How did Eisenheim make the sword stick to the ground? - The Illusionist (2006) Discussion

[–] papermoonfan 16 years ago

I doubt he would b aloud to rig anything under the floor at the Hofburg without guards watching him and the crown prince finding out.
Unless Emp Franz Joseph secretly approved it thinking it would be a good joke, but then you would expect him to be there to see Leopold being fooled.
Its posible Eisenhiem could of met Franz Joseph because he did aloud common people the request meetings with him and voice their conserns.

Bernard Hill would have made a great Franz Joseph if they casted the role in this film.

"Oh sweet mystery of life at last I found you!"-Madeline Kahn

reply

[–] lbra73-3 16 years ago

Anyone know for sure?

reply

[–] gord0193 16 years ago

For me, this is what separates this film from the prestige, in that there is an intentional blurring of the line where the magic presented in the film is a trick versus eisenheim possessing supernatural abilities. Whether it is an electromagnetic pulse keeping the sword in place, a cgi-quality cloud appearing on stage or a fully-rendered holographic child, the point is to enjoy the filmmakers' decision to display eisenheim as master illusionist, and not harp on the obvious fact that none of his illusions could be performed (unless in a film using 21st century technology, purely for our entertainment).

reply

[–] callmechia 16 years ago

That's a good way of putting it, and actually it softens my general distaste for the movie, however I still think they took it too far and made us question it too much, without redeeming anything in the end and leaving us feeling cheated.

"Milk's one of nature's... non-temperature hang on-ers."

reply

[–] EibhlinnSavage 15 years ago

I fully agree with this. Eisenheim's tricks are impossible as magic tricks. However I think they're meant to display the magic of cinema. I also agree with the following poster that the fact they've taken the idea too far to make them believable as magic tricks kinda ruins this film, as opposed to The Prestige which I think is a lot better. I also have to say that while those tricks are all rather pretty, after having seen movies like Avatar, Lord of the Rings, and so on push the boundaries of on-screen special effects, the orange tree trick kinda looks pathetic as a cinema effect.
I still enjoyed the illusionist, if only because I love Edward Norton. But these are the elements that make it inferior to the Prestige.

Eibhlinn Savage

[insert movie quote]

reply

[–] Princerd 15 years ago

Remember the Crown Prince said all the illusions would be explained. Eisenheim purposely produced an illusion that neither the Crown Prince nor the audience could explain.

It was smart writing, rather than a plot hole to include this illusion. The writer "created" an illusion that we, the viewing audience also cannot explain, while tying in the story of Excalibur. It was a satirical ploy by Eisenhim to taunt the unworthy and extremely smug Crown Prince's desire to rule.

It was not meant to be an explainable real life illusion.

reply

[–] EibhlinnSavage 15 years ago

Oh I understand that. I'm just saying that does not impress me. The sword trick is really the only one that fits into the story in a way that it doesn't matter whether it is explainable or not. The orange tree, the butterflies, the ghost coming out of the mirror, etc... don't fit in the story in the same way, aare so obviously impossible we are not impressed by the characters' talents and are not impressive enough cinematically to truly show off the cinema magic. In other words: they're just pretty. I need more than pretty.

Eibhlinn Savage

[insert movie quote]

reply

[–] kjs-2 14 years ago

Again all the tricks in the film were performed at that time in history!!!

reply

[–] Fad64 13 years ago

No, no they weren't. All the tricks in the movie went far, far beyond what they could actually do at the time...and for that matter, what we can do today.

reply

[–] kjs-2 14 years ago

Wrong! They show in the film that it was a magnet!

reply

[–] eyebit 14 years ago

You mean when the show for a view seconds how the tip of sword is dragged around the floor...I thought so too. cheers

reply

[–] Dejay 12 years ago

I don't get how people like prestige more because their tricks get explained - with pure fantasy / science fiction. Prestige is impossible, the Illusionist plausible (taking into account that the people at that time might well perceive the tricks as we did in the movie).

I totally get why people like the prestige more. Personally, I only liked the prestige, but I loved the illusionist.

reply

[–] timlin-4 12 years ago

Plausible...if it didn't really happen that way? That's actually called "implausible"

reply

[–] jleslie48 11 years ago

did I miss something or is everybody forgetting we wasn't performing on a stage but was invited to the palace to perform tricks? he would not of been able to put anything under the "stage"

reply

[–] my_boomstick 9 years ago

I'm sorry, but The Prestige is miles ahead of this film. Having said that I still enjoyed this one for what it was, it's just lightweight.

reply

[–] theworstemailever 14 years ago

Could have simply been a tiny hole at the end of the tip of the sword about an inch or so from the tip. When he inserts the sword into the stage, a latch links through the hole and keeps it in place. The hole could have been triggered by an unseen trigger on the handle. This was Eisenheim's stage so he had time to prepare it earlier but he probably intended on this trick to be fun but then uses it to make fun of the Prince.

To release the latch under the stage he probably signalled his assistant to release it or flicked a switch on the floor with his foot seeing as how they didn't have remote controls at that time.

reply

[–] skoobydoo6789 9 years ago

I agree with this.

If it's all the same to you, I'll have that drink now.-Loki (Marvel's Avengers)

reply

[–] WowbaggerJR 16 years ago

Magic...

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dontworrybaby 16 years ago

People are so stupid that use the argument that E.T. isn't real so anything in a movie is possible. Do you people (that use this argument, not only you, i've seen it countless times) realize that a movie creates it's own universe? It is bound by the laws of the universe it creates. E.T. is a about an alien, it is real within the movie. LOTR is about elves and knights but it stays true to itself.

In this movie, they never imply that he has any sort of magical powers. He even admits that it is all an illusion, even the title of the movie is that he is an illusionist. Nothing suggests that he has any super powers other than the tricks that he does that are rediculously impossible. Then in the end, they go as far as even showing the schematics for his necklace and tree growing illusions. Prestige was million times better than this horrible movie.

reply

[–] superlava7 15 years ago

I agree with dontworrybaby 100%. This film is a piece of crap because they define the universe as being non-supernatural and that Eisenheim is just an illusionist. We find this out at the end of the film. This is something they make very clear at the end of the film, and it is in complete contrast with what we saw throughout the film. All of the tricks (other than the extremely simple and lame ones) in this film are impossible and unexplainable by the technological standards of the time (and some even by today's standards) and yet we're told he has no actual supernatural powers. That's called a PLOT HOLE.

reply

[–] wethrboy 15 years ago

What's wrong with the movie portraying itself and Eisenheim as non-supernatural? That is the way the real world is, after all.

------
If God created the universe, then who created God?

reply

[–] debiler 15 years ago

A very down-to-earth explanation of the trick: the two guys who tried to lift it but couldn't were in on the trick. Mystery solved.

___________________________________
I didn't like the Godfather, so what?

reply

[–] meecrofilm 15 years ago

Except the Prince himself has difficulty lifting the sword at first.

reply

[–] tracy-johnson-1 14 years ago

I think the filmmakers pushed the boat out with effects in order to emphasise the effect that the illusionist would have had on his audience at the time.
All of the illusions apparently have their origins in and around this period and could have been accomplished (if in a much less polished style) but if the filmmakers stuck rigidly to achieving these illusions practically then we (as a more sceptical modern audience, used to looking beyond the veil)would not have seen them as the amazing, seemingly supernatural feats they would have been perceived as being at the time.
The orange tree we saw was most definately CGI rather than some sort of mechanical contraption but at the time that would have been just as unfathomable and magical to the contemporary audience as the CGI effect seems to us.

reply

[–] Edren 14 years ago

It led us to believe one thing while actually being another, hmmmm, sounds a bit like the sort of thing a movie might do.

Life is just one damned thing after another - Elbert Hubbard

reply

[–] kjs-2 14 years ago

All the illusions shown in this film are historically accurate which is probably why you see schematics, etc.

reply

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

Lol I agree with EVERYTHING you said, except that I don't think The Illusionist was horrible. I think it was quite entertaining.

reply

[–] steven-digby-2 16 years ago

** Spoiler **

Both the Orange Tree trick and the ghostly images on stage trick are explained in the book "Hiding the Elephant: How Magicians Invented the Impossible" (Jim Steinmeyer). Although the film makers are being a bit flexible with the truth.

I believe it's intended for the viewer to know that all the magic was slight-of-hand trickery, even if you don't actually know how it's done. The whole point of the ending is to tell you, yes, it was all fake after all.

He's a semi-aquatic, egg-laying, mammal of action

reply

[–] steven-digby-2 16 years ago

This reply is based on Robert Houdin's heavier and lighter box. Take a wooden box place it on the ground. Ask someone to pick it up - they can't. You pick it up - it's easy. Place it on the ground again - it can't be picked up until you give the magic word. Sound familiar?

OK, so it's not actually the ground you put the box on, it's the stage, and the box is not just wood but also lined with iron or steel. And under the stage is an electric magnet.

If you watch the film you can see that there is a small stage - you can see Leopold step up onto it. It's only about 8 inches high but that's enough to hide all the equipment. It's not far fetched at all to assume that Eisenheim brought the stage with him.

Let's suppose that Eisenheim brought a box or some other iron prop with him but on seeing Leopold showing off he improvised with the sword. any small mainly iron prop would have done.

He's a semi-aquatic, egg-laying, mammal of action

reply

[–] bjurstedt 16 years ago

That still wouldn't explain the sword balancing on its tip. Magnets don't work that way.

As many people have stated, the tricks shown in this movie might be possible today with some modifications, but under the circumstances of the story line of this movie, they are simply silly.

reply

[–] steven-digby-2 16 years ago

That still wouldn't explain the sword balancing on its tip. Magnets don't work that way.

Well, yes. Also a sword is the wrong shape to be hard to pull away from a magnetic field. It's easier to pull a steel pin away from a magnet when just the tip is touching the magnet than when the pin is lying across the magnet.

Let's not get too far away from the fact that this is a film with special effects.

He's a semi-aquatic, egg-laying, mammal of action

reply

[–] snuffles_animagus 16 years ago

I was always terrible at Physics, but would a supermagnet work? *shrugs*

reply

[–] Pikaroth76 16 years ago

I think within the film it is fairly obvious there are megnets involved. At the end of the scene when he does, in fact, pull it up, there is a little "zap" sound, like an electro-magnet being turned off. I'd ask everyone to watch the scene again and turn the volume up.

reply

[–] user-1993 16 years ago

Yes, there is a BZZZZZZT. It's obviousy made with electro-magnets.

reply

[–] Acceler8 16 years ago

Not only that, but for just a second they actually show the area under the floor when the blade is being pulled out.

reply

[–] nasor 16 years ago

As others have pointed out, it would probably be impossible to do this sort of trick with magnets because there would be no way to make the sword balance on its point - a magnet would simply pull the sword over sideways. Try balancing a nail on its point over a magnet and see how that works out for you. Magnets might be the explanation within the film, but if that's the case then the writers picked an explanation that doesn't actually fit with how real-world magnets work. The only options seem to be to scold the writers for a bit of shoddy writing, or keep trying to think of a different explanation. Personally I'm leaning toward the former.

reply

[–] Plague2005 15 years ago

But how did he turn it off? He didn't make any move to turn it off.

<<-- Mess With The Best, Die Like The Rest -->>

reply

[–] bsantosu 15 years ago

A magnet is too obvious. The way a magic trick tricks you is to work in a way that isn't so obvious.

I don't know how the trick was done but another way it could of been with leverage with a tiny clip on the floor so small it wasn't visible to the casual observer. The sword tip could clip in.

reply

[–] jasondabrams 15 years ago

At the time of the movies release, they said that all the tricks were real, not done with cgi or post production. That makes this a very valid argument.

Has it occurred to anybody that it may not have been the princes sword at all, but a hastily prestidigitated replica, intended for this trick. Perhaps he distracted the prince with this trick whilst an assistant pried the stones from the real sword.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Vanderelt 14 years ago

Haha, good point - I've had a few of those pens too! It's a nice idea as it removes the problem that a magnet underneath would pull the sword down flat - but it creates an equally large one, which is that it then isn't hard to pick the sword up. I mean, think of the pen: you'd never be able to use it if the magnet meant it was impossible to pull it off its stand, but this isn't the case - you can obviously lift it off easily when there's no magnet below, and this is the opposite of what we see with the sword. I like the notion someone suggested that the little stage could have been brought by Eisenheim pre-rigged with electromagnets, and he improvised with the sword instead of a planned iron prop when challenged by the Crown Prince - even if this doesn't get around the problem of the sword not falling over, it's at least a half-decent in-universe explanation of what we see, which is the about the best you can hope for when there's so many appparent plot holes left unexplained on screen.

In general, I was a little bugged by the way we had such a good view of the tricks in 'The Illusionist' that it ruled out many of the techniques and mechanics an actual illusionist would have used, as these literal smoke and mirrors would tend to require a static, frontal audience view to pull off - not to mention the way the effects appeared so much more advanced than the mechanics of the time would allow the historical tricks to look. As someone else has mentioned on here, Jim Steinmeyer's excellent book 'Hiding The Elephant' describes many of the practices used in the golden age of stage illusions: dim memories of these kept floating into my mind while watching the 'magic' scenes, but the perspectives the camera took made it obvious we had to be watching modern trickery rather than than its period equivalent - OK, it looks cool, but I'd have been more impressed and fascinated to see genuine recreations of Victorian illusions, even if this meant the camera had to keep the audience's point-of-view for them to work. At least you could then enjoy wondering at the technique involved even if it wasn't revealed, just like watching a modern-day magic show, whereas it feels like a bit of a con to present something openly described by Eisenheim as mere stagecraft in a way that could only be achieved with CGI and/or camera cuts.

Again, we're left as a fan community struggling to hammer the square peg of what we see into the round hole of what makes logical sense. For me, the one explanation so far ventured here that knocks enough corners off these plot issues is the point that the whole film is narrated in voiceover by Chief Inspector Uhl, and so presumably it illustrates his personal memory of the events. (We just have to ignore how some bits of it contain stuff he couldn't possibly know about.) The magic is presented in a way that appears utterly lifelike and astonishing because that's how it would have seemed to him. This ties in with the climax, where we actually see Uhl visualise a series of recollections in flashback to show just how the sequence of events now looked to him - illuminating how the success of Eisenheim and Sophie's scheme had depended upon him piecing the story together only as they intended him to in order to arrive at exactly the right wrong conclusion, which resulted in Leopold's suicide and them being free to live happily ever after. This notion that what we appear to witness is filtered through the perception of one character does hand-wave (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandWave) many of the problems away, which is about the best you can hope for really!

reply

[–] kjs-2 14 years ago

Except that all the tricks shown in the film are historically accurate. People at the time the film was set in actually performed these tricks.

reply

[–] uwebollfan30 16 years ago

Real MAGICK

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kjs-2 14 years ago

He shows the magnet to somebody in the film! I have only seen this film once when it came out and I still remember that donut shape of the electro-magnet. All the tricks are historically accurate to the time period. There was a ton of research that went into making this film. Stop comparing a small period piece with a blockbuster thrillride. They are nowhere near the same kind of film.
-Karl

reply

[–] morganseer 14 years ago

I just watched this movie, and there is no donut shape electro-magnet.

reply

[–] xchar 13 years ago

Could a hidden magnet explain the sword's balancing on its tip?

Take a look at this video, starting about 3 minutes in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TXXVDQaeYM
The magnet makes the pieces of iron stand straight up vertically.

Yeah, these are just tiny iron filings, but it's also a very weak magnet.
Would a much stronger electromagnet make a sword balance on its tip, and make it hard to pull up? I dunno, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I also wouldn't be surprised if a skilled illusionist--such as The Amazing Randi--could reproduce all of the illusions in this film.

reply

[–] demonic_sage 14 years ago

Its very possible that there is one magnet underneath the sword, and as well one above in the ceiling. So that the sword cant fall to the ground. Also, as soon as someone touches the sword they turn of the magnet that is above stuck on the ceiling. And then turns it on again as soon as the "person" drops the sword. Creating the illusion that the sword is stuck/floating above the ground and cant be "loosened", (as if been stuck into the ground, but we cant see it-excalibur).
All that is needed is a "helper", that turns of and on the magnet.
Also the tree looks way to realistic, BUT we get to see the trick as the audience back then did. Meaning it shouldnt look that realistic if it were made on a real-life-stage nowadays, but we get to see it as they did, and to them it looked realistic and magical.
Think of us showing them the movie "Avatar". The people would think that world is REAL.

reply

[–] nasor 14 years ago

No, it's not, for many reasons.

1. We see that the room has a high ceiling, and there's no way he could have made a magnet powerful enough to affect the sword from so far away.

2. Even if he could make a magnet powerful enough to hold the sword in place from so far away, this would have caused all the random crap in people's pockets etc. to fly up to it and stick to the ceiling.

3. It is not plausible that he could have had huge electromagnets+generators etc. installed in the Duke's own house without the Duke knowing about it.

reply

[–] jimakros 14 years ago

its so funny people try to explain this ridiculously impossible trick.

reply

[–] Osmell37 14 years ago

Why is it such a big deal that the tricks/illusions go unexplained? It adds to the intrigue, for me at least.

reply

[–] stevorino0 13 years ago

Each and every trick seen in this movie has been around for a long time. Granted in real life they would not be as high-quality and convincing, but the seed of inspiration for those tricks do exist. The director just took the artistic liberty to elevate those already incredible illusion tricks to a higher level in the effort to make the movie more "artsy."

The orange tree, for example, is a real trick. Its just that in real life, it doesn't grow out of the ground, but much of the tree is already there, and it sprouts leaves and oranges, and then fake butterflies carry the woman's handkerchief. Still impressive, just not the level of artsy as shown in the movie.

And the "spirit" people were just elaborately manufactured smoke/light illusions, which utilized real people, and is a real illusion trick. Again, in real life, it wouldn't look THAT convincing, but without a doubt it would still shock an unsuspecting audience, ESPECIALLY at that time period.

As already stated here, the reason for this was to add an extra aura of illusion and magic to the norton character.

"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me."

reply