Christopher Nolan vs David Fincher

this part i understand. But what about the other major flaws in the movie whcih i mentioned?

Why on earth did bale need to hide the fact that he had a twin even before he came up with the transported man? and what makes it even worse is, did they keep the twin secret since they were born?

if so, why? This killed the entire movie for me.

Yeah, Hitchock films can be like this - North By Northwest is easily one of the silliest films ever made. Often his films don't "pretend to be serious and realistic" so it's acceptable. Why I love it so much is that I had seen several of his films before and had become quite comfortable with his style, so my reaction to the film on first viewing (which was probably similar to the Hitchcock fans that originally saw it in 1958) was shock and confusion, but it grew on me with repeated viewings. As a psychodrama, it's obviously weak compared to the ones by Bergman and the like, but the fact that it's Hitchcock attempting a serious psychodrama is why it's so interesting, I think. It's a very screwed-up tale of perverse obsession set in a Hitchcock universe, which is generally a fun, hyperbolic land of crazy murder plots and odd character motivations. It's kind of like in Blue Velvet, where Lynch got a Hardy Boys-esque archetype with the character of Jeffrey Beaumont, and he discovers the dark sexual fears and desires that exist within his own psyche. What Hitchcock does is return to his universe of unbelievable 'silliness' but he twists the archetypal nice guy Jimmy Stewart role so the character becomes this sort of obsessive, borderline necrophilac. It was very disturbing and fascinating at the time, and it still is, because the film is utterly silly and yet it has fantastic and serious subtext about human nature underneath all that silliness. I'm not sure if Nolan's films have this kind of substance though.

Great stuff guys

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I raised those same questions several times in this forum. Also, why was it necessary to mutilate one twin's hand to match the fingers shot off the other, when both men could have worn gloves and most folks in the audience would never have gotten close enough to know the difference.

Yeah, a killer wants to take somebody out, he gets him down a dark alley where no one can see, puts the pistol against the skull and gives him a couple of pops in the head, comfort in the knowledge the victim ain't gonna walk home from that alley. He doesn't lure him out in a cornfield and then tries to strafe him from 500 feet up in open bi-plane. Even Army and Navy pilots trained for the job had serious problems with effective strafing runs in WWI, WWII, and Korea. Everytime I watch that scene, I'm trying to figure out if the pilot is supposed to be firing at Grant with a WWI weapon sychronized to fire through the prop blades, or if he's got a passenger with a tommy gun in the extra seat. Anyway, they pop a lot of ammon and never even graze Grant!

But James Mason was cool as always!

My favourite part is when Cary Grant spots a guy with a knife in his back and then for some reason he takes the knife out, and the body falls to the floor...and then everyone stares at him with the knife and the dead body and then they all accuse him of murder.

I've been watching this thread for quite awhile, and to get back to the original debate (everyone seems to be on a "Prestige" tangent) about Nolan being an auteur and Fincher being simply a director, I first have to ask you, are you on crack? Both directors have done some good stuff, but let's face facts, neither are anywhere close to being considered in the same breath as the elite directors whom have carved a niche out of the industry they can call their own. Kubrick, Coppola, Scorsese, Ridley Scott, etc... have all done movies that bare their unique mark one way or another. Fincher has "Se7en" and "FightClub" that are simuliar in their styles, and Nolan has done a good job with "The Prestige" and "Batman Begins", but let's face it, he can't direct women to save his a**. To prove my point, Katie Holmes is AWFUL in "Batman Begins", but the rest of the cast is stellar, and every female in "the Prestige" is either under used or looks like a puppet being pulled by strings (sorry Scarlett, I still love you though). So maybe this thread needs to be reconsidered after each director has a few dozen movies under their belt and we can see if one of them actually deserves to be considered an auteur.

__________________
"Vader...You Must Confront Vader..."

After seeing Scarlett in The Black Dahlia, I am starting to think she just isn't any good...

__________________

Ok, after taking some time to think about what I said earlier, I have to appologize for my remarks about Katie Holmes being directed poorly in "Batman Begins". She wasn't directed poorly at all, she is just plain terrible. And Sedai, Scarlett may not be the next Hepburn or MacLaine, but she sure does look gooooooooooooood!!

I've said it before and i'll say it again, Scarlett Johanson's character in The Prestige serves to enhance the central theme of misdirection. Why is this so hard to comprehend. And Katie Holmes isn't an awful actress. Her character in Begins just came across as really self-righteous, making it pretty hard for spectators to identity or care about her.

Also, Scorsese was considered an auteur immediately after Taxi Driver, mate. As was Ford Coppola after The Godfather.

But....you said the central theme of The Prestige was obsession... so...which is it?

Well, honestly, whether or not Scarletts character is to serve as an enhancement of this theme of misdirection of yours, that doesn't explain why her character is just plain vanilla on screen. What you don't seem to comprehend is the fact that Nolan has a hard time directing women. I'm not saying he is a bad director, he just doesn't seem to grasp how to let the female character flow out of the actress naturally or through his direction. I'm sure this will eventually change with more experience or with actresses he doesn't have to "lead" so much. And Holmes really isn't any good, no matter how you sugar coat it.
Also, you stating that Scorsese and Coppola being considered auteurs right after those movies, well that makes sense in a way, because both of them KNOW HOW TO DIRECT!!!! I could watch any Scorsese movie, not knowing he directed it, and still see his "style" come through. That's what an "auteur" is. They have a style you can see in the film. Your trying to fit 2 square pegs into 2 round holes. Nolan seems to "try" and add a unique touch to his movies, but that never seems to be the same thing from film to film and Fincher, as I said before, only really has "Se7en" and "FightClub" as his "auteur like" films. The rest don't have that same style. So all this means is, neither Nolan or Fincher are auteurs, at least by definition....yet. Watch Kubricks catalog of film to see what it means to have a directors feel on film, his movies truly have a unique flare.

Does anyone else think the way Nolan tackled the theme of obsession in The Prestige was a bit weak?

It would've been cooler if it was a slow-burning character study type film like Taxi Driver. The movie was way too plot-driven.

Were they? Didn't realise you were a time travelling film critic.

__________________

Are you suggesting that you have to be some sort of time traveller to know how certain directors were perceived back then?

Do yourself a favour and stop trying to get one over on me, mate. It ain't worth it, is it?

No, it isn't. But i find it curious you respond to my ruse rather than people with something to actually say on the topic.

Though i do wager that you have little comprehension of perceptions from 20 years ago, before i believe you were born......

Nolan - my favourite director

Yeah, yeah.

Anyways, i'm going to do what I should have done AGES ago: spoon feed you all into understanding some of the so-called "plotholes" in The Prestige.

Somebody previously asked why the Borden's both damaged their fingers. I would have thought it was obvious that these guys were so determined to keep their trick a secret that they couldn't risk somebody catching on. They simply wanted to remain CAUTIOUS. A bit drastic, I know, but if you accept the characters for who they are then you have to believe that these characters are willing to go to the extremes to preserve their legacy.

The point (fairly good one at that) about one of the Borden twins not telling the other Borden about the knot that was tied that ultimately lead to Julia's demise is left to one's (or lack of) imagination. Perhaps one of the Bordens was not brave enough to admit to even his own brother that you messed up? It's a plausible enough reason. Just because we're not shown specific scenes, does not mean that you can't interpret what might have happened off screen, innit?

You see, just because the film may unravel like a magic trick...all is revealed because it is a film, and not a magic trick itself, kids. Nolan shows us the magic-like structure, but one of the points was showing the uselessness of the secret to the trick, thus making the secret disappointing...as it should be.

This is further encapsulated when Borden says to that little boy "the secret impresses no-one; the trick you use it for, is EVERYTHING.


Oh, and those who say that the whole Tesla machine thing was "a rubbish" idea really has to be able to accept the sci-fi element towards the end to really let that slide. I and countless others do.

Another thing,

I have to say that people's reasons for disliking The Prestige are a bit thin. You can't dislike a film because it may seemingly have some a plotholes. I can go on imdb and find out goofs for ANY film. And I feel that goofs are more problematic than plotholes. At least plotholes can be explained in plausible ways.

my reasons for not liking the prestige are not just simple plot holes. it was a combination of plot holes, back and forth storylines which u have to concentrate hard to follow, mumbling dialogue etc.