Entry tags:
The Illusionist (2010)
The Illusionist. Dir. Sylvain Chomet, 2010.
This is one of those movies that makes me feel out of step with the rest of the world.
I knew nothing about this movie other than that it was directed by the same person who did The Triplets of Belleville, which was an amazing, amazing movie, so I went to see it thinking that I would get…well, as![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
oyceter said to me, it's not like Triplets had much plot, but to my mind, it did have a coherent, enjoyable story or premise, at least, whereas I spent the entire length of The Illusionist waiting for the movie to do things it had no interest, in the end, in doing.
The script was originally written by French comic Jacques Tati (whoever he was) for his daughter (which one is a matter of debate), and was adapted by Chomet; in the event, it follows a down-on-his-luck illusionist, Tatischeff, as the exigencies of his trade in the 1950s force him from Paris across the Channel around Britain to the furthest extremes of the Scottish Highlands. While there he meets a young girl, Alice, who brazenly decides to accompany him to Edinburgh when he leaves because, for whatever reason, while he stayed in the village he bought her a new pair of shoes.
The animation and the sound direction and the minimalism of the dialogue and the sound track--the way that these two characters share so much time together but speak so few words, the way that light and sound and motion are shown in the animation--are really, really beautiful, and on that level the movie is great. But I absolutely hated the story, because Tatischeff spends all his money on presents for Alice--he even takes a second job as a night watchman at a garage--and she never, ever seems to think of doing anything but sponge off of him, beyond certain minimal things like keeping their hotel room clean and cooking their meals. All the press describes their relationship as father-daughter, and while it's certainly platonic, to me it seemed parasitical, and it absolutely infuriated me that in the end Tatischeff is forced to pawn his illusionist's kit and set off for parts unknown while Alice takes up with a town boy and presumably will spend the rest of her life completely dependent on a man, albeit a different one. And maybe Tatischeff has been liberated; "there are no magicians," he tells Alice at the end, by note, but maybe he's been stripped of everything that made him what he was. The movie doesn't give us any way to judge, and Alice doesn't seem to learn anything except urbanite consumption habits. Blech.
But everyone else apparently loved it, so maybe I am just a joyless curmudgeon.
This is one of those movies that makes me feel out of step with the rest of the world.
I knew nothing about this movie other than that it was directed by the same person who did The Triplets of Belleville, which was an amazing, amazing movie, so I went to see it thinking that I would get…well, as
oyceter said to me, it's not like Triplets had much plot, but to my mind, it did have a coherent, enjoyable story or premise, at least, whereas I spent the entire length of The Illusionist waiting for the movie to do things it had no interest, in the end, in doing. The script was originally written by French comic Jacques Tati (whoever he was) for his daughter (which one is a matter of debate), and was adapted by Chomet; in the event, it follows a down-on-his-luck illusionist, Tatischeff, as the exigencies of his trade in the 1950s force him from Paris across the Channel around Britain to the furthest extremes of the Scottish Highlands. While there he meets a young girl, Alice, who brazenly decides to accompany him to Edinburgh when he leaves because, for whatever reason, while he stayed in the village he bought her a new pair of shoes.
The animation and the sound direction and the minimalism of the dialogue and the sound track--the way that these two characters share so much time together but speak so few words, the way that light and sound and motion are shown in the animation--are really, really beautiful, and on that level the movie is great. But I absolutely hated the story, because Tatischeff spends all his money on presents for Alice--he even takes a second job as a night watchman at a garage--and she never, ever seems to think of doing anything but sponge off of him, beyond certain minimal things like keeping their hotel room clean and cooking their meals. All the press describes their relationship as father-daughter, and while it's certainly platonic, to me it seemed parasitical, and it absolutely infuriated me that in the end Tatischeff is forced to pawn his illusionist's kit and set off for parts unknown while Alice takes up with a town boy and presumably will spend the rest of her life completely dependent on a man, albeit a different one. And maybe Tatischeff has been liberated; "there are no magicians," he tells Alice at the end, by note, but maybe he's been stripped of everything that made him what he was. The movie doesn't give us any way to judge, and Alice doesn't seem to learn anything except urbanite consumption habits. Blech.
But everyone else apparently loved it, so maybe I am just a joyless curmudgeon.
no subject
---L.
no subject
---L.
no subject
no subject
Tati's own movies are pretty delightful and not as bleak as this, though they too have the same unchallenged assumption of provincial/traditional=good and city/new=bad.
(Also, hi! I really like your Narnia re-readings.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
---L.
no subject
Hi!
no subject
Tati very carefully kept his personal life out of his films and out of the press. Sylvain Chomet filmed The Illusionist from a script Tati had intentionally not produced, a script written as an attempt to deal with the consequences from his abandonment of his (eldest, illegitimate) daughter in Morocco during World War II (she survived, and both of them seem to have been in wrenching pain about it for the rest of their lives). The script was also never actually finished. Members of Tati's extended family have been trying to sue Chomet since he announced he was going to film it in the first place, and are still trying to get injunctions to keep him from showing the film.
So I can't decide whether I want to see it. On the one hand, it is Tati, and he's one of my favorite directors, and the courts have ruled that Chomet came by the script legitimately and has every right to do what he wants with it. On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain I want to see something a man I admire so much kept so carefully private and thought was so painful.
no subject
no subject
Right. For those first couple of paras, I was very confused.
no subject
Tati
The minimal dialogue and sound track is just like Tati's other work, but the story sounds a little unusual, since most Tati films I've seen have been pretty affirmative. It also sounds like it really might come from some personal experience, since Tati was born with the name "Tatischeff" and had some bitter disappointments later in life. Now I want to see it even more, so I can see if I'd agree with you or not! I might have to wait for a post-Oscar DVD, though, it's not playing around here.
Re: Tati
Re: Tati
Re: Tati