Talk:The Illusionist (2010 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cast[edit]

Could someone add a cast list and some media reception who knows? Thanks Spanglej (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motives for the script[edit]

That section seems overly long and lacking in neutrality to me- it seems argumentative and unclear as to the importance of the argument being made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.178.70 (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I changed the title to "motives for the script" as it's not really about Schiel. I have tried to clear up the syntax a little and create more NPOV. I imagine the central argument is whether Tati wrote the script for his daughters Sophie or Helga.
The relevance of the info in the 3rd para is not clear to me.
"In a round table interview at the Berlin Film Festival in February 2010, Chomet discussed Tati's possible motives for the script. He said, “Sophie was 13 when he [Tati] started working on it” in 1956 and that, “Tati was married at the time” when his first child, Helga Marie-Jeanne was born in 1942.[1] Born in 1946, Sophie Tatischeff was in fact 10 in 1956. [2] Her half sister Helga Marie-Jeanne, was Tati’s only teenage daughter, turning 14 at the time of the script's first draft . Tati was not married at the time of the birth of his first child, as Chomet claimed. Helga Marie-Jeanne had “courted and performed on stage at Le Lido de Paris with Herta (Schiel) for the two years previous to the birth of their child”[3].Tati did not marry Micheline Winter, the mother of Sophie Tatischeff, until 1944" [4].
I understand that Chomet spoke inaccurately at this conference but this doesn't affect any arguments about which daughter the script was written to (if either), it seems to me. How is relevant to the article about the film? t seems to be introduced to suggest that Chomet has little idea what he's talking about - which is beside the point, inconclusive and argumentative. Details of Tati's private life, the age of his children, whether he was married or not when they were born, would seem to belong better on the pages about Tati or Sophie, if anywhere. I would suggest removing this para.
Personal feelings about this seem to run high with this. Let's be careful to maintain NPOV, despite the emotive topic. No edit wars please. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate account seeker, using verbs like "Chomet confessed" and "propagating the false information" and "the true account", is not Neutral point of view. The phrases themselves contain a judgement. Suggesting that Chomet "confesses" to something, is implying wrong doing. Have a look at the guidelines Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) - especially Expressions of doubt and Expressing editorial opinion. WP can express nothing personal again Tati, Chomet, Hitler or anyone else. The job of the encyclopaedia is just to tell what happened and frame other people's perspectives. As it says in that page under, Impartial tone "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes".
I don't understand the addition of the third paragraph in the last section Motives for the script. Why does it matter to the article if Sophie was 13 or 10 and whether Tati was married or not? I look forward to finding a clearer understanding. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is my take on it.
The section "Motives for the script" contains crucial information to understand why Tati, a far more important figure in world cinema than Chomet, had originally written and never made The Illusionist. Having been universally acknowledged as being wrote as a semi-autobiographical letter from, “a father to a daughter” that at its core deals with the dilemma of a lonely teenager making her first steps into adulthood. That is why verification of the age of Tati’s daughters is important and that is why Chomet dishonest telling of the history of the Tatischeff family and particular his two daughter’s age is significant. Why lie about it if it was not important?
Perhaps not knowing the family history of Jacques Tati and that he had two daughters, Chomet might well have originally thought that a script wrote, “as a personal letter to his daughter” was indeed intended for Sophie but the historical facts that parallel the script presented by Tati’s grandson clearly indicate that the script mirrors the life of Tati’s eldest daughter, Helga Marie-Jeanne and not Sophie. From what we know Helga Marie-Jeanne in the main grew up modestly without family in boarding school. Then at the age of 13 and very much a refugee working as a maid in North Africa she wrote to her father in 1955 for help. Sophie on the other hand grew up with her brother Pierre in mid to upper class prosperity brought about by their fathers successful movie career and the inherent wealth of a noble white Russian family. The contrast in life between the two daughters could not be more distant. The largely privileged upbringing of Sophie who knew nothing of poverty is not what is reflected in Tati’s The Illusionist script or Chomet final movie.
Are we really to believe that Tati, one of the most sensitive movie directors of all time, would be so crass as to write a script about the coming of age of a downtrodden teenage girl the same age as his own almost destitute eldest daughter who had in the same year wrote to him for help in search of a compassionate father without him considering reconciling with her?
It is unbelievable to think that Tati would be so insensitive as to set his most private melancholy script in Czechoslovakia, his only movie set outside of France and the homeland of the mother of his first child, Herta Schiel, whilst mourning the death of cabaret when in real life he had enjoyed a flourishing stage career with her before shamefully abandoning both her and his first child during the occupation.
Every interview I have read by Chomet of The Illusionist tends to contain contradicting information which points that something is not right and that the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. Chomet’s take on The Illusionist was scheduled to be released in 2007, then 2008, then 2009 and finally 2010, why the delays?
Chomet has been inconsistently disingenuous when discussing the origins of the movie and how he had obtained it in the first place, for example at least four very different accounts have been given by himself in various journals as to how he had obtained the script which fluctuate from 1) being given to him personally, although having never met her, by a chronically ill Sophie Tatischeff four months before she died of lung cancer having wowed her with nothing more than concept sketches of Triplets of Belleville from the other side of the world in Canada 2) Being bequeathed it in Sophie’s will, again after having never met or even spoken to her 3) That it had been hidden away in the vaults of the Centre National de la Cinematograhie for half a century 4) That it had been given or sold(both have been told) to him by the commercial venture that promotes Tati’s movies, Les Film’s de Mon Oncle, after Triplets was shown in Cannes in 2003 two years after the death of Sophie.
A movie first presented in Berlin first as “Love letter from a father to a daughter” and then alternatively in Edinburgh as a “Love Letter to a City” before more recently, after a lacklustre response in France, its location being denounced by Chomet as “irrelevant.”
Chomet’s dishonest telling of history to suit himself does not do him or Tati, whom supposedly is meant to be paying homage too, any credit and that is why I feel strong wording is necessary. The fact is Chomet has been “propagating false information” to conceal "the true account" of history.

References

  1. ^ Electric Sheep article.
  2. ^ Sophie Tatischeff, IMDB, Bio
  3. ^ "The secret of Jacques Tati". 2010-05-26. Roger Ebert's Journal , Chicago Sun-Times..
  4. ^ Jacques Tatischeff, IMDB, Bio"

Proposed version of the controversy behind the script[edit]

First, I am reproducing the text proposed by Spanglej with two edits:

  • The script of the L'illusionniste -> The script of L'illusionniste
  • aknowledging -> acknowledging

and, as an international editor (whatever that means), I would prefer

  • Controversy has dogged the -> Controversy surrounds the script of
Controversy has dogged the The Illusionist. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, speculation circulates as to who inspired Tati's script. The Guardian reports "In 2000, the screenplay was handed over to Chomet by Tati's daughter, Sophie, two years before her death. Now, however, the family of Tati's illegitimate and estranged eldest child, Helga Marie-Jeanne Schiel, who lives in the north-east of England, are calling for the French director to give her credit as the true inspiration for the film. The script of L'illusionniste, they say, was Tati's response to the shame of having abandoned his first child [Schiel] and it remains the only public recognition of her existence. They accuse Chomet of attempting to airbrush out their painful family legacy again."
ref>"Jacques Tati's lost film reveals family's pain" The Guardian</ref
ref>"Jacques Tatis ode to his illegitimate daughter". Samuel, Henry 2010-06-16 Daily Telegraph</ref
Chomet is among those of a different opinion about the film's origins although acknowledging: "I never got to meet Sophie, or even speak to her about the script." [1][2] Chomet said, "I think Tati wrote the script for Sophie Tatischeff. I think he felt guilty that he spent too long away from his daughter when he was working."[3]
In a June 2010 interview for The National, Chomet gave his personal reasons for his attraction to the script: "I have two young children, a four-year-old and a two-year-old. But I also have a daughter who is 17 who I don’t live with because I separated from her mother. She was 12 when I started the project and you can feel things changing." [4] This appears to mirror the regret of a broken paternal relationship that Tati had with his own daughter Helga Marie-Jeanne Schiel. Of the story, Chomet commented that he "fully understood why he (Jacques Tati) had not brought it (The Illusionist) to the screen. It was too close to him, and spoke of things he knew only too well, preferring to hide behind the figure of Monsieur Hulot". [5]

In my view that is NPOV and it presents a clear, balanced, picture. The way the controversy is presented I actually learn something about my favourite filmmaker. It may need clarification how Sophie handed Chomet the script, yet they never met. Superp (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clear fact is that Tati grandson/Schiels son has presented a thorough historical reference of the scripts origin and the reason why it was written and the regretful issues that it was meant to address. In response all that Chomet has provided is an "opinion" without any evidence to support his point of view even though the story of The Illusionist clearly reflects the humble life of Helga Marie-Jeanne rather than the privileged upbringing of Sophie. Chomet to his own admission never knew Tati or his family and has not presented any evidence to support his purely speculative opinion of the scripts origin.
Tati's grandsons letter of the account of the scripts origins gives a vital understanding of what events had motivated the comic legend and should be refrenced in full if a balanced view is to be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate account seeker (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Latest I have read in an interview with Chomet in Timeout this week confirm that he never met Sophie and never read the script until 2003. Chomet is now saying that he was only handed the script to read for consideration of making by Les Films de Mon Oncle, the promotions company who own the copyright on four of Tati's movies in 2003 on his way to presenting Triplets of Belleville at that year Cannes.
http://www.timeout.com/film/features/show-feature/10454/sylvain-chomet-the-trials-of-making-the-illusionist.html "Sylvain Chomet: the trials of making The Illusionist" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate account seeker (talk • contribs) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that interesting link. You have made your point, but this is not the place to present your opinion. If you are suggesting to host the letter here, Wikipedia is not the place either, and there is already a reference to it in the article. One thing I have learned from the discussion and reading several sources, is to understand the pain felt by the Schiel family. If you are part of that family or close to them, you may want to read about conflict of interest. The text proposed by Spanglej above summarises both points of view, with links to sources. Anyone with an interest will learn Schiel's and Chomet's POV and can click those links and learn more. Let's proceed. Superp (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support Superp in this. The sources go into the family debate at some length and make reference to the grandson's letter. Let's add the Timeout citation. Superp, I used "dogged" to suggest that controversy has been with the story since the beginning - it has a history if article readers wish to investigate further. But no biggie if 'dogged' is not common parlance. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. The important thing is that we don't present any original arguments, and restrict ourselves to what has been published in media regarding this specific controversy. Smetanahue (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually dug up the thesaurus - but lets stick with dogged. I suggest Spanglej rolls it in, it is her/his text. Superp (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence, “Given the lack of conclusive evidence, speculation circulates as to who inspired Tati's script” is just awful and reads as if it is dismissive, without evidence to support such a stance, of the historical and emotional facts presented by Tati’s grandson as to why Tati had written the script. There is no family dispute, how can they be if the only living members of Tati’s family, his only living child, his only grandchildren and great grandchildren, speak with the same voice? Chomet does not and nor can he speak for Sophie Tatischeff a woman he never knew or a family to which he has no links. What he can do is present factual evidence to support his claim which he has not done. Unsupported by any substantial fact Chomet’s explanation of who the script was intended for is no more valid than if any other party decided tomorrow for example to say that Sophie knew that the script was intended for her elder sister.

The only solid facts presented by anyone is by Tati’s grandson and therefore should carry substantial weight over any purely speculative account by individuals trying to align themselves to the Tati legacy to which they are not linked professionally or other. It seems undisputed that the script was written by Tati as a letter to his daughter and the facts that are available point that it was intended for Helga Marie-Jeanne, Tati’s eldest daughter.

Your intended edits are edging close to censorship of history to suit an agenda rather than being about neutrally documenting history that is enlightening to anyone who wants to study and understand what motivated one of cinema’s most inspiring individuals in Jacques Tati the author of L'Illusionniste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate account seeker (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Ebert's readers' comments to the letter could be helpful to find a way out of this impasse. Also this edit over at FR-WP, flagged minor (!). I am much too tired to continue the debate and respond to the above, just recording. Cheers. Superp (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have removed the awful sentence and added into the article the description as per The Guardian. There are 9 solid sources given for the section, if readers feel driven to investigate further. This meets WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:ALLEGED and Impartial tone. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spanglej, for improving the quality of the article yet considering personal sensitivities. Well done. Meanwhile, I have changed the introduction to reflect the section on the script. Cheers. Superp (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Superp, for someone who is riding on a NPOV agenda for your “favourite filmmaker” you seem intent in adding unsupported biased claims to push your own personal point of view.
Your latest addition “It’s absolutely clear to me that the script is about him and Sophie, and his regrets about being absent. Those reports (surfaced) before anyone had even seen the film, and I think they’re a way of attacking It.” Is not a NPOV. Its a personal opinion that lacks any sort of historical evidence/reference for people that Chomet in his own words never knew or ever had contact with. It is imposible for him to make definative “absolutely clear” statement on what Tati had in mind when writing the Illusionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate account seeker (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not reverting to avoid edit war. My aim is to have a balanced representation of the two views: Helga's family's vs Chomet's. The sourced Chomet quote I added seems enlightening, but I leave it to others to decide about that. For the moment, I am stepping back from both articles and this discussion. Cheers, Superp (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. two hours later I realised the above poster might imply I am a fan of Chomet. But I am not at all. I am a fan of Tati as a filmmaker. Thought it might be good to clarify that. Anyway, good luck. Superp (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The National article (UAE) "His master’s voice: a cartoon homage to Jaques Tati" June 15. 2010
  2. ^ Edinburgh Film Festival article
  3. ^ "Why Sylvain Chomet chose Scotland over Hollywood". Gibbons, Fiachra. The Guardian. 10 June 2010
  4. ^ The National article
  5. ^ BoDoi Comic blog (French)

August 2010: contradict tag[edit]

The intro asserts as a fact that the script was a letter to Helga, whereas the article notes points of view: the script may or may not be aimed at either of the two daughters. See discussion and soapbox above. Not reverting to avoid edit war. Superp (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the intro was edited and the tag subsequently removed Aug 19. Superp (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

The inspiration and intentions for the script are disputed. Some assert it was a personal message from Tati to either Helga or Sophie, his daughters, but this is debated (see above). Superp (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

language[edit]

Why is the films language show only as French when in the film Scots Gaelic and English are clearly heard? Both Scots Gaelic and English are also listed on IMDB as the languages in the film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0775489/maindetails —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.50.118.230 (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the plot that while he was on the train with the little girl he noticed how small her pencil was and that his was an apt substitute for it; he proceeds to tuck a pencil into his coat and causes one of the pencils to partially emerge from his hand causing the little girl (and presumably the audience) to assume the pencil is now longer (or in the audience's case: his pencil) and then her disappointment as it is revealed that it is her small pencil that he handed back to her. This probably symbolizes that he doesn't wish to inadvertently cause the girl to believe in magic like he did with Alice, or he just no longer possesses the generosity he once had. King Rhyono (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Illusionist (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Illusionist (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Illusionist (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Illusionist (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure phrase[edit]

Is somebody able to clarify this phrase in #Animation, "The 2D part of animation sent in Paris has been executed". I couldn't see any help in wp:fr. Errantius (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Illusionist_(2010_film)&oldid=1202918682"