MovieChat Forums > The Illusionist (2006) Discussion > The tricks vs reality vs movies

The tricks vs reality vs movies

posted 16 years ago by puschit-1
17 replies | jump to latest

It has been discussed already but always as side discussions in threads that were originally about something else. Please keep on reading thoroughly because the topic is three-fold.

My main complaint about this movie is that the tricks were unrealistical and that they used CGI to do them. Let me explain.

The movie is called "The Illusionist". The movie and Edward Norton should enchant us, the movie watchers, as much as the audience in the movie. They should have sticked more to reality OR they should have shot everything without using any CGI or "trick shots".

Let me explain further.

One important aspect of this movie is that while watching you are constantly guessing if he is just doing tricks or if he is really using some kind of magic. When the movie is over, you know that there was no magic, just tricks. You see him passing the schematics for the orange tree trick to Uhl.
However, if he was supposed to use real tricks, then they MUST be real tricks or least tricks where one could imagine how it was pulled off. Otherwise the entire movie doesn't work.
I can imagine that he was using a projector or something to summon his "ghosts". However, holograms that are walking through the entire room and through people isn't possible even today. Same for the sword. I can imagine some trick to make the sword stand upright. But not one to make it glued to the ground at will so that strong men cannot take it. He did not even blink in order to give it free. And I doubt that he was able to rig the prince's palace with giant magnets or whatever.

Then the orange tree. I could clearly see that it was CGI. That means, I know that there was no orange tree at all when Edward Norton the actor played that scene. But later on this trick was revealed to be a mechanic device. That's lame, if it was mechanic, then show something real in the movie. Otherwise, every attempt to figure out if he was using magic or not is futile.

Another example is the necklace that he gave to Biel. They showed it opening two or three time in closeup. And every time there was a cut between twisting the ends and opening the heart. That's because they had two of these thingies, one that is tube shape and twistable but cannot be opened after twisting and one that is heartshaped and can be openend but not twisted. That's because such a device is impossible. At least it is impossible that it can hold a picture inside without cutting of knitting it. But when Uhl finds and opens it in the stable, the picture falls to the ground, unharmed and in perfect shape.

Don't get me wrong here, I am able to suspend my disbelief when it is needed but these things just don't make any sense. If they used their CGI in a way that I can't tell that it's CGI (orange tree), then I would not complain. If the necklace was twisted and opened in one take without cuts and without me noticing that CGI was used, then I could easily give in. But this mixture destroyed the illusion for me. Much like christmas will never be the same again once you discovered that santa isn't real and that your neighbour just jumped into a costume.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] puschit-1 16 years ago

In another thread, someone did say something that I had not considered before. That we see these illusions the way it could have appeared to the people of that time period, instead of how the tricks themselves would look in real life if we saw them now. I'll accept that idea to a degree...but I still find the growing fruit unrealistic.

I could accept that as well IF:

* I didn't see that CGI was used (i does make even less sense under these conditions)
* it didn't involve tricks like the one with the sword. I bet someone from back then would still be able to pull the sword if it was just glued to the ground with bubblegum ...
* The camera didn't circle around the stage, showing us everything in detail from all angles

Last one is important and I missed it in my opening post. It's one thing to do the mirror trick in front of an audience that can only see it frontally. For example, you could use normal see-through glass and an actress behind it that i skilled enough to mimic von Teschen. But if you see it from the side like we did, this would not work. Heck, in the movie the image in the mirror still looked 3dimensional while the camera was moving around!
Same is true for this smoke-ghost, let's say he creates real smoke somehow and uses a projector so that the light will illuminate the smoke but it's too weak to cut through. This would have some great effect and would look like a ghost, however, if you see it from the side, then you would see the projectorlight.

Tricks like the butterflies or the picture were okay. You still don't know how he made it but at least can imagine that there's some sort of trick and I could not tell for sure that it was CGI, so these things were okay for me.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] puschit-1 16 years ago

Sure, I have. All I said that it was a bad choice. He may keep his artistic licence, of course, but his art wasn't able to deliver what he intended to.

[–] badcommand 16 years ago

Whilst I don't disagree with you in principal, it should be noted that Robert-Houdin performed the blossoming orange-tree trick, complete with butterflies carrying a lady's handkerchief in the middle of the 19th century!

However, I doubt it was a spectacular as the CGI version :)

[–] puschit-1 16 years ago

Yeah and if they used something mechanical in the movie as well, I wouldn't have complained. If a single person could do that in the 19th century with his selfmade gadgets in front of a live audience without them noticing, then Hollywood should be able to do that in multi million dollar movie where they can use all sorts of camera tricks without using CGI. It would have been much more convincing.

[–] badcommand 16 years ago

Another thought I had was this: in the 19th century, tricks and illusions of this type would've been mindblowing for the audience, way beyond what they thought was capable at that time.

Perhaps the filmmakers were trying to convey that feeling of wonder by presenting us with similar tricks that we think of as mindblowing and not possible at this time?

Dunno, just a thought.

[–] puschit-1 16 years ago

Okay, this would be possible, but if this was the case, it was just lost on me. It would have worked 12 years ago but not now, where CGI is everywhere and something normal.

[–] soundwave5 15 years ago

It's a movie, I'll let it go.

The effect they're trying to recreate is how startling these things must've been for an audience in the early 1900s.

Remember back then, people couldn't believe what they were seeing when they first saw the film projector.

Audiences today of course are accustomed to modern tech, but I think the point in the film is to create that same "awe" the audience back then must've been fooled into feeling by just mechanical tricks or tricks with mirrors.

[–] dragon70 14 years ago

Something the director mentions in his commentary on the DVD is that the sword trick would have been done with electro-magnets which are more common today but little known back then.

[–] pinkchi 16 years ago

To me he may know real magic.. maybe the plan for the orange tree is fake, to appease that guy.

[–] O_Possum 16 years ago

I'm a fan of stage magic, and I would like to have seen the makers of The Illusionist present Eisenheim's tricks in a realistic manner rather than with CGI.

EDIT: To be fair to the director, I should say I just watched the DVD commentary, and the director points out that the story is told, in flashback, by the police inspector, so the tricks are depicted the way he remembers them.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19910506,00.html
Scientology: Cult of Greed

[–] Amills23 15 years ago

Actually all of the tricks are based on real tricks that were performed during that time period. The trick are overblown but they are real. If you watch the movie with director comentary on he tells you how all the tricks are performed.

The orange tree trick is actually a real trick and the mechanics shown in the notebook is actually how you would do it. For the movie they wanted to make the tree instead of using CGI, but it was taking too long so, they CGI the last branks and the oranges. The tree is actually real for the first half of the trick. Sounds nuts buts its true.

The sword trick would also work, but with the trick being at the princes house its a little more complex. The trick is based on the heavy light box trick. For the sword trick to have worked there would have to be an electro magnet under the floor. If the electro magnet was on you wouldn't be able to move the sword, but if it was off you would be able to.

Then there is also another explanation for the extravagence of some of the tricks. The movie is made as a flash back the inspector is talking to the crown prince about what happen and with the retelling of the story it got embellished. The only part that isn't a retelling is after the prince kills himself.

If you google orange tree trick or heavy light chest trick you can see the real tricks.

[–] nasor 15 years ago

As has already been pointed out many times, the sword trick could not be done with magnets, as magnets wouldn't make the sword balance on its point like we see in the movie.

Not to mention the wild implausibility of Norton setting up a bunch of electrical equipment under the Duke's own floor.

[–] Amills23 13 years ago

The trick is possible in theory. Now there is a difference between possible and probable.

You also need to remember the most of the movie is a retelling so in the retelling what happened could have been embellished.

[–] ttstoner 15 years ago

This post is the final verdict of the movie. Well done puschit-1!

Believe me, movie about magic is one of the hardest topic to make. Because all the visual effects, CGI and stuff are technically/visually magical for human being's eyes. One or two oops and you are suddenly making Harry Potter. So in order to make an audience friendly movie about stage magician, you have to reveal some secrets of the magician's trick. Otherwise it's just another cheesy CGI flick. And having the story being told by the inspector's POV is another fatal choice. This would be a more interesting work if the entire movie was rewritten, but not from the inspector's point. Many plot holes could have been saved instead. The twist is your biggest weapon and you can't just show it all by spinning you camera around the inspector's head.

And that explains the difference between Neil Burger and Christopher Nolan.

But anyhow, it's still a beautiful movie (come on it's Prague), and way more enjoyable than 80% of other Hollywood trashes.

[–] muskeato 14 years ago

You seriously think the necklace is 'impossible'? Ok, well, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3i4W_d5su8&feature=related Enjoy!