Christopher Nolan vs David Fincher

Good point! My initial assumption was that the original appeared at the original place and that the clone is transported to the distant location, since the inventor and his assistant had Angier's original top hat that they kept trying time after time to replicate while dozens of replicas were piling up on the hillside. Thus it would seem that the original hat remained in place and seemingly unharmed (although it did look a little worn by the time Angier reclaimed it) while the clone was transported to a distant point. When Angier tries it on himself, he places a pistol near the controls and when the clone emerges, he shoots it--again, original in place, clone at a distance. But then when it's performed on stage, it's the being at the original location that disappears (falling through the trap door to the drowning cage) while Angier appears in the balcony, if I remember correctly. So now apparently the clone drops through the trap door to death amid all the lightening flashes while Angier is transported somewhere else to "reappear." Otherwise, what would be the point of transporting the clone to some point across the room where he's quickly killed while the orginal Angier remains there among the lightning flashes where he was last seen. That would negate any indication to the audience that a trick has been performed. They see Angier go in amid the lightning bolts; they see Angier come out of the lightening bolts, so where's the magic? Seems that somehow Angier has to change the invention so that the clone remains in the killing spot at the controls while Angier is transported, yet that problem and its solution are never mentioned. Otherwise, Angier has to set up the trick the first time knowing he's going to drown; the clone then has to repeat the process the next night knowing he's going to drown, followed by the third, the fourth and so on. How far does that go before one clone finally says, "To hell with it, I'm going dancing tonight"?

Meanwhile, how many clones would have to kick that drowning-tub night after night before the thick glass finally cracks, breaks, and the whole truth comes flooding out? Also, the backstage assistants are blind but not deaf. How many nights do they sit listening to the muted sounds of the drowning man's struggle before they finally figure out something ain't kosier?

Sedai, that's an interesting observation and next time I watch the movie I'll keep my eye on that first cloning scene.

I think the term "clone" might be misleading here since these aren't mere physical copies of the original angier but apparently retain the same memories (and soul?) -- I thought this point was implied by Angier's statement to Borden at the end, where he says something to the effect of "not knowing night after night whether I'd be the man in the box." If this is the case -- and assuming there is a perfect continuity of experience in both bodies -- then it seems to me it would be moot which is the original and which is the clone. How could either one know? I also think this is the correct interpretation simply because it's such a deliberate contrast with the doubling situation of Borden (ie one "magician" is actually two distinct entities sharing the same life while the other is one consistent whole constantly splitting apart) and neatly reflects their personalities. It also reverses Angier's observation about Borden's journal -- that he seems torn and at war with himself -- back onto Angier.

One thing that I didn't get was about the knot. I'm kind of with Angier on this: "how can he not know?" Either one of the Bordens knows (the one who tied the knot) and isn't even telling his brother, or they both know and are just putting that into their diary to be dicks. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Something about your Dorian Gray suggestion misses the mark for me, rufnek. I'm not sure if it's just personal taste or maybe it's that it would take the focus off the metaphysical ambiguities posed in the film, but I just don't find it as appealing as the movie as-is (including the sci-fi conceit).

Regarding your "why bother fooling the wife" problem, I'm kind of torn on that point myself now. I'm not sure that works, but I'm willing to suspend my disbelief a bit farther than you on it, I think. We know from Borden's conversation with Angier at the end that there was some sort of pact between the twins regarding the sharing (I hadn't thought of this before, but from your offhand suggestion it does now seem possible to me that they were sleeping with each others' significant others), though just leaving it at that may be a bit of a cop out. Their trick certainly seems to go a good deal farther than the antics of the twin gynecologists in Dead Ringers.

Think we should all watch Magicians which should be out soon.

__________________

I dunno--what if the Dorian Grey effect is transferred and amplified in the "cloned" creature, creating more and more of a "Hyde" effect vs. Angier's sustained "Jeckle" features. Each night he disappears, leaving a hideous, homicidal creature in his place for the audience to glimpse briefly before it drops out of sight to its death. You already got a full-grown clone popping up out of some homemade lightning; why not let it reflect Angier's decaying soul as well, as he murders himself nightly?

Yeah, any way you slice it, Angier and the Bordens are three really sick puppies!

First off I would like to say that I very well understand that one would try to compare Christopher Nolan and David Fincher, since each of them is a talented director and has created one or the other cult movie (MEMENTO being Nolan's most prominent entry to date, Fincher contributing SE7EN and FIGHT CLUB to the Hall of Fame).

Obviously a discussion like this can only be a matter of taste, so I am not even going into arguing anybody's opinion, but much rather I would like to present my own:

As has been stated before I think that among the two David Fincher has much more of a unique and identifiable "signature style", which goes for the choice of themes, the lighting and cinematography all the way to the editing. Fincher is a very accomplished filmmaker who -- probably much more so than Nolan -- knows about every tiny aspect of film production, from the choice of lenses to sound design, and therefore may have both a much better understanding of directing these elements to work ideally with one another and thus appearing to be a much more technical director.

To my personal taste I really enjoy David's works, since they are simply ingeniously conceived and executed and they make tremendous use of the sheer power of audiovisual storytelling in every facette, whereas Nolan's films mostly are very well "narrated" stories.

While either director has had their fallouts (for Fincher I consider ALIEN 3 to be not among his best works, INSOMNIA I didn't so much enjoy from Christopher Nolan), I think what it boils down to is one coming from the academic background of having studied English Literature and the other being a hands-on film-making crack ever since his 18th birthday, with about a half-a-mega-ton worth of credits in music videos and stunning commercials.

Not hard to tell, my personal pick is David Fincher.
Which doesn't mean I don't severely enjoy BATMAN BEGINS and MEMENTO every now and then ...!

In an earlier post in this forum, I said among other things, " I had major problems with the plot of David Fincher’s Se7en. It’s the same problem I had with the plot of Hitchcock’s classic Vertigo—too much of the plot depends on pure happenstance, which is a killer of any true mystery."

I thought that might draw some remark if not rebuttal from some of the Fincher fans out there, but no one said anything. Before going into more detail, let me ask if anyone is even interested in discussing the plot of Se7en or should I just drop the subject?

Good post.

Re: Alien 3 - Check out the assembly cut, which come a hell of a lot closer to Fincher's vision. The theatrical release was taken from him and re-cut by the studio, and is, IMO, a weak film. The Assembly cut flows much better, and, is vastly different from the theatrical cut. The Alien comes from a different place, more characters are developed, and, the plot actually makes sense. Give it a go. I like it a whole lot.

__________________

Is that the same one as the Directors Cut on the Quadrilogy boxset? I've only seen that one i think.

Up to you, but I for one am certainly a bit curious as to what kind of complaints one could really bring against Se7en's plot.

I did see it on The Quadrilogy, but, I thought it was the Assembly cut...

Me too. "Too much of the plot depends on pure happenstance"
Call me an idiot, but i'm not entirely sure what you mean that. Are you saying that too much of the film depends purely on the relationship between cause and effect?

Anyways, in Mr Rufnek's response to 'The Prestige', I have to say that you've over-analysed that magic film way too much. It seems you too Borden's 'Are you watching closely' phrase a bit too literary. You only have to look at the film's main theme (pro's and con's of obession) to find the answers to your rather nit-picky questions.

It was necessary to fool the wife because the brothers simply couldn't risk their number 1 trick being jeopardised. Remember that twin Borden said it was a pact, and that they couldn't risk exposing each other to ANYBODY, not even to the wife. In that case, I guess you can say that they didn't completely trust the wife, just each other.

We have to assume that when one twin was with Borden's wife, the other one may have wanted to either be with Scarlett Johansson's character or be playing with the daughter since both loved her so dearly. The only way that was possible was for one of them to be Fallon at some times and then swap on occasions.

Contrast that with Angier and HIS wife. He had that Lord Caldwall secret and she knew about that. It was obvious in the film that Borden was more dedicated to his craft than Angier was, hence the reason Borden went the extra mile of sustaining TWO identities and Angier didn't.

Errr, it's also suggested from the beginning that Angier and Borden aren't the best of friends and there are clear differences between them. Yes, they weren't enemies at all, but they weren't exactly close. Perhaps Borden always had the trick in mind and was simply gaining some experience before setting up his own trick later on? Or maybe, just maybe Borden doesn't like to talk about his personal life with his colleagues? I know I haven't mentioned to anybody at uni that I have a younger sister, and they've known me for more than 2 years now.

Anyway guys, go easy on the poor chap! He does try so very hard!

Yeh, saw it come from an Ox I think, which cut is that?

Se7en is one of my favourite films so why don't you go ahead and post your complaints and we'll take it from there. Let me just add that I'm not very interested in endless discussions about whether this or that scene were chronologically correct or logically motivated. The mood of the film, the hoplessness, the neo noir style, the nihilism vs. the clean flawless brilliance of the insane genius..... who cares if the plot isn't 100 % water proof? Well, you do, but still....

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

As I remember the movie, one of the Bordens meets the future Mrs. Borden when he's still working as an assistant to another magician, which is when he's telling the little boy that the bird in the cage wasn't killed, when in fact it was. At that point, Borden isn't doing the tricks, he's just working for the other magician. Later, as I remember the plot, he's married and I think has the daughter when he's working on his own as a street magician, doing the "catch the bullet" trick. That's when Angier shoots Borden's fingers. I believe that's also the point where the disguised twin makes his appearance. But it's not until later that the instant disappearance-reappearance trick is unveiled. Which means that the Bordens are hiding the fact, even from the wife, that they are identical twins before the disappearing trick is even invented--certainly before it's ever demonstrated in public. There is no reason to hide the twin before they come up with a trick that hinges on the need for a secret twin, yet the twin is a secret from the start, even to one twin's wife who kills herself because she thinks her husband is running around. Now how much love and dedication can either Borden feel toward the daughter when they both stand by and allow her mom to die when they could have cleared the whole thing up by revealing the existence of the twin?

Hold.The.Phone.

Rufnek mate, are you suggesting that both Borden's knew she was going to commit suicide??? Erm, no I and i'm sure most people would agree with me. They both probably thought that they'd split up with her at worse, they didn't see her death coming. I know it seems like an awful lot to trick somebody, but the brother really were that dedicated, mate. It's in keeping with the film's central theme, obsession. And obsession leads us to do loads of non-logical things.

Nice post rufnek, very good point, never thought about that. Like the film even less now.

Fincher definitely wins, and not even seen Zodiac.

TP: I would like to hear your retort to the fact that the twins had no reason to hide the fact that they were twins when no trick yet existed that required the "double" subterfuge...

It was obsession, it leads to non-logical things (the irony). I believe his answer was.

Hold.The.Phone.

What?
Yeh, doesn't make sense does it mate.
Thanks for playing a part though TP, you're trying so hard.

Okay, I realize I'm the minority here--apparently everyone else loves Se7en, and that's fine with me. I'm not trying to convert you. In fact, I went into the theater prepared to like it--I can always count on Morgan Freedman for a good performance.

So the story starts with Freedman, a laid-back, go-with-the-flow older cop being assigned a new partner, a young man who from the get-go is impatient and has a confrontational, maybe even a combative attitude. And right away they draw a DOA, big fat person tied to a table and face-down in his cherries or lasagna or whatever--death by over-eating. But that's an awfully vague diagnosis; what does it really mean? Did his stomach burst? Physically unlikely. Did he have a heart-attack in mid-chew? Well, a fatal heart-attack is hard to trigger at a specific time--it was as likely to have happened 2 days before or next week as on that particular day. More likely, I think, the victim could have choked to death from food being forced down his throat, which would have given the killer control over the time of death and would have made it more obviously a murder, since the victim's hands and feet were tied. Ah, but then is it really gluttony if someone is forcing food down your throat? But what the heck--suspend disbelief and let that one slide.

But then as the detectives search for clues, they move the fridge and find a message painted on the wall by the killer. Well, I've seen police search for clues before, and I've even known of killers leaving messages. But I've never seen police move a fridge or a stove or a dishwasher or an upright piano or any other heavy object away from a wall in their search for clues. So how could the killer be sure that the police would discover such an important message? Jack the Ripper, Zodiac, Son of Sam, the Unibomber all sent messages via mail directly to police. More important, they sent messages directly to the press to make sure their stories were publicized. They didn't paint them on the wall behind a refrigerator and hope the cops would find it. But it's a cute gimmick for a movie, so let it slide.

Anyway, as the detectives follow one step behind the killer, it's obvious that he's put a lot of time and effort behind each murder based on the seven deadly sins. Especially sloth; as I recall from the movie, it actually took years for that bed-ridden victim to die. So the killer worked for years to make his crazy plan a success. Right up to the point where he's finally captured by the police and gets the detectives to take him to the final destination by some tower (a transmission unit for some radio station as I remember on a long dirt road in arid surroundings). There a couple of miracles occur: 1) The detectives and their prisoner arrive independently yet simultaneously with a UPS truck, which would have been difficult to time if all parties had been in on the plot; 2) the UPS makes a delivery to a person in a car on a dirt road with no apparent name and at a location with no street address. Considering how hard it is just to get UPS to leave packages with a next-door-neighbor at an urban address during the Christmas season, this miracle was in the context of at least walking on water if not raising the dead.

But what the heck, at least we're finally down to the last final moments--and a big string of coincidences. First, as we noted at the start of the program, easy-going Freedman has just been assigned this aggressive partner. Now it had only been Freedman working alone, he has no wife to become a victim and even if he had, he would have jailed the killer, not take justice in his own hands. So it's vital that the old, cool cop just happens to be teamed with a young hothead partner who just happens to have a wife and unborn child that can be victimized. It also just happens that the terrible thing in the UPS package is delivered to the young detective at just the right time. How long would the UPS truck have waited if the cops had been late? How long would the cops have waited if UPS hadn't found the delivery point?

Anyway, at this point the killer's whole plan hinges on whether he can provoke the young cop into killing him. But the plot is now out of the control of the killer who is handcuffed and in custody. He's controlled all of the other factors prior to this, taking years to kill the sloth victim and months if not years to do the gluttony killing (no one gets that fat overnight). But now the killer is in custody--if Freedman prevails, he's going to prison probably for life (they were in California, weren't they?) with only 6 of the 7 deadly sins fulfilled. If the young detective happens to collapse, sobbing uncontrollably (as most of us probably would) or if Freedman happens to talk him out of killing the killer as he tries to or if Freedman happens to shoot his own partner to prevent him from shooting the killer (Why not? Otherwise both men are doomed anyway), then the killer's plan is totally ruined and he'll likely have no second chance to pull it off. Ergo, the whole plan hinges on happenstance, since it could have gone one way or another in the last few uncontrolled moments.

OK, I'll give you that even her husband was so blind to his wife's emotional state that neither twin anticipated her suicide. But you do have one of the Borden's earlier professing love for the wife, and yet you're saying that the twin who loved her was willing to let her suffer, was willing to put the mother of his daughter through emotional hell, rather than let her know he had a twin partner? He's willing to risk divorce and the loss of his daughter rather than share the secret with his devoted wife? Where's the evidence that he couldn't trust his wife with the secret when he's already trusting his brother with the secret?

The assumption that the twins don't trust the wife with the secret of a trick they haven't yet invented helps put a spit-and-paper plug over a huge hole in the plot, but it's not realistic among twins I've known.