The Illusionist (Sylvain Chomet, 2010)

[ianungstad]

Trailer (Russian) for Sylvain Chomet's The Illusionist. The film is based off an unproduced Jacques Tati screenplay and brings the Hulot character back to the screen in animated form. Looks beautiful!

[Jeff]

It looks gorgeous. I love the watercolor look. It still doesn't have a U.S. distributor. It sounds like the reception at Berlinale was incredibly enthusiastic. Here is an interview (in French) with Chomet, interspersed with some more beautiful clips.

[ianungstad]

I am a big fan of Chomet's Triplets of Belleville and really hope The illusionist is just as good!

Maybe IFC will pick this up for US distribution? I actually sent them an email suggesting it a few days ago.

[Saturnome]

It's one of those few yet to be released films I'm hyped about. It seems to bring together everything I like.

[Saturnome]

Sony Pictures Classics Pick Up The Illusionist

[lady wakasa]

Sony Pictures Classics Pick Up The Illusionist

Yay! Thanks for the heads up.

[jojo]

It's pretty, but it looks a bit conservative in design. And there seems to be quite a bit of motion capture/rotoscoping technique involved in the trailer shown, which I'm lukewarm about.

[knives]

It seems to be the same design style's as he used in triplets. What exactly about it seems negatively conservative to you? Also vehicles in motion have to be rotoscoped in hand drawn animation. They won't come out properly otherwise. You can see this going all the way back to Pinocchio, with a few earlier examples too.

[Svevan]

And it's probably not rotoscoping; pretty sure Triplets was using CGI on vehicles and some motion shots (some of those things would've been impossible to rotoscope). I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Though I'm not intending to love this film before it's already out, everything presented so far has me sold. It's a movie 100% intended for someone like me. I think Chomet is actually quite daring to put Tati into his own universe, rather than trying to shoehorn Tati's visual style into the film (though I'm sure there'll be plenty of references and allusions; the seaside shots are reminiscent of M. Hulot's Holiday, of course).

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Though I'm not intending to love this film before it's already out, everything presented so far has me sold. It's a movie 100% intended for someone like me. I think Chomet is actually quite daring to put Tati into his own universe, rather than trying to shoehorn Tati's visual style into the film (though I'm sure there'll be plenty of references and allusions; the seaside shots are reminiscent of M. Hulot's Holiday, of course).

Well I'm prepared to love this film already. As well as being a Tatiphile for me Chomet's style is a development of Hergé's 'ligne claire' style of which I'm also a big fan . In fact there are elements in this that remind me of Tintin's L'Ile Noire visit to Scotland. Chomet speaks passionately on his new Scottish base and wanted to capture the shifting tones and light of the Scottish Highlands which from the clips I've seen he's done with a (Scottish Colourist's) watercolour eye.
So far so good. Full marks, go to the top of the class.

[George]

Jacques Tati's lost film reveals family's pain

Not only is Chomet take on Tati’s Illusionist not traditionally hand drawn as it is claimed, all colouring, environment, lighting effects are digital and all vehicles as in Triplets are in fact 3d computer generated shaded to look hand drawn he also has unkindly decided to hide the true meaning behind why the masterful Tati had originally wrote the script and chose never to make it.

Tati wrote the script in the mid 1950’s and intended it as an apology to his eldest daughter who he had abandoned during the Second World War. Originally written as a melancholy, semi autobiographical tale the use of an Illusionist was supposed to reflect deceit that Tati felt his screen presence had conjured hiding the fact that he was the man who had chosen to abandon his first child.

Tati’s family today are only survived today by his eldest daughter and her children who are not happy with Chomet’s adaptation stating that, "The sabotaging of Tati's original L'illusionniste script, without recognising his troubled intentions, so that it resembles little more than a grotesque, eclectic, nostalgic homage to its author is the most disrespectful act,"

[Jeff]

But is it any good?

[Svevan]

I don't understand that quote (I read the article too). Do they want Tati to pay for his sins from the grave? Does the film have to be a catharsis for them first, and a pleasure to audiences second? If Chomet is staying true to the screenplay, then all the material that Tati wanted to present has at least a chance of coming through (the best option would have been for Tati to make the film himself and, I don't know, go back in time and not abandon his daughter). Do they expect the film to resurrect their family troubles and explicitly name them, all in front of an international audience? (And have they even seen the film?) It seems like they want the film to be Tati's unwritten apology letter, and they expect Chomet to follow through on that goal over and above any other. Tati's films have moments of sadness and bitterness already, so it will be entirely inappropriate of Chomet to avoid that part of Tati's style (assuming the film is simply a two-hour homage to Tati, a premise that the family seems to detest; it's almost as if they're angry that people like Tati at all).

[George]

From reading the Guardian article it reads that Tati’s family is solely not happy that the source of Tati’s writing is not being recognised by Chomet, they do not criticise anywhere Tati the artist just that the poignant inspiration for him writing The Illusionist is not being, for one reason or another, acknowledged. Considering how independent Tati was as an avant-garde movie maker it could well be said that what his family is doing by making available the true repentant story behind the script is actually protecting Tati the artist from misrepresentation in what must obviously be a very awkward situation. At the end of the day a child unnecessarily grew up alone in orphanage whilst her father, Jacques Tati became the most unique and celebrated cinema artist. To twist Tati’s heartfelt apology to his daughter into a homage to its author without accepting why it was originally written actually does far more to discredit Tati as it does to celebrate him. If Chomet did not want to make the movie with the personal depth Tati had intended then would it not have been more appropriate for him to write something fresh that would be better suited as personal a tribute? Then again Chomet does acknowledge that Tati’s The Illusionist is "not a romance, it’s more the relationship between a dad and a daughter,"

[DDillaman]

I think the producer's reply sums up my feelings adroitly. Whatever historical wrongs there are, an adaptation of a 50-year old screenplay was never going to redress them sufficiently. (That link also contains a link to an incredibly long rambling letter written to Ebert which makes it clear that this is just the tip of a very giant axe that the family's grinding against the executors of Tati's estate - rightly or wrongly, I have no idea.)

I saw THE ILLUSIONIST yesterday and it's a beautiful, sometimes very funny, and ultimately touching film. I could personally care less whether it's 100% hand drawn or not - it's consistently gorgeous to look at, and should be seen on the biggest screen possible. It's less manic and grotesque than THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE (which isn't a complaint - I liked that movie quite a lot).

[zedz]

I just saw the film over the weekend as well, and it's really great, a fine (very) late entry in the Tati filmography, with Chomet's channelling of Tati the performer and the filmmaker pitch perfect throughout. That historical distance also makes this one of the most emotionally engaging of Tati's films, because you're constantly aware of how much has been lost when you see it reborn before your eyes.

The film's effects are extremely delicate, like the best of Tati's work, and will surely work best with the breathing space of the big screen, as DDillaman states. It also provides one of the most brilliant evocations of place I've seen in a long time. Even though Chomet's version of Edinburgh is a period one, lightly romanticised, I recognise those streets.

[terabin]

U.S. Trailer. Seems to capture Hulot's mannerisms to a T, including the way Hulot stands up straight and clicks his shoes together as an expression of determination.

[Cde.]

This looks extremely beautiful. As a fan of Tati and Chomet, it's like a dream come true.

[karmajuice]

Cannot wait to see this. The animation is gorgeous. It'll be interesting to see Chomet work with something more subdued, since his previous work is pretty absurd, often to the point of hysteria. I love the little Keaton allusion, too.

[matrixschmatrix]

(That link also contains a link to an incredibly long rambling letter written to Ebert which makes it clear that this is just the tip of a very giant axe that the family's grinding against the executors of Tati's estate - rightly or wrongly, I have no idea.)

Given that the wikipedia articles about Tati and the Illusionist are obsessively guarded to refer to this in colored language, and this forums very own two-post wonder- who writes in a remarkably similar series of rambling incoherences- I'm starting to suspect that this is the campaign of one remarkably dedicated and somewhat deranged person.

In any case- has anyone seen a US release date for this? As Chomet and Tati are both favorites of mine, it's frustrating to think it was released six months ago and I still haven't seen it.

[terabin]

IMDB lists a limited release on X-Mas day.

[zedz]

I thought I'd posted on this but apparently not. A lovely film that does a brilliant job of evoking Tati's persona and filmmaking while also establishing a distinctive tone of its own and, almost incidentally, being one of the sharpest evocations of a specific place (Edinburgh) I've seen on film. It's the nearest thing you're going to get to a new Tati film, so enjoy it while you can.

And re: the 'controversy' - as far as I can see, the bold assertions far outweigh the established facts (e.g. what is the evidence that this script was intended as a public apology to a daughter Tati never privately acknowledged?) and ultimately we have to judge the film on its own merits.

[Jeff]

I thought I'd posted on this but apparently not.

You did!

[prokosch]

I shall add to the praise on what a lovely, lovely movie this is; certainly some of the best animation (2D or 3D or whatever) I've seen in a while. It brought for me the added bonus of encouraging my girlfriend to check out Tati's "living" work, which she, in my clinical opinion, irrationally dismissed after a few minutes of "Playtime."

[zedz]

I thought I'd posted on this but apparently not.

You did!

Hah! I can't even recognise my own avatar any more. At least I didn't contradict my earlier opinion and start a rancorous feud with myself.