Skip to main content

"It was the look on their faces"


Anyone with an interest in the thorny philosophical question of personal identity will enjoy the The Prestige, which is also an excellent film. I have just finished watching it and will probably have nightmares...

NOTE - IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS FILM YET, DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS AS THEY WILL RATHER RUIN IT FOR YOU.

Comments

Joe Otten said…
(spoiler)

...

Clearly that character hadn't read The Philosophy Files.
December 4, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Unknown said…
We had to watch this for the personal identity unit in my "Philosophy in Film" class. It definitely details the philosophical problem extremely well. We also watched "Total Recall" and "Memento" for that unit. :)

Another great personal identity TV series that is out is called "My Own Worst Enemy". Kind of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde spy series.
December 5, 2008 at 2:00 AM
pikeamus Mike said…
Awesome film, Nolan is a fantastic director.
December 5, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said…
It's a film that repays several viewings. I've yet to tackle the book, but I'm sure it will be at least the equal...
December 5, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Fergus Gallagher said…
What happened to all those hats? He could've made a fortune..
December 5, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Paul P. Mealing said…
A very good movie. I saw it about a year ago, perhaps more.

Excellent cast, clever premise and superbly executed - what more do you want in a film.

Regards, Paul.
December 5, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Joe Otten said…
Steady on all. I thought it was an OK movie, that made a very big deal of a character apparently not thinking at all about the identity question. Once he had copied himself the once, there was a much more painless way to do the trick. If you have a plan you want to pursue, you can be sure your copy, once made, will go along with it.

The Magicians with Mitchell and Webb was a much better movie, for different reasons.
December 6, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Stephen Law said…
Yes it did occur to me why he didn't do what the first magician did - copy himself and then both be in on it. No need for any killing. Perhaps that option did not occur to him. Or perhaps he didn't want the complications of two of him being around. But that was a slight weakness in the script. Still, I'd give it 4.5 out of 5 overall.
December 7, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Kyle said…
I thought the Christian Bale characters were brothers, not copies?
December 7, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Stephen Law said…
Oh, maybe I misunderstood. I thought it was not a brother but a duplicate. After all, why else did he write down TESLA? Bit of a coincidence if it was his brother. But perhaps it was....
December 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Anonymous said…
I always took it that the Christian Bale character played twin brothers, unbeknownst to the rest of the world (well, other than to their mother, I suppose!), whereas the Hugh Jackman character was the one eho ended up duplicating himself on the Tesla machine. (A fine turn by David Bowie, much to my wife's pleasure!)

As for why Bale wrote down TESLA, I always interpreted that as Bale trying to maintain the illusion that there was something other than the obvious (a twin) that was responsible for how he was able to perform the "Disappearing Man" trick and that he wanted to send Jackman off on a wild goose chase. The look of shock on Bale's face when he finally saw Jackman's, er, "legacy" in the final scene reinforced to me that he was surprised by something totally unexpected - "It was the look on their faces" encapsulated in that one defining moment.

Here's the one plot hole that I've not yet been able to solve, however. (MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS) When Bale sees Jackman's Tesla Disappearing Man trick go down in the basement, the Hugh Jackman character clearly looks totally surprised and terrified that he'd fallen into the water tank. And yet, if Jackman was the one who designed the trick and made all the arrangements for the tank to be disposed of, then why would he be surprised?

Also, there was a line Jackman gave at the end, "It took courage to climb into that box every night... not knowing if I'd be the Prestige... or the man in the box," that just never made sense to me, taken literally. The trick worked the same way everytime, so that means he shouldn't haven't been surprised, right?

The statement, taken from a personal identity POV, makes a little more sense, but it just doesn't seem to fit with what was on the screen.

Anywho, we still enjoyed the movie. It's one of those that if it's on HBO when we're channel-surfing that we will stop and watch it almost everytime. (Pulp Fiction being another one, btw...!)
December 8, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more