Right on Bill… excuse my fizziness… I am bowled over by the look of this and I am really looking forward to it. yes indeed i see similarities with 101 dalmations but really they are far from significant in my eyes

aye lad different strokes for different folks

I was extremely excited to finally get to see the Illusionist last week. I am a big fan of Triplets de Belleville and had the highest expectations for Chomets next film.
However, as gorgeous and breathtaking beautiful the images, animation and backgrounds are, the story falls short. I wasn’t able to connect with the characters emotionally at all, the story seemed to be happening on a surface level.
In the great character designs and from the character and story built up in the beginning of the film, there is a huge potential for character depth, engaging personalities and development of the story, yet it stays unused. The characters don’t really develop, rather just move linearly towards that unsatisfying ending. So I ended up leaving the cinema dissatisfied and disappointed.
I applaud all the artists for their amazing work, and at the same time I am profoundly sad that the storytelling does not live up to the rest of the art.

This is worth going to the theatre to see. Very nice.

Looking very nice… Is anyone else reminded of those Broken Sword games when they look at this?

I am the maximum amount of excited for this movie. Cannot wait.

As an animator and cartoonist, I don’t want to disrespect the animation, and the hard working artists, themselves. I was a big fan of “Triplets” and I can tell artistically this is on that amazing level- Paul your work is wonderful and those brilliant folks you highlight, as well. It doesn’t change my earlier comments, but I would be extremely remiss if I didn’t give props to these really really talented individuals.

In case you haven’t seen it, official French website here;

http://www.lillusionniste-lefilm.com/#/home

J’adore M. Chomet!

I wonder how much live action reference was used to animate this. The color palette is kinda drab, but the film looks good. I’ll see this.

I’m surprised at how much CG is there.

The look looks not as interesting-looking as Triplettes.

Keaton did that two-motorcycles gag in the 20′s.

On that Roger Ebert Link there’s a lonnngggg rant from tati’s relations regarding how much the film has disgraced his memory. I don’t think they know how small a cultural blip a 2D animated feature from a french director is going to be.

I’ve been lucky enough to see the film twice now, and much like the Triplets, I found I enjoyed it even more on the second viewing.
A beautiful film….I’d give it four stars.

Robert and Dan – we shot video for two scenes involving a complex dance. The rest is straight from the brains of animators. This film was not rotoscoped.

Although not overly inspired by what I’ve seen in the trailer I am interested to know how much actual animation was done by Chomet and which characters were drawn by other artists on the team. To the outside world the image conjured up of Chomet is of a singular animator labouring long hours over the drawing board.

Looks stunning.

Soreane: Sylvain Chomet himself animated only one small scene on this film, just to find out it was very difficult and he decided to leave it to the animators. Hope that helps the outside world :o)

-V-

Thanks for the insight Victor. Mr Chomet it would seem is disingenuous on many a front in the way he thinks he can delude the outside world.

I can only think of one other animator who used video reference of himself to refer to on the production, but even that wasn’t roto’d. Yep, some pretty amazing animation is in there!

Paul & Greg: Thank you for clearing up the rotoscope issue. It’s not meant to imply true rotoscoping, but it can certainly be used as a tool in the creation process, as a reference point. Can’t wait to actually watch the film, in a theater. Hope it’s great enough that I then drag other people to it, like Coraline, or Spirited Away, or Triplets of Belleville. Best of Luck.

thanks for the compliments paul,i’ll raise another glass to yourself and the crew at our usual friday night hangout.it was great to see it on the big screen and even better to see it with the guys.congratulations to all concerned.

Very glad to have been involved in this!
As Paul said no rivalries and amazing work from all the artists.

Couldn’t make it to the Cumberland unfortunately but saw it in Brussels instead.

If you’re interested in Chomet style I’d recommend checking out the work of Daniel Goossens. He’s a big inspiration of Chomet and you can clearly see the resemblance in style. As for the art direction Nicolas de Crecy is someone to check out as well as Evgeni Tomov. Both worked on The old lady and the pigeons and at some point with Chomet. As far as the character design of the Illusionist goes Pierre-Henri Laporterie did a lot of work on it also.

Thanks to some of the comments here, now I feel too ashamed to want to see this. I don’t want to wind up enjoying something that will just have me labeled supportive of an evil person by other people.

Thanks, folks! I just LOVE having niggling thoughts prevent me from enjoying something otherwise beautiful to me.

Sylvain Chomet sets out a highly unusual and unrealistic interpretation of both Jaques Tati’s original script and the validity of how he acquired it. A far more compelling account can be found here:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/the-shame-of-jacques-tati.html

This account further underlines the bland hypocracy Sylain Chomet has persisted to peddle with his grotesquely absurd, mawkish sentimental drivel of ‘being in love with a city’. Something which, whilst being able to dedicate an entire film to, he is paradoxically unable to articulate in anything other than the most hackneyed and insincere ferms:

“It’s difficult to explain what happens when you fall in love with a city,” Chomet tells me in a thick Parisian accent. “It’s like when you meet a person and feel you have known them all your life”.

http://news.scotsman.com/interviews/Interview-Sylvain-Chomet-film-director.6358987.jp#5310178

This merely serves to elevate the highly emotive and revealing account provided both eloquently and succinctly by Richard Mcdonald in his heart-rending tribute to his own mother; Helga Marie-Jeanne Schiel, the eldest daughter of Jaques Tati, a lady who is both alive and well and living in the North East of England to this day. Is it not more likely, as Richard Mcdonald concisely points out that the l’Illusionniste is an apology from Tati, not infact to his youngest daughter (Sophie), but to his eldest, estranged daughter (Helga), whom he abandoned in her youth and carried the shame of of doing so to his dying day.

Why then is Chomet publicly persisting to sidestep this inescapable and independently verified truth (by Tati’s own Biographer infact), despite having met Richard Mcdonald, inviting him to his studio?

Could the answer not lie somewhere between the smudged lines of the varying accounts Chomet has provided as to how he actually came into recievership of this script, and the sometimes vague and crucially differing versions he has put forward:

“Tati had this feeling that he had missed something essential. It’s an extremely emotional story, so personal that I think he was afraid to make it himself. Really, she gave me a precious gift and sadly Sophie Tatischeff died from lung cancer – like her father – before I could thank her for letting me have the script.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jun/10/sylvain-chomet-belleville-rendezvous-illusionist

Or:

‘I’m a big fan of Tati,’ Chomet says, ‘and Sophie thought there were a lot of common points between my animation style and her father’s universe. Unfortunately, she died before I had a chance to meet her, but when I went to Cannes [for Belleville’s world premiere] I read the script she had passed on to me through her will.

http://edinburghfestival.list.co.uk/article/26048-the-illusionist-opens-eiff-2010-sylvain-chomet-interview/

Surely the opertunity to ‘thank’ Sophie Tatischeff would have long since passed if, as Chomet clearly states, he was bequeathed the script in her will, thus leading this observer firstly to wonder if Chomet can actually provide the will? And secondly – if the ‘will’ version he has suggested is actually true. Assuming it is, and having met and invited Richard Mcdonald to his Edinburgh studio, did Chomet then begin to realise there may be inheritance issues regarding the script and therefore distanced himself from the surviving memebers of Jaques Tati’s family, making no allusion to them, and more importantly Tati’s eldest daughter, Helga, in any subsequant press releases. Could it be be that it somehow suits Chomet for them not to exist?

So the precise reason Chomet has wilfully chosen to misinterpret and pervert the true nature of Tati’s original script, thus diluting and undermining its validity, is unclear. But in so doing, preposterously in this observers opinion, by attempting to re-write the personal details of a private life, weaving in similes that flimsily echo the personal journey that he (Chomet) has shared with his own daughter throughout the creative process merely serves to provide a smokescreen, a cheap conjurer’s trick, neatly drawing attention away from what lies at the central core of the l’Illusionniste; a far deeper, intrinsically more compelling story that Chomet has stubbornly, and for whatever reason, completely failed to grasp. And now, all these years on, it seems somehow perverse and downright degradeing that a young woman, abandoned in youth and now again in her dotage is cast further aside, but not just by her father (as if this is not bad enough), but by the slanted agenda’s of induviduals and estates who seek to embroider the separate strands of their own lives into the Jaques Tati myth at the expense of those biologically tied:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/jacques-tati-lost-film-family-illusionniste

hi – i’ve searched all over the internet for interviews with sylvan chomet for any sign of any response to the the startleing revelations by this richard mcdonald fella, and as yet haven’t found anything?

does anybody know if there might be a reason for this? i notice quite a lot of the artists on the film seem to post here (ace work by the way peeps!!). perhaps they know, or have any thoughts?

if anything, interviews by sylvan chomet about the film seem very thin on the ground anyway. why has the fanfare been muted? can anybody direct me to any links?

thanks in advance – chris

On home soil the first week of The Illusionist release in France has seen it enter the box office chart a lowly number 8 generating little over $600,000 in seats compared to the number one movie of the week the critically slammed A Team which has done $3,200,000 worth of business.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/france/?yr=2010&wk=25&p=.htm

It appears even in it home territory it has only been able to gain minimal exposure on just 84 screens.

I am only speculating here because I’ve got no experience with distribution but a limited release for art house films is normal. The number you’ve over looked is that The Illusionist brought in $7,144 per screen. – nearly $2000 more per screen than A Team. The screenings are selling out. If Pathe chose to release first weekend on only 84 screens then I’ll say they’d have to be happy with the enormous success at each of those screenings.

Nearly forgot, Princess and the Frog did $11,436 per screen on its release in France.

You’re not comparing apples to apples. Frog Princess had a production budget of over $100 million and a P & A budget north of $50 million for North America alone. Dragon had a production budget of $160 million and a huge P & A budget. Each debuted on hundreds of screens.

The Illusionist will not make anywhere close to the box office of these other films. There is a much smaller audience for this type of movie (nobody is going to drag the kiddies to The Illusionist on a Saturday) and that was reflected in the much smaller production budget (less than 15% of How to Train Your Dragon.)

Triplettes grossed around 14 million worldwide and that was enough to be considered a success. I imagine The Illusionist will have the same audience and the same numbers.

Whatever your opinion of the movie or of the filmmaker I hope that there are more opportunities for animators to make movies with modest budgets and modest expectations at the box office. They seem to be the most interesting.

Put another way Princess and the Frog returned 8% of its production cost in it first weeks release in France where as the Illusionist only managed 4% in what is likely to be its largest market.

What does it matter anyway? Neither one of you or me is even going to see a single cent of it, no matter how much it makes at the boxoffice, so stop fighting over it.
Go see it! If you like it, good! If not, at least you’ve been watching some beautiful animation. Take care guys!

-V-

Where is Chomet?

He’s not in the Rothbury area by any chance? Mr Moat appears to have better communication skills and he doesn’t have a film studio backing him! From where I’m standing Moat is an innocent compared to this guy.

Whoever drew the guy who wins the girls heart is entitled to a cold a cold drink from me. Genuinely fantastic!

Love the animation. Feel pity for the director,and his associates.

Apparently, Paul Gascoigne is on his way to Provance, with some pencils, paper, an idea for a story and a mobile phone.

Paul, if you read this don’t do it. Your a well intentioned bloke with virtue and could ruin your reputation associating yourself with such low life.