Friday, March 30, 2012

What is film? (According to Christopher Nolan)


            There were two major forms of storytelling found in the beginning years of film – the actualities of the Lumiere brothers, and the trick films of Melies. The Lumiere brothers attempted to recreate the world around them; to record the world as it is. Melies, on the other hand, saw film as having the potential to both trick and entertain audiences; his prior career as a magician obviously played a large factor in determining this point of view. The Prestige is a film that deals with two magicians right around the time Melies was doing his own stage magic and transitioning in to his film work. After understanding this connection, it seems logical that The Prestige follows the paradigm of what film should do as established by George Melies. But while director Christopher Nolan seems to follow in this path first laid down by Melies, he has certain sensibilities that lean more towards the Lumiere brothers’ work that he adheres to while performing these tricks in his films. By looking at a specific line of dialogue and the greatest trick of The Prestige, it is possible to better understand Nolan’s views on what film should be.

            In the film, the characters of Angier and Borden are both magicians and perform a similar trick known as “The Transported Man.” Borden’s version works because there are twin brothers performing the trick; Angier’s first version relies on his use of a double, and then relies on actual cloning from a machine created by Nikola Tesla. If thought of in modern filmmaking terms, Borden represents practical effects, while Angier represents CGI and digital effects. Borden’s trick hinges on something real, something that is concrete and real (albeit altered for illusion); to analogize to another Nolan film, this would be an actual semi-truck being flipped over in The Dark Knight.  Angier’s trick is performed because of technology and because something entirely new is being created; to compare to another modern film, this would be the robots found in the Transformers film franchise. Nolan’s choice of which type of effect he prefers is evidenced in his own filmmaking career, but is also confirmed when Angier admits in the film to Borden that “You always were the better magician.” Nolan seems to be saying that he values more the practical creativity of a filmmaker on set than the creativity of digital artists in post-production.

            Nolan performs his own trick in the film by always hiding one of the twin Borden brothers as Fallon. The camera never lingers too long on Fallon, most likely as Nolan’s way of not giving away his secret. However, when Fallon says goodbye to Borden in the jail cell, there is a close up of him that does not instantly cut away; Nolan is giving the audience a chance to figure out the trick for themselves before it is revealed in the final scene. What is fascinating is that for a film that deals with wild tricks and magical illusions, this is Nolan’s greatest trick of the film - he hides Christian Bale under some make-up and a wig and the audience can’t figure out it is a twin. If a film is meant to trick the audience, Nolan finds it uncouth to create something with no basis in reality; it is the repurposing of reality that he finds to be an essential element of film. He does not see the ideals of the Lumiere brothers and Melies to be dialectical oppositions, but two forms that should come together for the fullest potential of film.

2 comments:

  1. I mentioned in class how much I loved a movie about magicians being one big trick. It's good to see someone else is appreciative of that aspect and doesn't feel slighted in any way.

    I think you're really onto something here, drawing comparisons between the over digitized assault on the senses to the more subtle effects of a film with less ornamental tinsel. But I think there is something more to be said if we want to have a discussion on the objective “worth” or cinema and different films and whether or not the extra bells and whistles really add anything to the experience on the whole, or furthermore, if they might even subtract from the experience.

    Normally I stray from discussion on what expressions in art and film are objectively “good” and objectively “bad”, because they're just that: objective. Really, I don't know any better than anybody else because it based in some part on my opinion and personal bias. But that doesn't mean that one cannot have an opinion on the matter, especially a person who makes films for a living.

    With that in mind, I think the place I'm going with this is fairly obvious. If we look at it like that, we could say that Nolan is making a statement on how film without all the glitz and glamor can be just as good and just as compelling than movies that use fancy special effects and weird science clone machines invented by David Bowie.

    But maybe it's not even that, I really think your post could be developed further into Nolan making an observation on the futility of the big budget film. Think about it, it takes more work as a film maker to come up with clever ways to fill an audience with wonder than it does to just pay a tech guy a bunch of money to generate a giant robot. In this way it is futile, because no matter how many computers James Cameron turns on, he will never captivate an audience in the long term like other directors who focus on things like acting, plot and direction. That's what The Prestige was about for me, the futility of revenge, the futility of obsession, and the futility of film makers who just don't want to learn or put the effort into creating an illusion rather just snapping your fingers as if you were actually magic. That's how you end up with a tomb full of dead copies of yourself.

    Okay, maybe Nolan isn't saying EXACTLY that...

    ReplyDelete