Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Capone Conjures Up A Sit Down With ILLUSIONIST Director Neil Burger!!


Hey, everyone. Capone in Chicago here with writer-director Neil Burger, who made a great film in 2002 called Interview with the Assassin, a wild fake documentary about a man claiming to have been the true assassin of John F. Kennedy. Check it out if you can.

His latest film, The Illusionist, I wasn’t as wild about, but the performances are so wild and the atmosphere so thick with intrigue, that you can’t help but love parts of it with a great deal of affection. Burger and I had a few minutes to sit down and chat recently, and I found him one of the most articulate and interesting directors I’ve ever met. Hopefully, you’ll feel the same.

He began by thanking me and others at AICN for the great reviews of Assassin when it was still an unknown work...


Neil Burger: [The film] could have done better, but you know, in all fairness, they didn’t have the money to crank up the marketing, so...

Capone: Hopefully, more than one person on AICN who writes regularly for the site actually got to write about it.

NB: I think there were two. Who are some of the other names?

C: Well, Harry, Moriarity, Quint...

NB: Yeah, Moriarity wrote about it.

C: And, he goes out of his way to find…well, we all do…to find smaller movies that we can kind of get behind. There are plenty of reviews up there of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 2, but every once in a while we try to find a little something that maybe won’t be getting the attention that the other ones will.

Hopefully, the most obvious question I’m going to ask you today is: How did this short story come to your attention initially?

NB: I read it when it came out in about 1990, and I don’t know if I read a review of it or something like that, but I read it at the time it was published. It just completely stuck with me, and it’s still one of my favorite short stories. It’s very cinematic, actually, in its imagery, and it deals with these ideas of, you know, sort of this uncanny sense that nothing is what it seems, and that appealed to me--surreal mystery.

C: To call it a story about a magician is grossly oversimplifying it. Were there certain aspects of itthat you wanted to emphasize?

NB: Well, you know, in the original short story, there’s no character of Sophie, and there’s no Crown Prince. It’s just Eisenheim, and it’s told as a fragment, actually, it’s told sort of from the writer, writing the short story looking back and sort of piecing together the bits of information he can find on this legendary magician who may have crossed over.

So, it was beautiful and cinematic in certain ways, but not a movie. It didn’t have the full scope that you expect from a movie. Yet, I wanted to make it into a movie, and I wanted to keep what was most beautiful about the story, but I knew I needed to create kind of a dramatic structure for it to sit the beautiful story in. To that end, I invented the character of the Crown Prince and invented Sophie and created this love triangle to make it a bit more…I mean the story’s very abstract and existential in a way, which is great, but I needed it to be more emotional in a way and powerfully impactful.

So, I created that love triangle. The character of Inspector Uhl has about maybe five mentions in the short story, and so I expanded him and gave him the point of view of the eyes and ears of the audience, if you will. He tells the story.

C: Casting Giamatti in this role of someone in a position of authority is really different than the way a lot of people have seen him. Why did you think he was right for the part? Had you seen him do something else before?

NB: The only thing that I had seen him do as a period piece was, I think, in a Tim Robbins movie called CRADLE WILL ROCK. He has a very small role in that playing, like, some Italian opera singer or something like that. It’s a comedic role, but I could sort of suddenly see him in another time, after having seen him in so many contemporary movies.

And, I just knew that he’d be right. I met him, because he liked the screenplay and was interested in doing it, and he had this kind of quiet power that appealed to me, and I realized that he’d be able to do it. And, I liked that it was a fresh take on the investigating detective, which is kind of a conventional-type role. And, I wanted to take it in a slightly different way. And, you know, he’s incredible.

C: He’s really good, and don’t think for a second that people aren’t going to laugh just a little bit when they first see him in the movie, because it is kind of funny, just because it’s him. When you started thinking of him in that role, did it appeal to you that he was acting against type? Many of the actors in this film are acting against type.

NB: Even Edward Norton, you haven’t seen in a period, romantic lead, and so, it appealed to me with Giamatti not just that he was doing it against type, but that it was a fresh take on a conventional role. It appealed to me that people were going to see him in the same way they were seeing Edward and Jessica Biel in a fresh way.

And plus, I knew they could hit it out of the park, and that was the main thing: Fresh way, fine, but they’re so strong in what they do, and Paul has such expressive eyes. And, because the character Inspector Uhl, you don’t know that much about him or his backstory, but you get it all through Paul’s eyes--a sort of twinkle of his eyes, his love of life and his appetite for life, yet his conflict and his humiliation and his corruption.

C: You mentioned Edward Norton. He has sort of typified the Everyman in so many of his films. To play a man of mystery is a big change for him, and, like you said, a romantic lead.

NB: But, Edward’s an intense guy, you know, in person, and he’s also a bit of a mystery in a way in the sense that he doesn’t give you everything. He’s more guarded, and you feel like he’s holding something back, which is perfect for Eisenheim, who is a mystery, who is an enigma and an intense and kind of dark character.

C: The most I’d read about the film before I saw it was how Jessica Biel had lobbied for this role, that she really, really wanted it, and she went to great lengths to prove to you that she could do it. Can you talk a little bit about that?

NB: Well, she fought hard. Obviously, we’ve seen Jessica in the more contemporary, pop Hollywood movies. I actually hadn’t seen her in those movies, but I knew who she was. There was no reason for me to be thinking about her for this role, and she and her agents fought really hard just to get an audition, and I couldn’t figure out why. But they fought really hard, and finally we said “Oh, alright.”

And, she came dressed in a period dress, I mean, not in any kind of ridiculous way, but just in a really simple, elegant, exquisite dress and did her really refined reading with an accent, and we were all really impressed. So, we continued to audition her, and eventually we said We should see her again. And, we saw her with Edward, and then maybe one other time, eventually we said How can we not cast her? She was really good, and she’s obviously an exquisite beauty.

C: I think people are going to be surprised how good she does in this movie, too. The one person you did not cast against type is Rufus Sewell. I’ve actually started to feel bad for the guy because he’s been cast as the heavy in every movie he’s in lately. Were you a little worried about showing your villain card too soon?

NB: I actually didn’t want to cast him originally. People were saying, What about Rufus? I’m, like, No, I don’t need to see Rufus. He had those little ringlets and long hair and stuff like that, and that’s not the way I saw the part, and I felt like I’d seen Rufus in this before.

But, he came in, and he read, and it was so strong. The force of his rage is so powerful, and his manipulation as a character. Is he losing his temper or is he just doing it to push your button, to throw you off? And, he can do that so well. I knew I needed that. Edward is so fiercely intelligent and so strong: I knew I needed somebody who was equally powerful in the role of his antagonist.

C: He does that very well in all his films, but it’s just funny, when you see him, you immediately know he’s going to be the bad guy. We know we’re not supposed to like him right off the bat. It’s good shorthand, I guess.

I wanted to ask you about your director of photography, because I’m actually a big fan of his work. Obviously, he’s worked on just about every Mike Leigh film, which tend to take on a more realistic, minimalistic look, which is very different from this film. I was curious why you thought he would be best to do this film.

NB: I’m a huge Mike Leigh fan, really one of my favorite directors. And, Dick Pope, who is the DP, originally came to my attention because of TOPSY-TURVY, at least for this movie, because TOPSY-TURVY was so beautiful and was set a little bit earlier than this time, but in the same time period. And, then, he did VERA DRAKE, which I thought was really his best work and an incredibly beautiful movie, the most beautiful Mike Leigh movie. And so, I was very interested in him.

The other thing he does, which is different from, say, other “European” cinematographers is…because Mike Leigh’s movies are so much about the people and so much about getting into the souls of those people, he uses a very different way of lighting where the people almost begin to glow, not in a stylized way, but he’s able to somehow get the light on them in less of a hard-edged sort of way and in more of a softer way that kind of gets right into their eyes and their faces. And, I wanted that for this movie, because it’s a dark movie in a certain way, but I wanted to really be able to connect with the characters and their ambitions and conflicts and confusions, and all that.

C: It’s a gorgeous-looking film without doubt. The one question I have, though, is were you a little concerned about having Eisenheim’s illusionsbe done with special effects rather than the conventional way? Were you concerned, maybe, that audiences today might not be as ‘wowed’ by the illusions as the audiences then?

NB: I would say that was the major challenge, actually.

C: Not that the movie emphasizes the illusions that much, but the ones that you use are pretty crucial to the story, and I just wondered.

NB: Right. No, that was a huge trick, because, you know, it’s like doing magic in film is so difficult because cinema is magic already, and everybody knows how the trick is done. Audiences are so sophisticated with CGI and digital effects and all that stuff, and so, what I tried to do was actually do the illusions as they would have been done then, as much as possible, and try not to use digital effects.

So, that’s the way we shot them. As much as we could, we shot them as they would have been done then. Now, because of budget and the schedule in certain cases, they’re enhanced, but there are many of themlike the orange tree is enhanced.

C: I was going to ask you about that one.

NB: Let’s put it this way: I don’t know that I necessarily want to give it away, but I’ll just tell you…half the orange tree, about half way, it’s mechanical, and then we just couldn’t…it was just too difficult to keep it going. But, half of it is truly mechanical and being pushed with rods out of that with the leaves rolled inside these rods, and the leaves would be pushed out and then they would emerge. But, then we just ran out of length of rods and stuff like that, and so the second half of it is enhanced.

However, the butterflies are real, which is something that you could only do in the Czech Republic. But, everything else, like the sword illusion, the mirror illusion, all done as they would have done it--and unenhanced.

So, that was our thing. We didn’t want the audience thinking about how the filmmakers did it; we wanted the audience thinking about how Eisenheim did it. Again, to me, the magic in the movie is less about how he does the tricks and all that. It’s more about this sort of sense of coming face to face with something unexplainable or incomprehensible, and how that changes your perceptions about everything, how it rattles your sense.

When you see a good magic trick up close, you want to know how it’s done, but there’s also that moment when you sort of feel unnerved. Potentially, there are other possibilities of how this could have been accomplished.

C: Certainly, audiences at the time were much more susceptible to the dark arts explaination.

NB: Yeah, and I tried to make the audience in the movie sort of a big character, a collective character grab your point of view and sort of see it through their eyes as much as possible.

C: At that time, they would have written editorials about this magician connections to the spirit world. Did you do any research into that period? I assume you did.

NB: Yeah, I did a huge amount of research into the magic tricks, which are all based on real magic tricks and illusions of the time. I did a huge amount of research into just the magicians, the showmen, and what it was like to be an entertainer or be backstage. And, then a lot of research into the royal family and the political situation at the time, not to mention, researching what it was like to be a woman at that time.

I read all sorts of journals on what was going through these aristocratic women’s minds and what they were doing all day, just to kind of inform the characters to make it as authentic as possible.

C: This film is so different in terms of the look and the plot from your last film. But, they both deal with uncovering the truth about murder in very unconventional ways. Is there something about that theme that appeals to you?

NB: Yeah, well, I certainly like this blurring of distinction between truth and fiction or, in this case, truth and illusion. In both cases, there’s this element of how do you deal with the unexplainable.

In terms of the Kennedy assassination, nobody can ever quite get to the solution of how that is. And, in this case, it’s like everybody thinks they know how this trick is done, but there’s always one element that’s sort of out of reach, and they just can’t get it. And, how they deal with it is really reflective of who they are as people.

Yeah, I think, between the both of them, it’s about how you know what’s true, and how do you navigate through a world, how do you live in a world where truth becomes this subjective concept where everybody has a different truth for their own reasons, or where you can just never quite get to the truth.

To me, that has political ramifications for today. WMDs? Alright, you’re the president. I’ll believe you, you know? And, all that stuff suddenly isn’t true, and then how do you deal with that? So, I think those are the themes that connect the two films.

C: I have to ask you about the score by Philip Glass. Was there a particular score of his that you liked that made you really seek him out to do this? Or did he come forward?

NB: Well, what I liked in all of his scores, in all of his music is that it has a haunting, mystical quality to it, whether it be his electronic scores or his more orchestral ones.

So, he was always top of my list to score the movie, and we sent the screenplay to him, and luckily, he liked the screenplay and had an opening in his schedule. He maybe does a soundtrack once every couple of years or something like that, and so we were incredibly lucky to have him be a part of it. And, we worked closely together on where the music should be and what moments we were emphasizing, and then he went off and wrote the score.

And, then, he came back and played it for me against the picture, and we would adjust things, and it was an incredible experience to sit there with him as he kind of would recompose things right before your eyes.

C: I was wondering, since you’re still a relatively new director, is it intimidating working with someone like him?

NB: It was very intimidating! Yes, and in particular, he was the most intimidating because he’s in his 60s, and he’s one of the greatest living composers, I mean, he really is one of the greatest…living…composers. And, he actually was writing or had just finished his sixth symphony while he was working on my thing. And, he came over to our offices at one point, and he had it in his backpack. And, it was this thing, you felt like you were holding this historical document, like something from Mozart or something.

So, it was intimidating. But, there were moments when I might be sitting there with my editor, and Philip would be doing something at the piano in front of us to change something, and I’d say [in a whisper] he’s composing! What it really felt like was, he was writing a symphony for me.

But, he’s the nicest guy, he’s actually not intimidating as a person, but, yeah, it was intense. But, he’s a great collaborator, and ultimatelyhe was the guy writing the score for my movie. And, that’s kind of the way it works.

C: It’s hard to think that he’s working for you technically.

NB: Yeah, he was--technically, officially, every way.

C: Do you have anything coming up? Any ideas, any thoughts?

NB: I do. I’ve got my next script, and hopefully shooting in January. I can’t really tell you too much about it, just because it’s a little too close to me, but it’s totally different. It takes place in the United States now--a road trip.

C: Is there a murder in it?

NB: There isn’t, no, but it’s political.

C: A road film. That’s always a good fall-back. Everyone relatively new filmmaker has got to have at least one in there!

NB: [laughs] That’s right. And, the important thing for me with THE ILLUSIONIST is to get across the idea, I guess, that it’s not your typical period piece, because I think there’s a reluctance or a resistanceto going to a period piece. They think, Ughh, dull, that’s my parents’ thing.

C: I think the right cast can sort of…

NB: …Yeah, sort of transcend that. I think so, too. But, we want to be true to the period, but it’s about much more than that; it’s about that cat-and-mouse game between Edward Norton’s character and Paul Giamatti’s character. It’s about the visual game. It’s a visual puzzle.

C: You did a Q&A last night after a screening of the film, right?

NB: Uh-huh. Were you there?

C: No, I was not, but I was curious, because I see so many movies in a year that I guess the big surprise at the end wasn’t that much of a surprise to me. Have you found that audiences you interact with are surprise.

NB: Most are. I’d say 75 percent of the audience are, like, [in a tone of disbelief] “Aww-w-w, it’s all a trick!” The rest of the people figure it out, but still sort of enjoy it, and then, maybe, there’s five percent of the people who are, like, “Ah, I knew!”

C: Even if you do figure out the secret, you don’t know the whole logistics of how they pulled it off.

NB: As I said, the response has been great. We just have to get people into the theaters, and then the movie will do the work.

C: I was going to ask you about your adaptation of the short story. When you added those other elements to it, if there were elements that you had originally considered adding, then said, Wait, that might be too much for one film.

NB: There definitely were things I did. The first draft I had to take out some things, and unfortunately, what happens is, like, you start having to create a drama or sort of a new dramatic concept to it then that starts eating away at the original story that you so loved. And then it dilutes that scene, because it’s like you’re just trying to get to these moments. That was a real struggle to keep what was most beautiful in it, and the producers were asking, Why don’t we just get right to the girl?

C: What’s your favorite scene that you had to take out--either that you filmed or that you had written?

NB: There are three scenes: One that we filmed was called the Pied Piper Illusion, which was about the Pied Piper of Hamlin, you know, who eventually leads the children, and we do that on stage. Eisenheim leads these children, he kind of bewitches these children in the audience and walks into a hill, like this beautiful stage set, huge stage set. The curtain goes up, and it looks like a real hill on stage with this door in it, and he leads these children from the audience, who come up, some of them, sort of willingly and enjoying it, and other ones sort of seemingly in a trance. And, they walk into this door, and he closes the door on them, and then just brings down his hand, and the whole set disappears, including them. And, the audience is freaked out.

C: A little too Michael Jackson?

NB: No, no, no. It was more this idea of it was sort of impeding the flow.

Capone









Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus