Chances are a lot of people missed "The Illusionist" when it bowed in wide release over the Labor Day weekend. With little to no marketing support and only one real well known name in the cast (Edward Norton), it´s no wonder this film has flown so far under the radar that even if it was mentioned right now, 90% of the people asked wouldn´t have heard of it. And that is a shame because, had anyone given "The Illusionist" a chance, there´s a high probability they´d like what they saw.
The film tells the story of a magician, Eisenheim (Norton), whose true love was stripped from him as a youngster because they grew up on opposite sides of the 1890´s tracks. This girl, Sophie (Jessica Biel), comes back into his life later as the finance of Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), a pompous and selfish man plotting to take control of his country. Leopold is so humiliated by both Sophie and Eisenheim that he seemingly can´t bear to let her go. When an apparent disaster befalls her, Eisenheim begins a series of tricks to implicate Leopold not only in her death, but also as the mastermind behind a plot to wrestle control of Austria.
Yes, "The Illusionist" is a period piece. All the main events occur in turn of the century Vienna; however, unlike most other period films, the oft-used (and usually difficult to understand) period dialogue is noticeably absent for most of the two hour running time. Speaking of the running time, two hours has never felt as short as it does here. To be perfectly fair, a good chunk of the movie takes place in flashback, giving the audience all the necessary information to catch them up to where the film starts.
And it starts with Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) talking with Leopold shortly after arresting Eisenheim. This is a peculiar place for the movie to suddenly start and, truth be told, the backstory is so engrossing that you don´t really remember this is all a flashback until Uhl begins talking again in voiceover. It´s a credit to the script that it can make us forget the events on screen are basically a story device to show-as opposed to tell-the things that led us to this particular point.
But, in the end, like nearly all stories, it comes down to the girl. In essence, Leopold has been humiliated one too many times by Eisenheim. The first is never more obvious than in the party sequence. Eisenheim performs a trick in which the Crown Prince´s sword takes on properties of Excalibur, the mythical sword in the stone no one can remove. Two men try to pry the sword´s tip away from the floor to no avail. When Leopold tries to do the same, at first he can not succeed. Then, when the illusionist sees the anger boiling inside him, he releases it. For a man who is overly prideful and terribly vain, this hits him like a ton of bricks. After all, no one has ever defied him in any way. Why should this mere commoner be allowed to?
Shortly thereafter, Sophie and Eisenheim spend their first night together. Leopold´s plan-to wrestle control from his father once he and Sophie are married-becomes known to both of them and they begin the plans. To say more would spoil the ending.
So let´s talk about it in the most general terms possible. I´m not a fan of films that connect all the dots for the audience, showing them exactly what happened step by step. Here, though, he get to see what Uhl remembers when he comes to the realization about how Eisenheim performed his last trick. And, for some reason I can´t quite put my finger on, it works. The climax cuts between Uhl´s slowly enchanted face and the information he puts together in his head-information he´s had for the entire movie. The audience, for those who haven´t figured it out yet, will find their mouths open just as much as Uhl´s. The key thing to remember is that everything said and done by Eisenheim is for a reason. He doesn´t talk just to hear himself speak. It all matters.
I would love to say that Edward Norton plays the second best role of his career here (the first being "American History X"), but I can´t. His performance of Eisenheim has some wonderful acting moments, but at this point it´s impossible to separate him from the terrifying skinhead he played in "America History X". Even though I knew these were two different movies with radically different themes, I still had the image of Derrick Vinyard being arrested outside his house for smashing the head of an attempted thief against the curb. For better or worse, that´s the image most people will carry with them whenever the name "Edward Norton" comes up. And it´s crying shame too, since Norton is one of the best actors out there right now (most likely top five).
The main cast is rounded out by Giamatti and Biel. When one of the big revelations occurs regarding Biel´s Sophie, I couldn´t help but think she had a terribly small part. In reality, though, looking back on it, she was in the majority of the film. What´s more is that, outside of some earl sequences in which she´s not at all credible as royalty of any kind, she rises to the acting level needs her to achieve. Her crowning moment is the scene with Leopold when they have their fight. Leopold is completely out of control, going from complete serenity to raving lunatic in a matter of seconds (a credit to Sewell). She more than holds her own when a lesser actress would have caved.
I´m not as familiar with Giamatti as other people are, so I can´t compare his performance with anything he´s done previously. In "The Illusionist", though, he does a very good job of disappearing into the character and communicating with the audience via facial expressions about what is going on in his head. There is no way he can do anything about the ruthlessness of the Crown Prince. First, he has no authority on royal property and, second, he has been promised a promotion once Leopold takes control. Which all sounds well and good until he begins having doubts about the prince. He´s a man with morals and ethics which supercede any personal advancement. Despite the fact he´s been going against the protagonist Eisenheim for the majority of the film, the audience feels satisfied he´s figured out the entire trick at the end.
Early on, director Neil Berger (in only his second project) employs a great deal of irises as a camera tricks. Initially, when it happened, I was wary they would be everywhere in the film. While not something we see a lot of in modern cinema, it´s not exactly a move any one movie can employ too many times before it becomes redundant. It only happens a few times early on and then more traditional transitions are employed. Also, for many of the flashback sequences involving Sophie and Eisenheim as children, the camera looks at them through what can best be described as a fishbowl. The four corners of the screen are blackened, so it appears as though the audience is watching the events of the past unfold while looking through a fishbowl. The iris transition, the fishbowl and the newsreel look of the flashback sequences (overexposed, slightly grainy and tinted) all convey the fact we are watching past events and not something happening right now. Again, any of these elements aren´t things we see a lot in any given film; they, for example, wouldn´t work in "United 93" or "Superman Returns". But, because of the period nature of "The Illusionist", they work and don´t necessarily draw attention to themselves.
There is mention in critical circles about a supposed plot hole which plays a factor fairly late in the film. Actually, it helps Uhl put the pieces of the trick together. There are arguments for and against the cleaning of the horse stall, both of which I can understand. However, to keep the movie going and to get it to the inevitable "ah ha" moment at the end, the stall could not be cleaned up and the "evidence" destroyed. Instead of putting the characters, especially Uhl, into an untenable time line to find everything he needed, the story plays fast and loose with the goings-on in a royal manor. I´m alright with it. Does it stand out as a gaping problem? Of course not. Uhl and the story have to get to a certain place and this is how it was decided to get them both there. It would have been worse to see the potential problem and concoct a work around for it that was even less realistic than using the stall.
"The Illusionist" is going to be sadly overlooked when it comes time for the Oscars. While Norton may be the only actor even considered for an award, the production teams should all be recognized for their work here. Lush and realistic, this movie looks very good in nearly every respect. "The Illusionist" is a hands down winner for those who like to be amazed and suspend their disbelief enough to enjoy the film. On a scale of 1 to 10 (one being the worst, 10 being the best), "The Illusionist" gets a 7.