Talk:The Illusionist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Magic hat The Illusionist is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of the WikiProject Vienna, a project organizing all things related to Vienna. We need your help! Many new articles need to be translated. If you know German, please visit us to see how you can help. Thanks!

Contents

[edit] historical relevance?

is there any historical basis for the political story of leopold planning to overthrow his father, and then committing suicide? there was an austrian Crown Prince Rudolf who mysteriously committed suicide along with his mistress. there is speculation that this story is not true, either that he beat his mistres to death (sophie) and then commited suicide, or that he was involved somehow with a plot to overthrow his father.--Rukiddingme? 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real Magic?

were the tricks on the movie based on real magic tricks?? other wise they seem pretty ridiculous

yes, they were all portrayals of real magic tricks of this era. The movie and the "short" story it was based on, suggest that Eisenheim took tricks he collected on his 15 year journey, and elaborated on them. Like the Orange Tree (a famous trick of Robert-Houdin), which the movie's police inspector guesses right is an automata, but which does not explain the appearance of butterflies in the trick.
The butterflies were part of the original trick. I've seen a demonstration of the orange tree clockwork automata. It isn't quite as impressive as in the movie as it starts with a small tree with leaves already in place. The magician takes an article of jewelry from a lady in the audience and wraps it in a hankerchief which is placed in a box the lady holds throughout the trick. When the automata is triggered it first "grows" several orange blossoms. Then the oranges appear. The magicican passes most of these to the audience to demonstrate they are real oranges. Afterwards the top orange opens and two butterflies rise out carrying the open hankerchief with the item of jewelry tied to it. The box the lady is holding is shown to be empty. Although the beginning of the trick is more impressive in the movie, the butterflies are just as amazing in the real trick.
Like the inspector is fascinated by this improvement of the illusion, the movie viewer may ask where illusion ends and spirituality begins. This is also why (I think) the movie did not show the real tricks, but a CGI representation of something similar of what a description of the illusion must have looked like to a theater audience. If you know how the trick really has worked, you would judge the portrayal of the trick as fake. I therefore can't agree with the first bullet point in the trivia section, where it is stated

So that the crew would not have to use CGI to "fake" the magical illusions seen in the movie, Norton received intensive training in sleight of hand and other stage magic techniques from British magician James Freedman

It is clear that Norton did receive some training on how to act on stage, to recreate a 19th century magic show, but the only scenes where sleight-of-hand is demonstrated (primarily the coin trick Eisenheim does for the poor children) the hand double of James Freedman may have been used. The claim in the first bullet point is also not supported by the news article it quotes.Filminfo 22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe related to the above (anonymous) point, in the trivia section, it says that the plum trick shown in the movie (where the raised hand is noticably paler) really works. However, after a quick test, I'm skeptical. Also, Googling did not find any non-The Illusionist references to this feat. Therefore, I think this whole bullet should be removed from the trivia section (as, without the realism, it is not really trivia). Thoughts? Thestorm042 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The trick works unless you lower your hand too soon, or maybe unless your skin tone is too light or too dark to begin with, or your skin is thick, or the room is cold, or – well, anyway, I deleted this bullet point. Regardless of whether the trick works every time, I agree that it isn't the kind of thing that makes a trivia item. Cognita 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
When I still performed I did it with coins, but only in front of an audience of either children or elderly, because it is such basic science that most people nowadays know it already. Back in the 19th century simple chemical tricks (like smoke effects and the paint effect shown in the movie) still worked. So I don't know if common sense may take away the skepsis created by something like not being able to Google it, but I have no problem with this bullet point.Filminfo 22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Spoilers

I removed the ending of the movie from the plot section (even though there are spoiler warnings). There are events that happen in the end of the movie that would ruin the enjoyment of this wonderful film if discovered beforehand. At least while the film is in theatrical release, I think its secrets should be kept secret. --Navstar 19:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with its removal. There are spoiler remarks and anyone who doesn't want to know the ending shouldn't read the plot outline in the first place. Tanner65 22:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the disagreement. There's no sense in deleting the ending when it already says that there is a spoiler. I have to complain about something though; the plot outline is too complicated and confusing. Is there no way to simplify it? There's just too much useless information it's hard to keep reading!--Hyokano 10:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I like to read plot summaries to learn more before watching, but don't want the ending spoiled. Perhaps two levels of spoilers? That might be complicated, but there's telling about a movie and then there's spoiling the end of The Sixth Sense. Of course, I haven't seen the end of this movie yet (watching it now), so I don't know if the ending of this movie falls into that category or not (I stopped reading the spoilers here when I reached the paragraph that seemed to start to talk about the ending). Maybe it would be appropriate to simply offer an additional warning at the start of the paragraph - simple way to make everyone happy? Of course, it's been a couple months, so maybe no one cares anymore. Thestorm042 00:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. Many films have surprise endings, and stopping their plot summaries before the ending would leave the summaries incomplete. A summary shouldn't be truncated like that; some readers will want the whole story. People who want an idea of what a film is about but don't want to know how it turns out can read reviews instead, which usually skip spoilers. The spoiler warning here is enough. Cognita 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course the ending should be included in the plot summary. This is an encyclopedia, not a movie review! I read the article because I wanted to know the plot and don't have the time or desire to view the movie. I'd be mad as hell if I was writing a term paper on King Lear and found someone had removed information from the King Lear article, so as not to "spoil my enjoyment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.37.72 (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be writing a paper on King Lear if you haven't already seen/read the whole play! You'd have no justification for being annoyed in such a case. But I agree: this is an encyclopedia, not a review, so the end should of course be included. AFAIK, that's standard Wikipedia procedure. Aridd (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary may need work

In the plot summary, aren't some events described wrongly or out of sequence? It's been a while since I saw the film, and I don't want to trust my memory, but if I recall correctly, (1) Sophie visits Eisenheim at his house and goes to bed with him immediately after his performance in a theater, where they meet for the first time as adults. This happens before the private show where he humiliates Leopold with the sword trick. (2) Leopold "kills" Sophie after she says she's leaving him, not because of anything Uhl does. Cognita 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I just watched the film again last night and you're right. The events described in the plot summary are out of order, and it's also implied that Sophie and Eisenheim recognize each other immediately when they meet again 15 years later. This is not the case. It isn't until after the performance when the crown prince calls Sophie by name that he recognizes her and he tells her he'll make her disappear, which is something she begged him to do 15 years ago and she then recognizes him. They don't meet in his cabin to make love until after Eisenheim humiliates the prince, but in the plot summary they make love before.

If someone better at editing than me wants to fix this it'd be much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.94.88 (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think the section

Finally, Leopold orders Eisenheim's arrest, but when Uhl attempts to arrest him during a live show, it is revealed that Eisenheim created an illusion of himself, which performed the show that night. Or possibly, the calling of Sophie turned him into a spirit. As a result, the magician disappears, or escapes.

is clunky, not to mention missing the implication of the scene. When I saw the film I read the scene as trying to encourage the viewer to think that Eisenheim was dead, and had performed his act that night as a spirit. That would go with the prior scene where he hands over all his money and property to his agent. The scene is deliberately vague and open to many interpretations, but "the calling of Sophie turned him into a spirit"? That's not implied in the slightest; Eisenheim had summoned Sophie several times previously by this point and suffered no difficulties. I would suggest a change to:

Finally, Leopold orders Eisenheim's arrest, but when Uhl attempts to arrest him during a live show, his hands pass straight through Eisenheim's body, implying that Eisenheim had not perform the show as a corporeal human being that night, but rather, as a "spirit". Eisenheim's "spirit" then fades and disappears.

Loccy 09:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, turning into a spirit is a fanciful interpretation. That bit wasn't there last time I looked at the plot summary. What I remember of the end of that scene is that Eisenheim stands up and walks toward the edge of the stage, fading in the process. Cognita 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Did any of you guys watch the movie? What about the bit at the end where they are happily escaped and living in the country? What about the flash-back where he wakes Sophie from her 'death' with a chemical?212.71.37.72 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eisenheim and Hanussen

There is a lot of ressemblance between this film and Hanussen (1988) or any of its previous or later versions, which is based on a real story. In Hanussen, an Austrian Magician-Soothsayer-Hypnotist amazes the pre-nazi Germany. In this case it is the nazis with whom the magician gets in trouble. Were there so many magicians at the beginning of the XXth century, who convinced people they had real magical powers? luis_de_pedro 12:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whose doctor?

One item in Trivia begins "Norton's character's doctor . . ." Shouldn't this be "the royal family's doctor" or "the doctor"? Cognita 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Liebowitz – comment on change

Here's a copy of a comment I added to Purplesnake's talk page:

Hello, Purple! In The Illusionist, you put double brackets around Ted Liebowitz's name, turning it into a link to a Wikipedia article. But the link goes nowhere: there's no W. article on Ted Liebowitz. Do you plan to start one? Cognita 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Purplesnake" Cognita 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Five days later, there's still no article on Liebowitz, and Purplesnake hasn't replied. I removed the brackets. Cognita 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who drugged whom?

In the plot summary, an anonymous user made this change:

Former version: This is followed by a quick flash of the conversation between Sophie and Leopold – this time, though, we are shown that Sophie had drugged Leopold so that he would pass out for a short time in the stables.
Current version: This is followed by a quick flash of the conversation between Sophie and Leopold – this time, though, we are shown that Eisenheim had drugged Sophie so that she would pass out for a short time in the stables.

Can this be right? It doesn't make sense to me. Cognita 09:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Illusionist inspired by Robertson Davies' Fifth Business?

While watching this film many of the plot points seemed eerily familiar. I finally figured out, halfway through a viewing, that it reminded me of Robertson Davies' Fifth Business. I need to re-read that novel again to do a real point-by-point comparison, but I was intrigued to find that the name of the illusionist in that novel (a boy who had reinvented himself and returned home after many years abroad) had a stage name very similar to Eisenheim: Magnus Eisengrim. This may be a connection worth investigating, at the very least as an inspiration for this article's short story and film. —Kaijan 19:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much speculation

There seems to be way too much speculation in the plot summary. Too many "implied"s and whatnot. Could someone, perhaps one who has had experience with movie reviews, can go through this and edit this to fit Wikipedia standards? Thank you. Disinclination 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time

Can anyone establish what time period this takes place in? To me it appears to be the 1880's or 90's, but my family says its 1900. Any thoughts on this? Editing Maniac 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fictional, and it conflates a wide period. Rudolf's death was in 1889, coincidentally the year that Hanussen (supposedly the inspiration for Eisenheim, according to IMDB) was born. Hanussen was similar in terms of being a "celebrated Viennese stage magician and spiritualist with shady political involvement", but this was closely intertwined with the Nazis, rather than the Habsburgs.

There are also a few (but notable) visible examples of Vienna Secession furniture on set. These date it to 1897, or shortly after. As an art-history theoretical woffle, it's arguable that this style simply couldn't have arisen until after the events around Rudolf's death and the imminent collapse of the "old order".

As such, I think we have to treat the period as being based around Rudolf, not Hanussen, but with liberties taken with the actual flow of time. User:Andy Dingley 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. No one could make so many errors of period by mistake. It must have been a conscious decision to conflate many periods. 212.71.37.72 16:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin and it's relevance to modern English

Is it really necessary to use an obscure Latin phrase in medias res which not only needs to be explained in English in parantheses but could just as easily be served by removing the Latin phrase and said parentheses? Kakaze 09:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell you how many times I've seen some obscure latin phrase used just for the hell of it on Wiki. Apparently it makes you smarter. If you have to wikilink a common phrase, good rule of thumb is to just use a more understandable phrase. 68.166.65.221 02:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "obscure" about in medias res. It's a commonly used phrase in English. Especially in fields such as literature and cinema. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia; readers can be expected to know common everyday phrases. Wikipedia shouldn't be dumbing things down. Aridd (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Infringment

Most of the trivia section is lifted directly from the Triva page on IMDB. [1]

[edit] Locket

The picture is small enough to fit in one half of the locket, so the trivia section isn't entirely correct (if you look at the close-up, it's obvious that they used two different props, but I don't see a discussion of that belongs in the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.0.244 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implication

I edited the following sentence in the plot synopsis.

Finally, Leopold orders Eisenheim's arrest, but when Uhl tries to arrest him during a live show, Eisenheim's body fades and disappears, implying that he did not perform the show as a corporeal human being that night but, rather, as yet another illusion.

Though Eisenheim must have been an illusion for the whole performance, when I first watched the movie I thought he had just then become a "spirit," so I removed "implying ... illusion." As far as I can tell, Wikipedia is supposed to report fact and leave the implications to the reader. But please correct me if I was wrong to do this. Tripswithtiresias (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)