| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 06/21/2007 : 14:33:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
2) Bullshit are those tricks possible. We can't do some of that shit NOW, he certainly couldn't do it back in 17-whatever.
Well, the rest of your post is your opinion, to which you're certainly entitled, but item #2 is NOT bullshit, and that's a fact. Each trick, including the "ghosts," including the sword, including the orange tree, was based on an illusion known and performable at the time. Now, the filmmakers certainly "cheated" by enhancing these tricks in post-production [mainly for shooting time, according to the director] for the movie, but you're mistaken when you say they were beyond Victorian technology. Read Jim Steinmeyer's wonderful HIDING THE ELEPHANT for the "ghost" gag and lots more.
Re the ending: did it really happen that way? Remember that the movie is narrated by the Inspector, an "amateur conjurer." It's his point of view. He might be wrong...
It's THE PRESTIGE which veers off into the impossible, not this one.
Oh, you are so wise, albeit so far away 
|
 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 15:17:27
|
*sigh* I wish I were having this discussion earlier, because I saw this movie in theaters about a year ago and I can't remember certain things very clearly. All I can tell you is, I'm well-aware of the apparatus that allows "ghosts" to appear on stage, I've seen it performed and how it works. And that the way it works seemed to me highly inconsistent to the way the "ghosts" were projected in the movie. I don't remember what exactly it was, but that was the impression I got.
The sword trick I buy, the tree I buy, a lot of the others I didn't. (The fake reflection in the mirror for instance.) Maybe they could have worked back then, but not the way they showed it in the movie. The CGI pushes things too far, makes it too clean. Like I said in the other thread about this movie: I know exactly how he pulled off that trick. With CGI.
I was just watching clips of Norton's famous "fuck you" speech from 25th Hour on YouTube, and you know, maybe I am a fan of Edward Norton after all. But The Illusionist is one of his very worst performances. I guess that's the nature of the script, which requires him to be inscrutable, but the blank void which is Norton's character makes it very difficult to care about him. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 15:18:36
|
| There's no point in going through it all again, but I just wanted to note that I have read all this and still think exactly what I thought in the other thread. Presenting the audience's self-deluding perspective (i.e. showing the tricks as being impressive instead of rubbish) is just a lazy and dull cop-out. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 17:48:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Presenting the audience's self-deluding perspective (i.e. showing the tricks as being impressive instead of rubbish) is just a lazy and dull cop-out.
You don't want your magical illusions to be impressive? I sure do.
I return to the fact that the film is told in the Inspector's voice; thus everything we see is through his eyes -- and he was mightily impressed!
EDIT: Just went back and searched through the PRESTIGE thread. I had forgotten that you don't like magic. |
Edited by - randall on 06/21/2007 19:26:05 |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 08:10:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Presenting the audience's self-deluding perspective (i.e. showing the tricks as being impressive instead of rubbish) is just a lazy and dull cop-out.
I actually think this was a clever approach to take. Had the tricks been performed as they were back then, given our greater understanding of technology/ smoke and mirrors techniques, we wouldn't have been able to go with the story at all (or the camera would have to be rather boringly fixed in the audience for a good portion of the film). We'd be too busy going "Oh- it's obvious how he's doing it". Either that or he would have been performing the modified variations of these tricks we get nowadays which would have left the film a highly inaccurate recreation of the times.
It's important for the film that we are as amazed and curious about how a trick is done as the audiences back then were. The most straightforward solution to this problem is to make them seamless (by whatever means) for today's audiences. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 09:09:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
You don't want your magical illusions to be impressive? I sure do.
I meant that the film equates to stating that the tricks are impressive - the tricks themselves are not impressive, since there are not any. (Well, there may be some minor ones, but all the main tricks are special effects.) In contrast, the main trick in The Prestige could be recreated in real life.
quote:
EDIT: Just went back and searched through the PRESTIGE thread. I had forgotten that you don't like magic.
I don't dislike - I'm just not into it, as it rarely seems impressive. Conversely, I love Derren Brown's stuff because that is enormously impressive. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 06/22/2007 09:10:37 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 09:15:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I actually think this was a clever approach to take. Had the tricks been performed as they were back then, given our greater understanding of technology/ smoke and mirrors techniques, we wouldn't have been able to go with the story at all (or the camera would have to be rather boringly fixed in the audience for a good portion of the film).
This is generally true except that (i) it isn't clever - it's a pretty obvious thing to do and (ii) some of the tricks are so clearly not possible to the degree that the audience 'sees' (e.g. the orange tree) that it actually fails to take us (me, at least) along with them. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 09:45:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I actually think this was a clever approach to take. Had the tricks been performed as they were back then, given our greater understanding of technology/ smoke and mirrors techniques, we wouldn't have been able to go with the story at all (or the camera would have to be rather boringly fixed in the audience for a good portion of the film).
This is generally true except that (i) it isn't clever - it's a pretty obvious thing to do and (ii) some of the tricks are so clearly not possible to the degree that the audience 'sees' (e.g. the orange tree) that it actually fails to take us (me, at least) along with them.
As with anything in life, it's easy to say something is an obvious thing to do after it's been done.
Some people have suggested ways the tree could work but even when you choose to resist the possibility an audience could be fooled by these (your loss, I feel) there's still the inspector's recounting of the facts (with human nature's habit of exaggeration) and that old favourite 'suspension of disbelief'. If you really can't sit back and try to accept the reality with which you're presented for a measly 90 minutes then I think you're going to be sadly disappointed in a great deal more trips to the cinema.
Probably best stick to 'based on a true story' films  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:09:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
As with anything in life, it's easy to say something is an obvious thing to do after it's been done.
Yeah, but a film presenting specific people's perspective is not exactly Innovation of the Century.
quote:
Some people have suggested ways the tree could work
Sure, a much more basic version could work, but what we see is far too organic and complicated - the plans we see at the end are also much simpler.
quote:
but even when you choose to resist the possibility an audience could be fooled by these (your loss, I feel) there's still the inspector's recounting of the facts (with human nature's habit of exaggeration)
It really has to rely on the latter aspect - only an audience of idiots could watch a workable version of the tree and think that they see what the film shows.
quote:
and that old favourite 'suspension of disbelief'...
Probably best stick to 'based on a true story' films
Come on, the whole point about suspension of disbelief is that the film takes one on that path - this film does not incline one to do that at all. It just demands that one suspends disbelief, without offering entertainment or a consistent world in return. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 06/22/2007 10:10:37 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:24:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
As with anything in life, it's easy to say something is an obvious thing to do after it's been done.
Yeah, but a film presenting specific people's perspective is not exactly Innovation of the Century.
Please tell me anything that has been done in the last 50 years of cinema that is innovation of the century(s). It's all been done before, it's just a question of the filmmaker choosing what narrative method works best for the story. For my money, it was a smart way for the filmmakers to go about this the way they did- there were certainly some bad ways they could have done it.
quote:
quote:
Some people have suggested ways the tree could work
Sure, a much more basic version could work, but what we see is far too organic and complicated - the plans we see at the end are also much simpler.
quote:
but even when you choose to resist the possibility an audience could be fooled by these (your loss, I feel) there's still the inspector's recounting of the facts (with human nature's habit of exaggeration)
It really has to rely on the latter aspect - only an audience of idiots could watch a workable version of the tree and think that they see what the film shows.
Note that I said about the Inspector recounting facts. As someone who appreciates the work of Derren Brown, you of all people should appreciate the power of planting false memories and (as I already said) human nature's habit of exaggeration after the event. The realisation of this was a nice twist for me- when you think about it, it's effectively what The Usual Suspects achieved, but without (comparatively speaking) hammering the point home like that did.
quote:
quote:
and that old favourite 'suspension of disbelief'...
Probably best stick to 'based on a true story' films
Come on, the whole point about suspension of disbelief is that the film takes one on that path - this film does not incline one to do that at all. It just demands that one suspends disbelief, without offering entertainment or a consistent world in return.
All I can say is that it took me on that path. In this sense, the film worked for me (plus others- granted not all, but a large proportion I've discussed it with). I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the same journey I did  |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:36:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
You don't want your magical illusions to be impressive? I sure do.
I meant that the film equates to stating that the tricks are impressive - the tricks themselves are not impressive, since there are not any. (Well, there may be some minor ones, but all the main tricks are special effects.) In contrast, the main trick in The Prestige could be recreated in real life.
I'm flabbergasted at this statement. Not that you prefer THE PRESTIGE, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but my main beef with it is that the ultimate reveal is not possible and is a science-fictional copout. What trick exactly are we talking about? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:42:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Please tell me anything that has been done in the last 50 years of cinema that is innovation of the century(s). It's all been done before, it's just a question of the filmmaker choosing what narrative method works best for the story. For my money, it was a smart way for the filmmakers to go about this the way they did- there were certainly some bad ways they could have done it.
Agreed - I just meant that there is nothing at all impressive about this choice. I would have favoured having the same instance of a trick being shown a couple of times (i.e. different audience members' views or the inspector recounting it twice), each varying from the reality in somewhat different ways.
quote:
Note that I said about the Inspector recounting facts. As someone who appreciates the work of Derren Brown, you of all people should appreciate the power of planting false memories and (as I already said) human nature's habit of exaggeration after the event.
What I find impressive is seeing this taking place. Just claiming that it has been done (and in fiction at that) is not the same.
quote:
All I can say is that it took me on that path. In this sense, the film worked for me (plus others- granted not all, but a large proportion I've discussed it with). I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the same journey I did
At the time, I thought it was fine (although I like it in retrospect less and less), but I found The Prestige far superior, and am glad to see that the I.M.D.B. score agrees (at least that it is significantly, if not massively, better).
Luckily, I saw The Usual Suspects a few weeks ago, or you would just have given me a huge spoiler - you might want to amend your post in case others read it.  |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:46:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
but even when you choose to resist the possibility an audience could be fooled by these (your loss, I feel) there's still the inspector's recounting of the facts (with human nature's habit of exaggeration)
It really has to rely on the latter aspect - only an audience of idiots could watch a workable version of the tree and think that they see what the film shows.
Come on, the whole point about suspension of disbelief is that the film takes one on that path - this film does not incline one to do that at all. It just demands that one suspends disbelief, without offering entertainment or a consistent world in return.
But it does rely on the latter aspect! Furthermore, if they used the true Victorian methods, our audience -- much more sophisticated at Covert Operations -- would remain unimpressed. What you are seeing are the impressions of one audience member: the Inspector. And, frankly, I imagine THE ILLUSIONIST depicts the effect of these illusions on a normal Victorian audience member, one who is not so savvy as we. I'm sorry the picture didn't satisfy you, but please, don't call the audience idiots. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:51:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
You don't want your magical illusions to be impressive? I sure do.
I meant that the film equates to stating that the tricks are impressive - the tricks themselves are not impressive, since there are not any. (Well, there may be some minor ones, but all the main tricks are special effects.) In contrast, the main trick in The Prestige could be recreated in real life.
I'm flabbergasted at this statement. Not that you prefer THE PRESTIGE, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but my main beef with it is that the ultimate reveal is not possible and is a science-fictional copout. What trick exactly are we talking about?
That is not the main trick at all - that is an attempt to recreate the main trick, which is the twins. The whole point of that film (which all magic fans should appreciate) is that it presents the 'magic' version of teleportation (i.e. the dedication that takes, the neatness of it and its moral preferability) as superior to achieving it in reality. (The sci-fi aspects are real in the world of the film.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 06/22/2007 10:57:06 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:54:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'm sorry the picture didn't satisfy you, but please, don't call the audience idiots.
Nope, I still think anyone who would visualise the organic orange tree when watching the most sophisticated machine that could have been possible would have been an idiot - in any time. We are not talking about slight differences here. Only exagerration accounts for it, and I just find that rather dull. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Illusionist
