|
|
Post by Tinkerdog on Feb 7, 2007 13:59:22 GMT
The character Leopold that Rufus played would not have been weakened to the point of suicide - he would have killed Uhl. Leopold was contemplating the assassination of his father to gain the throne. The inconsistencies and contradictions absolutely disappointed me. A power hungry, violent person does not have a conscience. Wasn't he supposed to have made another women disappear? He was driven and would eliminate anyone in his way.
I do not have a problem with Rufus playing the "bad guy" but the writers lack any ability to write quality "bad guy" roles (and I do not mean blood and guts). Write the role to the caliber of the actor - they stripped Rufus of all his legitimacy turning him into a weak-willed coward. He also became the sabotaged victim in the hole piece. Uhl supposedly came from a peasant background. It is hard to believe he would set up the only person who could lead him into a power position with a popular peasant magician - what has he to gain? If is not as though he led a powerful army who would overtake Austria. Leopolds' father would see him for the traitor he was so he had no future there.
A real twist to the movie would be for us all to believe Leopold dead and then in the final scene, Leopold be looking down from the mountain top at Eisenheim and Sophie - that would be a great ending.
I accepted the film as presented because it was based on a short story so I figured that limited the creativity on the part of the writers as far as extending the characters. Rufus, as usual, did a phenomenal job with the script given him.
The Illusionist was nominated for an award it actually deserves a nomination for - anything else would be hard to justify. It was good but not "best" quality.
I know - overkill!
|
|
|
|
Post by barfleur on Feb 7, 2007 14:15:04 GMT
I enjoyed this film, and Roof's portrayal as well. Leopold killed himself because he couldn't see a way out and could face neither his father nor his guards who were coming to get him. It was cowardly thing to do but for all his blustering amd bullying, he was a control freak (the two personality traits usually go hand in hand). This from Contact Music (they didn't like much about the film, just Rufus): "Rather more in keeping with the spirit of the rather melodramatic story is Rufus Sewell, as the evil Crown Prince Leopold, who swans through the film with cigarette holder perched lightly in one hand, his face a deliciously, maliciously bored mask." contactmusic.com/new/film.nsf/reviews/theillusionistG xo |
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Feb 7, 2007 15:02:15 GMT
The character Leopold that Rufus played would not have been weakened to the point of suicide - he would have killed Uhl. that's not exactly my take on Leopold's suicide. I don't think he killed himself because he was weak, I think he killed himself because he was unstable and the situation with Uhl and Eisenhein pushed him closer to an already nearby edge. If you watch the scene with Uhl you see a man who feels trapped. It's not even clear to me that he has any real idea of why they are coming for him, just that his house of cards is somehow collapsing. I actually thought the first time I saw the film that he thought it was his father coming for him and he wasn't going to give him the satisfaction of getting him. So in that way it was a revenge suicide. I'm not sure I still don't think that. I'm sure knowing Rufus and the way he approaches a role it was a probably a hodge podge of a lot of things. It reads that way in the execution, pardon the pun. Consistancy is the death of good acting.  People are inconsistant. They can't avoid it. It's what makes Leopold interesting and not just another stock villain. It's what makes all of Rufus' characters so completely compelling to watch. You're gonna hate Clarkson if you crave consistancy because he is a mass of contradictions--fascinatingly so, in fact. An interesting thing about Amazing Grace as I sit here and think about it, if you'd have completely removed Thomas Clarkson from the story it wouldn't have mattered much. But what a poorer telling it would have been without Rufus' wit and charm in that role. agreed. Told with a complete 21st century bias. it's all about honor (of which Uhl nor Eisenheim have any judging by their behavior) Uhl would have had more interest in dinner than honor. It wasn't neccessarily a concept he could afford to indulge without a wealthy patron. yeah, no, don't agree. Actually I think there wasn't much that could help this film except a complete rewrite and recast. I might keep Jessica Biel and the two childern. And I know everyone is going to hate me for this, but I don't really think their was a role for Rufus in this film as it was developed. He was casting pearls before swine as usual. not for me. I love to talk about this stuff. Maybe we should start a new board just to talk about the technical bits of Rufus' work. Then everyone wouldn't have to wade through this if they weren't interested. |
|
|
|
Post by britfan2 on Feb 7, 2007 18:05:29 GMT
Leopold was unstable but I think it was also about control. When he felt that he was no longer the one in control of his surroundings, he did the the one thing we see on our news everyweek. You take your own life. The ultimate act of control for a supreme control freak which I think he probably was in real life.
Power & control.....the hunting trophies nailed all over the walls in the lodge said that.
|
|
|
|
Post by reveuse on Feb 7, 2007 20:08:03 GMT
Seriously: I just think it was a morally reprehensible picture. Absolutely - and it was an artistically reprehensible picture, in terms of the writing. IMHO, when you add the two together, you come up with something unpalatable. Whereas in Pulp Fiction (for instance), we are shown amoral behaviours that, because the writing is so tight and does not seek in any way to justify or sanction those behaviours, they make us question our own (amused) reaction. Less-seriously: Naked Jackman (literally acting his ass off) versus fully-clothed-Ruf (trying less hard because he knows he acts better).... Hmmm, close call. Think I'd have to see it to make a definitive judgement. Do you have a script in mind, Maxx? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Feb 7, 2007 20:32:15 GMT
Naked Jackman (literally acting his ass off) versus fully-clothed-Ruf (trying less hard because he knows he acts better).... Hmmm, close call. Think I'd have to see it to make a definitive judgement. Do you have a script in mind, Maxx? ;D Um, maybe but I'm not sure either of them would like it. Seriously, uh, I don't need to see them together. I wouldn't want to see them together... ever... actually. Focusing on one at the expense of the other would be a horrible sacrifice, wouldn't it?  |
|
|
|
Post by reveuse on Feb 7, 2007 22:07:37 GMT
I'm just so prepared to suffer for the sake of artistic research.  And at least Sewell v Jackman would be distinguishable. Unlike a certain other actor of my acquaintance who you claim is interchangeable with HJ. |
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Feb 8, 2007 3:04:42 GMT
Unlike a certain other actor of my acquaintance who you claim is interchangeable with HJ. that's not what I said. I said they were similar. That they reminded me of each other. Hugh Jackman is well... HJ. He could just stand there... naked... and that would be fine... for a while at least. But enough about this Australian. This is Roof's board.  Let us get to back to worshiping and fawning like good sycophants. |
|
|
|
Post by meiju on Feb 8, 2007 7:29:18 GMT
Maxx, I agree. I thought this too, that the suicide was directed towrds the father, but it was at the same time of course an act of desperation. And that was not only because Leopold was a control freak, he was, but he was also driven by modern positivist rational thinking.
The reason that he found Eisenheim so dangerous was not only because as a rationalist he hated the cheating, but because he saw this magic as a magia, "circus" for the people to keep them uneducated, surpressing their will to better their situation.
I think this was sort of revealed in Leopold's last desperate speech, when he said something like: "the country is lead by a moron?.... (i'm not english native, Rufus said something like that and as much as I adore his voice I have to say he is a bit of really quick speaker and a mumbler, it's often really hard to get the words or sentences. Sorry fo the interrupting comment) .... who will do nothing. Nothing will be done. I have done everything I can ... there are thousand voices to be heard"
- so I think Leopold was or at least saw himself as a social reformer who had a mission to make the country a better place for it's people. That was one the reason behind the plan to attac the father. It is possible to suppose here a father-son problem with feelings of injustice that also have a scale of a nation.
Leopold was kind of driven by " the end result justifies the means" thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Mar 4, 2007 13:33:47 GMT
Well, I have finally seen this! Grateful thanks to everyone who offered to send me the R1 version, but I wanted to watch it first on the big screen to better get the feel of opulence and elegance and grandeur of the sets, and the sheer "wraparoundness" of a big-screen event.
The film as a whole I liked. Not the greatest, but not as plodding as some reviewers had indicated. I love this time period anyway, so that was half the battle won (and those costumes were simply gorgeous), and I didn't see The Prestige so wasn't in a position to compare them.
Jessica Biel surprised me - much better than I expected. I haven't seen any of her films before, but I gather she was regarded as being unsuitable for a period piece. I thought she was fine in the role. My only quibble was to do with the character rather than her acting. Knowing what Leopold was like and how enraged he was likely - no, certain - to be, I don't think Sophie would have told him personally that she wasn't going to Budapest with him. (*SPOILERS* for those who still haven't seen it) Although it was necessary for what later happens, his temper was too fierce to predict that he would definitely follow her - too much of a risk that he would lash out (even in his drunken/drugged state) and injure her - or worse.
I liked the way Paul Giamatti played Uhl. He was the son of a butcher (?) who had made it to a high-ranking position, probably through patronage more than anything, and he knew he had to keep himself in check when dealing with Leopold, but still had a little-boy curiosity about the unexplained, fascinated by Eisenheim's tricks - and just as delighted when he found out how they were done.
Edward Norton I kept on changing my mind about - at times I thought low-key was good, but at other times I felt the performance was too under-done. Sometimes this was in theatre scenes - I felt he should be a bit more of a showman, whip the audience up a little more, but mostly it was in the scenes with Sophie. There was some chemistry there, but the passion that was supposed to be there just.....wasn't. I didn't believe in them. She seemed more as if she wanted him as a way out of being with Leopold for the rest of her life, than wanting him for himself, her lost childhood love. His longing for her was better portrayed in the scenes without her, in the preparations for the illusion and the plans to get away.
And now Rufus.
He is so great in these pivotal roles. He can't be ignored as someone in the backgound when the character is central to the plot, but most of the time I felt the screenplay must have read "And we need Leopold here, here and here" - but I'm not entirely sure there was any way the role could have been expanded in a way that was relevant to the story. If the film had been about Eisenham and Sophie meeting for the first time in Vienna, she initially seeing him as her ticket away from Leopold and then realising she really does love Eisenham, there would have been scope to show how Leopold and Sophie's relationship developed before Eisenham was even on the scene, and to show why Leopold was so sadistic and power-hungry.
But it wasn't, so Rufus was stuck with a half-developed character that we weren't allowed to fully understand beyond what was absolutely necessary for the story, and so I don't think it was as nuanced a perfomance as we often get from him - not his fault, just the limitations of what he was given.
Having said that, he was magnificent in his portrayal (and rather wonderful to look at in uniform - especially the white tunic), and bloody scary when his rage boiled over! My favourite scene of his, though, was the slow-burn fury when Eisenheim made the sword seem like Excalibur - if this was a cartoon, there would have been steam coming out of Leopold's ears when, the audience having been told only the true heir could remove the sword, Leopold then struggled to do so. Then the humiliation he felt when he looked at Eisenheim, who then nodded and then he was able to move it - that, I felt, was the point when dislike turned to hatred. I agree with Britfan, Leopold was a control-freak - he didn't care about Sophie, beyond her use to him in gaining enough power to overthrow his father, through the alliance with her family their marriage would bring. In that scene, Leopold saw someone who, by publicly humiliating him, could destroy his prestige - and they both knew it. I saw Rufus portray that in a beautifully understated way- barely suppressing his rage at what was happening, but knowing he had to in public as he was in the midst of nobility, and he couldn't be seen to be beaten by a peasant magician, he had to maintain his dignity above all else.
I was then puzzled by the scene when Leopold dons disguise to go to the theatre to see for himself if Eisenheim can bring Sophie back from the dead. Were they trying to show that Leopold did love her after all? Okay, he was frustrated with Uhl and that was a reason to go - but why in disguise? Why not go in his usual finery? Going in disguise kind of made me feel Leopold had reasons for finding out if Sophie was alive other than wanting her back to complete his plan - so did he really love her? Was he unsure whether or not he did kill her? Would he have cared whether or not he killed her?
As for the suicide scene, I think Rufus showed Leopold as a man who by then was unhinged - not unhinged-but-in-control as before, but becoming completely unravelled and seeing no way out, acting on hot impulse rather than cold hard reason. I didn't see it as being weak at all - he wasn't thinking at that point, he was just doing, and a split-second look of "what else can I do?" as he raised the gun to his head is what I saw. Yes, maybe the ultimate act of a control-freak, and probably as an act of "you're not going to win" to his father, but definitely not an act of weakness. Weakness would have been sitting there and waiting for his father's troops to take him - that would have been the ultimate humiliation for Leopold, treated like a common criminal.
I would have liked to have seen Rufus as Eisenheim. I think he would have portrayed him with more panache and elegance than Norton, more of a showman on stage (not to the same degree as Angus in She-Creature, though!) but quietly passionate off-stage. In the scenes with Leopold, Norton played him as too emotionless, whereas Rufus would have been subtle but more effective.
The Daily Mail here said Ru's was the worst performance in the film (qualified by implying that was do with the writing - "he resorts to attacking the scenery with his teeth when the script runs out of ideas"..."what choice did he have?" - so a rather uncharitable comment) but immediately afterwards said that "he is a much more versatile actor than he is usually allowed to be on screen". Amen to that.
I look forward to seeing it again - my views may change, and I am sure there are elements to Ru's performance that I have missed or misinterpreted on first viewing, but it is certainly worth watching again.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Mar 4, 2007 14:49:42 GMT
Interesting review GE2. Some of it will end up on the website if you don't mind. Leopold goes to see Eisenheim at the theatre because he thinks he's a fraud and he wants to show him up. Leopold is a man of science and he's convinced that debunking Eisenheim is necessary--to the point of obsession. Love Sophie? Doesn't seem to. Slip in Adehmar's speech about the place his women occupy and what he'll do with Jocelyn, and it fits nicely. OTOH, his little scene when he finds out Sophie has had sex with Eisenheim and she won't have sex with him borders on heartrending. It goes beyond mere petulance and offended honor into something else. Even the first time I saw it, I thought, 'miserable girl'. It is the "Rufus-factor" but it's in the performance not in any natural sympathy for him. As to the review, I have to tell you frankly, I'm completely torn on this performance by Rufus. On some levels I think it's the complete non-performances of Edward Norton, Jessica Biel and Paul Giamatti that make is seem overdone, but when I saw it the first time, I admit, I wondered what he was up to. However, that said, some people are more flamboyant than others. I'm one of them. Rufus is actually one of them. So I think it's a perfectly legitimate approach to a role. In fact, considering Leopold's upbringing and the circumstances, it's probably one of the more intelligent ones. For me, any flamboyance he displayed in the early scenes was redeemed by the final scene--where it was very apparent that he had a definite idea of this character and where he was going. Leopold is actually very carefully crafted. I wonder if Rufus got some of his ideas from Billy. I also thought that he was the only thing that kept me interested in the film. I would have dozed off about ten minutes into it if weren't for waiting for Rufus to show up. I too liked the "idea" of the film. I just found the acting extremely poor--I call it the "Buffy School of Acting" from the non-acting mumbling and whinging all of the characters did on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's like a low-key buzz that eventually lulls you to sleep--white noise. I've read a couple of reviews by UK critics that seem to think Rufus was being a ham. Difference in cultures. I don't see any scenery chewing. I don't see a performance given to draw attention to himself. I see a legitimate take on a character. Never once do I feel as if Rufus is standing next to me nudging me and saying 'wait til you see what I do next, just wait'. I wish I could get over that feeling with Albert Finney who always seems to be standing outside the character. But that goes over on the Amazing Grace thread. Was he over-the-top at points? Sure was. But that particular man probably would have been as well... I hate this film by the way. It could have been a beautiful and intense experience if I'd have given a rip about any of the characters. And I hate it again for wasting Rufus' talent on such a trivial role. |
|
|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Mar 4, 2007 15:55:21 GMT
Maxx, I am somewhat puzzled by the comments in your second para - I haven't said, or even implied, that Rufus's approach isn't legitimate, or that I didn't think he had a definite idea of the character, and I most certainly didn't say that Leopold wasn't carefully crafted. I did say it wasn't AS nuanced a performance as we often get - and it must be clear from the context of the paragraph in which I wrote that, that I am referring to the film as a whole, not individual scenes, and that I felt it was due to the limitations of the script, not in his ability as an actor. My comment about "half-developed character" relates to what he was given to work with.
As to the theatre scene when Leopold is in disguise, yes, I know he went there to expose him as a fraud (and perhaps after "he was frustrated with Uhl" I could have added "at being unable to expose him as a fraud" but I didn't feel that was necessary) - what I was getting at was the underlying motivation, which I didn't think was only that, for the reasons I've given.
Would you please PM me before using any of my comments for the website? We may be misunderstanding each other (that difference in culture thing) and as I would rather my comments remain in context, I'd like to see what you wish to remove/alter. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Mar 4, 2007 17:38:28 GMT
Maxx, I am somewhat puzzled by the comments in your second para - I haven't said, or even implied, that Rufus's approach isn't legitimate, or that I didn't think he had a definite idea of the character, and I most certainly didn't say that Leopold wasn't carefully crafted. I did say it wasn't AS nuanced a performance as we often get - and it must be clear from the context of the paragraph in which I wrote that, that I am referring to the film as a whole, not individual scenes, and that I felt it was due to the limitations of the script, not in his ability as an actor. My comment about "half-developed character" relates to what he was given to work with. Sorry, I was sort of free associating because I've read a lot of the reviews that have come out of the UK this week. I was referring to them, not you. I guess I didn't state that very clearly. Apologies. I had just read one right before I read what you had to say so naturally I presumed you could read my mind and know that.  I tend to assume if I don't quote a person then I'm not referring directly to something they've said. Just generally commenting as a whole, but I'll try to be more specific going forward. I guess I'm confused. Let's back track a bit. Do you have something you see or sense that hasn't been mentioned about his underlying motivations? It occurred to me on about the 5th viewing that maybe he was thinking he had an idea about the plot against him and he was going to find out a way to expose it. It's never exactly clear, at least to me, that he understands what is being done to him. I know we talked about him thinking his father might be behind it at one point. I actually think in that last scene he babbles something about that as well. Of course. The only thing I would consider removing is the part that isn't Rufus related. But if you'd prefer not, that's why I ask. I think if you look at the others I've even left in the typos because I don't think it's my business to remove them. Well okay, I do usually remove something that begins with "well GE2 when you said..." as I don't think we necessarily need that bit. I won't use it if you'd rather I didn't. I just read a review in the Sydney Morning Herald that called Rufus "the smoulderingly dastardly Rufus Sewell" Poor Roof. All of things he hates rolled into one. |
|
|
|
Post by britfan2 on Mar 4, 2007 19:41:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rai on Mar 4, 2007 22:27:01 GMT
Today I watched the DVD with the director's commentary. I always find the comments quite enjoyable and it makes me understand and like the film even if I'm a little ambivalent about it.
Lots of nice words for Rufus from Neil Burger.
Rai
|
|
I tend to assume if I don't quote a person then I'm not referring directly to something they've said. Just generally commenting as a whole, but I'll try to be more specific going forward.
