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.

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!

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 . . .

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.

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.