If I were to view The Prestige with an ideological perspective, then I would probably try to look at the similarities and differences between magic and cinema. To do this, I would consider The Apparatus theory or perhaps any theory having to do with spectatorship.
As we discussed in class, the viewer of the film is most closely related to the audience of a magic show. This is done through camera placement, but also through the narration at the beginning and the end of the movie. At the end, Cutter addresses a viewer of a magic trick as well as the viewers of the film, saying, “Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.”
Magic and film are similar in one huge way. The viewer suspends their disbelief in order to be entertained by the show. We try to forget the fact that the illusions we are seeing are not real. However, in movies we are only willing to suspend our disbelief so far. If the effects are bad or the story is implausible, we cannot enjoy a movie as much because we cannot forget the fact that a movie is all it is. So where magicians are never supposed to reveal their secret and try to maintain the illusionistic quality, filmmakers often must wrap up their film in a way that makes sense and is pleasing to an audience.
I feel like the reason we demand explanations at the end of movies, especially today, is because we know what film as a medium is capable. We know that through the use of editing, both traditional and digital, the image can be altered significantly, and we want the plot to be able to account for it. It is not enough to make something that wows and entertains the audience; film must also provide us with a plausible explanation within the narrative to give the experience some meaning, some relevance.
I agree with Lacey's point of view in this regard. Magic and film are very much alike and in order to enjoy either, I believe we must suspend our disbelief to a certain degree. However, the viewers are not complacent of just letting the movie run away with the plot and happenings on screen without some sort of plausible grounding. That's why, in essence, we demand for things to be explained. For example, Inception (2010) -- another Nolan film -- explains its magic. It makes dream traveling into a science and spoon feeds the hypothetical science to the naive audience, so they can later enjoy the action and put the pieces of the puzzle together. In The Prestige (2006), the big reveal that Fallon was Alfred's twin is the "aha! moment" for the viewers that can now accept the inconsistencies from Christian Bale's role. The tricks Alfred and "Fallon" had conducted now seem something that we could be capable of accomplishing. That way, we can ground their illusions in reality. The more viewers can identify with the cinematic experience, the more they'll get from it. We go to see The Dark Knight to watch explosions or the faceoff between Batman and the Joker. However, without Bruce Wayne's desire to be with Rachel and his quest to honor his parents' memory by cleaning up Gotham, there's no pull. Granted, we're not billionaire vigilantes that fight crime, but we all have been through the rigors of romantic relationships and trying to make our parents proud. It's human nature. There's such a thirst for relatable characters in all walks of life, whether we want out presidential candidates to be in touch with the middle and lower classes or celebrities to not have their daily happenings plastered all over the media by the paparazzi.. Audiences enjoy fantasy and we like to be entertained by things we do not see in everyday life, but not so much that it quenches our desire for overall reality and plausibility. If that's what we wanted, then why not just stay at home and daydream for free?
ReplyDelete