| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 03/14/2007 : 18:43:24
|
| Yep, if the reality of the presented illusions is supposed to be that they are however much cruder that would actually be possible, then of course by definition they would be possible. I don't find magic interesting, but The Prestige still explicitly backs your point of view that sci-fi is a less satisfactory way of doing a trick - that is really its whole point. (Since I don't have any kind of general objection to sci-fi, I don't object to its presence in the film, especially as it's very much of a sort of Jules Verne style.) |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 18:44:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Moreover, I still feel this whole argument is a sidetrack to the real issue, which is that this movie is dramatically inert.
Yep, definitely. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 18:56:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Moreover, I still feel this whole argument is a sidetrack to the real issue, which is that this movie is dramatically inert.
Yep, definitely.
Welp, inertia is in the eye of the beholder. I thought there was plenty of drama in the Norton/Giamatti opposition, as well as the steamin' love triangle involving one person who can have anything he wants, therefore it takes a little "magic" to defeat him. Eros, pathos, thanatos, catharsis -- it was all there for these eyes.
OTOH, I found THE PRESTIGE a movie that tucked in its shirt sloppily. I repeat that they're both very pretty, and I love magic anywhere I get to see it, but for me, THE ILLUSIONIST had both feet on the ground, and THE PRESTIGE was off in its own fantasy world. |
Edited by - randall on 03/14/2007 19:07:12 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 22:04:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I maintain that The Illusionist could NOT have happened -- a great majority of his tricks are just flat-out impossible. At least The Prestige owns up to its implausibility.
The Illusionist is not really about whether the magic portrayed is possible. The story upon which it is based is about a magician who becomes so absorbed in his craft that he becomes an illusion. It is a metaphysical tale. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 22:15:50
|
| I've very much like someone to make a film of "Carter Beats the Devil" - that would satisfy all sides I think. Failing that folks, give it a read. No implausible effects covering for stagecraft and no implausible science fiction solutions, but with loads of romance and blood and competing magicians. I think it's miles better as a story than The Prestige and The Illusionist put together! |
|
|
|
roger_thornhill 
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 01:47:02
|
| I liked this movie quite a lot. Do those of you who complain about the supernatural element dislike all supernatural films on principle? If so, how can one like Sixth Sense and complain about the supernatural element in this film? (The dramatic inertia, alleged, in a separate issue.) |
Edited by - roger_thornhill on 03/15/2007 01:47:52 |
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire 
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 08:11:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yep, if the reality of the presented illusions is supposed to be that they are however much cruder that would actually be possible, then of course by definition they would be possible. I don't find magic interesting, but The Prestige still explicitly backs your point of view that sci-fi is a less satisfactory way of doing a trick - that is really its whole point. (Since I don't have any kind of general objection to sci-fi, I don't object to its presence in the film, especially as it's very much of a sort of Jules Verne style.)
Verne is rolling in his grave now. This is more HG Wells style, compromising science for the purpose of plot. Verne tried his hardest to retain scientific plausibility.
I thought about the CGI being the way the tricks appeared to the audience, but I can not buy this. For one, in the movie we are shown that in an attempt to explain how he does it, the "no-name henchmen" experimenting with projectors, which has terrible reults. It's no where close. Also, the child in the audience actually has someone run their hand through him. If it was a projection, then the projection would appear on his hand. Also, some of the projections are in color. this had not been invented yet. The projections are also in three dimensions, not on flat screens.
I must diagree that the sword trick is possible. Since the magnet is too strong for a human to break, it would have to be an electromagnet so it could be turned off to return the sword. However, assuming it was done magnetically, the sword would lie down on its side from the pull of the magnet, not perpendicular to the ground. There's not really an explanation for it. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 14:15:58
|
Okay, I've finally seen The Illusionist and I don't think I enjoyed it less or more than The Prestige, just differently. I liked the look of The Illusionist a lot more- largely the old-style camera effect a large part of the film seemed to have, especially so with the circular fades. Also the music was perfect- I imagined some Victorian organist playing it at the side of the screen.
Yep, Giamatti was excellent and a world away from his other roles. None of the stuttering or whining he seems to do so well and he seemed to have dropped an octave or two lower somehow.
I didn't feel shafted like I did with The Prestige though and I know why. The Prestige was based in the world of possible magic, even explaining the tricks in some cases or giving you enough clues to figure it out. I accepted this and felt immediately cheated when the big reveal came and it turned out to be alien technology from the planet Zog.
The Illusionist however, right from the off, quickly told us we wouldn't be seeing any real-world magic. I accepted this and sat back content in the knowledge I didn't have to try to figure the tricks out because they likely had no feasible explanation. And that's why I didn't feel shafted come the end of The Illusionist.
But now on to my theory of how everything was possible...
Something struck me whilst thinking back on the film. Paul Giamatti (I really should dig out the character's name) was in almost every scene, and where he wasn't, as Police Chief, he was uniquely positioned to be able to find out what had gone on in his absence.
In fact, the whole film was almost entirely flashback, as Giamatti recounts Eisenheim's early life through to the point of confronting the Prince. So, yes- we *are* seeing what a Victorian audience would see. Or more to the point, we're seeing what Giamatti remembered.
At this point, I should probably add here that I'm currently reading Derren Brown's excellent 'Tricks of the Mind' which explains in the early chapters how magic works- not the mechanics of the tricks, but the psychology. For example, if a magician loses a coin from his hand and then holds up his fingers in a 'holding the coin' position and says "You can all see the coin?", he's basically telling the audience members they must be idiots if they can't, thereby making them tell themselves they *did* see it. Or how about getting someone to shuffle cards for the first time some way into a trick by saying "Now shuffle the cards *again*", thereby implanting the seed of a memory of having shuffled the cards twice during the trick.
These false memories, along with little insignificant occurrences (usually when the hardest part of the trick is done) that get forgotten, in addition to the simple human nature of exaggeration (in fact a way of passing on the astonishment you experienced, whilst also ensuring you do not appear to be an idiot who would be amazed by some trivial little trick) all amount to a recollection of an amazing and quite literally impossible trick. If the person were to recount *exactly* what happened- "And then the magician stretched his arm a bit, oh... and the trick didn't work first time, and we were all looking at this small area of the table for about 30 seconds", then a logical mind could probably resolve how it was done.
So what we end up with is quite likely false or exaggerated memories being recounted to us by someone from a time when there was a heightened belief in mysticism.
All those tricks are possible, we just don't know what details are true, exaggerated or left out as irrelevant. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 01:55:31
|
Yes, yes, yes, benj. I don't know how a few of THE ILLUSIONIST's tricks were done. But I DO believe they could have fooled us all a hundred years ago. Thus, as you point out, they could have also fooled our cinematic avatar, Giamatti.
As for THE PRESTIGE: you obviously need IL+M for that.
EDIT: You're still all up in psychology? Read Steinmeyer's HIDING THE ELEPHANT for all the smoke & mirrors, mate! |
Edited by - randall on 03/18/2007 02:23:02 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 11:24:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
EDIT: You're still all up in psychology? Read Steinmeyer's HIDING THE ELEPHANT for all the smoke & mirrors, mate!
"Still all up in psychology"? I thought the physical mechanics of magic came before the psychology? After all, the physics of magic is basically the same principles from a hundred years ago (just dressed up a little better), but we're still learning what the mind is truly capable of.
I'll definitely be checking out that book though- I just love all this stuff  |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 11:37:56
|
Oh... here's few of my theories on the tricks.
The Orange tree, whilst certainly smoothed out with CGI in the film, could be similarly achieved with a mechanical doohickey loaded with sponge 'oranges'. Then when he picked the orange, he palmed it with a real orange which was then tossed into the audience.
The sword trick could still have been rigged in some way, since it was still the magician who chose to use the sword (he was a smart man and could have prepped for the performance assuming he would be questioned by the Prince who, naturally, would be wearing his sword as he always does on these big occaisions). Magnets and mentalism (i.e. convincing the participants they couldn't lift the sword) is my betting on this one.
As for the ghosts... fuck knows, but there's been countless magicians over the years who *have* convinced audiences about being able to conjure spirits, so there's definitely some believeable means of doing it. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 01:17:10
|
All I insist is:
Just because you don't know the trick, doesn't mean there isn't a trick.
THE PRESTIGE breaks this agreement.
THE ILLUSIONIST, to my knowledge, does not.
|
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 17:50:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I accepted this and felt immediately cheated when the big reveal came and it turned out to be alien technology from the planet Zog.
You're funny. 
EM :)
|
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 17:51:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Paul Giamatti (I really should dig out the character's name) was in almost every scene, and where he wasn't, as Police Chief, he was uniquely positioned to be able to find out what had gone on in his absence.
In fact, the whole film was almost entirely flashback, as Giamatti recounts Eisenheim's early life through to the point of confronting the Prince. So, yes- we *are* seeing what a Victorian audience would see. Or more to the point, we're seeing what Giamatti remembered.
Except for the love scenes. I don't think Paul was there for those. 
EM :)
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 20:14:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Paul Giamatti (I really should dig out the character's name) was in almost every scene, and where he wasn't, as Police Chief, he was uniquely positioned to be able to find out what had gone on in his absence.
In fact, the whole film was almost entirely flashback, as Giamatti recounts Eisenheim's early life through to the point of confronting the Prince. So, yes- we *are* seeing what a Victorian audience would see. Or more to the point, we're seeing what Giamatti remembered.
Except for the love scenes. I don't think Paul was there for those.
EM :)
You never know... might have been perving out in the woods  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
THE PRESTIGE -- MAJOR SPOILER ALERT
