardeep is right about the social conditions that helped create it. Still, there are far denser works of literature, even denser works of film, that try to recover the numinous. A recent example would be The Science of Sleep.

By Joseph Kugelmass on 10/30/06 at 06:24 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Joseph, that’s a good restatement of my point, I think.

It’s too bad you didn’t think much of The Illusionist. I admit my taste tends to be a bit idiosyncratic on popular culture; I once wrote a 1000+ word Valve post on Toy Story 2, and a similarly long post on different historical versions of “Rumpelstiltskin.” I have a feeling most Valve readers will be with you in finding this film too sentimental. (People are more likely to enjoy “The Prestige,” I suspect.)

As I was watching The Illusionist I kept thinking of the ghost/hologram illusion in the idiom of cinematic self-reflexivity: the filmmakers are showing us a version of what they themselves are doing. That becomes interesting in light of the alignment of the ghosts and the technology film in the story: the spectres of cinema, if you will.

By Amardeep Singh on 10/31/06 at 12:09 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Amerdeep—I did like this post * a lot*, but as far as invoking meta-cinematic metaphors as a defense of merit goes, don’t you think a self-reflexive meditation on the immersive power of cinema is a pretty cheap currency these days for extravagant genre films looking to cash in on their inherent extravagant-genre-film-properties in terms of artistic respectability?

[I didn’t see The Illusionist, just a general thought]

By Peli Grietzer on 10/31/06 at 07:44 PM | Permanent link to this comment

<CITE>The Illusionist</CITE> was lovely in many ways, but I felt that it contained a very serious error in the use of cinematic language. (I think I can describe this without creating a spoiler.)

Through most of the picture, there is meant to be ambiguity about whether Eisenstein has acheived certain things through stage trickery or “real” magic. But the film uses computer effects, rather than practical effects, to show us Eisenstein’s performances. As things progressed, I found that this threw me off, as the language of contemporary film is that anything done using computer effects combined with real actors on a real set is meant to be regarded as unambiguously real in the world of the film.

By Jonathan Korman on 11/05/06 at 12:33 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I finally got around to watching both of these and I liked them both, but they were very different movies.

By Jigsaw hc on 03/26/07 at 05:19 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:



Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: