The Illusionist
March 5th, 2007
I have another movie to add to my “Top 10 Films of 2006” (list forthcoming once I see a few more DVDs): Neil Burger’s The Illusionist. I liked it tremendously—so much so that I even listened to the whole commentary track (featuring Burger, who both wrote and directed the film) right after watching the movie.
The Illusionist reminds me in tone of an Isak Dinesen story: it’s sumptuous, romantic, and yet raises key philosophical and spiritual questions. Most of all, it addresses the power and mystery of stories—and stories within stories—as a kind of magic.
In his commentary, Burger reveals that the short story (“Eisenheim the Illusionist”) on which the film is based is much more philosophical in tone: Eisenheim, a conjurer in Vienna around 1900, is arrested for blurring the distinction between reality/truth and fiction/illusion. Burger wanted to keep that thematic element, but he also wanted a more cinematic story, and so he added the central political (and philosophical and personal) conflict with Crown Prince Leopold, as well as the romantic interest with Sophie, the Duchess von Teschen (which, when pronounced with a Viennese accent, sounds a lot like “Duchess Fantasia”). Leopold, played by my dear favorite Rufus Sewell (who always seems to land Hollywood roles as jealous villains or revolutionary radicals), is really central to this treatment of the story, because he is a worthy intellectual adversary for Eisenheim. He’s a lout and a boor, but he’s a highly intelligent lout and boor. He, as the rationalist foil to Eisenheim’s man of mystery, can’t stand not knowing the mechanics of how Eisenheim’s “tricks” are accomplished.
Burger also beefed up the character of Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti), who is mentioned only in passing in the short story. He’s Crown Prince Leopold’s flunky, but he demonstrates a childlike enthusiasm for learning the inner workings of magic. And sometimes, unlike Leopold, he would prefer to suspend disbelief and enjoy the illusion. Since he narrates the story, this feature of his personality is really important.
Edward Norton, as Eisenheim, does an incredible job of acting in this movie. Throughout the entire thing, he has to allow for two simultaneous readings of what’s going on: is his magic real, or is it all a trick? He (and Burger’s screenplay) leaves room to come down on either side—which, in part, he accomplishes by not showing any of his cards, so to speak. And whichever side we, as the audience, end up believing, we have to admit that there’s truth in illusion.
That’s all I’m going to say without spoiling the movie. DO NOT READ AHEAD IF YOU EVER PLAN TO SEE THE ILLUSIONIST. Trust me: even if you don’t usually mind spoilers, you will here. MAJOR SPOILERS TO FOLLOW.
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
Okay, so, if you’re reading this, you’ve already seen the movie. Hurrah for you. You know that the central plot point of Sophie’s death may be all an illusion. But is it? Most reviewers seem to think so, that we’re supposed to trust Uhl’s version of the story at the end. And, if they gave the movie a less than stellar review, it’s often because they wanted the end to be “darker.” They seem to have forgotten that the faked death and the Eisenheim-Sophie reunion are all in Uhl’s mind! It may be true, but it may just be an illusion he himself has conjured because it’s what he would prefer to believe. I love the ambiguity of the ending. It makes me happy in a very nerdy way.
It’s funny—when I first saw the movie, I noticed Eisenheim putting a vial of liquid in the suitcase that he gave to Sophie, and I thought at the time, “Either they’re going to drug Prince Leopold or they’re going to fake Sophie’s death.” Both turned out to be right (well, in one reading). But, in the drama of Eisenheim’s apparent grief and the increasing darkness of his shows, I sort of forgot about what I’d seen. That’s what a magician does: shows you the clues, but then makes you forget about them in the spectacle that follows. It wasn’t until Eisenheim arrived at the train station for the second time that I remembered the vial, and, just a couple of minutes before Uhl, considered the possibility that Sophie could be well and alive, hiding away somewhere. I tend to be the sort who suspends disbelief extremely well, and without intention, so it’s possible that I was a little slower than some viewers to follow where the clues were leading Uhl, but, still, I think the film’s timing was effective. And I love the bit at the end where Uhl takes off his hat, delighted that Eisenheim found a way to hoodwink them all (or at least that’s what Uhl chooses to believe at this point).
Oh, here’s a random interesting fact from the DVD commentary: the hall with all the antlers on the walls is actually in Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s castle. “Bad karma?” says Burger. You better believe it. Burger says that Franz Ferdinand’s own death mask is actually at the end of the hall, placed there after his death (and presumably sometime after World War I settled down a bit). Ooh, the irony.
10 Comments Add your own
1. Mink | March 5th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Interesting to hear you say this - I’ve heard only negative comments from several friends who saw it. I still need to see it, and will definitely after your recommendation. Have you see The Prestige? I’d be interested in your comparison of these movies, released so near each other, and both provoking avidly negative or positive reviews. The Prestige evoked my inner critic (for good and for ill) more than any other movie I saw last year.
2. Jillian | March 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
SPOILERS!
As I mentioned to you before, this is one of the few movies I paid cash to see in the theater. And what was most clever about it was something you pointed out quite excellently:
They seem to have forgotten that the faked death and the Eisenheim-Sophie reunion are all in Uhl’s mind!
Yes! Oh yay, someone else got it without having to explain it to them. My friend B. and I had a lively conversation about how unconventional it is to have a story told by someone who is not a main character and doesn’t really have the complete inside scoop. It’s a nice surprise to have the POV fall on a character you wouldn’t expect. I felt the same way about the film All the King’s Men except they mucked up the POV at the end and nigh ruined the whole experience for me. I will have to rewatch it again and cut out the last five minutes.
3. Jillian | March 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
SPOILERS!
I’m rusty, wasn’t there some weirdness in the mystery surrounding the gem in the stables? I thought that was odd but haven’t rewatched it to see if it upsets the perceived ending or not.
4. theotter | March 5th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Mink: I haven’t seen The Prestige yet, but it’s next in my Netflix queue. Porpoise gets his pick of DVDs first, though, so I probably won’t see it until the weekend.
5. theotter | March 5th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
SPOILERS!
Jillian: Yay for understanding! We are the enlightened!
I’m not sure quite which part of the gem-stable thing you mean, but it was a bit odd when Uhl opened the locket and the young Eisenheim’s picture fell out on the hay, right next to the green gem. Burger mentioned on the commentary track that he wanted this scene to have a dream-like feel: that’s the kind of thing that would happen in a dream, and he thought it was fun to render a “rational” investigation in an “irrational” manner.
One reason Crown Prince Leopold is such a good villain is that he’s exactly right when he says that Eisenheim could have removed a gem (or two) from his sword when he does the sword trick (he’s holding it with that handkerchief). Or they could have removed it after drugging Leopold on the night of the “murder.”
Or, of course, it could be that Leopold really did kill Sophie that night, the gems fell out of his sword, and Eisenheim simply wanted to lure Uhl back to the stable to investigate more fully.
Porpoise said that the thing that seems to most strongly support the perceived ending is the fact that the train-station man and the family doctor are the same. But that resemblance could be in Uhl’s head, too . . .
6. theotter | March 6th, 2007 at 7:14 am
SPOILERS!
Oh, Jillian, I forgot to mention that Burger himself agrees with our interpretation. I was kind of anxious about watching the commentary, in case he turned out to make a plug for the ending as unambiguously factual. I didn’t think he would, and even if he had, I still would have held to my interpretation, but, still, it’s nice to know that the writer/director had the same thing in mind. Especially since it’s the only interpretation that makes sense with the tone of the rest of the movie!
7. Jillian | March 6th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
SPOILERS!
See, I can be taught!
Yes, that green gem is the same one from the sword. Your comments are making me remember it better. That was the ‘detail’ that most stuck in my mind as being a bit fanciful… which probably has to do with the ‘irrational’ detective work. Interestingly put, and very true.
I think the whole tone of the movie was set when they talked about Eisenheim and the tree. That slight of hand and story telling device did a lot to set the stage for… did it happen this way or that way who knows!?
I haven’t had a chance to listen to the commentary… the one disadvantage of not having my hands on the DVD. I love listening to those things
Did you know you can download Doctor Who commentaries on the BBC website? I really like the one for Girl in the Fireplace.
Also, I think you might be a little bit interested in a BBC drama called Foyle’s War. My sister is all in love with it right now.
8. theotter | March 6th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
OOOH, I’ll definitely have to pay a visit to the BBC web site. Thanks!
9. mink | March 20th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
So, I still think The Prestige is more up my alley. I liked many things about the aesthetics of Illusionist (which I saw with D’Otter’s parents the other night) (mmmmm, costumes, eeeew, deer heads, awwwww, fuzzy old fashioned film effects) but found it insignificant and flimsily composed. I found the more I thought about it, the less I cared. Well, now we know. You just need to see the Prestige now.
10. mink | March 20th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
P.S. I disagree with the comparison you made to Isak D. I think it *aspired* to the mystery and significance of Dinesen’s stories.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed