4 ms·

The tanks don't actually have any bodies in them, at least not bodies that you can see. I checked once: all the tanks hold lifeless human-looking blobs, but you

by edanm 16y ago

The tanks don't actually have any bodies in them, at least not bodies that you can see. I checked once: all the tanks hold lifeless human-looking blobs, but you can't see them. Except for the last tank, but that could be the body of the actual double. The reason the tanks are there is for the same reason the diary was written: to fool Borden. There are even some people who say that there are differences in makeup between the real Angier and his look-alike, and that you can see that the only real, visible body in the tanks is clearly the twin. Can't say I noticed it myself. As for the book, still haven't read it, but it doesn't matter: from what I've heard, the book also doesn't have the whole "killing doubles" theme, since the replicas are lifeless anyway. But it doesn't matter, the film is its own story. I got this whole theory from this forum post, which you should read for a better explanation of everything: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=531777 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=531777.

ubernostrum 16y ago
I've seen the film multiple times, read the book multiple times, and now read that thread you linked. And it's still just plain wrong. What I see in that forum thread is not a sound argument for this interpretation; instead, it's someone proclaiming a theory, getting it shot down and then using ad-hoc immunization and condescension ("that's just what they wanted you to think", "oh, you believe what you saw, poor thing", etc.) to try to puff it up into something respectable. The book makes it as clear as possible that Angier's not using a double in the sense Borden is; he really is getting duplicated by that machine and having to dispose of the results. The film never prints it on screen in big block letters with a signed note from the director saying "this is how it happened, trust me", but it doesn't need to -- it's following the book and doing a good job at it. Thus, attempts to read a "ha ha he really put one over on you" secret into the film are just pointless. (and unless you can show me you're not in the same take-your-logic-and-facts-elsewhere camp as the guy in that forum thread, I'm done here)
- edanm 16y ago
  Your last point first: of course I'm not in the same camp as that guy. I haven't even read through most of that thread (I read through it years ago, but I don't remember most of it, just the original post). I certainly don't think anyone should be condescended to; besides, it's just a movie! I just thought I'd share the inspiration for my comment. As for the theory itself, like I said, I haven't read the book and it doesn't matter to me; I'm interpreting the movie as a stand-alone work. Judging just by the movie, I haven't seen anything that outright contradicts the theory (for example, the whole "can't really see the bodies" thing). Then again, I haven't spent that much time digging into it. There is nothing that proves this theory either. I just think it's nice that it can be interpreted in another way.

by edanm 16y ago

ubernostrum 16y ago

I've seen the film multiple times, read the book multiple times, and now read that thread you linked. And it's still just plain wrong. What I see in that forum thread is not a sound argument for this interpretation; instead, it's someone proclaiming a theory, getting it shot down and then using ad-hoc immunization and condescension ("that's just what they wanted you to think", "oh, you believe what you saw, poor thing", etc.) to try to puff it up into something respectable. The book makes it as clear as possible that Angier's not using a double in the sense Borden is; he really is getting duplicated by that machine and having to dispose of the results. The film never prints it on screen in big block letters with a signed note from the director saying "this is how it happened, trust me", but it doesn't need to -- it's following the book and doing a good job at it. Thus, attempts to read a "ha ha he really put one over on you" secret into the film are just pointless. (and unless you can show me you're not in the same take-your-logic-and-facts-elsewhere camp as the guy in that forum thread, I'm done here)

edanm 16y ago
Your last point first: of course I'm not in the same camp as that guy. I haven't even read through most of that thread (I read through it years ago, but I don't remember most of it, just the original post). I certainly don't think anyone should be condescended to; besides, it's just a movie! I just thought I'd share the inspiration for my comment. As for the theory itself, like I said, I haven't read the book and it doesn't matter to me; I'm interpreting the movie as a stand-alone work. Judging just by the movie, I haven't seen anything that outright contradicts the theory (for example, the whole "can't really see the bodies" thing). Then again, I haven't spent that much time digging into it. There is nothing that proves this theory either. I just think it's nice that it can be interpreted in another way.