A short (spoiler-free) review of Now You See Me, Now You Don’t

By Cherie Khoo (26S03B)

Now You See Me, Now You Don’t opens very much like its predecessors, to the Four Horsemen’s magic show. We come to understand that a decade has passed since the Horsemen last performed together, yet the details are fuzzy at best with no proper recount. First-time moviegoers will have a hard time understanding the plot. Directed by Jon M. Chu (of Crazy Rich Asians and Wicked fame), the film, 13 years after the second installation, is a far cry from the cinematic brilliance he previously orchestrated.

Through the lens of a film critic, this film is at best a snazzy, low-stakes rendition of a classic storyline. It is packaged in shiny fresh shrink-wrap like those on a deck of playing cards, not only flimsy but also a hassle to unwrap and a greater irritation to dispose of. But for the moviegoer, it’s exactly what is promised; a fun, magic-filled experience that only falls slightly shorter than expected. 

Before jumping in to the plot and symbolism, it is noteworthy to mention the soundtrack composed by Brian Tyler, known for his work the Fast & Furious franchise, as well as entries in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

Noting that he also oversaw the previous two Now You See Me scores, the soundtrack from the third movie seems a reluctant relative. Sequences in the scenes featuring magic tricks, for example, sound rather copy-pasted. There are some hidden gems, however, like the needle drop on Lady Gaga’s Abracadabra (nice touch!) as well as Renee Rapp’s Lucky during the end title sequence – a very enjoyable track. 

Economic and social concerns

But the movie falls flat in terms of magic and plot. Taking into account all the buzz on social media about the starring actors learning card tricks that feature in the movie, one would expect to see much more of their purported talents. 

What really takes this movie beyond just an action-packed third chapter in a wildly successful franchise, however, is in its ability to address more pressing and large-scale social issues. We do have to acknowledge that while this is oftentimes very much in-your-face, it gets the point across.

The central theme of the story revolves around the ownership of a large diamond belonging to the Vandenberg company (owned by Veronica Vandenberg). The company is intentionally reminiscent of real life diamond conglomerates like the DeBeers group, and the movie does a great job in referencing real-life issues related to the sale of diamonds. 

For one, the commodification of diamond resources. Diamonds actually only gained widespread prominence following 1947 when DeBeers capitalized on a successful advertisement selling diamonds as indicators of eternal love: “A Diamond is Forever”. It has since become the indicator as we know it of commitment and features prominently on millions of engagement and wedding rings.

But as you can see, the value of diamonds is completely fabricated. True, they take long to form in the depths of the earth, but are nowhere near to being the rarest of all precious gems. Rather, the title goes to Painite. 

Just like Vandenberg, diamond conglomerates like DeBeers have a monopoly on the global diamond market, buying up mines and leaving them untouched only to control the supply and availability of the resource. This allows them to artificially control the prices of diamonds, and create scarcity where there is none, echoing the movie’s plot sequence about the creation of new mines in lesser-developed countries.

Even more concerning is the idea of labour exploitation. It is not an infrequent site in countries like Sierra Leone, to see children being sent to work in mines. Yet, miners are paid a pittance compared to the revenue made by their companies. 

Apart from the faux exclusivity of diamonds illustrated in the film, in the real world there exists a black market for the sale of diamonds since many mining operations take place in remote locations outside the reach of government monitors, and in close proximity to the porous borders with Guinea and Liberia.

Here arises the high potential of smuggling as well as the introduction of illegal workers to the country. The governments of such countries see no penny of the profits from the sale of illegally-mined diamonds, and thus the poverty cycle of individuals and the economy continues. As we can observe, it is unfortunate that Now You See Me, Now You Don’t shies away from addressing more complex problems associated with the surface-level issues it has brought up.

Blood diamonds and industry problems

Now You See Me, Now You Don’t hints at symbolism of the real-world issue of blood diamonds in a character’s death. Civil war over diamond mines in Sierra Leone has seen rebels commit heinous crimes under the cover of warfare. The diamonds smuggled or fought over are called conflict, or “blood” diamonds.

Currently, the United Nations has placed embargos on the diamonds, and introduced the Kimberley Process, a certification system for monitoring diamond origins. It is here where the movie and reality deviate sharply, with no mention made of legal boundaries on screen. This sleight of hand makes the fictional situation slightly more believable, though it is reassuring to know that there is greater control over the diamond industry in real life.

There is hope that companies will take efforts to create a clear paper trail of diamond origins and to eliminate conflict diamonds from the markets. However, the structure of the diamond industry, where De Beers has a global monopoly, results in their having a lack of incentive to address the problem since conflict diamonds are a small fraction of worldwide sales. If the diamond industry were truly a competitive market, then conflict diamonds might pose a bigger problem, and prompt decisive action to eradicate them (Source).

The film does a simplistic job in communicating the most basic aspects of the diamond trade’s ugly side – one really does have to possess the prerequisite knowledge or curiosity to fully appreciate its messaging. To the layman, it is still rather unfortunately a short, entertaining magic show filled with lighthearted fun. 

Now… onto the magic

I previously touched on the lack of actual magic tricks being performed. In the film’s defense,  there are many references to the history of magic acts as well as optical illusions that viewers can expect to see: mind-bending upside-down rooms, a mirror maze, and an Ames room. 

The most interesting illusion to me was the room inspired by M.C. Escher, who depicts seemingly normal activities in space-distorting artwork. For those interested, here are some of his other works. 

Unfortunately, I cannot claim the film to be a roaring success despite its astounding box office revenue. But to tell the truth, neither was it a complete flop, having the ability in spite of its superficial depth to convey important messages about capitalism and climate, albeit in a rather unpolished manner. 

Reflecting on my experience, I would recommend this film hesitatingly to those my own age. However, I would encourage all those interested in economic, social, and environmental problems concerning diamonds and other mined resources to check it out, if only to make notes on this textbook representation of related issues.