Lot's Wife Edition 8 2013

SUBHEADING
NOW YOU SEE ME
Levi Truong
Do you believe in Magic?
Well, no, of course not, silly fool. The point is not to believe in
the magic, but to be entranced by the trickery behind the illusion. To
deconstruct the process and make visible the deception would benefit no
one past the initial amusement, thus making miserable geezers of us all.
Now You See Me is the latest comeback (or, if you’d like,
redemption) for director Louis Leterrier of Transporter fame and Clash
of the Titans shame. The scene opens with four self-assured, practiced
magicians/tricksters: J. Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg), the illusionist; Merritt
McKinley (Woody Harrelson), a mentalist; Henley Reeves (Isla Fisher),
an escapist and Jack Wilder (James Franco the younger, Dave) as a
sleight-of-hand pickpocket – all being recruited by a brooding, enigmatic
hooded figure to be part of some kind of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
gang. The assemblage is inexplicably titled ‘The Four Horsemen’ (so I
guess they’re more like Adult Magical Ninja Horses).
Things get interesting for the AMNH as - now famous and funded
by insurance mega-millionaire Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine) - they
seemingly rob a bank in Paris and distribute the spoils to their supposedly
underprivileged Las Vegas audience (via bombastic cash storm). Needless
to say, this is all rather suspicious, and before anyone can say ‘alacazam’
the Horsemen are arrested and interrogated by FBI agent Dylan Rhodes
(Mark Ruffalo) and his new partner Alma Dray (Beginners beauty
Melanie Laurent). Predictably, they reveal nothing, because one must
not dishonour the Magician’s Code, so Rhodes enlists the help of a
magic debunker with a mystical yet pretentious name, Thaddeus Bradley
(Morgan Freeman). Spills and thrills and clashes occur, and what was
originally an innocent show becomes more thrilling when it appears their
tricks are no longer working to their advantage
Throughout the film, characters warn us with a heavy heart to avoid
“com[ing] in closer, because the closer you think you are, the less you’ll
actually see.” In order for the film to establish some kind of believability,
the director must navigate between what to portray, and what to leave
to the imagination. Two fundamental questions need to be asked: Can
it balance realism without losing the – for lack of a better word – magic
of film? To spend the entire film explaining how each trick was executed
would be a bore (and perhaps not even a movie), but to then leave
everything unexplained and for the audience to fill in the gaps is lazy
and unrewarding. There is only so much one can expect from suspension
of disbelief; in return for turning your brain off the film must deliver
something worthwhile.
So, does the film achieve this tricky equilibrium?
A quick glance through recent reviews suggests the negatory, with
many finding the logical leap within the mechanics of the heist too much
to handle. Though this is understandable, it is unfortunate that many
have lost the ability to appreciate (or consider themselves too superior
for) popcorn flicks; isn’t magic itself inconsequential and, at the end of
the day, insignificant?
No, I’m not advocating the perpetuation of the mindless, moneychurning
monster that is the current Hollywood movie-making culture.
And yes, just because you want to turn your mind off and escape doesn’t
mean you can. However, this is different to the critics purposeful hyperscrutiny.
It ruins the enjoyment of the film (which is rich coming from
an aspiring film critic) when one refuses to forgive the minor flaws. It’s
okay to hate these films when you really can’t overlook all the gimmicks
(which is why the seasoned critics, already overexposed to many films like
this a year, cannot tolerate so well). But this film, I feel, has more to offer
in return than people realise. You’ll just have to let yourself appreciate the
magic.
Part of the reason it was harder to notice the film’s misgivings and
cheesiness was the acting. The ubiquitous beauty of Freeman’s melodicmoney-making
voice does not require reiteration, and Michael Caine is
Michael Caine. Your arguments are invalid, and so are his adversaries’.
Each word he says, no matter how clichéd or expository in nature, is
a universal truth. You, the audience, are the one who is clichéd and
expository.
And that’s my point entirely. You can definitely notice the longwinded
exposition necessary for the audience’s understanding. And yes
you can criticise its lack of subtlety (though be kind, magic tricks are hard
to explain!). But Freeman’s delivery was so natural and perfectly adapted
to the character that in the end, it doesn’t even matter. You should only
notice the flaws because of poor movie-making, not because you are
anhedonic and hypercritical.
Do you need to believe in magic to like this film? No. But you do
need to give it a break. Go see it, now.
But not too closely.
LOT’S WIFE EDITION 8 • 2013
45