MovieChat Forums > The Illusionist (2006) Discussion > Why everyone has it wrong. Whole movie e...

Why everyone has it wrong. Whole movie explained.... *Spoilers*


I was reading the forums and I decided to address many questions most other reviewers had posted, regarding specific scenes in the movie. Everything can be easily explained by a plot device :- The Unreliable Narrator.

You have to remember, the whole movie is told from the perspective of the Chief of Police. He is the narrator, and he guides us through the events as they unfolded SEEN THROUGH HIS EYES. So the whole movie, in effect is an illusion, as it offers a distortion of true facts.

Many have questioned how the inspector could not have known Sophie was not really dead, when he had checked her pulse/held her hand

Ans:- The Unreliable Narrator exaggerated the apparent death-like state of Sophie, in order to cover up his own incompetence. She was not really dead, and she did not really have a dead pulse, HE SAW IT that way.

Similarly, a lot of people question how the final illusion was faked (the disappearance of Edward Norton's character from the stage in front of an audience).

Ans:- The Unreliable Narrator exaggerated the effectiveness of the illusion. It is his version of how he 'disappeared into thin air'. We might never really know how Edward Norton's character actually escaped.

Similarly, the effectiveness of other illusions might also be exaggerated. The whole back story of Eisenheim and Sophie is also probably false.

Maybe Sophie really did get killed, and the whole movie might even be an elaborate revenge plot by Eisenheim.

In the end, a great movie overall. This is my viewpoint, what do you think?

reply

A typical case of overthinking it. This movie was pretty straight forward. Now you just have to deal with that.

reply

I rly like that idea, i buy it, and now the film even got better, thank u infernalhell666, and i also think that this is a movie for "overthinking ppl" that love to analyze.

reply

This is actually pretty great, it explains all the magic and faking of Sophies death, although I don't think the director was aiming at that.
In the quick scene when the inspector experience an epiphany, it is shown that he gave Sophie some kind of drink to make her awake from her "death", so the explanation is magic itself?! That defies the meaning of the movie, or was that vision also from inspectors mind? In that case it is a great thing that the story teller was just a bit stupid and incompetent (probably a liar to), rather than schizophrenic, then we would see not only flying butterflies but flying emperor, satan, hobbits and who knows what else.
Director didn't make it clear that this was purely inspector side of the story.
Lot of things were left unexplained, and that is why this movie isn't as clever as, say, Prestige and just felt lazy, even with your explanation it seems it has less holes, but feels even more lazy. Moreover, Eisenheims "plan" was as far fetched as an episode of CSI, and why he took precious stones from the sword before is dumb and dangerous if your plan is to drug him and take his sword anyway.
We are left without an explanation on how he tricked them, and that seems to be the point of the movie, but only thing we are left with is that ether the narrator was blind or it was real magic, all in all, not clever but ok movie.

In your way you could justify plot holes from many movies, I remember that my brother explained all the nonsenses from Prometheus in a similar way, he invented the whole story that wasn't shown in the movie and it kind of makes Prometheus more or less coherent.

reply

it is shown that he gave Sophie some kind of drink to make her awake from her "death", so the explanation is magic itself?!

Why would giving her a drink be magic? Maybe it was some sort of a natural concoction that reversed the effect of making her appear dead.

Director didn't make it clear that this was purely inspector side of the story.

Ugh, it wasn't made 100% clear so it's lazy.. God forbid a little room was left for "magic" in the end.

The growing plant illusion was shown at an almost 360 angle (to me that seemed like the most incredible illusion in the film, since it was shown not just from the in-movie-audience perspective) and in the end, the inspector does find the schematics for the trick. Should be enough said.



reply

[deleted]

"So the whole movie, in effect is an illusion, as it offers a distortion of true facts."
True facts as opposed to what - false facts?

reply

[deleted]

I was thinking the same and wounding if anyone see that .. Uhl is unreliable narrator .. He was trying to explain how perfect the whole thing is ..

reply

[deleted]