The Illusionist...

[fajrdrako]

I went to see The Illusionist at the Empire World Exchange Cinema with Donna and my painful ear. it seems neither better nor worse, and the movie was a nice way to forget about it as much as possible.

Good movie. I keep forgetting what I've seen Edward Norton in - what I fail to remember him in. I know he is imprinted in my memory as a 'good actor' - and it seems from looking at IMDb that I know him from Kingdom of Heaven and Fight Club. In Fight Club, of course, he was excellent. Kingdom of Heaven was a poorly-scripted, badly-conceived, disappointing movie in which there were only two good performances - one by Jeremy Irons, and the other by Edward Norton in a mask. He played the Leper King, Baldwin IV, who is one of my historical heroes. Played him very well, through body language.

The story is of an Austian magician around 1910 (judging from the clothes) who fell in love, in his youth, with a high-born girl. When he returns to Vienna with a spectacular magic act, he meets her again - she is now on the verge of marrying Crown Prince Leopold, sadistic son of the Emperor, who would rather kill her than lose her and the political advantage she would give him. The girl was played by Jessica Biel - currently my pick for Cordelia Naismith. So the Illusionist makes plans to get her away from the Crown Prince.

Once again Rufus Sewell played the villain - and he was magnificent as the evil Leopold, though I confess I'd rather see him play a hero. I hadn't known Rufus Sewell was in this beforehand; had I known, my eagerness to see it would have tripled.

It was convicing in its evocation of an era, and delightfully original. Visually beautiful, with a lot of sepia tones, colour-intensity contrasts, and close-ups. They had to do some odd things with viewpoint to make the plot work, but that was fine.

A clever movie.

Comments

[destina.livejournal.com]

Edward Norton was completely convincing as a white supremacist in American History X. Honestly, he made my blood run cold. I've loved him ever since. And I'm really looking forward to The Illusionist, especially now that I've read your post.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, he's certainly worth seeing. Now I'm trying to picture him as a white supremicist - I can imagine that he would be chilling. What an actor! I think that what impressed me most is that - unusual though Eisenheim was - he always seemed convincing as a man of his time.

[msilverstar]

Oh that's a better review than the newspaper had, I may go for it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I would recommend it. The story isn't entirely linear - you'll see - but it sets up a convincing mood. I liked the approach. It's a very different sort of mystery - all sorts of misdirection.

[wanderinunicorn.livejournal.com]

Oh, I love Edward Norton - I've seen a couple of movies with him: "American History X", "Primal Fear", "People vers. Larry Flynt" and "Fight Club" (to me one of the most intersting movies at all, because I know a great deal about the boredom and emptiness of the modern life...). However I'm glad he made one another good movie.
I hope your ear will be better.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

"Fight Club" was fascinating. I must make a point of seeing those other movies.

Thanks for the good wishes about my ear. I'm still stalling a bit on calling the doctor, but I think I should... it's no worse, but no better.

[glinda-north.livejournal.com]

Edward Norton is always riveting. I saw a little clip of an interview with him describing his role in The Illusionist. Said he was a sort of darkly romantic, Heathcliff-type and, since he was never offered that type of role, he had to play him. :)

FWIW, Kingdom of Heaven becomes a much, much better movie in the director's cut. I won't say it's a great film, but it was sorely abused by the theatrical version.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

A Heathcliffe type? Yeah, I can see where he's coming from with that, but I've never been a fan of Heathchiffe, and I liked Eisenheim much more. But it's largely true: though he's not a bully or a barbarian like Heathcliffe was, he's the ambitious youth you loves a woman far above his station, and he's clever enough to manipulate events and get power in a world that would deny it to him. I liked the way he had dignity in adversity.

I should maybe watch the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, if I can get up the nerve for it.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Heathcliff is an evil bastard; Edgar, the kind-hearted widower with the good library, is far more appealing.

I should maybe watch the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, if I can get up the nerve for it.

Only if you are able to take a stiff drink with it. There is much abuse of history, and much abuse of Ibelins, Lusignans, and a very small Montferrat, who is depicted not only as a leper (it's not very contagious!) and being killed by his Mum. Still, it looks decorative, and at least - unlike all earlier Crusade movies - there's no Conrad-abuse, simply because he's not in it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Edgar, the kind-hearted widower with the good library, is far more appealing

Indeed. Though I don't much like anyone in Wuthering Heights. Quite a contrast to Jane Eyre, which is one of my favourite books, in which I love Jane and Rochester and sundry good characters, hate Blanche Ingram, the despicable Reeds, and the terrifying Mr. Brocklehurst. Pretty much on cue as the author intended, though I think Charlotte Bronte meant for St. John Rivers to be more attractive than I find him.

There is much abuse of history,

Well, to correct that, any of that, they'd have to make an entirely new movie. Balian would be a very different man, feudalism would exist, and the casting, script, and denouement would be entirely different. I suppose they could keep the old costumes.

and much abuse of Ibelins,

Faugh. I'm still not sure what I make of the Ibelins - I don't entirely trust them, I think they were more ambitious and power-hungry than they had any right to be, but they weren't all bad by any means. Or all good.

Lusignans,

Well. Lusignans. Wonderful people, really.

and a very small Montferrat, who is depicted not only as a leper (it's not very contagious!)

Or hereditary.

and being killed by his Mum.

Implying she thought her brother would have been better off killed when very young. I shudder.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Funny, I much prefer Wuthering Heights to Jane Eyre. Charlotte is my least favourite Brontë/O'Prunty: too much transparent wish-fulfilment. And I agree with John Sutherland that Rochester is not to be trusted... St John just needs to be made very drunk and seduced. I think it's a job for poor Bertha.


Well, to correct that, any of that, they'd have to make an entirely new movie.

Yup! I meant, they added a few more egregious infelicities to the DC that weren't in the TC. The king refusing the sacrament from the Patriarch?!!!

I'm still not sure what I make of the Ibelins - I don't entirely trust them, I think they were more ambitious and power-hungry than they had any right to be, but they weren't all bad by any means. Or all good.

I think the marriage of Balian to Maria gave him a right, and they did well for my boy's cause. Baldwin I don't much like, going off in a huff to Antioch. Hugh - blink and you'll miss him.

Implying she thought her brother would have been better off killed when very young. I shudder.

Yes. It was very, very dubious, especially given how the film had played down Baldwin IV's real level of disability.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

St John just needs to be made very drunk and seduced. I think it's a job for poor Bertha.

LOL. That I'd love to see!

But I've had a crush on Mr. Rochester since I was twelve. If Jane gets tired of him, I'll take him. I'd be happy to trust him. Any time.

The king refusing the sacrament from the Patriarch?!!!

He did? My mind is boggling.

Baldwin I don't much like, going off in a huff to Antioch. Hugh - blink and you'll miss him.

Balian was the best of the bunch. Baldwin was power-hungry, though I can't see that he actually did harm to the nation. Hugh? Yeah, he's about as notable as Humphrey III de Toron. Or less so.

especially given how the film had played down Baldwin IV's real level of disability.

Well, it was invisible movie-illness - a mask and a death. Cosmetic disease.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Baldwin of Ibelin is what I think of as a stirrer. If, as seems, he was involved plotting with Raymond of Tripoli and Bohemond of Antioch in their intended invasion of the kingdom in 1180, this led to Sibylla being hastily married off to Guy. If they hadn't been doing that, perhaps Sibylla would have been found a different husband.

Balian and Maria - yes, I love them. I sort of identify with Maria, wanting to marry her daughter off to Conrad. Wouldn't any mother?!

Well, it was invisible movie-illness - a mask and a death. Cosmetic disease.

Yes: no blindness, no being unable to walk or use his hands.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Baldwin of Ibelin is what I think of as a stirrer.

So he was, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing in some circumstances. In these? My current assessment is that he did Jerusalem more harm than good, though I'm prepared to listen to evidence otherwise.

I sort of identify with Maria, wanting to marry her daughter off to Conrad. Wouldn't any mother?!

I'd rather identify with Isabella, and marry him myself.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

In these? My current assessment is that he did Jerusalem more harm than good, though I'm prepared to listen to evidence otherwise.

Yes, I don't think Baldwin had his brother's staying-power. Stirring things, then leaving the country in a huff doesn't offer any constructive alternative.

I'd rather identify with Isabella, and marry him myself.

But the heartbreak! I just want to save the poor lad!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, I don't think Baldwin had his brother's staying-power.

I suspect he didn't have his brother's intelligence. Hard to tell, though. I used to have a theory as to why he went to Constantinople but I'd have to go back over my sources to reconstruct it.

Yes, poor Isabella had her share of heartbreak.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

A bit perplexing, given that the Habsburg problem was the Emperor's son had killed himself a few decades previously... Introducing fictional heirsto the throne in real, documented dynasties seems to me rather off...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Perplexing indeed. I looked up the family as soon as I got home, thinking that they must have been rewriting the Mayerling story, or extrapolating to a brother. But there was no brother, and the movie is sheer fantasy in more ways than one.

I am of mixed feelings. I think I am glad they gave the story a real historical setting, rather than making it a fictional country in a fictional world. The magic would be somehow less fantastical; it would then just be a world where these things happen. And the social history was more or less right for its time.

Leopold made me think of Prince Serg in the Bujold novels.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

It's perfectly possible to put a fictional country in the real world, though: the whole Ruritania genre works with that premise. You can have wider world events impacting on it, but complete freedom within it, re: personages and internal politics.

And I agree: Rufus should play more heroes. He's too attractive to be a baddie all the time.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

the whole Ruritania genre works with that premise.

Yes, and I like Ruritania, which is why my feelings are mixed. It might come out sort of like Caroline Stevermer... I think the anomaly of magic in a world we can think of as ours has more punch. In which case, why fictionalize the history?

Rufus Sewell does wonderful historical characters of all types, and I'd like to see him in a lot more heroic roles. I hope to. Who would I cast him as in Outremer? Hmm. Reynald de Chatillon, maybe. He can do the right kind of strength of character. And I like to play Reynald as hero, not villain. He might world for Raymond of Tiberias, too.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Indeed...
How about Rufus as one of your Lusignans?
(It's a pity he's not a blond... ;-D)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Rufus as a Lusignan? Hmm, interesting idea. Geoffrey, perhaps. Or the father of Guy and Aimery.

He could always dye his hair. He's certainly good at doing 'kingly'. Hmm, Amaury I? Or Fulk? I could see him as a Plantagenet.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

You know there's only one blond for me... ;-D

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

True, and I haven't quite found the blonde that would work for me as Conrad, though Sean Bean isn't a bad fit. Maybe someone halfway between Bean and Sewell, if we could morph them?

The kingliness fits.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Hm... I make do with Bean, as there was something about his Boromir that just suggested C. to me. Also, Roo is still a bit young.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Too young? But Conrad was young once, too.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

He didn't arrive in Outremer till he was about 42.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, but his life didn't start then. Just a new stage of it.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Indeed; but it would be difficult to consider doing something in which we follow all the characters for the entirety of their lives!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes -I'm happy to focus on one at a time. Or to try to.