<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The Prestige Explained	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/</link>
	<description>Movies, Books &#38; TV for people who like to think..</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:28:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Taylor Holmes		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195545</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Taylor Holmes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taylorholmes.com/?p=273#comment-1195545</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195540&quot;&gt;Sandy McKean&lt;/a&gt;.

Wish I could reply inline to each comment and argument you are making here, would help make it make more sense. Ah well, let me see if I can make it clear... 

&#039;Algier unclear if he will live or die.&#039; yes... it is ABUNDANTLY clear who will live and who will die each night if the Tesla box works the way they show it to in the diary. If you open the magic trick, you are dying. If you close the trick with a flourish, you are surviving. So why quibble about living or dying? Agreed for sure. Definitely a lie. 

&#039;A brother. A twin.&#039; - definitely a tell. They both know that the machine literally does nothing. Wax dummy? Identical twin? Gerald Root? hahah. I 100% agree, why would he even attempt to name the clone, unless he knew it wasn&#039;t a thing. Algier 42? Algier 43? Makes no sense. 

The TESLA keyword always cracks me up. Why in heaven&#039;s name would he have used Tesla if it would have given up the game? Except it didn&#039;t. It was a clear calculation to send Algier down a false rabbit trail, which then Algier doubles down on. I mean, I would. The huge sparkly machine is way better than just using a couple doors on a stage. 

Anyway - great points Sandy!! Interesting read. Totally agree.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195540">Sandy McKean</a>.</p>
<p>Wish I could reply inline to each comment and argument you are making here, would help make it make more sense. Ah well, let me see if I can make it clear&#8230; </p>
<p>&#8216;Algier unclear if he will live or die.&#8217; yes&#8230; it is ABUNDANTLY clear who will live and who will die each night if the Tesla box works the way they show it to in the diary. If you open the magic trick, you are dying. If you close the trick with a flourish, you are surviving. So why quibble about living or dying? Agreed for sure. Definitely a lie. </p>
<p>&#8216;A brother. A twin.&#8217; &#8211; definitely a tell. They both know that the machine literally does nothing. Wax dummy? Identical twin? Gerald Root? hahah. I 100% agree, why would he even attempt to name the clone, unless he knew it wasn&#8217;t a thing. Algier 42? Algier 43? Makes no sense. </p>
<p>The TESLA keyword always cracks me up. Why in heaven&#8217;s name would he have used Tesla if it would have given up the game? Except it didn&#8217;t. It was a clear calculation to send Algier down a false rabbit trail, which then Algier doubles down on. I mean, I would. The huge sparkly machine is way better than just using a couple doors on a stage. </p>
<p>Anyway &#8211; great points Sandy!! Interesting read. Totally agree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sandy McKean		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195540</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sandy McKean]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 01:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taylorholmes.com/?p=273#comment-1195540</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I can&#039;t resist a couple more points. Both more or less refute the idea that the machine works.

-----------------------------------------------

The often recited argument as one of the proofs that the machine works is that Algier in the final scene says:

&quot;It took courage to climb into that machine every night. Not knowing if I&#039;d be the Prestige, or the man in the box.&quot;

This line is often quoted in this blog as reflecting the theme of the movie....sacrifice for one&#039;s art. It presumably proves that cloning must be taking place since there must be an Algier who lives and another Algier who dies. Algier doesn&#039;t know if he will be the one to live or to die...hence the anguish. This *CAN&#039;T* be. Algier is just making up this speech to impress Borden with his own sacrifices. Why must it be a lie? Simply because each night, before the performance, the one and only Algier *knows* without doubt that he will be the one to drop to his death since it is *he* who will be on the stage introducing the trick. Until the moment of cloning, there is no &quot;other&quot; Algier. Only in the very next moment is there another Algier who immediately ends up in balcony to claim the Prestige, while this previous Algier ends up in the tank instantly. On the next night, it will be this balcony clone from the night before who will die, and a new clone will be in the balcony....and so it goes in a never ending cycle (well, 100 times). So near the end of the movie, when Algier is on the floor bleeding out after Borden shoots him, and Algier says this line, he is *lying&quot;. No living Algier ever has the choice to anguish over.....the living Algier is always the one who ends up as &quot;the man in the box&quot;, and he always knows this.....he has no choice in the matter.

Next.....another important line in that scene &quot;proves&quot; to me that Algier knows the machine does NOT work. When Algier sees the shooter slowly raise his head so you can see who it is behind the hat, Algier is surprised it is Borden/Fallon. So what does Algier say in this moment of surprise? If Algier thought the machine actually worked, wouldn&#039;t Algier say something like:

&quot;Oh, I see you used the Tesla&#039;s machine too.&quot; rather than &quot;A brother. A twin.&quot;

Algier would have no reason to suspect a twin if he thought the machine worked since Algier not only knows that cloning is possible, but also that it was Borden who gave him the key word &quot;Tesla&quot;, and that he learned about the cloning/Tesla connection from Borden&#039;s diary.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t resist a couple more points. Both more or less refute the idea that the machine works.</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;</p>
<p>The often recited argument as one of the proofs that the machine works is that Algier in the final scene says:</p>
<p>&#8220;It took courage to climb into that machine every night. Not knowing if I&#8217;d be the Prestige, or the man in the box.&#8221;</p>
<p>This line is often quoted in this blog as reflecting the theme of the movie&#8230;.sacrifice for one&#8217;s art. It presumably proves that cloning must be taking place since there must be an Algier who lives and another Algier who dies. Algier doesn&#8217;t know if he will be the one to live or to die&#8230;hence the anguish. This *CAN&#8217;T* be. Algier is just making up this speech to impress Borden with his own sacrifices. Why must it be a lie? Simply because each night, before the performance, the one and only Algier *knows* without doubt that he will be the one to drop to his death since it is *he* who will be on the stage introducing the trick. Until the moment of cloning, there is no &#8220;other&#8221; Algier. Only in the very next moment is there another Algier who immediately ends up in balcony to claim the Prestige, while this previous Algier ends up in the tank instantly. On the next night, it will be this balcony clone from the night before who will die, and a new clone will be in the balcony&#8230;.and so it goes in a never ending cycle (well, 100 times). So near the end of the movie, when Algier is on the floor bleeding out after Borden shoots him, and Algier says this line, he is *lying&#8221;. No living Algier ever has the choice to anguish over&#8230;..the living Algier is always the one who ends up as &#8220;the man in the box&#8221;, and he always knows this&#8230;..he has no choice in the matter.</p>
<p>Next&#8230;..another important line in that scene &#8220;proves&#8221; to me that Algier knows the machine does NOT work. When Algier sees the shooter slowly raise his head so you can see who it is behind the hat, Algier is surprised it is Borden/Fallon. So what does Algier say in this moment of surprise? If Algier thought the machine actually worked, wouldn&#8217;t Algier say something like:</p>
<p>&#8220;Oh, I see you used the Tesla&#8217;s machine too.&#8221; rather than &#8220;A brother. A twin.&#8221;</p>
<p>Algier would have no reason to suspect a twin if he thought the machine worked since Algier not only knows that cloning is possible, but also that it was Borden who gave him the key word &#8220;Tesla&#8221;, and that he learned about the cloning/Tesla connection from Borden&#8217;s diary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Taylor Holmes		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195529</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Taylor Holmes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taylorholmes.com/?p=273#comment-1195529</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195528&quot;&gt;Sandy McKean&lt;/a&gt;.

Yes, 
I deal with them. They are annoying. You just happen to see them because they are hitting a post you are following. I get them multiple times a day, the AI spam is getting past the defenses easier. 

And no - you do it once and it’ll notify you of all comments. You could remove that and only be notified when someone responds specifically to you? Then you wouldn’t see the spam… just a thought.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195528">Sandy McKean</a>.</p>
<p>Yes,<br />
I deal with them. They are annoying. You just happen to see them because they are hitting a post you are following. I get them multiple times a day, the AI spam is getting past the defenses easier. </p>
<p>And no &#8211; you do it once and it’ll notify you of all comments. You could remove that and only be notified when someone responds specifically to you? Then you wouldn’t see the spam… just a thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sandy McKean		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195528</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sandy McKean]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taylorholmes.com/?p=273#comment-1195528</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Taylor,

This is perhaps just something that I am unaware of, but I see these SPAM type postings in this blog of yours (e.g., from Eileen Henderson).  Is that just something you have to deal with? And I should just ignore them?

P.S. .....and as long as I&#039;m asking.....do I need to check the &quot;Notify me of followup.....&quot; box with &quot;All new comments&quot; and fill in my name and email each time I do a post?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Taylor,</p>
<p>This is perhaps just something that I am unaware of, but I see these SPAM type postings in this blog of yours (e.g., from Eileen Henderson).  Is that just something you have to deal with? And I should just ignore them?</p>
<p>P.S. &#8230;..and as long as I&#8217;m asking&#8230;..do I need to check the &#8220;Notify me of followup&#8230;..&#8221; box with &#8220;All new comments&#8221; and fill in my name and email each time I do a post?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Taylor Holmes		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195516</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Taylor Holmes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 04:33:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taylorholmes.com/?p=273#comment-1195516</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195513&quot;&gt;Sandy McKean&lt;/a&gt;.

Dude, 
1st... I think it&#039;ll be you, and me, who&#039;ve read them all and that&#039;s it... so kudos there mate. And you probably should create a primer of all the various theories and ideas that permeate the comment sections of this thread! Oh. Hey. Maybe that&#039;s not a half bad idea for me to get off my lazy butt and do as a post idea! I love it. Maybe I will. 

2nd... Oh fascinating, yes, I know that of which you speak exactly. I don&#039;t even need to rewatch it. Yeah, yes... I&#039;m buying what you are selling. Interesting. Love the idea that the trick of it all, is the Madame Tussauds play. I have GENERALLY sided with the idea (in the back of my mind - generally not espoused out loud) that they were finding near twins and doing cosmetic surgery or something. You&#039;d need at least a second double. But w/ your Tussauds play, it all sits on the weight of the wax craft. Which I dig. And yes, that doesn&#039;t sound like a very Nolan thing to do at all.

Keep it coming Sandy, dying to hear your thoughts at the end of the long read of the comments. (By the way, I just counted all the words in the comments, and its upwards of 120k. I kid you not. So officially, you are mental. hahahah. 90-100k is sort of the sweet spot for a standard trade fiction novel, just for reference!) Anyway... really great insights Sandy - love where you are going with all of this.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195513">Sandy McKean</a>.</p>
<p>Dude,<br />
1st&#8230; I think it&#8217;ll be you, and me, who&#8217;ve read them all and that&#8217;s it&#8230; so kudos there mate. And you probably should create a primer of all the various theories and ideas that permeate the comment sections of this thread! Oh. Hey. Maybe that&#8217;s not a half bad idea for me to get off my lazy butt and do as a post idea! I love it. Maybe I will. </p>
<p>2nd&#8230; Oh fascinating, yes, I know that of which you speak exactly. I don&#8217;t even need to rewatch it. Yeah, yes&#8230; I&#8217;m buying what you are selling. Interesting. Love the idea that the trick of it all, is the Madame Tussauds play. I have GENERALLY sided with the idea (in the back of my mind &#8211; generally not espoused out loud) that they were finding near twins and doing cosmetic surgery or something. You&#8217;d need at least a second double. But w/ your Tussauds play, it all sits on the weight of the wax craft. Which I dig. And yes, that doesn&#8217;t sound like a very Nolan thing to do at all.</p>
<p>Keep it coming Sandy, dying to hear your thoughts at the end of the long read of the comments. (By the way, I just counted all the words in the comments, and its upwards of 120k. I kid you not. So officially, you are mental. hahahah. 90-100k is sort of the sweet spot for a standard trade fiction novel, just for reference!) Anyway&#8230; really great insights Sandy &#8211; love where you are going with all of this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sandy McKean		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195513</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sandy McKean]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 01:40:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taylorholmes.com/?p=273#comment-1195513</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;new in 15 years&quot;......that&#039;s not a feature, that&#039;s a bug! Sorry to have come to the Prestige party so very late.

I have one other comment on this morgue/wax-works idea. (BTW, I am nearly done reading ALL the postings. Once I finish, I will post some other lines of thought I have.)

If you look VERY carefully at the room in 2 different parts of the movie on DVD: @35:06 when Algier and Cutter are checking out a vacant large room in which they will construct a workshop (they mention covering the windows with newspapers); and @1:47:34 when Cutter goes presumably to identify Algier&#039;s body in a morgue, these 2 rooms are clearly in the same building.

At first I though they *were* the same room, but there are subtle differences. They both have the same overall structure, the same floor boards, and critically, the same 2 radiators near the windows; but close inspection shows the window designs are similar, but different. However, clearly the 2 rooms must be in the same building.

I think this similarity of rooms lends credibility that the morgue is not a morgue, but rather a wax works workshop (see posting above) since both locations are in the same building. Were the body actually in a morgue, it stretches plausibility that the Algier/Cutter workshop, and a totally independent morgue are both in the same building. BUT if there are 2 Algier/Cutter workshops: one for equipment, and one for creating wax figures, then it totally makes sense that the 2 rooms would be in the same building (perhaps even very near each other).

There is one other explanation: Nolan simply dressed up 2 rooms in the same building location, one for the workshop, and one for the morgue, to save money, time, or logistics. Frankly, that doesn&#039;t sound like Nolan to me. Also, if that were the case, surely he would have hid those telltale radiators in at least one of the 2 rooms.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;new in 15 years&#8221;&#8230;&#8230;that&#8217;s not a feature, that&#8217;s a bug! Sorry to have come to the Prestige party so very late.</p>
<p>I have one other comment on this morgue/wax-works idea. (BTW, I am nearly done reading ALL the postings. Once I finish, I will post some other lines of thought I have.)</p>
<p>If you look VERY carefully at the room in 2 different parts of the movie on DVD: @35:06 when Algier and Cutter are checking out a vacant large room in which they will construct a workshop (they mention covering the windows with newspapers); and @1:47:34 when Cutter goes presumably to identify Algier&#8217;s body in a morgue, these 2 rooms are clearly in the same building.</p>
<p>At first I though they *were* the same room, but there are subtle differences. They both have the same overall structure, the same floor boards, and critically, the same 2 radiators near the windows; but close inspection shows the window designs are similar, but different. However, clearly the 2 rooms must be in the same building.</p>
<p>I think this similarity of rooms lends credibility that the morgue is not a morgue, but rather a wax works workshop (see posting above) since both locations are in the same building. Were the body actually in a morgue, it stretches plausibility that the Algier/Cutter workshop, and a totally independent morgue are both in the same building. BUT if there are 2 Algier/Cutter workshops: one for equipment, and one for creating wax figures, then it totally makes sense that the 2 rooms would be in the same building (perhaps even very near each other).</p>
<p>There is one other explanation: Nolan simply dressed up 2 rooms in the same building location, one for the workshop, and one for the morgue, to save money, time, or logistics. Frankly, that doesn&#8217;t sound like Nolan to me. Also, if that were the case, surely he would have hid those telltale radiators in at least one of the 2 rooms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Taylor Holmes		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195497</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Taylor Holmes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2026 02:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taylorholmes.com/?p=273#comment-1195497</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195454&quot;&gt;Sandy McKean&lt;/a&gt;.

Dude, 
I’m buying what you are selling. You are the first person to give me something new to this film in 15 years. Love it!! 

Do you know my in person friends know that all they have to do to wind me up is say the words: “the machine worked” and boom! I’m off like a whirling dervish! Hahahaha.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195454">Sandy McKean</a>.</p>
<p>Dude,<br />
I’m buying what you are selling. You are the first person to give me something new to this film in 15 years. Love it!! </p>
<p>Do you know my in person friends know that all they have to do to wind me up is say the words: “the machine worked” and boom! I’m off like a whirling dervish! Hahahaha.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sandy McKean		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195454</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sandy McKean]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2026 19:54:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taylorholmes.com/?p=273#comment-1195454</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Taylor,

I just looked a the image you so kindly provided in the Q&#038;A. Just what I was wishing for! Thanks for taking the time to create that image.

As blurry as it is, the shape of his &quot;project&quot; does *not* look like a brain to me. You would see some indications of convolutions I would think. Also, it is too big for a human brain. To me it looks exactly what I would expect it to be if he was creating a human skull or a complete head. Look at the very round bulbous shape of the top....exactly like a skull IMHO.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Taylor,</p>
<p>I just looked a the image you so kindly provided in the Q&amp;A. Just what I was wishing for! Thanks for taking the time to create that image.</p>
<p>As blurry as it is, the shape of his &#8220;project&#8221; does *not* look like a brain to me. You would see some indications of convolutions I would think. Also, it is too big for a human brain. To me it looks exactly what I would expect it to be if he was creating a human skull or a complete head. Look at the very round bulbous shape of the top&#8230;.exactly like a skull IMHO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sandy McKean		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2009/08/26/the-prestige-explained/#comment-1195453</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sandy McKean]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2026 19:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taylorholmes.com/?p=273#comment-1195453</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Sorry Taylor for disturbing your slumber :-). You must forgive me for being 20 years late to your party :-).

Yeah, it&#039;s hard to determine exactly what that guy in the back is doing. I decided to do a little research to help figure out whether or not this setting is likely a morgue. What I found seems to me to make it highly *unlikely* that this is a morgue or even a funeral parlor.

First, the &quot;slab&quot; the body is on. I researched how morgues kept bodies cool in the late 1800s. Since they had no refrigeration back then, it was typically done with ice. Here&#039;s a big giveaway.....they placed bodies on what they called &quot;cooling tables&quot;. These sturdy structures had a surface made of either wicker or wooden slates to allow the coolness of the ice below to filter up to the body; these tables also had drainage systems to allow fluids to drain away. Look at the &quot;tables&quot; in the shot; they aren&#039;t anything like that.

Next, in those days one rarely displayed a body in a mortuary type place, but rather it was done in a family home. Those cooling tables were hinged such that they could be folded up to moved from location to location. Again, nothing like that in the shot. (Look at the 2 or 3 &quot;spare&quot; tables.....more likely for a wax figure than a dead body.)

I also inquired about the clothes morgue workers would be wearing. There were 2 types: the back room worker, and the front room worker. The backroom guys prepared the body, and they got dirty, so they typically wore rubber aprons. The front room guys interacted with the families etc. The culture at the time took the death and display of the body very seriously, and these front room guys always wore &quot;Sunday Best&quot; type black clothes of a very conservative style. Again, not in this scene.

Next, the sleeve protectors you see on being worn by the guy in the scene were used by accountants, clerks, and craftsmen......ABSOLUTELY not by somebody showing a body for identification.

Lastly, note the steam radiators along the wall. No morgue would install a heating system.

One could say that Nolan is just being lazy in the design of this set, and of the extras in playing in the set, but Nolan is known to be a stickler for detail. NO......this is NOT morgue!!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry Taylor for disturbing your slumber :-). You must forgive me for being 20 years late to your party :-).</p>
<p>Yeah, it&#8217;s hard to determine exactly what that guy in the back is doing. I decided to do a little research to help figure out whether or not this setting is likely a morgue. What I found seems to me to make it highly *unlikely* that this is a morgue or even a funeral parlor.</p>
<p>First, the &#8220;slab&#8221; the body is on. I researched how morgues kept bodies cool in the late 1800s. Since they had no refrigeration back then, it was typically done with ice. Here&#8217;s a big giveaway&#8230;..they placed bodies on what they called &#8220;cooling tables&#8221;. These sturdy structures had a surface made of either wicker or wooden slates to allow the coolness of the ice below to filter up to the body; these tables also had drainage systems to allow fluids to drain away. Look at the &#8220;tables&#8221; in the shot; they aren&#8217;t anything like that.</p>
<p>Next, in those days one rarely displayed a body in a mortuary type place, but rather it was done in a family home. Those cooling tables were hinged such that they could be folded up to moved from location to location. Again, nothing like that in the shot. (Look at the 2 or 3 &#8220;spare&#8221; tables&#8230;..more likely for a wax figure than a dead body.)</p>
<p>I also inquired about the clothes morgue workers would be wearing. There were 2 types: the back room worker, and the front room worker. The backroom guys prepared the body, and they got dirty, so they typically wore rubber aprons. The front room guys interacted with the families etc. The culture at the time took the death and display of the body very seriously, and these front room guys always wore &#8220;Sunday Best&#8221; type black clothes of a very conservative style. Again, not in this scene.</p>
<p>Next, the sleeve protectors you see on being worn by the guy in the scene were used by accountants, clerks, and craftsmen&#8230;&#8230;ABSOLUTELY not by somebody showing a body for identification.</p>
<p>Lastly, note the steam radiators along the wall. No morgue would install a heating system.</p>
<p>One could say that Nolan is just being lazy in the design of this set, and of the extras in playing in the set, but Nolan is known to be a stickler for detail. NO&#8230;&#8230;this is NOT morgue!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
