Talk:The Prestige (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archived discussions: 2006-07-31 — 2006-12-05

Release Date

Please see this page with updated release date information. Thanks ju66l3r 02:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning?

It says that there might be a spoiler warning in the Plot section, yet the "spoiler" is stated in the trailer for the movie. So should the Spoiler Warning be taken out? Deflagro 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a rather typical thing actually to just put the tag. Wiki-newbie 16:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ah okay. Deflagro 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Known superheroes"?

What is THAT about?

Revise the Plot Summary.

The plot summary seems to be poorly written and could do with a revising. Some details are revealed with no explaniation, and the usage of pronouns gets quite confusing.

Differences between book and film

Should there be a section describing the differences between the book and the film?

Recurring Themes?

Should something be mentioned about themes that come up repeatedly in the movie? Namely questions of ethics dealing with the number of birds that are killed and, similarly, the treatment of Hugh Jackman's character(s)? The concept of getting one's hands dirty, etc?

Your thoughts?

If it's true that Angier was originally an aristocrat, then it makes sense that he refuses to get his hands dirty, instead choosing to steal the ideas of others. Borden was willing to risk his life to perform the bullet catch, and Fallon went so far as to cut his fingers off to pull off the transported man illusion. In contrast, Angier paid Tesla to make him a machine, as well as relying on Cutter as his ingeneur. This could be developed into a section. —Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The last scene of the movie?

What? The dead clone of Angier at the very end of the movie doesn't open his eyes. He died with his eyes open; that cut is just showing the corpse of Angier. It doesn't hint at a continuation of the rivalry in my opinion, because Borden is the only one that is alive.

Agreed 65.40.35.52 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanation: It's Angier's double (the drunken actor) in the tank. Tesla's machine never worked, obviously. Angier did the Tesla machine transportation act using his double for the purpose of framing Borden for "his" murder. Angier's double didn't know he was going to be drowned in the water when Borden was backstage hence the realism and the corpse. The rest is flashback fantasy based on diary entries intended to be read by Borden. "Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled." It's taunting the people that bought the idea of a magical cloning machine! Al001 02:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Hugh Jackman was alive in the end. That's the reason they showed him in the last shot. It seems pointless to show a dead guy in a tank, especially if it wasn't even a surprise; we know that there are tons of dead Hugh Jackmans. I think he cloned himself because he expected Christian Bale to try and kill him, but I could be wrong. It's the prestige of the movie; Angrier disapears, but reappears again, making the trick amazing. I dunno, that's my theory.

Caesar

Interesting, but your theory is highly unlikely for two reasons: balance and resolution. The conflict is equally weighted: Julia and Angier drown; Sarah and Borden hang. This leads to the resolution of the rivalry, in other words, both magicians lose. As I see it, the twin Fallon lives on to kill the now replicated Angier; that's the trick. Of course, I could be wrong. —Viriditas | Talk 05:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, thats what I'm saying. There's still a replicated Angier who's alive and can continue the cycle. Caesar

As far as I can tell, in the book, Angier (or some form of Angier) lives on, but in the film, he is killed. —Viriditas | Talk 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary Errors

I noticed a few errors or assumptions stated as fact in the plot summary. Already mentioned is the "smiling clone imitating death" - that shot was just showing a dead clone to cement the cloning for slower-witted audience members. Also, it was alluded to that the two women knew of the twins due to various comments, ie. "You could be telling another woman in a different place you love her..." The plot sumamry needs to be fine tooth combed as certain details are ambiguous or left to perception.

What about when Sarah tells Borden that she knows his secret. And tells Olivia that she will tell her the secret. Considering that's the real only secret Borden has, wouldn't it be safe to assume that Sarah knows his secret, whereas Olivia does not? --Seventy-one 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I see it. Olivia's double entendre may have unintentionally hit upon the underlying truth; I tend to lean towards the view that nobody knew Borden's secret, although Sarah might have figured it out before she killed herself; I think we are being led in that direction, (after all, Sarah's nephew was smart enough to figure out the dove trick, perhaps it runs in the family?) but there's no way to know. If Sarah had something important to tell Olivia, she might have warned her about the single-mindedness of Borden's obsession, with a comment like, "He loves magic more than you". Are we so sure that Sarah figured it out? (I haven't read the book) On the one hand, Olivia may have been unaware of Fallon's sincere love for her; from Olivia's POV, Fallon's expression of love was cold-hearted in light of his wife's recent suicide, and yet we are led to believe he may have been faithful to her, and Borden to his wife, but there are many unanswered questions. For example, the scene where Borden/Fallon visits Olivia and expresses his guilt, only to be scolded by Olivia with, "When you're with me, you're with me," is confusing; we don't know which twin it is, or do we? One of two possibilities are obvious, and there's no need for me to go into them. If Borden/Fallon were living the life of one man, we know the result. So if Olivia didn't know, then she was really speaking to the surface, the appearance of a man in mourning professing his love for his mistress. Surely, such a man would treat the subject of love lightly, which is what I believe Olivia was getting at, even though her words (not her intent) had a deeper, double meaning. On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that both Sarah and Olivia knew the truth; is there more or less evidence for either perspective? If there is an easy answer, please let me know. —Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Twins"?

Shouldn't the two Bordens be described as each others "copy" or "Doppelganger", as that is what they are? I know that the summary is a little sketchy on the details, but it would avoid confusion. It is, of course, the two main characters who excel in misdirection, not the wikipedia contributors... - Ush 15:41 19 Nov 06

Well, no. The two Bordens are actual brothers. One was not duplicated from the other.

I agree with Ush. Surely they must be doppelgangers. Otherwise, why would Borden refer to Tesla, and why would Fallon only appear after the period in which Borden is an amateur magician and before he has recognised the moral of the Chinese magician?

They are twins. Consider that when Borden and Angier were still working for Milton Borden tells Cutter that he has the best trick in the world, that only he can perform, but isn't ready to debut it. This indicates that he has the Transported Man in mind and the method to perform it (ie. a natural twin). Also, it's clear that Alfred and Fallon are already regularly switching places while working for Milton, thus the plausible-deniability regarding the fatal knot during Julia's drowning. You're right: Fallon as Fallon does not appear until Alfred "hires" him as his ingenieur, but he's been around as Alfred-2 for quite awhile (possibly since childhood).

Borden refers Angier to Tesla purely as misdirection, a wild goose chase. Borden has used Tesla for only special effects: the Machine that creates doppelgangers does not exist until Angier commissions Tesla to build it, well after Fallon's first public appearance. Jim Dunning 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Further more, Borden seems extremely surprised that Argier has the ability to clone itself, and he couldn't figure out the tricks of Argier's last show. Additioned, the third reply is mistaken, the second twin has already appeared before Fallon makes his entry since he couldn't remember which knob he tied :) Johannes H.-Larsen 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

They are twins but Borden leading Angier to Tesla is a major mistake, a big point of confusion for the film.

1878

The plot summary states that the film takes place in 1878, when it is clearly obvious from events in the film that reference actual historical events that the time period is probably at some point after 1900. Cbing01 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Apparently, the flashback is to 1878, not the trial. I'll fix it. —Viriditas | Talk 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does the 1878 reference come from? I thought I heard Angier refer to a date in 1897 as being "just before we [he and Borden] met." Furthermore the end of the movie clearly takes place at the turn of the 20th century, and the actors do not appear to have aged more than 20 years from the start of the story. In fact, they don't seem to have aged at all. While watching, I assumed that the events transpired over about four years, from 1897 to around 1901. Mind you, it did strike me as an exceptionally eventful four years. Essex9999 68.83.143.100 22:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC:)

I'm not sure. I think the date was included in promo materials, and found its way into various reviews. I'm going to buy a copy of the bok and read it asap, so maybe I'll find some answers there. Assume the date is correct: Borden, Angier, and Julia work together around that time. Maybe a few years pass. Borden meets Sarah, dates, then marries, so another year passes. Notice how worn down Angier looks when he shoots Borden? Maybe it's 1885 at the latest. Tesla visits London in 1892. Then, there is Jess. She's what, 6 years-old when Borden is on trial around 1901 or so, placing her birth somewhere about 1895? It seems to add up, does it not? —Viriditas | Talk 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if the date appears in the book, it doesn't mean that the movie follows the same timeline. I really am fairly sure about the 1897 reference because, in the opening scenes of the movie, I was wondering when the story was supposedly taking place. When Angier describes his meeting with Borden as happening in that year, it stood out as the answer to my question. Also, not to sound obsessed about this, but the characters really do not age in a significant way. Here's what I mean: Suppose the story does open in 1878. If Michael Caine's character were 45 at the start of the movie - and it would have been a hard-lived 45 years from the look of him, but let's be generous - he would be nearly 70 by the end. And yet, his appearance hasn't changed at all. Hugh Jackman certainly looks no more than 40 or so at the end of the film (near his real age of 37 at time of filming), but that would mean the character would only have been in his late teens at the outset, which clearly does not fit Jackman's appearance. Finally, there is no effort in the movie to show the passage of large chunks of time, something it would have been logical to do if the story really occupied more than 20 years. (For example, the women's fashions are all vaguely turn-of-the-century in appearance, not 1870's/1880's.) Perhaps the book does specify an opening in 1878; but the filmmakers, not wanting to worry about making their actors seem to age across a quarter-century, deliberately blurred or changed the timeline of the story. Essex9999 68.83.143.100 23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

1897 as a start date is improbable as I show above. If I am not mistaken, the science exhibition that Angier and Borden attend occurs historically, around 1892. If I recall, Angier does appear to age in the film, and Sarah as well. I think the main problem with looking for chronological age in the film, is the use of flashbacks; this impedes our expectation of how the character should look. The film jumps around quite a bit, from the trial in the film's present, to the initial friendship in the past, all the way to Tesla in the turn of the century. Psychologically, we aren't prepared to notice any chronological changes. And to speculate even further, neither Borden nor Angier were manual laborers exposed to the climate, nor were they in poverty; they both worked indoors and lived comfortable lives, so we shouldn't expect them to age more than the average person, who might be subject to working in extreme conditions, even in desperate circumstances. Granted, both magicians were under a tremendous amount of stress, but they were obsessed about their work and loved what they did. This might also contribute to a strong constitution, resistant to premature aging. They were both at the top of their game, and their appearance was just as important as their state of mind, so we can assume they took good care of themselves. I'm reaching, but then, what's a heaven for... —Viriditas | Talk 00:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Cbing01 and 68.83.143.100, you've both convinced me. According to those who have read the book, "The rivalry began in 1878, when Borden disrupted a fraudulent séance conducted by Angier and his wife, Julia." [1] According to the author, the book ends in 1903. Now, are we to believe that this rivalry has been translated for the screen in the form of the botched water trick, resulting in Julia's death, and the timeline condensed? That seems to be more likely than my wild speculation, and I've noticed a small number of bloggers and reviewers using that date [2] [3] [4], while the vast majority rely on the 1878 date -- which appears to be true for the book -- but wrong for the movie. I'm changing it, because the evidence against it is overwhelming. —Viriditas | Talk 04:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The date seems to be confirmed as 1887, which allows for Tesla's 1892 visit to London. I've made the change. —Viriditas | Talk 08:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed comments in plot section

In retrospect, rather implausibly, the wild goose chase on which Borden thought he had led Angiers resulted in Angier's one and only opportunity to upstage Borden. Why Borden sent Angier to Tesla is never explained.

This probably shouldn't go in the plot section. One explanation is that both Borden and Angier attended the science fair where Tesla presented his experiment. Borden used Tesla's name for misdirection, and Angier ate it up. —Viriditas | Talk 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed original research

In contrast, it is worth mentioning the importance of the scene when Angier first discovers how Tesla's machine works. The cat, when taken from it's cage starts hissing immediately and stops only when a large surge of electricty hits it. The change the cat makes from hissing to docile is instantaneous, enough to raise an eyebrow at in itself. When Angier thinks the expierement has failed he leaves the laboratory only to hear a loud hissing that he investigates and finds to be the cat that was used during the experiment. This strongly suggests that the orginial cat was infact teleported and the new 'copy' was superinposed to it's dopplegangers' original position. This answers Angier's question of weather or not, when he stepped into the machine, he would be the one to die or he would be the one to go on to do The Prestige...

I'm skeptical of the validity of this observation, but if there is some kind of external verification, either in the book, or from other published sources, please add it back in. Considering the complexity of Memento, it's not impossible, but it seems like the anon editor is reading too much into this scene. Am I wrong for removing this? The flashback to Angier's test of the teleportation device seems to refute the anon's argument. If the anon is right, then why would Angier allow his clone to shoot him? It might make more sense to think of the device as a copy machine; In the test run, the original Angier murdered his copy, whereas subsequent use of the machine disposed of the original; hence, all performances after the first (not counting the test) kill copies. Or, according to the anon's theory, the original Angier was murdered during the test run. Either way, the original Angier gets killed. It doesn't make any sense unless you acknowledge the symmetrical nature of the plot. In order for Angier to pull off his version of Borden's trick, he had to use an actor/double, forcing him to hide backstage, sacrificing his direct participation in the prestige, while his double basked in the admiration of the audience. There is a direct parallel in Angier's use of the Tesla device, except in this case he doesn't hide backstage, no, this time the sacrifice is his very life itself, as he commits suicide so that his new, replicated self (compare with the actor/double) can enjoy the prestige. It is my opinion that this consistency disproves the anon's theory. —Viriditas | Talk 12:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The situation following the first transportation is too complex for any observer to determine which is the original without the benefit of the camera. Paying close attention to the flashback, it can be seen that Angier's background changes while the camera angle stays the same. The wider shot shows the camera to be facing the transported Angier. This implies the original is in fact transported while a doppelgänger is created inside the machine.

Angier certainly does not simply allow his clone to shoot him. The clone is closest to the gun; given Angier's horror at being "the man in the box", either duplicate would likely shoot the other in order to not be that man.

The most important question is why Angier would make the first rehearsal in which a clone drowns. It seems most plausible that both duplicates experience a continuous self and would each believe the other to be the clone, regardless of what the camera has told us, although it may be interesting to consider whether the clone is a philosophical zombie. It is unclear why the survivor would choose to kill the man in the machine (whom he should expect to be his continued self) and give the prestige to the Angier he should believe false. —24.54.89.149 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no. The most important question is, why would Angier not just simply clone himself, then use that clone to perform the original 'Transported Man'? He was looking for a perfect double, was he not? Why then, once he had found that double, would he shoot him, when they could have worked together to make the trick flawless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.34.80 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This question seems to be resolved in the novel. If I understand the book correctly, the clones were essentially left in a state of suspended animation, neither alive nor dead, and were disposed of by Angier in his family crypt. The film introduces a lot of problems that aren't found in the book. —Viriditas | Talk 03:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Angier wanted to be the one to bow to the audience in the prestige he wouldn't allow himself to share the role with his clone like Borden did with Fallon it was trying to compare the techniques Angier never really understood Borden's technique because Angier thought Borden was using Tesla's machine to do the trick it never occurred to him that Borden had a brother. Peturo 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Rivalry

Tesla and Edison's rivalry over electric current is contrasted with Borden and Angier's competition for magical supremacy. As such, Tesla and Edison serve as foils for Borden and Angier, respectively. Historically, Tesla is considered a genius without a sense of pragmatism (like Borden's character) and Edison is viewed as an expert in application and presentation (like Angier).

I don't recall who originally wrote this, but parts of this have been removed as "speculation". Could someone describe which part fits that description, as it appears to be an accurate, substantiated description of the established rivalry. Sadly, this lonely nugget has been relegated to the trivia section, when instead, it should be elevated to its own section. —Viriditas | Talk 06:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be elevated unless a source for this interpretation can be found. Phil Sandifer 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I respecfully disagree, and I have created a new section. It would be helpful if you could give a specific criticism, targeting particular claims. —Viriditas | Talk 08:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that any interpretations of the film that cannot be traced to a reviewer or critic are original research. I'll tag the relevant statements. Phil Sandifer 15:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Now tagged. Two additional problems - I'm unconvinced the Borden/Angier rivalry is a theme. It's the literal plot, not the theme. Second, I'm not sure a magician who wrote a review of the film is a sufficiently reliable source for thematic analysis. My issue here, in the larger sense, is this - right now the movie is in theaters, and there are dozens of reviews of it. It seems to me that the critical perspective to make any sort of thematic analysis doesn't exist yet, and like this section would necessarily be original research. Phil Sandifer 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a thematic analysis, but an observation of the core conflict of the story, so you're right, (even though an author makes the claim that the rivalry is a theme, obviously the word is used loosely); the theme has not exacly become manifest aside from a few hints, such as the themes of identity and sacrifice discussed in the Creative Screenwriting interview by Shewman, but the Nolans have said very little about theme. If theme serves to reflect meaning or an idea, a thesis, moral, or premise, then one story may contain multiple themes or thematic elements. Some authors claim that the theme amounts to revelation that we can see, which is highly ironic if the theme is one of misdirection (Are you watching closely?) There are themes of rivalry, duality, sacrifice, and obsession in the film, but these are also part of the conflict; these themes have a tendency to be abstract, non-physical, and intangible, but not always. Time and place (setting) can reflect the theme, whether simple or complex, and can be inextricably linked to the plot. In terms of this film, it is probably inaccurate to reduce the broad theme to one of rivalry; however, we know there are three timelines, one for each act (pledge, turn, prestige), and it is probable that the rivalry theme pervades one of those, such as The Turn. I'm going to start making some changes to address your criticism. —Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Three-act headers confirmed by Nolan

Nolan confirms the validity of splitting the plot into three acts. [5] —Viriditas | Talk 08:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert the subsection headers back. They section the plot better, anyway. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't revert them unless you can find some source for their location in the film. Otherwise, while it may be verifiable that there are three acts, it is not verifiable what they are. Phil Sandifer 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good arguments for and against including the headers at this time can be made, so either position could be held. If someone can elaborate on the boundaries between each act, then we can add the headers back in. —Viriditas | Talk 08:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it may be possible to discuss the use of three timelines in a separate section, possibly even in the adaptation section. In one interview, Nolan describes them as the setup (pledge), the disappearances (turn), and the climatic reveal (prestige), which as it turns out, was how this article was previously split up. However, those headers would only serve the purposes of splitting up the plot summary; it would not be an accurate portrayal of the nonlinear structure. —Viriditas | Talk 08:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pledge

I apologize in advance for stating the obvious, but this new section needs to be developed. Many reviewers have criticized the one-dimensional, shallow emotional depth of the characters, but in doing so, they either ignore the purpose of the pledge or forget that they are witnessing an illusion that purposefully manipulates our perception of the characters; most felt closer to Angier, a murderer, than they did to Borden, and the film is responsible for evoking these false responses, duping the viewer in the process. The pledge sets us up to feel sorry for Angier, and to blame Borden for Julia's death; this is furthered by hearing Borden's accent, seeing him behind bars, assuming he is cheating on his wife, etc. Meanwhile, Angier's grief blinds us to the force of his vengeance; even when he tries to murder Borden in the bar during the bullet catch, the audience forgives him, never realizing that their emotions are being controlled by the director. So, we can see that the pledge sets us up to believe that Angier is the protagonist and Borden the antagonist, even though we discover the opposite to be true during the prestige. Too few critics realize that they are the victims of their own negative criticism; to see Angier as the protagonist, it is in fact the audience, not the actors, who are being one-dimensional, and emotionally shallow. It's a great trick. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chung Ling Soo

I need help placing Chung Ling Soo in the correct context. I think it goes after the description of the vanishing dove act. —Viriditas | Talk 08:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Book

If you enjoyed the movie, you may want to read the book. The book is a different (and I believe) better story. my .02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.68.236.175 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I just finished the book, and I enjoyed it. Aside from the ending in the novel, most of the ambiguity that permeated the film was resolved in the novel (except for whether or not Olivia knew about the twins). One thing that stood out in the book, was Angier's inabilty to murder, which seems to have been neglected in the film. —Viriditas | Talk 11:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To include the concept of the "spectral Angier" and his hesitation over killing Borden would be to substantially change the whole slew of scenes with Borden discovering the secret of how the transported man works, and indeed then substantially changing the whole concept of Borden being convicted of the death of Angier. The film takes a different tack, but one that I feel often sits with the novel rather well.

I'm laughing over how many interpretations of various incidents, motives and characters there are in this Discussion compared to the amount of discussion (little) there is for the novel. Given the rampant ambiguity Priest instills in the book, there should be 100 times as much discussion/argument for that article. With no intent to disparage Nolan's art, the movie is almost paint by numbers compared to the questions left open in the book. lol Jim Dunning 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

New Poster suggestion

I find the two posters on the article quite dull, but I'm curious if anyone would be willing to upload a proper image from these two: [6] [7]. I'm mostly ok with uploading images, but not multiple ones. Anyone think they can combine the two? Wiki-newbie 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot hole

Should this go in the Trivia section?

In the new Transported Man act, each Angier replicant drowns in a tank whose lid is padlocked shut. How he fell in is not explained. Did he fall into an open tank that was then locked before he could escape? Not likely; who could lock the tank? No one but the other replicant knows how the trick works, and he's at the other end of the theater.

In answer to a question above, why didn't Angier make just one clone and use him as a partner in every performance, I believe the answer is that he wanted to frame Borden for his murder. Cognita 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The clone/original fell in through a trap door. In the book, the clone is neither "living" nor is it exactly dead; it seems to be a static copy that is in a state of suspended animation, or rather, is merely a shell of the teleported person. In the film, the clone is a living copy, identical to the original. The idea for framing Borden is an extension (and adaptation) of a different theme found in the novel, and is unique to the film. The book is rather consistent, whereas the film introduces a number of problems. —Viriditas | Talk 02:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he fell in through a trap door, but the trap door is built into the stage floor. Are you saying there's a second trap door in the tank lid and it closes after he falls in? Cognita 02:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, spring-loaded. I believe the scene with Julia in the beginning set us up for it. How else would Angier's clone fall in? There's actually a scene in the book where Angier changes the teleportation coordinates and reappears inside a tank of water, but I think it's inferred (but not explicitly stated) that the double falls through a trap into a crate beneath the stage. Strangely enough, there doesn't seem to be any discussion of this in the book, other than Borden noticing a crate back stage. —Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you reverse-engineer the apparatus, then it has to have a hole in its lid, and the hole must close when the man falls in. I assumed (naively, like any good magic-show spectator) that Angier used the same kind of tank as in the earlier act with Julia. Its walls look the same. There's even an ax nearby. I thought the lid of Julia's tank was one solid piece, and when she popped the lock, the whole lid would lift (maybe hinged on one side). The presence of a padlock on Angier's tank suggests that removing the whole lid is the way to open the tank. I'm not sure there isn't still a plot hole. The police investigators should notice a trap door in the lid and try to reconstruct the trick. Presumably, they'd think the tank was unique and Borden had put it under the stage: Angier wouldn't have jumped into a death trap deliberately. At some point, however, the police would interview the stagehands, who didn't see what they hauled off every night but could testify to its shape and its weight. The investigation would show that there'd been many tanks. Cognita 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's assumed that class distinctions automatically make Borden suspect. In the book, there is a separate, but similar situation involving a death and the status of the victim. Borden's class makes him guilty, regardless of what evidence they find. This isn't explained, but it was a sign of the times. Two competing magicians involved in a public rivalry, one of which has aristocratic roots (he's a Lord) and the other is a son of a carpenter. A similar subplot was explored in The Illusionist. —Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your explanation is correct, and justice was unlikely to prevail. Still, Angier's plan could easily have failed if the police had been more thorough. They had only to ask the stagehands "What did you do every night?" The horses that pulled the wagon could have led them to the storage chamber. Cognita 02:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

The film tells of Robert Angier and Alfred Borden, played by Jackman and Bale respectively, magicians in the 19th century and their dangerous rivalry over their livelihoods. The presentation is fractured and involves various twists and turns regarding perspectives, secrets and their tricks, much like real magic.

The film is fractured into three storylines. The longest has Angier seeking revenge on Borden for the death of his wife. The second has Angier working with Tesla to create his great magic trick. The third follows the fallout from this trick. Like a Russian doll, the film begins and ends with the fallout from Angier's trick, with Angier's creation of it told via Borden reading his diary, and the lead-up to this with Angier reading Borden's diary. The film continues to jump to and fro.

Do we have a need for this overview in the article? I don't see the Film project nor their FA's using it. Also, what source does the author use for splitting the storyline like this? The writer and director seem to have a different perspective. —Viriditas | Talk 06:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that's how I wrote it. I'm taking cues from the Memento article on how to tell Nolan's story. It's a long article as it is. My source for the structure by the way is the film itself, it's clearly split into those angles regarding past and present. Wiki-newbie 13:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see WikiProject Films recommending the use of overviews in their style guide (did I miss it?), nor do I find featured film articles using it. We agree that the film is split into three story lines, but wbat they are exactly is a little confusing and subject to debate, which is why a good source should be used to bolster your interpretation. We can also use the talk page to build it. —Viriditas | Talk 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fallon, a product of Tesla?

Anyone ever considered the possibility of Borlen having created Fallon from Tesla's machine in the past? It is so coincidental that Borlen gives Angier the name 'Tesla', and Tesla happens to end up creating clones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.154.232 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please sign comments with the key under your editbox. Anyway, no because Fallon is Borden's twin. Tesla simply inspires the use of a machine in Borden's trick. Wiki-newbie 17:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Um.. It seemed obvious to me that the first poster is right and Fallon is Bordens copy, that Borden somehow found out about Tesla's duplication machine prototype and persuaded him to either build one for him or let him use it at least once. It makes a lot more sense, especially as Angier never tells tesla that he wants him to build a transporting machine, and Tesla likewise never tells Angier that it is a duplication machine, they each assume that the other knows what they mean. Notice how Tesla and his assistant dont seem particularly surprised that the machine has been throwing duplicates of Angiers hat out into the woods, while Angiers himself is astonished? Angier even argues with Cutter, saying that the trick has to be more complex than Borden just using a simple double, and he was right after a fashion. When Angier first uses the machine, he has a loaded gun placed nearby in case Tesla didnt get it right (as he believed) and it created a copy of him instead of transporting him. Why else would he shoot the copy that appears?!? I have also questioned the use of the word "twin" to describe the second Borden in the plot summary...

- Ush 15:40 19 November 06

I understood Borden and Fallon to be natural twins, as one of them says at the end. At the time of the scene with two cats and many hats, Tesla is trying to build a transporting machine and doesn't know that the machine makes copies instead. Tesla is disappointed and apologetic because things placed on the platform don't disappear. The hard part to believe, then, is that he never stepped outside the lab and found the hats. Cognita 19:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the most strong argument against the Fallon-copy theory is that they had such diverse characters. One was more obssesed, more over-ambitious and cocky than the other, aswell as less emotional. Though it seems they both loved the daughter of one of them - most probably the 'nicer' one - the same, they had to be twins because if they were copies their characters would have to be very similar if not exactly the same. NW 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading several heated arguments on many different sites, I still retain my original interpretation of this film: that Borden and Fallon are identical twins from birth, and that Tesla (after much research funded by Angier) does create a duplication machine. First, I agree with Cognita's statement above. Second, Tesla does the research to create the machine with funds from Angier, long after Borden gives him Tesla's name. Third, with the "twins" revelation, we realize that Borden's lightning machine is simply a prop, created after Borden was impressed by the lightning demonstration.

As to the question of Angier's copies or clones, if the machine is real there are three options.

• The man on the balcony is the copy, and the man on the stage is the original, in which case the original is killed each night, and a copy of a copy of a copy is the survivor each night.
• The man on the balcony is the original, and the man on the stage is the copy, in which case the original was killed during the first test, but the first copy is the survivor each night.
• The man on the balcony and the man on the stage are both "the original" as far as such a concept can still apply in a universe where electric duplicating machines exist, due to a quirk in physics.

I consider the third option to be the most tragic, and the most consistent with the narrative's focus on Angier's obsession. --BlueNight 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BlueNight, your first two options were discussed under "What exactly does the machine do?" farther down this page. The majority went for Option 1. The man who stands on the stage falls through a trap door. We didn't even think about Option 3, probably because such things are too hard to think about. Cognita 08:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Two comments on Plot

My opinion: the Plot section was better a couple of revisions ago. Dividing it into Overview and Plot makes it choppy and presents information in the wrong order. The short section at the beginning isn't well written. For example, "a trick on Borden's daughter" should be "a trick for Borden's daughter," and we don't yet know who Cutter is, here identified only by name.

Another point concerns Cutter's improvement of the vanishing bird cage trick. Contrary to what the text now says, the traditional trick always involved sending the (collapsed) cage up the performer's arm (explained at the wikilink). That part wasn't new. What Cutter did was redesign the collapsible cage to enable the performer to save the bird by pulling it out before flattening the cage. At least, that's what I make of the close-up shots of the bird with a thread tied to one leg. Cognita 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the major revision by Wiki-newbie, if it was anyone else, I would revert on sight, but this editor has worked hard to improve this article, so I think we should give him/her the benefit of the doubt and help improve his edits. If that still doesn't work, let's discuss it and come to an agreement. You're right about the bird trick. —Viriditas | Talk 03:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the part about the bird cage. Someone else had already changed the intro by the time I got back here. It looks better now. Cognita 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF: I think the plot summary is way too long, and part of the improvement would be to move appropriate information to the lead, cast and a magic tricks section to explain that part of the plot. Good Articles need a sufficient lead: currently it reads as a cast list. Wiki-newbie 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone is assuming good faith, but nevertheless, the article is declining in quality as a result of recent changes. The lead should be expanded, but film leads don't usually contain plot overviews. Can you show me a featured film article that does? Film leads generally contain notable aspects of the work, such as awards, special screening events, and other stats. Plot overviews don't usually appear in the leads of film articles. The idea for a "magic tricks" section is really just a list, unless you write it in essay form, which I highly recommend if you want to include it; we don't need another trivial list. However, a section describing the illusions and their historical use would be fascinating. —Viriditas | Talk 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say I thought everyone was A-ing GF, when the editing window showed that Viriditas got the scoop on me. It's a case of "too many cooks," and the broth is getting muddy because we all have different ideas for how to organize the material. Cognita 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Every FA film article's lead contains a plot description. The lead shall also encompass the discussed elements, and for this film that includes the split storylines. I will improve the magic tricks too. Wiki-newbie 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see that at all in the featured articles. Can you give examples? (Browse Category:FA-Class_film_articles) See also: WP:WPFSL. Lead and plot are treated separately. —Viriditas | Talk 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot sections do not go in film leads. The plot is often described in a small, condensed sentence, but not two paragraphs in the lead. —Viriditas | Talk 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey presto, I redid the lead. Plots do go in leads: as you said, a condensed teaser. But it is important to note in the lead the style of the film's presentation. Wiki-newbie 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, W-newbie, but I think the previous version of Plot did the job better, on the whole, than the new condensed version does. The old version had some unnecessary detail, so in that sense shorter is better. However, by omitting parts, sometimes you left out statements that contributed importantly to telling the story. Some of these concern motivation. The essence of this film is the rivalry between A and B. Accordingly, there are places where just saying what happens (describing the action) doesn't get the point of the scene across, which was (in one place) that B sabotaged A's act and shamed A publicly.

There are also problems with grammar and spelling. (Please don't feel bad if I say so. Almost everyone's writing can be improved. Most people whose work I've edited in real life had Ph.D.s.) It would take a while to correct these individually. In my opinion, the article would be better off if reverted to its state half a day ago. Cognita 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said above, however, let me try and share an alternative view. Wiki-newbie is too focused on the structure of the article, and his revisions are sacrificing the content as well as the context of the article. The lead section does not reflect the lead of every major film article, but instead discusses the plot. This is a problem. Cutter's description of the three stages belongs in the plot, not the lead. I am going to join the Wiki Film Project and study the style guide to approach this in a more objective fashion. My advice to Wiki-newbie is simple: do not promote form at the expense of content. A balance, an equilibrium even, must be maintained, where each contributes to the other, making the article read as an harmonious whole. The three interweaving storylines are the key to understanding the magical theme, and the current structural revisions have removed that important element. Form does not come before content for this reason. Form emerges from the content. —Viriditas | Talk 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-newbie, before making major changes in an article, it's better to propose them on the Discussion page. No matter how good an idea you have, sweeping a whole section off the board and replacing it with your rewrite undoes the work of many previous contributors who put a lot of time and thought into the section. A radical change like that will make people angry, and it ignores the principle of consensus. If your goal is to get one particular perspective or analysis of a film out in public, a better place would be a blog or a film discussion board on the Web. There are also opportunities to write reviews, both Web-based and in print media. Here, no article belongs to one person. So please discuss first! Cognita 08:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to install a revision of Plot that addresses some problems discussed above. It's a revision of a version that appeared a few days ago. Cognita 05:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason the plot ballooned again. Look, keep things short: and sometimes put information into the cast section if you need to. Wiki-newbie 10:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a long film with a complex plot, so there's a lot to describe. I shortened an older version quite a bit while keeping enough that readers will get the significance of each event – what each turn of the plot means to the characters – rather than a spare "this happened, then that happened" account. I think the Plot section should be self-contained so that it makes sense by itself, without reference to a section lower on the page. Cognita 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-newbie, it seems that you've reinstated your version of Plot without remedying any of its faults that some of us complained about. I haven't been at Wikipedia long, but doing this must go against some rule, policy, or guideline, probably more than one of them. At the very least, it's bad manners. The goal is consensus rather than what one person wants. The Plot section didn't just "balloon again" for no reason. Reasons were explained above. If you're going to make changes, they should go in the direction of more grammatical and more coherent, not less. Cognita 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have again reverted the Plot section to a version close to what it was a few days ago (a bit shorter this time). Please observe the principle of consensus. If you make changes, let them be improvements. No one should replace a grammatically written plot summary with an ungrammatical one.

The last section of the version just before the current one contained commentary on the plot. You can find this material, now deleted, by going to the page's History. I'm not sure where it belongs, but its proper home isn't the Plot section, which should merely summarize the plot. Cognita 04:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have again reverted Plot to a version that's clear and grammatical. Many small changes by users not logged in, identified only by IP, had restored its earlier faults with no explanation: no edit summary, nothing on the talk page. One of those IPs belongs to a high school (possible multiple users) and has generated vandalism several times on other articles and been warned and blocked. It therefore has little credibility. Please don't make me do this again. See explanations above. Don't make the article worse. Thank you. Cognita 23:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, other than the comments I made below this version is much better. DaveTheJackal 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Footnote numbers

After I made minor changes in the Production section, the footnote numbers no longer run consecutively. How can this be fixed? Cognita 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's ok. The numbers repeat themselves when a citation is used by ref name, to refer to the same source multiple times. Let me look into this to confirm. —Viriditas | Talk 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Production/Adaptation

I think I should give a note to the Production/Adaptation query. In my view, production is all about how, when and why the film is. Adaptation should be a focus on all the changes made from the book: I point you to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as my example. Wiki-newbie 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That example is certainly not representative of most films. I've been looking at the style guide and featured film articles, and at this point, it's ok for it to be in one section. Your example is far more complex. This isn't. —Viriditas | Talk 19:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Date again

I'm not sure if the summary is just meant to say that the events start in 1878, but Bordon is hanged post-1901. There's a reference to the king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.72.245 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for proving my point about context, as outlined above. I've restored it. —Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And now its been removed again. Ah the joy of collaboration. It's time for a wikibreak, I believe. —Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I found in "History" what I think you're talking about – the "Flashback" line, right? – and restored it. Cognita 08:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla was in Colorado Springs only after 1899 and left in 1900, including the time to create the machine put on the show and have Borden's trial it is reasonable to assume the hanging was post-1901. Peturo 15:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sacrifice Theme

Although I may be misreading the article, the major theme of sacrifice (both of self and others) and the examples in the plot are not mentioned in the theme section. There are two major examples of sacrifice shown in the movie: One is Chung Ling Soo's self-sacrifice of his everyday life in order to exhibit a single impressive trick; The other is the sacrifice of a bird's life each time the disappearing cage illusion is performed. Borden's life more closely matches the former example, since he and his twin sacrifice their own identity in order to perform The Transported Man, however he also sacrifices his wife in the process of keeping that fact a secret. Angier's repeated murder mirrors both examples, since he both decides to murder his clone for every performance of the trick, and knows before each performance of the trick that one of his selves will be murdered. The trick itself mirrors the theme exemplified by the crushed bird, where Angier proves that he's willing to "get his hands dirty". Should this information be put into the "themes" section, is there a better place, or am I missing something? Naerbnic 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a theme, and Borden sacrifices his life, not only his identity. There's also the sacrifice of fingers. However, some of the incidents were left out of the Plot section because there was too much to report. (Apparently plot summaries have a length limit, although no one has said what it is.) If you add these things to Themes, what they are won't be obvious, because they weren't described in Plot. Cognita 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Interpretation

There are two interpretations of the events we see at the end of the movie, only one is presented in the article. {{spoiler}}

The Alternative

Tesla's machine does not work. He uses simple conjouring tricks to dupe Angier in to thinking it does. The man Angier shoots after testing Tesla's non-working transporter is most likely a reformed, repentant and desperate Gerald Root, come to seek work and forgiveness from Angier, but unfortunate in the timing of his arrival. After Root's recovery (he is afterall just 'winged') the two go on to perform their original act, with more sparks and added insurance: that one of them might die to protect the act's secret in perpetuating the myth that the transportation device acutally works ... the surviving member to inherit Angier's wealth.

Blind stage hands are used not because hey will see a corpse in the tank but because they will not.

Just like the borden twins Angier/Root take turns in the roles they adopt, never knowing if that night will be their last (hence Angier's dying comments on the stress involved in stepping in to the machine).

On the night Borden is spotted the water tank (or perhaps just the lock) is set in place by the off-stage 'Angier'.

When Borden confronts Angier in his 'lair' he instantly realises the truth, seeing many empty tanks of water. Angier's plan has failed, but we, the audience, deceive ourselves into seeing something entirely different.

The end of the movie is intended as a prestige, not an explanation of Angier's story.

Evidence

1. No one other than Tesla or his assistant imply the machine works. We may (incorrectly) infer it from what we see, but it's never stated.

2. We never see more than two Angiers in the same scene.

3. We never see inside the caskets supposedly containing Angier copies until the final scene, one containing an apparently dead Angier, the others empty. Why are we never shown the other tank's contents?

4. It seems unlikely Borden would or could send Angier to Tesla with the blueprints of the transportation device if he hadn't one himself.

5. Cutter's closing speech "Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because you want to be fooled" hints heavily that all is not as it seems.

6. Nolan is on record as saying illusion and misdirection are the central themes of the movie.

7. Caine has commented that people will go away from the movie thinking they understand what has taken place, when they've witnessed something entirely different.

8. Christian Bale states that the whole movie is one big magic trick, and Hugh Jackman agrees, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln6nssA0yVk&mode=related&search=

In the same interview they suggest people might fully undertand what's going on ... "the clues are there". If anything's so obvious why the need to see it 4 or 5 times?

9. It'd difficult to tell but Lord Caudlow appears to support an English accent whilst dying. Angier speaks American. Why the change?

10. Those who cite the book as proof that the Tesla machine 'works' should remind themselves that the book is (apparently) edited by the character Lord Cauldlow ... and so is of dubious provenance.

Excuses

I haven't the time at the moment to drag in relevant quotes but a viewing will confirm that this interpretation of events is as valid as the one posited in the article. I'm also a wiki newbie so apologies for any breeches in ettiquette in advance. I'm sure that like anyone who's only seen this movie once I've made errors and omissions, please feel free to comment. Some representation of this interpretation should be included in the plot section, even if it's just a single sentence/summary. DaveTheJackal 22:11, 21 November 2006 (GMT)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We do not concern ourselves with interpretations, truth, or interpretations of truth, only verifiability, and that must meet strict guidelines for reliability. With that said, you may want to review our policy against original research. The plot in the article should be trimmed to avoid unsourced interpretations, so you have actually raised an important point. Good job. —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here. It's certainly never stated in the movie that the cloning machine works, hence this is not verifiable as fact. Angier never states the device works, all we see is Angier stepping into the machine and then the firing of the gun. One cannot verify that this double was created by the machine. Similarly no statement is ever made that each night a 'clone' dies, this is interpretation and should really be removed? DaveTheJackal 16:07, 22 November 2006 (GMT)

Response to alternative interpretation

• No one other than Tesla or his assistant imply the machine works. We may (incorrectly) infer it from what we see, but it's never stated.

The book, for the most part, seems to confirm that the machine works, and the Nolans have stated that the film should be viewed first, and then the book should be read; the book expands upon the plot. If you had followed this advice, I don't think you would have come up with this theory. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple misdirection. The end of the book is just one of the ways it is very different to the movie. You seem to imply there's some doubt that the machine functions even in the book... interesting. DaveTheJackal 16:51, 22 November 2006 (GMT)

• We never see more than two Angiers in the same scene.

Yes, the film dispensed with that for obvious reasons: it's easier to do in a book, and it increased the sense of mystery. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

CGIing in two Angiers in a movie, especially one with a budget like this, is little more expensive than 2, 3, 4, ... 100. DaveTheJackal 22:11, 21 November 2006 (GMT)

• We never see inside the caskets supposedly containing Angier copies until the final scene, one containing an apparently dead Angier, the others empty. Why are we never shown the other tank's contents?

Do we know in fact that is true or relevant? —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we never see concrete proof that there are more than two Angiers. It also shows, at last, that Angier is prepared to live the trick, take extreme measures to protect his secret, even if the trick is fundamentally unchanged from it's original version this will stop even Borden from realising it's true nature. We're never shown the contents of the transported caskets, remeniscent of the way a magician conceals and misdirects, it's all part of the elaborate magic trick/illusion that is the movie. DaveTheJackal 22:11, 21 November 2006 (GMT)

• It seems unlikely Borden would or could send Angier to Tesla with the blueprints of the transportation device if he hadn't one himself.

The film and the book are clear on this. In the film, Angier and Borden both attended the science exhibition with Tesla presiding. In the book, we learn that Borden sent Angier on a wild goose chase: while Angier was busy in the states with Tesla, Borden was making a name for himself. Simple misdirection. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Angier has Tesla build the machine specified in Borden's diary. That is works as you beleive is unlikely.DaveTheJackal 22:11, 21 November 2006 (GMT)

• Cutter's closing speech "Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because you want to be fooled" hints heavily that all is not as it seems.

Works both ways. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but rather than being some vague 'it makes you think kind of line' it becomes relevant and to the point with this interpretation of events.DaveTheJackal 22:11, 21 November 2006 (GMT)

• Those who cite the book as proof that the Tesla machine 'works' should remind themselves that the book is (apparently) edited by the character Lord Cauldlow ... and so is of dubious provenance

Not sure where you got this from, as the framing story in the present provides the evidence. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the book this was a review, I can't find the reference at he moment I'll have to get back to you, basically it states that as the novel is edited by Lord Cauldlow (indicating that indeed he lives) and as a result it's hard to know what to beleive and what not. DaveTheJackal 22:11, 21 November 2006 (GMT)

Nevertheless, this is a valid interpretation, and one that fits all the facts as presented in the movie. It is not original research, just another way of looking at the same piece. It could easily be said that the article as it stands has no basis in truth, with no evidence to back it up, the writer(s) have missed the obvious, they've allowed themselves to be misdirected by the magic trick that is the movie. I'll admit, I left the movie theatre believing, as you do, in the deus ex-mechina of the working transportation device. It was only when a friend presented this version of events to me that I realised what had in fact taken place, that as Cutter states, I'd allowed myself to be fooled. Watch the movie again, forget the book, they are separate entities. If the movie is as straght forward as you suggest why do both Jackman and Bale suggest 4 or 5 viewings are neccessary to understand it? Why did Caine say you'll leave this movie thinking you know what happened and you'll be wrong? As an aside, I had a similar argument with my friends a few years ago, about the nature of two of the characters in Ian Bank's Inversions. Read the wiki article on that, Banks himself has revealed the truth... it shows authors (at least) are prepared to be this clever with their work. At the very least, since the movie (I hesitated to use the word 'film', since I'm unsure if the medium on which this drama was recorded) is open to two very different interpretations this should be mentioned in the article, since it's one of the movie's main 'pull's. I'm not alone in believing this version of events, I'm just the guy with too much time on his hands who thinks it's pretty cool and is worth telling people about. DaveTheJackal 17:06, 21 November 2006 (GMT)

Dave, we know from Borden's reading of Angier's diary that Angier set Borden up to appear to have murdered him. Angier couldn't have framed Borden in that way without creating true duplicates of himself during the show. One copy of Angier had to drown, and another copy, complete with his consciousness and his memories, had to survive. Because Angier couldn't know which of the hundred performances Borden would attend, he had to drown one of his selves at each performance. Cognita 17:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This works equally well with a double. Borden is spotted in the audience (he's in his usual thin disguise). Cutter warns Angier too keep a sharper look out for him in the future, after the 'finger trapping incident'. Once he spots Borden, the off stage Angier places the working lock on the tank and the trap is complete, blinded by the lights the onstage performer is oblivious to his fate. Whether the double is in on the secret is unclear, though Angier's closing statement, that when he stepped in to the device he didn't know whether he'd be the one in the tank, suggests that they took turns. The double's motivation? Inheriting Angier's estate? After the humiliation dealt out to him by Borden, Root would have the added motivation of revenge. DaveTheJackal 19:12, 22 November 2006 (GMT)

How would Angier know that Borden wouldn't attend the first of his hundred shows? And if Root did inherit the estate, how would he fake being Angier well enough to pass as him among people who knew Angier? Root was hired as the double, to perform in a limited situation, because he looked like Angier. It wasn't also required that he talk and act like him or that he be able to identify Angier's old friends on sight and all the other things one has to do to step into someone's place. Cognita 09:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Which ever show Borden attended would be the last. Angier kept watch each night. No one has seen the Lord in his official role for years, any number of excuses could have been for apparent lapses in memory. A little like Martin Guerre.DaveTheJackal 12:16, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

We know Angier spots Borden, whichever version of events you choose, since he knows not to appear on the balcony in both cases. DaveTheJackal 12:16, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

I don't find it plausible that Root would take a chance on drowning for revenge or financial gain. It's possible to construct alternative interpretations of the events in the film, but I have more confidence in the "Occam's razor" version. Call it a personal preference. This plot is complex and tangled enough as is. Cognita 09:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok ... assuming the double is Root: he's an ex-alcoholic loser who hit rock bottom, humiliated and manipulated in to losing his only reliable 'gig' at the hands of Borden. He's desperate, has little or no self esteem. That said, underneath it all, he's an excellent showman and mimmick. The treatment he received from Borden was a big wakeup call, he cleans up his act enough to carry off the show. This is one way for him alleviate the guilt he carries over what he did to Angier, with the added possibility of financial reward. But perhaps you're right, perhaps he wasn't in on the trick, perhaps he wasn't in any danger of drowning. There's slightly different version of the ending circulating, some people noticed bubbles coming from the mouth of the Angier in the tank indicating possibly that he isn't dead at all, though I can't say I noticed this, and it's a little too tangled for even my liking, but I'd cosider it given more evidence. I don't think the version of events presented in 'the alternative' complicate things, it simplifies them. If you're going to apply occam's razor, doesn't the idea of a working cloning machine push things in the direction of the this interpretation? We're given no hard evidence in the movie at all that the machine works so why assume it does? DaveTheJackal 12:16, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

An earlier version of the plot summary said a number of "Angier" corpses in tanks are seen in the closing shot. I didn't notice that myself, but apparently another viewer did. Cognita 09:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've rewatched the ending several times. We only ever see two Angier's in one shot, all the other tanks are empty, not even a stray hand in shot to prove otherwise. Borden looks around and isn't surprised, the evidence confirms what he knew must have been happening all the time. The end of the movie is the prestige of one big magic trick (as has been repeatedly stated by the cast and crew in interview). The thing that confirms that what you've just seen is 'magic', that what the magician (Nolan) is implying has happened has really happened, when all you've seen is a trick.DaveTheJackal 12:16, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

And yet, another explanation for the empty tanks (if indeed they were empty and not covered or in darkness) is that they were being stored until they were ready for use; Angier had 100 shows to complete. —Viriditas | Talk 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So ... you're prepared to consider other interpretations of events to support the mainstream theory and not this alternative? DaveTheJackal 14:30, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

Keep in mind, we're supposed to use this page to discuss improving the article, not for talking about the topic. I don't know where you got this alternative interpretation, other than from a web forum. It raises important questions, but does not provide overwhelming evidence in its favor. The differences between the novel and the adaptation are fewer than you might think. It is my opinion that part of the confusion is arising from the missing elements in the novel that did not carry over to the film. However, there are enough differences for me to give the alternative theory consideration. But, at the end of the day, the alt. theory doesn't hold up. —Viriditas | Talk 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dave, the plot summary in the article is there to report the events that viewers of the film see. Interpreting those events isn't its job. The Illusionist, which showed many things that weren't what they appeared to be, was a special case because the deceptions were uncovered late in the film through Inspector Uhl's mental reconstruction of what must have happened. The Prestige has no Uhl to show us what to believe.

Cutter identifies Angier's body at the morgue. When he meets Angier/Caldlow later, he's genuinely astounded: "I saw you on that slab!" Now, Cutter knew Angier had a living double. If Angier and Root had looked so much alike as to be indistinguishable up close, Cutter would have known that the corpse at the morgue might be Root. He would have had to say "I don't know which one this is." Cognita 18:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cutter wasn't in on the trick, he doesn't know Root is involved, as the Angier at the end of the movie explains, he wanted to keep Cutter out of it. Since both characters were (apparently - according to the cast lists I've seen) played by the same actor we can assume they look pretty similar. We suspend belief enough to believe Borden/Fallen have concealed their true identities from the rest of the world, so why can't we do the same for Angier/Root? Yes I agree the plot outline now more or less describes things dispasionately, accurately. That the movie has sparked so much discussion deserves a mention too (as it has here: http://www.kpbs.org/blogs/movies/2006/10/20/the-prestige/ ... nothing to do with me). I'd also argue this isn't a B grade scifi, it's an A grade deception. DaveTheJackal 19:22, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

The only confirmation I can find that Jackman played both roles is on a few Web pages that may be stealing from one another. As I recall, the credits named another actor in Root's role. But it doesn't matter how many actors played Angier and Root. My point above was that within the story – nothing to do with whether Angier and Root looked identical to movie audiences or only very similar – Cutter thought Angier was dead because he saw a body that looked just like him. Again within the story, Cutter at the morgue would have been alert to the possibility that the body was Root.

I don't believe anyone has labeled this film "a B grade scifi." Cognita 22:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Try the IMDB link at the bottom of the article. I think the cast listing shows Jackman as playing both roles, but I might have seen it somewhere else. —Viriditas | Talk 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dave, were you referring to the label at the bottom of this page? It means the talk page has been rated B in Wikipedia's scheme of things. Cognita 23:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dave. If Angiers was using a double for the trick - why did he have to exclude Cutter from the behind the scenes to "protect him"? If the drowning of Root/Angier was only done on the one occassion that Borden went backstage, then there's nothing to hide from Cutter... gringotsgoblin 13:45 24 November 2006 (GMT)

Amongst other things: Cutter would not be involved in the lie that Angier hopes will perpetuate the secret of the trick; nor will he be implicated in the apparent murder of Angier or have to commit purgery. DaveTheJackal 14:57, 24 November 2006 (GMT)

The Real Plot Hole?

How did the padlock that (apparently) kills Angier get locked in the first place?. If you've ever used one of these devices you'll realise it has to be threaded through whatever it's supposed to be locking and then clicked shut. Impossible to do without human intervention ... or perhaps I'm missing something obvious here. Who locked the padlock? DaveTheJackal 13:03, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

Does it matter? Angier (or whomever he is) can't escape and drowns. Why should we care who locked the padlock? We are led to assume that this is Angier's way of disposing of the prestige. —Viriditas | Talk 13:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying it's just a plot hole then? DaveTheJackal 14:13, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

I've just rewatched this sequence and the padlock does appear to click shut on it's own, though I'm still not sure why. A special trick lock of some sort? DaveTheJackal 14:35, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

Ok another question, in the scene where Borden goes beneath stage we see one of the blind stage hands there, no mention of them being deaf is ever made. Why don't they hear the drowning clones, if there are any? DaveTheJackal 14:37, 23 November 2006 (GMT)

(1) Let's suppose Angier locks the padlock himself to avoid making the stagehands suspicious. Is there a plot hole? (Really, the tank could have been built without a detachable lid for this trick. I think the padlock is there for the audience's benefit. It clues us that the man can't get out.) (2)The stagehands are only blind. If they were both blind and deaf, they wouldn't be able to work. For instance, they have to take instructions from Angier. In the scene where Borden tries to smash the tank, I don't recall that the sound track contains any noises from inside. Borden sees the man drowning. No one hears the man drowning. Cognita 17:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It does, the double shouts, thrashes about, splashes and hits his hands against the glass. Surely the stage hands were questioned by the police? If the same thing happened every night, i.e. the drowning of a clone, they'd have known about it. The blind, in legend at least, have more finely attuned hearing than the sighted. DaveTheJackal 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The audio is meant for us, to clue us in to the drowning. It's muted, and unlikely that anyone standing a few feet away would hear it. Keep in mind the background noise caused by Tesla's machine, the nature of sound propagation under the stage with noise coming from above, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The machine stops when the double drops in to the tank, there's sufficient sound insulation that when Borden bellows "where's the key" below the stage it's barely audible, from the theatre, even with audience hushed, awaiting the prestige. Down below we hear what Borden hears, the camera isn't inside the tank when we hear what we hear, if it was I could understand your point. DaveTheJackal 21:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is a scene showing the blind stagehands hearing Angier's muted, underwater cries, there's no good reason to assume they did. The scene informs Borden and the audience about Angier's demise. It says nothing about the stagehands, nor is there any reason for us to think Angier's cries were loud enough for them to hear it. —Viriditas | Talk 21:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"The blind, in legend at least, have more finely attuned hearing than the sighted." That's a false belief. I worked with the blind for five years as a volunteer. Losing one's sight doesn't improve one's hearing or any other sense. People who are born blind or become so simply learn to pay attention to nonvisual sensations that the sighted don't use.

"Surely the stage hands were questioned by the police?" Apparently not; see a previous section about a related plot hole.

By the time Borden reaches the tank, the new Angier will have popped out of the left-hand box on stage. The audience should be applauding loudly at that moment. Cognita 22:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As borden walks towards the cage, under the stage at the end of the movie, he passes within say 5 feet of one of the stage hands who, hearing the approaching foot steps against the roar of the Tesla device in full flow, looks up in a scary stylee. If he hears Borden's approaching footsteps in these circumstance, surely he'd hear a clone yelling and banging against the glass? Remember sounds from the stage are very muted below decks, you can hardly hear Borden yelling "Where's the key" at the top of his voice. No excuses or inventive reasoning is required about the stage hands or the police if the there are no clones, each night there's nothing (incriminating) for the stage hands to hear. DaveTheJackal 00:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok here's another one for you ... why, at the end of the movie, Borden say "It takes nothing to steal another mans work" to which Angier responds "It takes everything". Surely if the 'straight' reading of the movie is correct he'd have refuted Bordens statement. He's just admitted he did the same trick ... DaveTheJackal 00:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"If he hears Borden's approaching footsteps in these circumstance, surely he'd hear a clone yelling and banging against the glass?" He doesn't hear the clone in that scene, so it's hard to say that surely he would.Cognita 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't know he doesn't.DaveTheJackal 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Angier's "It takes everything," a line I don't remember hearing, can easily be interpreted as an allusion to his multiple murders. Recall that he didn't even want to kill doves. And I believe saying "It takes everything" is refuting Borden's statement.Cognita 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Borden has accused him of stealing his work, that he's performing the same trick (not some scientific wonder) and he seems to agree he has. DaveTheJackal 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Do any of the points you've raised to support your interpretation – the details about the padlock, the transmission of sound, and so forth – affect what the article should say? The purpose of this page is confined to discussion of the article. Cognita 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I started off trying to establish that there were multiple interpretations to the movie, that it deceives it's audience to beleive on thing when in fact another has happened and only the facts should be mentioned in the article. The transmission of sound and other points were put forward in defence of a criticisms of this credible alternative to the interpretation presented. Angier does not reveal that the Tesla machine creates replicants; we never see more than two 'Angiers' therefore there is no evidence that more than one double for Angiers exists. All these inaccuracies/interpretations are back in the plot synopsis and should be removed. None of the themes raised by the alternative interpretation are mentioned in the article (i.e. the movie being one big 'magic trick', the symmetry between Borden and Angier, each sacrificing their 'partners in crime' to protect the nature of the same trick etc). Though until I can track down a few more references, I agree they should be left out. Unfortunately, having heard the quote (and I paraphrase) 'you'll go away from this movie beleiving you've seen one thing when in fact you've seen something entirely different' I can't find a single reference to it on the net. DaveTheJackal 02:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't break up comments by other editors so that you can reply to particular points. Always reply at the end of the comment, after the sig, and raise the points there. See WP:TPG for the full guideline. —Viriditas | Talk 03:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources for the "alternative interpretation", we can't add it to the article. As for the plot, it's accurate to a point. I'm in favor of shortening and removing any blatantly ambiguous material, although I don't have a problem with Cognita's version. —Viriditas | Talk 03:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It can as easily be said that there's no support for the version presented either. Now that I understand what the article should contain I'm not suggesting that the 'alternative representation' be added in to the plot summary, just that the plot summary be worded in a way that allows multiple interpretations (without giving the game away). I've changed the wording of the scene where Angier discovers the duplicates hats in such a manner, I'll look at how the 'finalé' description could be modified in a similar way later.DaveTheJackal 14:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point: in the final scene, during Angier's synopis we see a flashback in which Angier falls in to the tank, the lock clicks shut and we see the prestige appear on the balcony, However, when we see the tank there is a figure, Borden, holding an oil lamp standing by the tank, just as he does in the previous scenes with the drowning Angier. Indicating that here at least we're being deceived, as the prestige doesn't appear on the night Borden is below stage. OK, the figure isn't 100% clear, viewed from the back/side and it could (with some stretch of the imagination) be one of the blind stage hands, though it looks like Borden... all the stage hands wear hats (which this figure does not) and why would a blind stage hand carry a lantern? DaveTheJackal 14:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but I want to make it clear that this page is not a web forum for discussing the topic; we need to discuss how to improve the article. At this point, there does not appear to be any reliable sources that support your "alternative interpretation". Who knows, you could be correct, but until a reliable, published source discusses this alternative theory, we cannot include it in the article nor discuss it past a certain point. I feel that point has been reached, but others may disagree. —Viriditas | Talk 23:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Veriditas, I believe, by bringing up all these ambiguous details, Dave seeks to establish that his interpretation is plausible enough that parts of Plot should be altered to admit it as a possibility – that's the relevance to the article. In one person's opinion (i.e., mine), the interpretation isn't plausible enough, and Plot needn't accommodate it. An interview with Jonathan Nolan at http://www.movieweb.com/news/64/15264.php shows that the screenwriters didn't intend it. Go down to the interviewer's question "Did you ever think about not having the Tesla machine work and that there was another way that he....a real way? Cause I was thinking he would use a double and drown him..." Cognita 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I think that pretty much puts an end to this discussion. If there is no objection, I will be happy to archive this silly jaunt into terra incognita. —Viriditas | Talk 21:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection from me, as long as you attend to spacing and capitalization. I wouldn't want the discussion to land on terra in Cognita. Cognita 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Alternative Media

So is all as it seems? Wendy Ide of the UK Times thinks not: Nolan has a conjuror’s instinct for misdirection, drawing our eye with a pyrotechnic flash or an alluring glimpse of Johansson’s thigh so as to conceal a clue to the true point of a scene. This, I suspect, is a film that may take several viewings to reveal its true hand. Read more here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14931-2443577,00.html?CMP=KNC-IX7429721604&HBX_OU=50&q=the+prestige

DaveTheJackal 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither does Bob Bloom of the Journal & Courier in Lafayette... The finale of The Prestige may either shock you or leave you scratching your head. It will make you rethink what and who you saw. You will search your brain for missed clues. Like a good magic trick, the solution is right before your eyes. You merely have to watch closely. http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1159624/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=2&rid=1549602

DaveTheJackal 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dave, I don't read either of those reviews as supporting the alternative interpretation you've proposed. I think the two excerpts mean that as one views the film for the first time, one will make false assumptions, and the last few scenes will show them to be false. For example, the viewer may not have guessed that Borden and Fallon are twins or that the Angier who drowns in the tank isn't the original Angier – or, indeed, that the Angier who's shot at the end isn't the original Angier. "Rethink[ing] what and who you saw" refers to the thought process you engage in if you take the two main spoken revelations at face value (Borden and Fallon's relationship; Angier's many copies). It doesn't mean doubting the truth of those speeches and constructing another version that might possibly fit what was shown.

Here's another line from Bob Bloom's review: "For the most part, Nolan keeps a step ahead of the audience until the very end." That means Nolan (actually, two Nolans, but we're used to that sort of thing by now) does let the audience in on the secrets at the very end. I don't see how you get anything more than that from what Bloom wrote. Cognita 05:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Bob Bloom review can be read both ways, though the one from the Times ultimately suggests more. DaveTheJackal 14:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read both reviews. Anything they "suggest," as distinct from things they come out and say, is in the mind of the beholder. Honestly, Dave, I believe you're reading support for your alternative interpretation into broad, general statements in those reviews. Why are the statements so general as to allow this interpretation? Well, naturally a reviewer won't get too explicit about an ending: reviewers need to avoid spoilers. That doesn't justify taking advantage of ambiguous statements in a review to conclude "Oh, the writer must have meant she secretly shares my opinion." Cognita 19:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, point taken, though I think the case is stronger than "Oh, the writer must have meant she secretly shares my opinion.". DaveTheJackal 14:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Endspoiler}}

Jackman, two roles or one?

I haven't found a reliable source for the statement that Jackman plays Gerald Root. The IMDB doesn't say one way or the other. Wouldn't it be better to remove the statement until it's confirmed? Cognita 05:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I confirmed it some time ago: Jackman plays Root. How about attaching a cite request until I find a good source? —Viriditas | Talk 05:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll look around for instructions on how to attach a cite request. Cognita 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this stated in reviews (eg. http://www.cinemaemcena.com.br/frm_Criticas_Detalhe.aspx?cod_filme=3902&tipo=criticas, google translation here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemaemcena.com.br%2Ffrm_Criticas_Detalhe.aspx%3Fcod_filme%3D3902%26tipo%3Dcriticas&langpair=pt%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools), but no where else, I can't find any reference to the roles of Root or Lord Caulow in any cast listings. Initially I thought Angier/Root were two different actors but dispensed with the idea when I saw the reference to Jackman here.DaveTheJackal 15:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have it directly from a reliable source in the movie's crew that Root was played by a another actor. This is supported by IMDB's listing of both Jackman's and Bale's doubles in the cast (but not as DOUBLES) up until about September 2006. Then the actors' names were removed along with the fictitious characters' names. I realize that Jackman has been quoted in interviews as saying he played both Angier and Root, but couldn't this be more magical misdirection from the Nolans? That would explain the significant change in IMDB's information. Also, the actor playing Root was at the wrap party on April 11, 2006, and even confused fellow cast and crew then. Jim Dunning 15:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious guys? Couldn't be a double as Root, despite the film's plot. Wiki-newbie 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me, at least. Plenty of films use doubles for lead roles even when the idea of a double doesn't enter into the plot. I remember seeing a separate credit for Root when I saw the film, but I can't be 100% sure now.

Jim, one possibility is that another actor played Root in some scenes but not all. Is this consistent with what you've heard? Cognita 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- there's no way to know how much the double was used, but in the scene where Angier "auditions" Root he comes up on stage to examine him and there is a complete wrap-around shot by the camera with no apparent cuts where we get to see both close-up. Could be CGI or other special effects, sure. I just know that the actor double looks so much like Jackman that wrap-party attendees had to look carefully to see to whom they were talking. It would be interesting to know for sure. I'm going to check out Internet Archive to see if I can find old IMDB pages. Let you know. Jim Dunning 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Relative to the citation for Jackman playing Root — Viriditas, is the statement of a reviewer enough here? Okay, I'm still a supporter of a double (!), but there is an article somewhere where Jackman says he played him, so that might be a better source . . . . Jim Dunning 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of Plot section

Despite a series of explanations and pleas by Viriditas and me, Wiki-newbie's rewrite of Plot returned to the article within the past day without a statement that would justify this move, only that the version it replaced was a "novelisation." Not surprisingly, I disagree; it was a plot summary. Have you ever seen a novel written that way?

Wiki-newbie, I've said these things before. I'll try to be polite as I say them again now. Please observe the principle of consensus. That means stepping back when discussion by several contributors shows dissatisfaction with something you wrote. It also means explaining in the edit summary why your change is an improvement. If a change isn't an improvement, making the change repeatedly shows disrespect for those of us who've explained why it isn't one. In other words, observing consensus means acting like a team player. Insisting on your version of Plot just because you like it better or just because it's yours subverts consensus.

Any changes beyond spelling corrections and such should be proposed on this talk page first, for discussion, not imposed unilaterally without giving other editors a chance to comment. They should certainly not be imposed after other editors have clearly objected.

We're interested in improving the article. It should look professionally written, with good grammar and correct spelling. It should be clear. The way sentences are constructed should not obscure their meaning. Because the plot of The Prestige is complex, an additional concern is keeping Plot as short as is consistent with covering the basic events. One example: In the Colorado subsection, the point about what Tesla's machine does can be made without giving the details about cats and hats. Then more space is available for coverage of other scenes that are equally important.

If you think the Plot section you replaced needed improvement, please post here to say what you found wrong with it. Thank you. Cognita 02:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does the machine do?

Two points in Plot need attention. First, I changed the Tesla paragraph to say that the machine creates a duplicate of anything placed in it. I think this is important. The previous version said only that the machine works for teleportation. Okay?

Second, the latest version of Plot has this, near the end:

Angier, dying from the gunshot, reveals that each time he disappeared during his illusion, the machine created a duplicate that fell through a trap door and drowned in a locked tank. The teleported Angier, a doppelgänger, lived on to bask in the applause.

I had understood that the Angier who drowned each time was the one who had entered Tesla's machine on stage, and the newly created replicant was teleported to the balcony. (When I saw the illusion in the film, the floor under Angier's feet appeared to open up briefly, and at that point only one Angier was visible. Presumably the man in the machine fell into the tank.) The current statement in Plot reverses them: the new replicant drowns, the older one goes to the balcony. Which is correct?

If the quoted passage above is correct, and the older Angier goes to the balcony, then he isn't the doppelgänger; the one who drowns is. In that case, the passage should be changed to call the teleported man, not the drowned man, the doppelgänger. Cognita 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- it is the Angier that steps into the machine that drowns and his duplicate that is teleported to the balcony (of course, the duplicate wouldn't feel that way, being truly duplicated). This is consistent with the book's plot/events, as well as the bird-in-the-cage trick that bookends the film's story (the original bird dies and the "duplicate" survives to bask in the trick's glory. Of course that means that the following night the teleported doppleganger is the one who steps into the machine and drowns. This is also consistent with the feeling of sacrifice Angier believes is necessary to a successful trick (plus he is always condemned to missing out on the audience's applause). I think this section should be modified.

Jim Dunning 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We are never shown that the machine duplicates anything. It APPEARS to do so, that's all we can say. See my earlier point about the flashback at the end of the movie. We're never shown an Angier die on any night other than the one on which Borden arrives. In each shot showing Angier's plunge in to the tank Borden is standing by the tank with his lantern. All references to the machine definitely doing ANYTHING should be hacked out and destroyed. A plot summary that implies the machine works by 'slight of word' is one thing ... to insert definitive statements to that effect is unacceptable. DaveTheJackal 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dave, the filmmakers intended that the machine does work. Please see the archived material for this talk page, including the link to an interview in which Jonathan Nolan dismissed the alternative interpretation. Then please follow the link and read what Nolan said. He made it clear that the machine creates duplicates.

Besides resurrecting the idea that it doesn't, your last change to Plot lengthens the section, which Viriditas and I tried hard to shorten because of earlier objections that it was too long. Cognita 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dave, moments ago you changed the description of the ending in Plot as well. The Plot section need not and should not be rewritten to imply that the machine's action is unknown. This last change does exactly that; it again lengthens the section; and it contains so many mistakes in writing or typing as to make parts of it nonsensical. Please stop making these changes. Cognita 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to express my support for Cognita in this matter. —Viriditas | Talk 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, as a practical matter, if the machine works as the film implies it to, i.e. creates a perfect replica, then it would be impossible, by examining the two copies, to know which is the "real" Angier and which is the replicant, since you would expect both of them to have the same memories etc.

I think that's what Angier meant when he said, "not knowing whether you will be in the box, or the prestige". --Sumple (Talk) 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as Tesla told Angier, "They're all your hats." In the New Transported Man act, though, the two Angiers' life histories split apart when the double is created. One man experiences falling and drowning, and the other experiences standing on the balcony. For that reason, it's meaningful to ask which copy (newer, older) goes where (tank, balcony). Cognita 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sight and Sound

The plot summary in the UK magazine "Sight and Sound" (http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/3555/) states:

"Borden's twin brother, with whom the magician performed the Transported Man illusion, is hung. Borden kills Angier's double, a clone birthed in Tesla's cabinet. Borden leaves with his daughter, secretly watched by Angier."

Can anyone work this out? I'm lost. Should this be added to the plot summary? DaveTheJackal 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The question doesn't fall within the purpose of this page. Cognita 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that Dave might be on to something here. I've run into this observation before, and it's very likely that Angier survived if you compare the film with the book. Let's keep an open mind on this particular point as it appears to be an outcome consistent with the story, IMO. —Viriditas | Talk 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas, when I responded to Dave's post, its sentence "Should this be added to the plot summary?" wasn't there. Accordingly, I thought Dave was asking only what the S&S reviewer had in mind.

We don't quite see Angier die from the gunshot or in the fire. I assumed he was going to. I didn't notice another Angier lurking about, but that's not to say there wasn't one. I did definitely understand that the Angier who was shot was not the original Angier, but a replicant at nth remove (his predecessors drowned). What change would we make to the summary, assuming we made any? Cognita 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No change as of yet, just discussion, but Dave's reference seems to be a good one. Other reviews have made similar allegations concerning Angier's survival, and since we don't have enough information, we should just describe it in visual terms in the most neutral way possible. Keep in mind that if Angier survived, and another Angier was shot, that still leaves a dead Angier in the morgue. —Viriditas | Talk 00:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there may be many dead Angiers. For instance, we don't know how many cycles the replication went through before the New Transported Man performance that we see. The summary calls them all Angier, just as it says Borden or Fallon for scenes where we don't know which man appears. (Which one loses his fingers first? I have no idea. Similarly, which one is Jess's father? I think it's likely the one who comforts Jess in the hall while the other one argues with Sarah.) The duplicates make writing an accurate summary, without unwarranted assumptions, difficult.

Another way to look at it – how many living Angiers are there at any moment? I suspect there are no more than two. Whenever Angier creates a double, as far as we've seen, one of them is killed. If he let himself and the double live, they'd fight about which one was the real Angier who would perform the next show, which one owned Lord Caldlow's property, and so on. At the show when Borden went backstage, one Angier died in a way that later became public knowledge. That one's in the morgue. The remaining Angier can't show himself in public, except as Lord C., because turning up alive would void Borden's murder conviction.

So I think by the end there's only one living Angier. Has anyone seen another Angier in the final scene?

Nevertheless, since Angier's death isn't shown, I agree that Plot shouldn't say it happens. Two places that need changing are "dying from the gunshot" and "Angier dies from his wound." Any others? Cognita 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if everyone knows this, but the Angier who "secretly watches" Borden is the one standing in the glass tank at the end - but does he move at all? I got the impression that he was a dead one. --Sumple (Talk) 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Myself and others saw bubbles in the tank, possibly coming from Angier holding his breath, although that doesn't make any sense, so I've dismissed it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead Men Don't Watch, eh?

After waiting for more input, I made two changes to the last scene in Plot:

Angier, disabled by the gunshot, reveals that each time he disappeared during his illusion, he fell into a locked tank . . .

. . . continued to pay for his subsequent success. As a fire begins to consume the building, Borden leaves with his daughter.

Reasons: we don't see Angier die, and we don't see the building consumed. Any objections? A question – is Jess in that scene? I don't remember seeing her there, and the action would be pretty rough stuff for a child her age to watch. I'm taking others' word that "leaves with his daughter" and "reunites with his daughter" are accurate. Cognita 06:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the previous version was accurate. This particular revision portrays an event that did not appear to occur in the film. —Viriditas | Talk 10:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Which event did not appear to occur: Angier was disabled (but clearly he didn't look well), a fire began to consume the building, or Borden left with his daughter? Cognita 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you based this version on Graham Fuller's review. Mr. Fuller has a flair for the dramatic, and is capable of condensing the most important elements of the story into a small paragraph. While impressive, it may be distorted. I don't recall Borden leaving the burning building with his daughter; I remember him reuniting with her after the event, possibly at his workshop. —Viriditas | Talk 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuller said "leaves with his daughter"; the previous Plot version said "reunites with his daughter." Because I found so many flaws in Fuller's writing, as writing, I didn't rely on his account, except that I thought "leaves" must have described something seen. I'll change it back to "reunites."

I'm not perfectly happy with "disabled." I don't know what would work better. Angier is presumably dying, but the viewer doesn't see him die. "Gravely wounded by the gunshot"? Cognita 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Either all we know is that Angier has been shot, or we are given a visual cue that he dies from the wound. I'm leaning towards the latter, but I can't recall the scene. The "secretly watched" bit probably refers to a different Angier. —Viriditas | Talk 20:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

One Angier in the tank, one Angier on the ground. Two Angiers, right?

And yes, now that you mention it, they are re-united afterwards at the workshop. The girl was with Cutter, who was showing her the disappearing bird trick. Then Borden walks in the door, and Cutter's narration (?) says something like "and you gotta bring it back". --Sumple (Talk) 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I don't know what's happened to the plot summery but it's much worse that the last time I looked. Never mind the grammar, the spelling's all over the place. OK here's a first draft of an attempt to produce an objective, unbiased version of the denouement:

"Cutter follows Angier to the abandoned building and begs his to destroy the machine. Realising the true identity of Lord Cauldlow and deducing Angier's plot to destroy Borden, Cutter leaves in disgust. ... ... Borden accuses Angier of stealing his work and never having suffered for his act. The dying Angier states he did suffer, we see Angier's first experiment with the machine, Angier shoots the doppelganger that appears in front of him. Every night not knowing whether he'd be the one in the tank or the prestige on the balcony, Angier tells us of his courage, in flashback we see Angier plunge in to the tank as it locks behind him whilst his duplocate appears on the balcony. Borden leaves and a fire consumes the building. as angier Angier dies from his wound. Borden reunites with his daughter."

This is based on the version that was there today, and contains large parts of the text used there, but IMO a version based on Cognita's (?) original would be preferable. I have entered some of this in to the article text, perhaps not advisable, but it's hardly likely to be worse than the words it replaced. DaveTheJackal 19:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know what's happened to the plot summery but it's much worse...": The plot summary I got just now is the same one I got a few minutes ago. Its grammar and spelling were fine except in your two additions (Colorado and finale). You may have viewed an older version. On repeated viewings about two weeks ago, my husband and I found that a viewer doesn't always get the current version. I think I always do, but he uses a different computer that switches between current and past revisions even though his operating system and browser are newer.

Off-topic, but similar experience: My son IMed me and linked me to a WP page about a noted person. The page had been amusingly vandalized (oops, I meant "appallingly") and he wanted to share a laugh. However, the page I was looking at had no vandalism. We both hard-refreshed our browsers (which were identical) and still came up with different versions. Tellingly, my version of the page's history did not have the vandalism in it, so I think our experiences point to accessing different WP servers where changes haven't been propagated completely. This raises interesting issues for us . . . . Jim Dunning 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"perhaps not advisable...": Right. Please see discussions above, and avoid altering Plot in a way that changes its meaning without getting a consensus on this page first. Cognita 20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fallon

Was Fallon Borden's twin brother or clone(from the machine). 210.9.15.116 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They were real brothers. There's a longer discussion of this question halfway up the page. Cognita 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cast spoilers

I noticed that a recent change added Fallon as a character played by Bale. I'm concerned that this is a plot spoiler and there is no warning of such in the Cast section. Also, Fallon technically is played by both Bale and a double actor depending on the scene. Any ideas on how to resolve this without spoiling the story for someone? Consequently, I reverted. Jim Dunning 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing the statement. For many scenes, once we know about the twins and have hindsight, we can't even say whether the character on the screen was Borden or Fallon. Given this slippage, no actor can be identified as playing one of them all the time. Cognita 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Details in 1st paragraph of Plot

These questions are for Jim Dunning especially. Jim, you recently revised a sentence in Plot to read: "At the funeral, Angier asks Borden which knot he used, but Borden claims he doesn't know (see below), enraging Angier." The revised sentence suggests that Borden does know. Did you intend this implication?

Another thing I'm unsure about: which part of what's below does "see below" direct the reader to? Does this refer to the existence of a twin, undisclosed at that point in the film? (Maybe the twin at the funeral didn't tie the knot?) My impression was that Fallon didn't enter the story until he came in to help Borden with the Transported Man act. Until then, it was only Borden. Cognita 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The backstory from the novel implies that Fallon and Borden were working together by the time of Julia's death (even though that incident was invented for the film), so Borden's statement is consistent with a twin, but it's purely speculation on our part at this time; The audience isn't given this information when it occurs. —Viriditas | Talk 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the "I don't know" is consistent with there being two twins of Borden, one of whom tied the knot and the other not knowing which knot the first one had tied. --Sumple (Talk) 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but the question remains; how do we discuss this in the article without sources? —Viriditas | Talk 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My intent in changing it from "but Borden doesn't know" to "but Borden claims he doesn't know" isn't to imply simply that he does, but to allow for (1) one twin not knowing what the other may have done, and (2) the possibility that he may know and is covering (since we can't know for sure if he does know or not). I believe it is #1 since this would be consistent with the themes of the film. I was uncomfortable with the previous version, though, since it is likely inaccurate (whichever twin tied the knot probably does know, otherwise why the hints of what's to come as evidenced by the looks and words exchanged between Borden and Julia?). If my wording is misleading, I'm open to alternatives.

Relative to the "see below" reference, I'm was unsure of its object as well. I just went through the history and found where it first showed up and now I'm guessing it refers to the bullet-catch incident described in the next paragraph (where it says Angier again asks Borden about the knot). It can be removed without damaging the article.

As to when Alfred and Fallon begin working together, I agree with Sumple: they are definitely a team by the time of Julia's drowning and we don't have to depend on the novel for support. There are all sorts of clues in the film: (1) certainly Borden-A's response that he doesn't know what knot it was; (2) Borden telling Cutter before Julia's death that he has the perfect trick that only he can do, but isn't ready to perform yet; and (3) seeing how quickly Borden knows (not just figures out) how the Chinaman's fishbowl trick is done. I believe this last one is key to truly understanding the Borden twins: they know immediately the lengths to which Chung Ling Soo is going to accomplish his signature illusion; they have already started preparation for their signature illusion by living as one person. For this to be successful they would have to begin living a single life very early in their career so they know everything about each other (especially professional and personal contacts and relationships with others). Is this speculation that shouldn't be cited in this article or just piecing the puzzle clues together? Jim Dunning 03:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing "claims" to "says". Jim Dunning 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's right, I put in the "see below"; I meant for it to refer to the existence of the "twins", which the reader would understand when they read to the end of the synopsis. But I guess it isn't really necessary. --Sumple (Talk) 05:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "says" is better because it's neutral. It doesn't imply that Borden's hiding anything; maybe he just doesn't remember. The numerous clues to the possibility that Borden and Fallon have already begun taking turns acting as one person, though interesting, wouldn't go in Plot; they're commentary. I have some preference for leaving out "see below" because it too goes beyond a straight description of what the film shows. Cognita 05:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Additions to Cast — M. & Z. T. Eisen

Two child actors were added to Cast today. Are there solid sources to verify these?

Mackenzie Eisen (role: Jess Angier at age 6): Her name appears as a wikilink, although there's no WP page for her. Possibly someone plans to create one. However, she doesn't have a page on IMDB. The IMDB cast list doesn't name anyone for the role of Jess at that age.

Zach Tyler Eisen (role: Robert Angier at age 10): He has a WP page and an IMDB page, but the IMDB page doesn't include The Prestige among his credits. Incidentally, or not, I don't remember any scenes showing Angier as a child. Cognita 02:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reverting and asking the user on his/her talk page to re-add the information with citation. Seems false, though. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 02:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the plot thickens. I just now noticed that whoever made these additions wrote "Miranda Angier" instead of "Jess Angier." Not good for credibility. I changed it to Jess; will check back later. Cognita 02:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no such characters, so I removed them (out of curiousity I'm checking the novel to see if they're there). If the person who added them could provide a source for this information, that would be great. I noticed that the male child actor is not attached to The Prestige in IMDB, but The Prestige has been added to his Wikipedia article. The only mention of the female (the male's younger sister apparently, is in Wikipedia, not any place else on the Web. Jim Dunning 03:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to chuckle: we were all editing this and the article simultaneously and Wikipedia couldn't keep up with the comments and changes. Jim Dunning 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The mystery is solved. Look at the culprit's Talk page and we can see what's going on. There's a number of vandalism accusations, many to do with films. I don't know if its Web2.0 syndrome or mischief. He/she was blocked once, probably should be again. Someone should probably review all of his/her edits and verify them. Jim Dunning 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, Jim. By now I've checked 69.119's talk page. This person takes "You oughta be in pictures" as an invitation. Can the more experienced folks here enlighten the rest of us about how repeated vandalism warnings lead to a block? Cognita 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

69.119 also inserted a sentence in Plot:

As a young kid, Angier ([[Zach Tyler Eisen]]) was only 10 when his father died.

I've removed it. Cognita 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As for enlightenment from the experienced, I figured it out. To report persistent vandalism to admins, go to this page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

I reported it there. The user's block log shows several past blocks. The most recent one expired a few days ago. Cognita 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for two months after complaints from several editors. Cognita 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)