great observations on the illusioniste, ed. a frustrating watching experience for me, because it is so beautiful to look at, but still did not manage to draw me into it.

Hey Gaenhart - (Is that your actual name?  What is it, Irish?)

Like I said a couple of posts earlier, I don't think Mister Bean should be in the same conversation as Charlie Chaplin.  Charlie created something out of nothing, literally brought empathy to comedy.  Best I can tell, Mister Bean has not added to comedy anything that I have not seen before.  I realize he has some enthusiastic fans, and that's cool.  He is just not a genius in the same category as Chaplin.

Chaplin's comedy was often farce, having everything to do with his environment.  The eating machine sequence in "Modern Times" is farce, as is the sequence when he gets trapped inside the cogs-and-wheels.  In fact, part of the way he got us to care about him was being aware of his environment. 

Your question about how to build an environment/character relation that has a life of its own is interesting.  "One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest" was set in a mental ward, and McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) was the only real sane one, except for the Indian, as we discover at the end.  Just as Chaplin was trying to deal with that crazy eating machine, McMurphy was trying to deal with crazy Nurse Ratchett and the insanity of the mental ward.  We relate to Chaplin, and we relate to McMurphy.

"Monsters, Inc" is, IMO, a classic.  It is set in a parallel world in which only two of the characters are "normal".  We see the world through their eyes.  "The Incredibles", same thing, unusual setting and unusual environment.

The way to come up with story is, first of all, to have a subject that interests you enough to live with it for some years.  I read a while back about a prison somewhere out west in which the actual prisoners break and train wild horses that live in the vicinity.  That struck me as immensely theatrical and metaphoric, and I'm surprised that nobody has made a movie from it.  Like I say, it was in the newspaper.  It could make a better wild horse movie that "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmeron" was.  Don't get me started.

Anyway, I suggest that a good story begins with being aware of the things that we humans do to survive.  We are all going to wind up the same place, and the journey can be meaningful or banal.  Right now, the big studios in Hollywood are most often stuck on banal.

Ed

Hey Ben -

Wow.  Thanks for the thoughtful and passionate post.  I agree with you that it has come and gone too quickly, and there was not a lot of intelligent discussion about it.  I am a fan of Sylvain Chomet's work and, in fact, had the opportunity when "Triplets" was still hot to have dinner with him and his wife in Dundee, Scotland.  The next day, I interviewed him in front of a full theater audience.  That occasion gave me a bit of insight into this artist.  The most obvious aspect of his work is that he conceptually wants to avoid going the Hollywood big-studio route.  After "Triplets", he was offered several big-budget films, and he told me that he simply didn't want to do them.  He said, "What they are spending for one movie, I can make five."  And I think he can.

In regard to my take on the character of Alice in "The Illusionist", that is simply what I think.  Empathy is not something a person "tries" to do.  It is instantaneous and automatic, and thinking about it won't make it happen in a larger measure.  Also, we empathize only with emotion, we humans.  Alice does not display much emotion in the film, especially in comparison to the magician. As you point out, her character may have a lot in common with your own personal experience, and that would definitely help explain why you are so in tune with her.  Believe me, I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong.  You empathized with her, and I did not, that's all.

Really, to understand my perspective on this, you have to note how the story ends -- and then work backward so that the starting point will inevitably lead to the pre-determined conclusion.  Alice winds up a full-blown woman.  Sexual, in love, the whole enchilada.  Now, given that she ends up that way, how long would you estimate her relationship to the magician to be?  How long has it been since she first met him in her home town?  He was not performing there for long, right?  And when he left, she went with him.  So how long did they travel around together? Ten years?  I don't think so.  At the beginning of the film, she is a girl, not even close to being a woman.  She doesn't look to me like she has even reached puberty yet.  She does not look older than ten years old to me.  That makes sense because it is necessary for her to believe in magic, like believing in Santa Claus.  She must believe in magic because the conclusion of the story requires that her bubble get burst and that she confront the reality of reality.  So, if she is, like, ten years old at the start and is, like, eighteen or nineteen years old at the end, she is going to go through some significant changes in the second act of the story.  But I did not see those changes.  She not only did not change, she continued to have the naivete of a ten year old when she was in her mid-teens.  She still believed in magic when she was fifteen, which would be fairly alarming in my view.

I agree that "The Illusionist" is a sensitive and beautiful movie.  But, Ben, it has structure issues.  They are not Chomet's fault, they came with the property.  When I met him, he did not impress me as someone trying to make big artistic statements.  He is interested in quirky people and the lives they live, that's all.  And "The Illusionist" fits the form.  My God, I would hang just about any cell on my living room wall!  Lovely, lovely movie.  But it is more of a poem than a novel, if you get my drift.  It is a "little" movie, a "minor" movie.  Next time, I imagine Chomet will have an easier time with story.  Remember, one of Tati's daughters was looking disdainfully over Chomet's shoulder while he was making the movie.  That daughter hated Tati's other daughter. (One of them was a step-daughter, I think).  What I am saying is that it was not an easy project for a lot of reasons.

I will purchase the DVD at some point and may re-visit it.  Like I said in my original post, Sylvain Chomet is one of the world's best animators.  I look forward to whatever he does next!

Ed

I find Mr Hooks comments very interesting, and further my opinion as to why THE ILLUSIONIST didn't happen to pick up the Oscar earlier this year when competing against the American "blockbusters" being TOY STORY 3 & HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON.

However, I have a few different observations that HOOKS fails to highlight in most of his commentaries, something I also noticed after attending one his workshops here in Australia in 2007. Here are a few of my notes below on THE ILLUSSIONIST

I happened to see THE ILLUSSIONIST on DVD from the UK- the only way i could manage to see the film here in Australia, as it never reached the cinemas, nor has it been released here on DVD. I was very excited to see this film, as from all the clips I saw online told me this was the film to push drawn animation beyond anything I've seen before. And oh boy, did it do this.

The visual feast that was the illusionist, and the details that were put into the background characters pars those in Cohen Bros' films. Absolutely delightful, and characters that scream they have a life beyond the boundaries of what is depicted on the screen.

Next, I believe Chomet's visual feast emphasised the comments he wanted to make about the entertainment industry in general - a market is so competitive from live entertainment (from sport, to stand-up comedy, etc - and even the illussionist' work of magic) but more-so with the new technologies pulling people away from the heart of what makes live entertainment - people connecting with people. The fact that Chomet (or Tati from the script) chose to set the film in the 50s/60s adds to this comment, as even technology now begins to compete - from the cinema to television, but television adding competition to radio, but then back to the live action events - of concerts (then furthering the competition of other live-action events, as we saw earlier in the film with THE ILLUSSIONIST competing with the 50s boy bands, such as the Beatles, etc).

Chomet furthered the themes I described above, and by using the tool of drawn animation as his tool of expression really emphasised his point (by making the visuals so intensely detailed and at times confusing) - I'm glad I had this film on DVD, because I had to re-watch certain sequences in the film to interpret what was going on.

On to Hooks comments about the portrayal of the Alice - she was a wonderful addition to the film, and the development of her character was sublty outstanding, and Hooks' comments show he doesn't know how to emphathise with this type of character (and in my opinion, as obviously is with Chomet, what change the character to suit the audience, when his film is about having the audience active and trying to feel for the character).

Alice is a character from a quiet village in Scotland (something I can relate to from living here in Australia). She has seen images of big cities, but has never been an interacted with them. And generally in quiet villages, it's traditions that stand strong, and new ideas (such as high-end entertainment, high-heels and coats) aren't things that are readily accepted and worn by these people.

This "small-town Scottish attitude" is highlighted in the attitude in earlier scenes of THE ILLUSSIONIST entertaining at the English Garden Party - where he's competing against an opera singer, and string quartet - background entertainment - with no one at the party taking notice. Yet, when THE ILLUSSIONIST steps out to perform (and obviously he's a visual performer) no one except the drunk Scotsman takes a second look at him, and keep talking into their wine and cheese. It's the Scotsman (brilliantly animated by Victor Ens) living the moment and not being a stooge like the other upper class party "goers" who notices THE ILLUSSIONIST and him passing a contact card that leads THE ILLUSSIONIST to perform in Scotland and meet Alice.

Alice is intrigued by THE ILLUSSIONIST afer he performs, because his magic isn't normally seen in her working village of fisherman, and she stows-away to travel with the Illusionist, and see a life with more magic than she's ever possibly imagined.

When she gets to the city, she's witnessing things far beyond what she ever dreamed, and is immediately slammed with so many ideas her mind is overwhelmed, and she becomes obsessed with self-image and the idea of getting anything she wants she soon forgets that things aren't earnt and to even appreciate the magic of THE ILLUSIONIST.

Alice, represents most teens of today who live life trapped in a system - not knowing the objective of life is to live and interact, but instead get caught up in marketing, and technology (i see this all the time in my workplace, where people get consumed by computer processes rather than the objective of the task and the computer being a tool - something Pixar always market in their interviews, as Hooks has commented on before in earlier posts - and has consumed the topic of the animation industry for years).

So Alice's actions from what I've experienced in everyday life, are completely rational for someone from a small-town going to the big city, and at her age (only having interacted with people of an aging demographic).

And the the conclusion of Chomets film, by having THE ILLUSSIONIST leave the note for Alice rather than Tati's original script of having her boyfriend tell her is much more powerful - as wraps up Chomet's overall comment that commercialism and technological development has dominated the arts and humanity and is now completely controlled the market.

What's interesting now - is seeing how different cultures are receiving Chomet's films internationally - and thank you very much Mr Hooks for posting your comments as faithfully as always through your blog.

When THE ILLUSSIONIST didn't win the Oscar earlier this year did surprise me but didn't at the same time. It's a film that pushes the boundaries of animation - using the power of visuals rather than using the tool of dialogue as it's competing titles were (both made in Hollywood; TOY STORY 3 & DRAGON). As animation story-tellers, we have several tools to communicate ideas to the audience, including sound and dialogue - and in the case of TOY STORY 3 & DRAGON - the dialogue was required in these films due to the messages trying to be communicated but also the way these were wanted to be communicated (through dialogue) - which was suited to their audience of an Americanised mainstream-commercial market.

Chomet was aiming for other markets - those of people who appreatiate film on a different level to those of the main-stream market, those more pertinent from what i read from Australia as a heavy European market. Story structure in these markets don't need closure, because film isn't just something to consume, but something, as i said, to appreciate on an entirely different level - making the stories and characters as apart of their lives - in a way to understand our world, open our mind to new experiences through other characters and truly empathising with the entire beauty that is life.

To read it any other way, would lose the power and magic that is THE ILLUSIONIST.

So Mr Hooks' as an admirer of your work, but also the work of all filmmakers, animators, actors, storytellers, artists, etc - please don't dismiss what is being said in this film based on what you're used to seeing in the cinema and walking away feeling complete. Make the open-endedness of THE ILLUSIONIST help you to see the world in a whole new light, and how animation can help people to see new ways of living.

I encourage all students of animation (because we all are!) to watch Chomet's film - there's much to be taken from the film. And the fact that I have to re-watch scenes over and over highlights the visual feast that it is - so much to learn.

To the Chomet & his team that created this masterpiece - thank you for taking the risk to push the boudaries of animation and animated story-telling - I congratulate you all! You have used the power of drawings and film/animation as a "visual storytelling medium" to narrate a tale of characters who are their own conscious beings and existing in their own world with their own culture and societal systems - characters who have truly been brought to life - truly ANIMATED.

Good blog issue, as a seed for other streams of thought.

First up, an admission - I have not seen The Illusionist though I have seen the trailer, which is like admitting that I've seen the lyrics but not heard the song.

Secondly, I acknowledge that it's on my list of animations to see of course since it reminds me (visually) so much of a blend of Herge (Tin Tin) and Disney - leaning towards Myazaki, whom I adore. Definitely a sumptuous animation to look at.

I'd like to hazard an assumption - a suggestion maybe - that Mr Bean and Mr Chaplin (both brilliant comics) tell their stories almost without reference to their environments'. What exists around them is merely a prop for their act. Their stage is their bodies and their faces - these are physically linked to the story since that's where the characters exist and they require us to participate in their reactions to gain them life. We see the story almost exclusively from the characters' singular perspective.

Animations by Bird, Myazaki, Burton, Dysney etc are working with a more inclusive environment. The main characters are extensions of the environment, since it has made them what they are (most of the time)and the enviroment has a life of its own as well. Characters don't exist as singularities in a world, but are moreover a kind of sounding board for us to rest against so we can see the story they're telling. We're both embroilled in the character's vision of what is happening, and participating in the environment we see around the characters.

I might be completely wrong, or splitting hairs with this assumption, of course.

So, if this assumption is true, how do we as animators build an environment/character relation that has a life of its own, and how would you go about directing an animated actor to show (not tell :D ) this...ummmm...symbiosis?

Certainly Sylvain Chomet would be gratified by your reaction to his film. It is my job, however, to enunciate why I believe a film succeeds or fails. "The Illusionist" frustrates me because I consider Mr. Chomet to be one of the most talented animators living.  He is brilliant, and this movie is visually extraordinary, a real treat. The wild card here is probably Jacque Tati, not Chomet.  There is good reason why this story remained un-produced for so many years. Chomet most likely felt the same way, or he would not have made the kind of story adjustments that he did. He changed it quite a lot from what Mr. Tati wrote.

In my opinion, Sylvain Chomet is in the same league as Brad Bird, Tim Burton and Hayao Miyazaki, but Mr. Bean and Charlie Chaplin do not even occupy the same universe.<g>  

Thanks for taking time to post your comment. 

Spot on!
The second Bean film was leagues better with no dialog...Just like the tv specials.
We were utterly captivated from beginning to end, with L'Illusionist...

Mr Hooks missed the point by the proverbial mile!

Ugh, I couldn't possibly disagree more. Would be better if they both spoke English? Seriously? How about Chaplin or Mr. Bean? Better with dialog too? I think this film simply wasn't for you, and that should really be the end of it. I personally found it touching, magical.
You seem to be measuring this film against cold reality, wondering how a girl her age could possibly believe that he can actually perform magic, etc.
Your "remedies" for this film really seem to say that you'd like it to be different film entirely.

Ed, I agree with you on the Illusionist. I didn't feel a real relationship between the Tati and the girl. The animation of Tati was the highlight. My review is at comedyforanimators dot com. Under the "reviews" category