The Illusionist...
Sep. 3rd, 2006 10:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fajrdrakoI 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 04:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 09:19 am (UTC)I hope your ear will be better.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 01:03 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 03:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 03:55 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 03:58 pm (UTC)I should maybe watch the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, if I can get up the nerve for it.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 05:02 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 05:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 05:12 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 05:15 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 05:18 pm (UTC)And I agree: Rufus should play more heroes. He's too attractive to be a baddie all the time.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 05:48 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:13 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:17 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:21 pm (UTC)How about Rufus as one of your Lusignans?
(It's a pity he's not a blond... ;-D)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:25 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:32 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:35 pm (UTC)The kingliness fits.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:37 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:47 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 06:57 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 07:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-04 08:34 pm (UTC)