MovieChat Forums > The Illusionist (2006) Discussion > Alternate theory on the ending (spoilers...

Alternate theory on the ending (spoilers, obviously)

posted 13 years ago by mquinn1-357-566242
9 replies | jump to latest

All the twist endings around the time The Illusionist came out, and the incongruously happy and serene fairy tale ending here got me thinking.

I haven't seen this theory expressed elsewhere, so there are probably one or more good reasons why it's incorrect. But until enlightened, I will consider this added layer of brilliant psychological insight to be the obscure, pivotal masterstroke of The Illusionist, setting it a step above a lot of other movies.

Theory: Leopold did kill Sophie. The ambitious, exceptional Eisenheim was crushed by the state. The film's happy ending exists only in Uhl's mind as the bureaucrat's self-justifying rationalization, which allows the otherwise decent, intelligent Uhl to feel better about carrying out evil acts under orders from a tyrant.

According to this theory, Eisenheim didn't have a Super Happy Ending (S.H.E.) to look forward to after Sophie's supposedly faked death. And he wasn't delaying the S.H.E. and putting it at added risk to stick around and frame Leopold for a non-murder. His motivation for destroying Leopold was to seek justice/revenge, and not just a lark or political act. He was adamant about exposing the murderer of his beloved Sophie.

As partial evidence, look at Eisenheim's face in the scenes after Sophie's death. Does he seem to be up to one last elaborate trick on his way to indulging in his lifelong dream of running off with Sophie? To me, he looks like he's half-dead himself. This lies is stark contrast with the bright, sunshiny Norton of the last scene.

Instead, during the final scenes, Uhl, like the viewer, would very much like to think that the worst hadn't happened. Then, in a moment of revelation (and here, the director chooses shots which circle Uhl's head to designate the switch to his perspective), Uhl and we, begin to sense that this may be another twist ending. Maybe Eisenheim found a way to pull it off?

Uhl congratulates himself on his own powers of observation and memory (how reliable!), and his ability to pull together all the threads into one narrative, which just happens to be self-serving. He's got quite a smile on his face in that revelation scene, hasn't he? He's satisfied with himself despite the evils that he is at least partially responsible for during Leopold's reign.

The film's final illusion is Uhl's.

Plausible?

[–] floppypig_16 13 years ago

Over-interpreting. This film is pretty straight-forward, you're reading into it waaay too much.

[–] mquinn1-357-566242 13 years ago

I heard somewhere that the first thing that you should do in criticizing a piece of art or argument is to begin with the strongest interpretation that is supported by the work itself and engage with that version. I'm not sure where I picked this up, but it's done me a lot of good over the years.

So the message board for this film is littered with commenters who are saying the straight-forward twist as they understand it is predictable, shallow, incongruous, and lame, and I sort of agree.

But if a deeper interpretation is supported by the work and that interpretation improves the film from your perspective (as this interpretation does from my perspective), why not engage with the work on that more satisfying level?

Personally, I find it deeply satisfying to look upon this film as an allegory of how human frailty (in this case, that of Uhl) is prone to play out as self-delusion and even self-congratulation under certain forms of government (in this case, monarchy).

[–] jdown-1 12 years ago

Oh for Pete's sake.

[–] dalehoustman 12 years ago

Upon viewing the film, I will admit that your interpretation did not occur to me, nor do I think it is supported by the film as is: if it had been the intention of the film to front the inspector as a sort of unreliable narrator, it would have been relatively easy to have framed the film in a such a way, and to have moved him more to the center of the story that would have emphasized it just that little more that would have made that more likely. As is, I can't see that it could have been intentional, or - at least - that the film makers have been fairly inept at presenting this notion.

However - that said - I really like the idea, and think it might have lent another layer to the notion of illusion/delusion, and - in the process - fleshed out he psychology of the film which is not all that deep as is. Surely the inspector is easily the most interesting character from the viewpoint of human emotions under stress and self-guilt, and I think you are on to something aesthetically, if not - as I read - it from a correct interpretation angle. Good thought though...

[–] dsrtrosy-1 12 years ago

I actually have seen this posited elsewhere and it does have some support, both in the story and the cinematography.

Every time we get Uhl's perspective on Eisenheim's history, the edges get blurry. It's not memory--he hasn't actually seen these things--it's image building in his mind. If you watch carefully, you'll see that he imagines the magical aspects of Eisenheim's history as fantastical realism in the same way he sees the show performed (the orange tree trick is the perfect example). Eisenheim constantly downplays the impressiveness of his own abilities, and even tells Sophie that he didn't go anywhere exotic when he left home, but only to his uncles farm. Eventually he gives the details of the orange tree to Uhl and it's nothing more than a mechanical contraption.

Ultimately, the ending is nothing more than Uhl's speculation based on his fascination with illusion. He is the constant narrator and observer of the story. We can only guess whether he has figured it out, or attributed an even greater illusion to his idol than the man could actually carry out.

[–] dalehoustman 12 years ago

I must say that I tend to agree with both the aesthetic beauty of the idea, and that - perhaps - it was also intended within the film. The only quibble I have is that this idea (which deepens the film's psychology) is not particularly well-executed in the movie. One wants a certain degree of ambiguity throughout of course, and it is a fine line here, and difficult to achieve, but I think the idea was not perfectly limned in the presentation: it needed a shade more emphasis on the inspector's role to make us realize the extent that the story is being told from his perspective and thus open to certain interpretations. Still, the movie was good, and the idea better: they just do not quite come together in the viewing I think.

[–] clickbait 11 years ago

yep, i rly like this theory mquinn1, i buy it and now the film got even better in my opinion.

[–] deddhedd-1 11 years ago

For this theory to work, Sophie has to be really dead (not resting or pining).

Then how do you explain her appearances on stage (twice) in the "illusion" near the end of the film?

It was clearly her. And the Inspector was not the only one who saw her.

Eisenheim did have the power to contact the other side despite his statements to the contrary????? I don't think so.

[–] deddhedd-1 11 years ago

Another "hole" in this theory:

If Sophie was dead, then what was all that conspiracy about with respect
to the "fake" doctor? We hear the "fake" doctor at the train station asking
Eisenheim "she understands everything this entails?",
"she" presumably being Sophie (who else could he have meant?).

Later the "fake" doctor rushed the examination of Sophie's "corpse"
by the police.

What possible reason would the "fake" doctor have for being there
if not to prevent a detailed examination of the body?

Sorry--the more I think about this theory, the less sense it makes!