For you Prestige-watching people, had any of you read the Christopher Priest book first? If so, did that add or subtract to the experience? As I recall, Mely had and enjoyed the film.

I'm just wondering if I should read it, then see it, or see it, then read it.

I haven't read the book, but now I want to. Reading the book first almost always spoils the movie experience for me.

P-C, I got the distinct impression that they did switch back and forth. Not the least of which, because of the "not today" response to Sarah asking, "Do you love me?" Didn't Borden (forgive my mispelling upthread...may Michael forgive me too) say as much at one point?

Yeah, that is a good point, Beej. I'm not sure.

I've read the book, and now I'm itching to watch the film. I think it'll only enhance the viewing.

I watched the film, and then went out and bought the book. Which I will read when I can scrape together some spare time.

Why would

Because they'd spent their whole lives, presumably, sharing everything. It might never have occurred to them to be exclusive with a wife or a mistress. Notably, we only know one name for them: Alfred. Presumably Ma Bolton gave her other son a name too (and in the Victorian era, I doubt highly she named him Fallon Bolton), but both boys took on the single name and shared it as if there were no distinction between them.

Similarly, we're not meant to have any idea which one of the brothers is the girl's father -- because they don't know and don't care. One of them loved Sarah and the other one didn't, but we are given no textual evidence that one of them slept with Sarah and the other one didn't. If they share everything, and it's heavily implied that they do, then there's no reason why they don't equally consider the child their own.

Nutty, I'm totally with you about the child and the men not caring who the father is. What mystifies me, however, are the scenes where one is thrilled to encounter the wife and child on the street, where one is happy to say he loves Sarah and then another is mis-er-able with her.

I can see sharing everything...but purposely promoting misery? What is the point of that?

I had the same issue, Beej. I mean, I understand that sharing everything is their whole life, etc etc, but in cases where one has a clear preference...why?

Though I suppose you could make the argument that the ruse would fall apart if both of them didn't know everything, down to the most intimate details, about both lives.

I'm with Beej. I don't see what the point of that would be.