The Illusionist - SPOILERS!

[Joshua Randall]

This thread is about the move "The Illusionist." There was a previous non-spoiler thread, but (unless I missed it), never a spoiler thread in which to discuss the movie.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SPOILER SPACE!
.
.
.
.
.
much more retro charm than an {sblock}
.
.
.

I guess everyone has some complaints about the ending, so I'll add mine. Assuming that Eisenheim's illusions of spirits were really some kind of proto-motion-picture-images, how did he pull that off? Was sufficient technology even available at the time of "The Illusionist"?

I'm especially curious about the "spirit" of the boy who walked up the aisle of the theater. That would be a difficult trick even with today's technology, let alone 200 years ago.

Thoughts?

 

[Seonaid]

I want to see it again before I make any judgments. I didn't get it completely the first time I saw it because I went into it with the wrong ideas of what it would be about.

Edit: My other thought is that Edward Norton, while normally a very attractive man, was substantially unattractive in this one. Also, Paul Giamatti is awesome.

 

[John Crichton]

I guess everyone has some complaints about the ending, so I'll add mine.

I had no complaints about the ending. I thought it fit the movie perfectly. However, the movie may require a repeat viewing to "get it." I think the whole thing hinged on if the viewer caught all the clues they dropped in the first half of the movie. Two things gave me the proper perspective - the fact that Eisenheim was a genius (or at least according to the detective - the real main character) and if you thought Sophie was dead or not. I knew (and said almost immediately) that she wasn't dead. So if you watch the rest of the movie as an illusion/performance it makes sense and works. Otherwise, it's just odd and the pieces don't fit.

Assuming that Eisenheim's illusions of spirits were really some kind of proto-motion-picture-images, how did he pull that off? Was sufficient technology even available at the time of "The Illusionist"?

I immediately stopped concerning myself with these questions as it happened. Two reasons: It's not important to the story and it was all told in flashback by a third party. Also, today's audiances should be wowed a bit by illusions so why not make something over the top that would have rivaled something seen in the time period depicted?

Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. Much more than I thought I would. Nice take/twist on that particular story with a period piece flair.

 

[Seonaid]

I immediately stopped concerning myself with these questions as it happened. Two reasons: It's not important to the story and it was all told in flashback by a third party.

Me too.

 

[Joshua Randall]

One nice little touch is that when Eisenheim's troop is packing up their boxes after being shut down by the prince, Eisenheim says, "No, not those. Leave the lights." i.e., the electrical lights used in the first, nice theather as floodlights

Later on we see Eisenheim fiddling with those same lights while he is "in mourning" for Sophie.

I'm assuming that those lights are what he eventually used to make the "spirit" images.

= = =

Another interesting thing: Sophie is also called Fantasia. In-joke reference to the Disney movie? Or hint that the entire story of "The Illusionist" is fantasy, not reality? Or both? Or neither?

 

[Umbran]

Assuming that Eisenheim's illusions of spirits were really some kind of proto-motion-picture-images, how did he pull that off? Was sufficient technology even available at the time of "The Illusionist"?

Speaking with some magic-history afficonado friends of mine, the answer is... yes and no.

It might help to interpret what you see in that movie not as the literal reality of what people saw, but their impressions.

Why? Because today's folks are rather less forgiving of poor special effects. Some time ago, when we weren't all bombarded with TV and movie speical effects, there's evidence to suggest that people allowed our minds to "fill in the blanks" a bit more than they do today. End result - the audience of time would think they saw it look like that, even if our impression now would be of a more shabby trick. Just as today, it can be shown that with proper suggestion an eyewitness recollection or account can be markedly different than reality. Magicians are, by their trade, masters of suggestion

I have also been told that the growing-tree trick is documentable back to the period. But I haven't seen the documentation myself, so I have to take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Speaking with some magic-history afficonado friends of mine, the answer is... yes and no.

So, er, how does it work? I think the idea as conveyed by the movie is that you project the motion-picture onto some smoke (?) or steam (?), which gives it that wavery, ghostly look.

Re: the orange tree, I found some documentation here (scroll down a bit).