BEFORE: What is "magic", anyway? Is it all illusions, or is it, as Lex Luthor suggested in "Superman Returns" just technology that we don't understand yet? If that's the case, then my bedroom television set is magic, because about a year ago, it lost the ability to display the color blue, and I've been just dealing with the fact that TV shows look different and making vague plans to replace it...but all of a sudden, this week the color blue came back! Magic! I've been trying to link to this film for a while, and last night's Harry Potter film gives me the chance.
THE PLOT: In turn-of-the-century Vienna, a magician uses his abilities to secure the love of a woman far above his social standing.
AFTER: In last night's film, I mentioned how it seemed that everyone at Hogwarts was in love with someone who was in love with someone else. Perhaps the J. Geils band was right after all..."You love her, and she loves him. And he loves somebody else, you just can't win." That theme repeats tonight, as the title illusionist, Eisenheim, returns to Vienna to put on his magic show, and re-connects with his childhood crush, Sophie, who seems to be involved with the Crown Prince.
Eisenheim attracts the attention of not only the Prince, but also Chief Inspector Uhl, who has an interest in learning how the tricks are performed, and is under orders from the Prince to expose or arrest Eisenheim. What follows next in the film is somewhat subject to interpretation. The film has the kind of ending that will make you immediately go back to the middle of the film to see what you might have missed. The film becomes either a tragic tale of lost love and clever investigative police work, or perhaps one of the most complicated revenge plots ever put together. Your call.
Most of Eisenheim's initial tricks depend on the fact that people's actions and reactions can, to a certain extent, be predicted. The real trick comes in manipulating people without letting them know that they are being manipulated. To reveal the trick, without the method. Later in the film, however, Eisenheim's illusions take a dark turn, and his shows start to feature ghostly images of people from beyond the grave - one presumes he's using some form of optics that the general public of the year 1900 is not aware of, but unfortunately, in the context of a modern film, they just look like simple photographic (not even holographic) effects.
What I'm trying to say is - it's unfortunate that the makers of this film had to resort to Hollywood magic to portray stage magic. It seems like cheating a bit. Any technology we don't understand is magic - also any plot-holes that need filling in - magic! Impossible stage stunts performed with the help of CGI - magic?
Here's the sad truth about magic tricks - they can amaze you and make you want to know how they're done. But once you know, they lose their appeal - so you have to ask yourself, do you REALLY want to know? Unfortunately, the same can be said for special effects. I know that I've encountered many levels of disillusionment working in the film business, and learning how things are done. There's a famous saying that you don't want to see how two things are made - laws and sausages. To that list, I personally add magic tricks, and independent films...
My own taste in magic sort of begins and ends with Penn & Teller, a duo known for revealing the secrets behind tricks, and then taking them to a completely new level. I had admired them from afar for years through their appearances on TV, then I went to see their Off-Broadway show - I think it was back in 1986 or 1987, shortly after I moved to New York. A couple years later, I had the great opportunity to work as a production assistant on a documentary about the Residents, with introductory segments starring Penn & Teller. I don't usually ask for autographs in situations like that, but I made an exception and brought with me one of their books, which they graciously signed. I spoke with Penn Gillette a few months later, at the director's birthday party, and he seemed like a genuinely nice and together person. I'll admit that magicians may be a little off-center, but they're not all like the moody, revenge-obsessed Eisenheim seen in this film. I'd love to know what Penn thought of this film, though...
Starring Edward Norton (last seen in "The Incredible Hulk), Paul Giamatti (last seen in "Lady in the Water"), Jessica Biel, and Rufus Sewell.
RATING: 6 out of 10 oranges
For me, "The Illusionist" was a so-so film that became a disappointing one because of the nature of the ending. I'll make up an equivalent example to avoid spoilers: if someone digs up a big gold nugget, and he says it's gold, and takes it to an expert who examines it and agrees, and then he takes it to another expert who subjects it to chemical tests and proves it's gold, and then one more guy breaks off a bit of it and peers at it realllll close and counts the electrons in each atom and says "Yup: gold. No question about it"....
ReplyDelete...And then it turns out that it's NOT gold...
...And the whole end of the story hinges on a scheme in which this piece of metal MUST fool every expert, who are shown subjecting it to intense scrutiny...
...And the filmmaker doesn't even hint as to how the perpetrator of this scheme even pulled this off...
...Well, that's disappointing.
But I wasn't terribly into this movie even before the ending, anyway. I thought it was a very by-the-numbers production of a very common story. And I agree with you about how the CGI made the magic seem much less special.