The Illusionist director discusses his love for traditional storytelling, hand-drawn animation and Scotland.
Sylvain Chomet announced himself with The Triplets of Belleville, the impossibly detailed animated film that garnered two Oscar nominations without a computer graphic in sight. Since then, Hollywood studios have been falling over each other to try and get him to swap Paris for Beverly Hills, but instead he chose Edinburgh, where he established the animation studio Django Films.
His new film The Illusionist, the product of several million hours work and a budget of £10 million, is an adaption of the great French director Jacques Tati’s last, unmade script and a love letter to the rugged beauty of the old Scottish city. It opened this year's Edinburgh Film Festival and hit UK cinemas last week. He talked to LWLies about his love of Tati’s films, why he chose to set the film in Edinburgh and his plans to move away from animation to make live action films.
LWLies: We understand Jacques Tati’s daughter approached you and asked you to make The Illusionist?
Chomet: Yes, well we approached her when we were doing The Triplets of Belleville in Montreal because we needed to get some footage from one of Tati’s films, Monsieur Hulot's Holiday, to put in Triplets, so one of our producers in France actually contacted Sophie Tatischeff to get some of this material. We showed her some elements of Triplets and then she had this idea that my kind of animation, my graphic style, would work really well with her Dad’s script. I was supposed to meet her two months later but she died in the meantime so I never met her, or even got to talk to her on the phone, so it was a very brief encounter. When Triplets was finished I was going to Cannes to present the film and I asked the producer to pass me the script so I could read it on the train. I was not really keen on doing an animation of someone else’s work because I already had my own projects and wanted to write my own films, so I read the script and I was thinking ‘I hope its not good’ because I could say I understand why Tati didn’t do it and then say ‘No, that’s not for me, thank you very much,’ and carry on with my own projects. But it wasn’t the case. I completely fell in love with the script, and at that time it wasn’t something I completely wanted to do, I really wanted to do a film about a father and a daughter relationship.
Do you really see it as a simple father and daughter story? Because there is a sexuality there as well, which was covert and latent, but it was there. Do you not see this at all?
In the original script maybe it was a bit more obvious because the woman character was a bit older. When Tati originally wrote the script he actually contacted a woman to play the role and she really looked like Brigitte Bardot, and she was a model for Picasso at the time. It was during the early beginnings of Brigitte Bardot and she was strikingly the same. This women is still alive and she lives in the South of England and she is a painter, so that’s the big difference, and when I saw her portraits of her, by Picasso actually, I didn’t use it. I didn’t go in that direction because Bardot became amazingly famous in the meantime and there was no way I would use a character that looked like her. So I went for something a bit more experimental. My daughter was 12 when I started the film and now she’s 18, so I had to make it a bit less sexual, although there are some elements in the film when you think something might happen...
When they’re in the house together, you wonder whether he will step through into the bedroom or vice versa. It always seems possible.
Which she does at the end of the film when he comes home and he’s drunk, and he does step into the bedroom but then realises that something has happened, but not with Tati. I think Tati was very shy with his relationships to women. Even in his own movies, there were a lot of pretty women around, but the character was always very shy with them.
How long have you found Tati an inspiration, and when did you first discover him?
Since I was born he was around, he’s just a part of French culture and I can’t really say when the first time I even saw a film by Tati, it was just like the air you breathe. When I got older, and particularly when I started work on this film, I really started to look at the details of his art.
Did anything strike you or surprise you?
What I discovered is the way he was filming was very special because Tati wasn’t really born with the camera in his hand and I don’t think he thought of doing cinema in his early days because he was a musical artist. So he had a way to shoot, he was basically shooting a scene; it was very theatrical or very musical, just setting a camera and not moving everything. You could always see their feet as they dance, never any close ups. The camera is never really telling the story; the story is on the screen, in the frame.
Considering this was Tati's script and considering his role in French culture, how much did you feel a weight of responsibility here?
I tried to ignore that completely and I’m probably going to realise that in the next month and collapse. I really tried to think a lot more about Sophie Tatischeff because she passed me this thing and I thought of the estate of Tati who were partners with Sophie and are now in charge of his films. They are very talented people and I felt part of that family and I never really thought about the weight of Tati’s heritage. I really tried to make it my own as well, I put a lot of my own vision in to it. I made the father and daughter relationship a lot stronger than it was in the original script.
The original film wasn’t set in Edinburgh was it?
No that’s right, the original film was set in Prague.
So why Edinburgh? What struck you about the city?
I went to present the Triplets of Belleville in Edinburgh, and I just instantly fell in love with the city. There was something about it; the change of light, the clouds passing. It's a city full of light and it's an amazing light that you can only find in Provence because there’s a lot of wind and the light is very sharp. I really loved the people as well, they were very welcoming, but in a true way. I always felt very at home and very much part of a family and very integrated in Scotland. So that’s why I set it in Scotland, because I don’t like to invent, and Prague doesn’t mean anything to me. I need to live most of the experience, so in the film when the train arrives in Scotland that was the experience I had when I arrived in Scotland. The arrival on the island of Mull with the fog; it’s something I lived, and I think it’s much better to try and transmit these feelings when you live them. You can’t invent Scotland, it’s impossible, you have to experience it.
Do you see imperfections in your work when you watch it back?
Oh yes, I have always found that with my own work. I’m a bit of a maniac like that. I’m never satisfied so sometimes I just shut my eyes because I recognise details that no one else will ever see. But after a while, I relax. I can watch Triplets and be relaxed about it, but it usually takes three or four years before I can appreciate it. But I’m still very moved every time I sit through the film. It’s talking about the transformation of people, the girl becoming a woman and the man being at the end of the road... I think it's very touching.
At what stage do you say ‘Right, finished’ and move to something else when you’re making something this detailed?
I try to start from the beginning and never come back. I always try to be convinced that that is the right choice and then go with it. So I really move step by step. When I was happy with the adaption I moved to the animatic and when I was happy with the animatic I started to work on the music and then I started to work on the animation. It's very important not to look back. You have a vision of a film and you go for it. If it's not right then that’s your entire fault, but that’s the way it works.
Do you think you’ll always make animation or do you think you’ll go into live-action cinema?
I have two live-action projects lined up, although I don’t know which one I will start first. I'd really like to try live-action because I love animation, but it just takes so much time.
Are there any challenges that concern you when it comes to filming live action?
People who do animation are very well trained when it comes to going into live-action because you have a sense of detail and control and organisation. Most of the people that come from animation, like Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam, they do a lot of work on the storyboard prior to the film so its always very organised. I'm not too interested in doing that.
Do you see film as a composition exercise first and foremost?
Well there are so many different styles. It depends on where you come from. Tati came from musicals and everyone has their own sensitivity, some people are more graphical whereas others are much more close to the dialogue. When I do live action it’s going to have a sense of graphicism, much more than someone like Godard, for example. He does not really use graphicism, it’s much more about the drama and the dialogue and the camera. [People like Godard] were people that used the camera much more, as a pen. I am a bit to the contrary. I am at ease with the camera and what I want to see, but Tati did not use the camera at all...
What inspires you in life?
My life inspires me in life.
View 186 comments
Aldorf
• 2 years agoJordan Scott
• 2 years agoPlease, it would be rather appreciated if the writer of this had seen the film, or even a trailer for it before discussing it like this. The Triplets of Belleville has loads of 3D CGI in it, for most of the vehicles like bicycles, cars, trains, ships and various little things like a weather vane and the integration of drawn and CGI and the freshness they brought to each other is perhaps the thing I most liked about the film at the time and something it should be commended for, not denied existing.
Tom
• 2 years agoJBowan
• 2 years agohttp://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter...
http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/film-cine...
Chomet
• 2 years agoChomet
• 2 years agohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/jacqu...
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoChomet
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoIf, armed with a full knowledge of Tati's family history (a knowledge that has only really emerged very recently, and was certainly not available to the general public when Tati wrote his script), you wish to discern an allusion to it in Tati's original script, you can surely still discern an allusion to it in Chomet's adaptation as well (which focuses equally on the regret, disappointment and disillusionment of an aging man - expressly named Tatischeff - in the presence of a younger woman who could just as well be - but expressly is not - his daughter). If you want to trace in Chomet's film an allegorical expression of Tati's regrets about the daughter he abandoned, you certainly can. That said, there are other aspects to be found in both the original script and Chomet's adaptation that might command as much, if not more, of the average viewer's attention, and these should not be denied by narrowly reducing the script to a mere psychohistory of Helga. It may be that, but it is more than just that.
Fin
Cus
• 2 years agoThe story between the two lead protagonists run in parallel with the moaning the loss of the age of cabaret, a historically period of time that Tati had performed with the mother of his eldest daughter. The family of stage performers was a community Tati was to be shunned by because of his very treatment towards his first child. The entire movie is about regret and reflecting loss. Scarcely just a coincidence.
You can't shot the messenger if knowledge of the scripts existence and its intentions have been known for a very long time to those most affected.
The movie would have been miles better for a sensitive account of events that led to its writing.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoAs to your wish for a "sensitive account of events that led to its writing", that might indeed be interesting - but it would also be a very different movie (and nothing like Tati's original script). You seem on the one hand to be lambasting Chomet for introducing some rather minimal changes to Tati's script, and then lambasting him even more for not changing the script beyond all recognition.
Cus
• 2 years agoIn a French TV interview Pierre Etaix commented that "Tati already had my uncle, the Illusioniost was to be Tati's my father".
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoChomet, I appreciate you may have difficulty understanding the point that I am making. Did you have anything else to contribute, y'know, about Chomet and The Illusionist, or is it all down to personal abuse? I'll try once more, in big, easy words: if you want to find in Chomet's film oblique references to Tati's feelings about his abandoned, illegitimate daughter Helga, you can. Chances are that any viewer who cannot find them there would also not have noticed such references in Tati's original script. That is all.
Chomet
• 2 years agoThe simple fact remains however, that the company's involved in the production of The Illusionist are intent on scoring enough own goals to constitute a basketball score.
See Cartoonbrew.com for futher examples:
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/illus...
In what is clearly a sensitive issue for the family, Chomet and his cohorts have continued to brutally ride rough-shod over all sensibility's regarding their illustrious and troubled past. Why else would he continually, and flimsily, persist in peddleing the blatent mistruth that the script is in some way 'an apology from a father to a daughter'. The daughter in question being Sophie Tatischeff, if Chomet is to be believed - a woman who enjoyed paternal patronage from her adoring father until his death....
Chomet
• 2 years agoIt shouldn't unduly shake too many brain cells to work out which one these viewpoints is correct, thus rendering Chomet's assertions at best as disingenius, and worst, downright petulant and churlish....
Chomet
• 2 years agoThe fact that the Tati Estate have chosen not to do this, in fact choosing the very opposite, suggests there is something to hide. But what?
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoExactly. Broadly speaking, what you could find in Tati's script you will also be able to find in Chomet's adaptation.
"take away all the glaring references that link the script with the life of Tati himself and what are you left with is nothing of any significance and a utterly pointless movie.
If that’s what you want to watch then you are as shallow as your comments."
Here you make clear why we are simply never going to see eye to eye on this film (and fair enough). If this film were merely an animated biopic of Tati, it would be greatly impoverished for that - but it is not by any measure a straight, i.e. non-allegorical, biopic. Tati lived neither in Prague nor in Edinburgh. Neither his legitimate nor his illegitimate daughter was called Alice. Nor did Tati take up with a young woman called Alice in the late Fifties, at which time in fact (unlike the homonymous character 'Tatischeff') he was a successful filmmaker and a family man. I think we are agreed that the script (and the film) figure aspects of Tati's biography, perhaps including oblique references to his illegitimate daughter Helga - but to my thinking, disillusionment, obsolescence, time's passage and the bitter coming of age all constitute grand, compelling, even universal themes, and suffice to lend any film, including this one, considerable significance and resonance. I am indeed no more or less shallow than my comments - but of course the same is true of all who comment.
Chomet, thank you for the offer of the pipe and of your mirror for imbeciles, and thank you especially for that cartoonbrew link, so illustrative of your scattergun approach to random muck-raking, sorry, I mean coherent criticism. Have absolutely nothing else to say in response to your comments that I have not already said.
Chomet
• 2 years agoAs for:
"thank you for the offer of the pipe and of your mirror for imbeciles..."
I don't believe I said that, but if you recognise yourself, all the better.
NSAB
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoWhile we are on that topic, I am not sure that you understand what the term 'semi-literate' means. For clarification, here are some examples of semi-literate usage, highlighted in bold:
"Thats a shame - I was really looking (comma) forward to spending my saturday (comma) afternoon disentagleing (comma) your semi-literate (comma) third-rate arse (comma) cancer (comma) masquarading as prose..."
Er, getting back on topic (and away from our different writing styles), is your unassailable moral outrage directed against Sylvain Chomet, his production company, the Tati estate, or Tati himself? Taken together, your comments suggest that you regard The Illusionist as the manifesto of a conspiracy (of silence) between all these parties against Helga. Is that a fair and correct characterisation of your position? If not, what is? I realise that you do not like Chomet's film, or indeed Chomet himself. But it was not Chomet who abandoned Helga, and his failure to refer directly to Helga in The Illusionist is a failure that he has in fact inherited from the original script that he is adapting. Like I said, you seem to be shooting the messenger (more than one, in fact). Sorry, by the way, to have had to express my contribution in words, with, y'know, punctuation and stuff. I know how much you object to that, but semaphore was not an option...
Matt Bochenski
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoDave Rothbury
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoOr perhaps your refereeing to Chomets thorough research of Tati movies that lead animator Laurent Kircher to declare that “One of the most difficult scenes for me to draw was the drunken sequence because no reference existed in any of his films” even though one of the most memorable scenes in Jour de Fete is of Francois getting drunk and trying to ride his bike home. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emSnZvoSfeE
Cus
• 2 years agoGus
• 2 years agoPathe's own closing synopsis for The Illusionist.
But as Alice comes of age, she finds love and moves on. The Illusionist no longer has to pretend and, untangled from his own web of deceit, resumes his life a much wiser man.
What web of deceit was Tati trying to escape from that inspired him to write The Illusionist? Not really a description suited to, "a love which is not in doubt".
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoIn any case, both Chomet and Tati's grandson are correct in different ways. Until 1946, Le Lido de Paris was known only as La Plage de Paris. In 1946, the (Italian) Clerico brothers took the building over, and renamed it to sound more Italian. So the Lido de Paris did not in fact open till 1946 - even if Tati was able to perform in the same premises before that year. See http://www.traveltripz.com/2009/05/16/paris-isnt-...
It is unfair to blame Chomet for his lead animator's words - but Laurent Kircher, I would imagine, is referring to the fact that no reference exists in any of Tati's films for the drunken scenes required specifically for The Illusionist, which calls for no drunken business with a bicycle, as seen in Jour De Fete.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoThe 'web of deceit' to which Pathé's synopsis refers is precisely the (character) Tatischeff's illusionism. By the film's end (spoiler alert) he has told Alice that there is no magic, and he resists the temptation to perform yet another magic trick for another (male) child on the train. This is a story of disillusionment.
The Illusionist is a work of fiction. What inspired Tati to write it? Probably lots of things, including things of which he was not himself aware. "What web of deceit was Tati trying to escape from that inspired him to write The Illusionist?" Who knows? Perhaps his fictive Hulot persona - although the character Tatischeff is of course just another fictive persona, not the same as the real Tati (in vocation, location, etc.), and indeed not even intended to be played by Tati either. In any case, Tati would shelve his Tatischeff and return to playing Hulot. Or perhaps Tati wasn't trying to escape his own web of deceit at all, just as Shakespeare wasn't trying to avenge his father in penning Hamlet...
Gus
• 2 years agoThere is enough in the scene in Jour de Fete for an artist to know how Tati would have acted being drunk; it should/would have been invaluable reference.
As for the Lido you and Chomet/Pathe are wrong there as well, the Lido that Tati and Herta performed in is very different to the one that exists today. The Lido de Paris was the most exquisite cabaret club in Paris before and during the war and was ran by racehorse owner Leon Volterra and was closed down almost overnight once Paris had been liberated in August 1944. Tati never performed in the venue owned by the Clerico brothers that adopted the name of Paris most famous night club which is located on a completely different site from the original venue.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Volterra
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoIndeed - it is very much to the credit of Kirscher's artistry that he was able, extrapolating only from this rather different reference in Jour de Fete (of Tati, playing another character, on a bike), to have created such a wonderful drunken Tatischeff in The Illusionist. He is a very talented animator.
I doubt very much that when Chomet said "100% historically accurate" he was referring to the content of a film distributor's publicity materials (which it unlikely that Chomet would have written himself) - but nonetheless, in your post above, you were objecting to the following statement on Pathé's website: “Lido de Paris on the Champs Elysees was opened in 1946”. This appears in a section on Pathé's website (entitled 'The Route') that traces the different locations (Paris, London, the Highlands, Edinburgh) through which the illusionist Tatischeff travels during the course of the film. The statement that you quoted refers to the venue where the character Tatischeff is shown performing in the film's opening section (set in 1959) – and the statement is simply, incontrovertibly true. The website is not referring to the venue of the real Tati's Occupation-era performances (a venue which shut down, as you say, in 1944) – rather the site is expressly referring to the venue of the character Tatischeff's performances (as seen in the film) in 1959. This performance takes place in, precisely, the Lido de Paris on the Champs Elysees, which indeed was opened (by the Clerico brothers) in 1946. It is irrelevant that "Tati never performed in the venue owned by the Clerico brothers", because the film is not, in any straightforward way, about Tati, and it is not set in the early Forties. It is about a character called Tatischeff, who may be modelled to a large degree on Tati, but who in the late Fifties has a life story rather different from Tati's own...
Cus
• 2 years agoNot about Tati, then you've watching a very different film than Chomet made and Tati wrote.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoI don't think we did watch a different film although we may have watched it in a different way. In suggesting that I said the film is "not about Tati", you re misquoting me. What in fact I said was: "the film is not, in any straightforward way, about Tati, and it is not set in the early Forties. It is about a character called Tatischeff, who may be modelled to a large degree on Tati, but who in the late Fifties has a life story rather different from Tati's own...", All of those qualifications (which you have omitted in your citation) were there for a reason. It is important, when quoting, to look at context. Likewise with your criticisms of the (correct) quote about the Lido from Pathé's website, whose context you conveniently obliterated.
Cus
• 2 years agoI've read tonnes of reviews now who to the most part never understand the relationship between Tatischeff the magician and Alice and for me at least it would have been a far better movie for the actual telling of what motivated Tati’s writing and the shame that didn’t allow him to film his script as he had intended. If that wasn’t the movie Chomet wanted to make then he should have wrote something more fitting of his own as a homage to Tati.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoGiven the strength of your feelings, do you think that Chomet's film is simply irredeemable, or do you recognise that it actually can be regarded as achieving everything you say you want it to achieve once the viewer is fully apprised (e.g. by reading a recent Tati biography, or the newspaper, or a discussion like this one) of the 'Helga chapter' of Tati's biography? Is that resonance not discernible in Chomet's film for those who wish to see it? I think it is - and for me this is another layer of the film's subtlety and sadness, just waiting to be unwrapped. In my view, The Illusionist works on multiple levels, and exposes different aspects of itself on different viewings - all of which makes it worth watching, and rewatching. I certainly don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. After all, illusionists specialise in the art of not being what they might at first seem to be...
Anyways, thanks Cus and/or Gus for the conversation. It's been interesting.
Chomet
• 2 years ago"So, it is the omission of Tati's surviving family and the on-going web of deceipt spun by those involved which continues to dog this film and lies at the central core of the family's disenchantment. This can only lead one to wonder if it would not have been a far greater publicity coup, and all the better for the film's takings (which have been poor), had the Tati Estate sought to gain the weight of a ready-made, creditable, and emotionally frought backstory in the form of a reconiliation with Tati's estranged family. And not, as they have done, to shamefully sweep them still futher under the carpet. And lets face it - its a backstory that bares all the hallmarks of all the things that all successful film's are made of. None of which are in evidence in Chomet's cheap hand-me-down apology to his own daughter. "....
Chomet
• 2 years agoThe simple question is this: Would The illusionist be a better/more creditable film had those involved sought to ingratiate and embrace themselves with Tati's estranged family and irrefutable history?
Hindsight would suggest 'yes'. Hence Chomet's/Pathe's/Sony's myriad of own goals...as mentioned earlier.
Gushing 5 star press reviews can be bought, public opinion can't. Samples there-of can be found here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0775489/usercomments
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoI am grateful for the clarity and civility of your summary.
What we find in Chomet's film is essentially what Tati put in his script. The history of Tati and Helga is out there for those who are interested, e.g. in (recent) biographies, articles, and discussions just like this one. Any viewer apprised of this history can return to The Illusionist and trace the part that it plays in the film's allusive texture, adding a whole new layer of subtlety and sadness to the narrative. This is part of what makes the film multi-layered, and worth not only watching but rewatching – but only for those who are looking for what the film conceals in its staged drama (its allegory). The same would of course have been true of Tati's original script – but that was written at a time when the history of Helga was not known to the general public. There is no explicit reference to Helga in either the film or the script – although arguably there are plenty of implicit references to her in both (and I am intrigued by NSAB's suggestion above that a close likeness of Helga's husband appears in the film). Illusionists, by their very nature, cover up the truth with a dazzling (or at the very least shabby) performance. What you see in Chomet's film is less than what you (can) get.
Our respective positions are not so very different. It is just that I think Chomet's film is a respectful homage to Tati precisely because it respects the director's intentions as he expressed and enshrined them in his own script, rather than as others have subsequently inferred them. I suppose Chomet could have added to his film "the actual telling of what motivated Tati’s writing and the shame that didn’t allow him to film his script as he had intended" – but the truth is that Chomet could not know exactly what motivated Tati, any more than you or I could, so this would in fact risk disrespecting Tati's intentions. Better to stick to the script, as it were, and let all of us draw our own conclusions, knowing what we know. That's what Chomet has done, leaving Tati's script open to interpretation (and reinterpretation – go on, try it) rather than narrowly closing it off.
Chomet
• 2 years agoClearly not:)
apex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoseems to be hitting the truth about this one!!
great thread everyone - is it a score draw?
Cus
• 2 years agoRichard Mcdonald, grandson of Jacques Tati’s, 26th May 2010
“Illusionists, by their very nature, cover up the truth with a dazzling (or at the very least shabby) performance”.
Anton Bitel, Filim critic, 7th September 2010
Welcome to the same page Anton.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoSame page, slightly different reading.
All along – look back to my first posts – I have been arguing that any veiled allusions to Helga to be found in Tati's original script are equally, if not more, available in Chomet's film. I say 'more available', because in fact only a small group of insiders knew anything of Helga and her connection to Tati in the late Fifties, whereas this biographical information is now in the public domain, for those who care to access it. In both script and film, any reference to Helga is necessarily veiled, because she is not explicitly mentioned in either, and one needs to import external knowledge to decode Tati's personal allegory. I have never suggested that reading Tati's script or Chomet's film in this way is in any way invalid – on the contrary. I think my essential disagreement with your position is on two counts:
1) I simply don't think that the 'Helga reading' is all that there is to The Illusionist - rather I consider it to be just one of the film's many resonant strands. On this point, we shall just have to agree to disagree.
2) Chomet has reproduced Tati's script with considerable fidelity. The biggest change that he has introduced, shifting the action from Czechoslovakia to Scotland, does not in fact undermine the 'Helga reading', as Helga has connections to both countries, and arguably her connection to Scotland is stronger. I therefore cannot agree with the characterisation of Chomet's film as being "the most spiteful adapted screenplay ever brought to the screen", or with the characterisation of Chomet himself as "one twisted individual". It was in response to these phrases (not your own) that I was prompted to contribute in the first place. If you believe that Helga should have played a more prominent, explicit part in the film, blame Tati, not Chomet – but as it is, Helgacan be seen as having an implicit presence in Chomet's film no less than in Tati's script.
The positions on both sides of this argument have now been set out with considerable repetition, and some digression too. I have nothing further to add – but again I appreciate your civility in what has been an interesting and at times animated discussion. That is all.
Cus
• 2 years agoNSAB
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoPersonally, I don't know what Helga's husband looks like, and I don't even know to which character NSAB is referring (which one is it?), but bowing to NSAB's superior knowledge on this matter, I would say that the presence of a character in Chomet's film modeled directly on Helga's husband would greatly problematise the view held by many in this discussion that Chomet is somehow insensitive to the possibility that there are allusions to Helga to be found in this story. If he were, why would he include in his film a ghostly 'double' of her husband (for those privileged to be able to recognise him)? There are of course, as has been discussed, plenty of other evocations of Helga too (for those in the know), but this one would seem to be the clincher...
Chomet
• 2 years agoChomet
• 2 years agoMeredith
• 2 years agomattg
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoAs for a character in the movie resembling Tati daughters own husband in real life if this is the case then isn’t this just another layer of spite added by Chomet who, “bitterly dismisses McDonald's claim as "madness", asking how could Tati have written something so personal about a daughter he never lived with?” Is the character resembles Alice’s boyfriend at the end of the movie?
For its US release it appears that Sony is so far dropping any reference to Tati http://www.sonyclassics.com/theillusionist/
Cus
• 2 years agomorrisman
• 2 years agoMatt Bochenski
• 2 years agoI just wanted to say that we at LWLies are asserting our moral and legal ownership of all the content in this thread. We'll be bringing out the edited comments anthology in time for Christmas. Available at all good bookstores!
We may also develop a screenplay - Chomet: The Movie - a courtroom drama inspired by this thread.
morrisman
• 2 years agohttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/tiff/tif...
he's afraid of flying!! did he not live in canada for ten years? theres no landbridge, unless we count siberia to alaska that i'm aware of to explain how he currently resides in provence?
a bit odd that he isn't going though don't you think? i mean, afterall, isn't he the focal point of this film, its mouthpiece? surely it would be paramount for the publicity of this film in the biggest market for him to be there?
don't worry - i don't think the united states government blew up the twin towers, i just think this is a little bit odd is all. any thoughts?
morrisman
• 2 years agoalso, and anton may know something about this. aren't oscars meant to be passed down directly through the family, and if so, i wonder where tati's is now?
apex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoAndy
• 2 years agoSal
• 2 years agoChomet has himself stated that he initially would have preferred to continue doing his own original ideas (and anyone who's seen the Triplets knows he is more than capable of this), but that he found promise in the idea he was given. I do not find myself capable of viewing this man as an opportunistic and insensitive or of building a web of deceit around an issue that he shouldn't even have to get involved in. If it were a biographical account he was meddling with then fair dos but this is a piece of art not a signed confession. I'm with Anton on this one and I hope all the hullabaloo won't put other prospective audiences off a film which is already only receiving a limited release.
NSAB
• 2 years agoyes it is the character who becomes the girls boyfriend.
Cus
• 2 years agoas for "he is a great artist",
"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)" Victor Ens, senior animator on The Illusionist.
Cus
• 2 years agoAs for “he is a great artist”
"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)" Victor Ens, senior animator on The Illusionist.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoNo disrespect intended to anyone, but Helga's family has/had plenty of choices open to them. They have exercised a choice of dignified silence for many decades. The history of Helga is now in the public domain, for those who are interested - and as we have established, it is also traceable as one of many layers in Chomet's film, again for those who are interested. Indeed, by making the spitting image of Helga's (Scottish) husband double as Alice's (Scottish) suitor in the film, Chomet himself has evidently gone out of his way to highlight that particular interpretative strand in his film - at least for those in the know. Of course Helga's family has every right to tell their own story as and when they see fit - and they also have every right to interpret Chomet's film any way they like. My particular problem with their reading is that it is so proprietary, as though a (necessarily private) subtext in Tati's original were all there was to it. Instead of merely drawing to the public attention the references to Helga that they see in the story, they have tried to argue that no other reading of this allegory is right, conscionable or acceptable - as though not just Tati's art, but also the very meaning and interpretation of that art, were somehow rightfully and exclusively theirs and theirs alone. Art, in my experience, is not like that. Chomet's film does not, as far as I can see, exclude or invalidate their reading - but it does include other possible readings. That's part of what makes it multivalent, resonant, and worth revisiting. I have little doubt that the same would have been true of Tati's film, had he ever made it - not least because Tati was too shy of airing his own dirty laundry to present his history 'with' Helga as anything but allegory, and with all the illusoriness and ambiguity that allegory entails. Of course it is also the case that Tati just liked telling stories about outmoded misfits who struggle in the modern world, and who make connections, however fleetingly, with like-minded dreamers, before moving on. He had told this kind of story in film before (Monsieur Hulot's Holiday), and he would do so again (Playtime). If The Illusionist had been made in the early Sixties, the general public (who knew nothing of Helga) would have regarded it as just another Tati picture, only more melancholic.
As for your second comment, you seem to imagine that Sal claimed Chomet "is a great animator". He didn't. Which leads me again to ask: are you just trying to find fault with anything and everything that has any connection whatsoever to the film's genesis, production, and personnel, and to assassinate Chomet's character in any way possible? How exactly is the fact that Chomet is the film's director rather than one of its many animators relevant to your overall thesis?
Cus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoIf Tati had made the Illusionist in the 1960’s the story of Helga would have no longer been, through one way or another, a secrete that she can only have been burdened in life by. The need by Tati to keep her existence a private matter is the most plausible account as to why Tati’s, The Illusionist remained on the shelf for all those decades.
Cus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoAldorf
• 2 years agoTo this end, I give you Exhibit A:
Sophie, Tati's youngest daughter, who enjoyed the paternal love of her father throughout her childhood and grew up working closely with him on many of his projects. In short, and especially for the blind participants in this thread, she spent a lot of time with her father.
Or is it Exhibit B:
Tati's eldest daughter, abandoned from birth and left to forge her own way in the world without the paternal love of a doting father. The details of which, for anyone new to this thread, can be found here in Richard McDonald's heartfelt and eloquent account of his of his family's anguished past:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter...
So the question is, and its a simple one, but if, as Tati alluded himself, this film did indeed carry a personal weight that he himself felt unable to face, and if this script is, as is widely acknowledged, an apology to a daughter - which of Tati's daughters is the most likely contender, and why would Chomet incredulously continue to suggest that it is Sophie?
Now, Anton, its a shame to have to say this because you're clearly an intelligent fellow, but not only are you clutching at the last remaining straws of a receding argument, you're also beginning to paint a somewhat shallow and stubborn portrait of yourself in this discussion. Are you really so insecure as to be unable to accept that someone else may have superior knowledge on a subject, albeit one that falls within your sphere of expertise, than you yourself have, because that is precisely how its looking here.
I await you're convoluted response with disdain...
jimbob
• 2 years agoFruitbat
• 2 years agoOn the other hand?
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoFruitbat
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoThere are many viewers of this film today who will never have heard of Tati or Hulot, let alone of Helga. I suspect though that at least some of them will still find plenty of poignancy in the relationship between Tatischeff and Alice.
Fruitbat
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoLoath as I am to earn your disdain, I can say (on the basis of rather personal experience) that a father's relationship towards his daughter(s) is always complicated, and fathers are often anxious - even needlessly so - about the future that they are bequeathing to their children, and about the rapidity with which their children are growing up and getting away from them. Alice is not in any straightforward way either Helga or Sophie, but I have little difficulty reading her as a figure for either daughter, or indeed for both. The fact that "Sophie spent a lot of time with her father" does not in any straightforward way support your contention that Alice is obviously Helga. In the film, Alice spends a lot of time with Tatischeff. Helga, on the other hand, spent no time with her father once he had abandoned her in her infancy. Of course, Alice is not actually Tatischeff's daughter at all in the film, any more than Tatischeff is the real Tati. On any reading, the details of the film's story do not, directly and straightforwardly, correspond to the biographical details of Tati (who never lived in Czechoslovakia/Edinburgh, who never lived with an 'Alice' there, and who was a successful filmmaker in 1959, who never practised as a stage illusionist, etc.). Chomet's film can accommodate reading Alice either as Sophie or as Helga, or as both in different respects - or indeed, for the majority of viewers who know nothing of Sophie or Helga (or even Tati), Alice can also be read simply as Alice.
One other thing: it is a misconception that Tati's script is "widely acknowledged" to be "an apology to a daughter". What is acknowledged is that it was "a letter to a daughter". Styling that letter an "apology" is what logicians call 'begging the question'.
Meredith
• 2 years agoMcDonalds claim is not speculative but based on factual evidence provided by Tati, his friends, colleagues and Herta Schiel who had all participated in his early life up to middle age. A time that was clearly prevalent in his development as an artist.
Anton having read all your posts it’s apparent that you are being incredibly bloody minded and that at Christmas there would be little point in knocking on your door with a UNICEF form.
Meredith
• 2 years ago"She doesn’t know yet that she loves him like she would a father – he knows already that he loves her as he would a daughter".
That the movie is presented as "A love letter from a father to a daughter" makes one question which daughter of Tati's does the above statement align itself with? It’s unlikely to be the child who was cherished, and seems rather more to compensate for a man's guilt for the abandonment of his first child.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoChomet, in adapting Tati's script, has not imposed a single meaning on his work. Want to see it as being about Tati's feelings towards his abandoned daughter Helga? You can (he has even left breadcrumbs that will lead to this reading). Want to see it as being about Sophie instead? Again, you can. Want to see it as being simply a 'realist fairytale' about the character Tatischeff and the character Alice? You can. Want to see it as being about fathers and daughters in general, and the times shared and lost between them? You can. Want to see it (and I'm surprised no-one has yet suggested this) as being about Tati's feelings towards Helga's mother Herta (described by McDonald as "a young woman barely out of childhood herself" when she came to Paris in her teens and spent two years with Tati there)? You can. In a sense, it is all of these (and more). Chomet's personal take on the material may be that he thinks it is about Tati's feelings towards Sophie, but he has had the good grace to leave his film entirely open to many interpretations other than this one. His deriders, however,seem to wish to close the film down to one monolithic reading - a reading which would in fact have been unavailable to the general public at the time that Tati penned the script. In doing so, they are both misunderstanding the breadth of Chomet's film, and doing Tati himself a disservice by reducing his artistry to mere autobiography. All art has an autobiographical element to it - but there is more to art than that.
NSAB
• 2 years agoHe could have avoided this whole carry on by making an ambition movie of his very own.
I went to see it, it was alright ( partly because the arthouse was half empty). The animation is very good ( especially Alice's boyfriend) Why was it not shown at multiplex cinemas so more people could enjoy Slyvains talents?
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoThis is probably because it hits the trifecta when it comes to 'hooks' that are difficult to sell to multiplexes:
1) it is not an English-language film;
2) its animation is directed more at adults than children;
3) it is a downbeat film with no happy ending for its protagonist.
The key target demographic for multiplexes is people in their teens and twenties. Many, I'd say the majority, of these will not have heard of Jacques Tati or his oeuvre. Those that have are probably comfortable with arthouses. And so it goes.
Cus
• 2 years agoPerhaps you should look at the persecution by authorities after the war of Parisian stage performers who continued their trade during the Second World War to understand why Tati had no choice but to hide from his duties to his child born within the music halls. Up until recently the way history was publicly told was that Tati had fled to Sainte-Sévère-sur-Indre(where after the war he would film, Jour de Fete) to avoid Nazi recruiters, however we now know he had ended up there( with co-author of The Illusionist, Henri Marquet) concealing shame of having been thrown out of the Parisian Cabaret circuit for the betrayal of his own child and her mother.
Many of Tati’s former music hall colleagues later performed in his movies whilst also remaining in contact with the mother of his first child, Herta do you really believe that the welfare of Helga was never discussed. We do not know that Tati categorically did not provide for Helga.
Cus
• 2 years agoHey you know what I’ll even give Chomet a bit of slack, maybe it wasn’t him that didn’t allow the motives of the script to be revealed and maybe he’s contractually shackled by other parties whose choices detrimentally produced a far weaker movie than what could have been.
NSAB
• 2 years agoI'm sure I saw a trailer for it when I went to see Iron Man.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoI think you have misread my comment. McDonald combines two accounts in his letter. One is of his family's history,the other is of Tati's frame of mind and intentions in writing The Illusionist. I am not questioning McDonald's account of his family history, or claiming that it is speculative. It is his "account of Tati's intentions" that I said was "necessarily speculative". All accounts of someone else's (or arguably even your own) intention are. That is why I was careful to tease apart the accounts that McDonald has conflated. Evidently not careful enough, though.
You know what, I may well be "incredibly bloody minded" - after all, I hold my views passionately in this discussion no more or less than all the other contributors - but suggesting that I have no care for children or their welfare, or worse that I sanction child abuse (as another contributor has suggested) follows from exactly nothing that I have said, and is frankly hurtful and unfair. I have not at any point questioned Helga's claims on the Tatischeff line, nor have I ever condoned Tati's conduct. What I have said is that Tati's life was not lived by Helga any more than it was by Chomet, or by you, or by me. It wasn't. He abandoned her in her infancy, and they never saw each other again. Helga's attempt to reach out toTati for assistance in the mid Fifties was met with a sound rejection from him. It is very sad, but also true. What all these facts have to do with my own attitudes to Christmas or UNICEF is simply beyond my comprehension.
Yours stubbily,
anton
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoHelga never met her father after she was abandoned in her infancy. Tati rejected her written request for help. His life was entirely separate from hers. If Tati had provided for Helga (which is not the same as letting her into his life anyway), it seems highly likely that McDonald would have mentioned this. He didn't. On the contrary, it is precisely Tati's refusal to help Helga that McDonald highlights in his open letter.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoThe one who concealed this story is Tati. Chomet, unlike Tati, has made this film, and has made it at a time when the story of Helga is in the public domain and accessible to those who are interested. In the Fifties, Sixties, and many years thereafter, Helga's story was not in the public domain. How is Chomet responsible for its concealment then? He wasn't even born. References to Helga can be found in Chomet's film. And so the same essential arguments go round and round. Glad you've seen it, though, Cus.
Btw, I seem to have stopped getting e-mail notifications of new comments. Is it just me, or is that the same for everyone else?
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoYour stance has been to defend, someone else's(Chomet’s) assumed allegory of a written piece whom, in your own words, “wasn't even born” when the script was wrote and who has no connection at all with the life of Jacques Tati or any of his family or associates and therefore little worthy knowledge of the life of Jacques Tati or his inspirations. With Chomet openly confessing to having "never got to meet Sophie, or even speak to her about the script", he maliciously, in a reverse Cinderella way, dedicates his movie to her rather than Tati's estranged eldest daughter Helga who's difficult life is actually reflected in both Tati's original writing and Chomet's movie (especially if we now take into account the inclusion, as you seem to accept, that the man Alice befriends later in the movie is indeed a spitting image of Helga's real-life Scottish husband) .
Cus
• 2 years agoDidn't Helga's writting to him not coincide with the exact time that Tati wrote his " love letter from a father to a daughter" that would prove “so personal (to Tati) that I think he was afraid to make it”.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoThat said, you seem to suppose that Helga's letter to Tati was the only or key motivation for his writing his script. This seems highly unlikely. McDonald states that "Tati played with idea's for l'Illusionniste throughout the mid to late 1950's", and that "Consecutive versions of l'Illusionniste script exist dated from 1955 through to 1959." By McDonald's own account, Helga wrote her letter to Tati some time after Christmas of 1955. Again, I quote McDonald:
"Having been at the centre of the Christmas Eve bombing of the main Marrakech market in which she witnessed the massacre of a number of her boarding school friends, Helga Marie-Jeanne was actively encouraged by the French Consulate to flee Morocco for her own safety. Holding only a French passport she wrote to her father in hope that he would show compassion towards her plight and help her escape the hostilities that had built up in Morocco by offering her safe passage back to her home city of Paris. He was never forthcoming with help."
Given the realities of the international postal system at the time, it would seem simply implausible that the first version - the 1955 version - of the script that Tati wrote could have been influenced by this letter. Other versions may have been - but the point is that Tati's ideas and story were inevitably influenced by other factors as well. And throughout the mid to late Fifties, when Tati was penning his "love letter from a father to a daughter", he was also living with his legitimate daughter, Sophie. Indeed, his whole experience of what life with a daughter was like would have been drawn largely from his life with Sophie. That would even extend to any life he might ruefully imagine with Helga (of whom he had virtually no personal, first-hand knowledge).
You refuse to allow for reading Tati's script as being anything other than an account of his feelings about Helga. I can only suggest, as I have suggested all along, that that is one reading, but it is not the only one (in a story that is never literally about a father and a daughter anyway). Chomet, however, does not disallow you your reading. In certain ways he encourages it. What is the problem here, exactly?
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agofirst of all, McDonald himself writes at some length about the people that Tati was casting for The Illusionist before it got shelved. I infer from this that it was "supposed to be a movie" by its own author.
Chomet has never claimed to 'speak for a dead woman (Sophie)'. All he has done is dedicate his film to her, and state in interview (although not actually state in the film) his belief that the script was a love letter to Sophie.
Tati chose an allegorical form for his story, featuring a protagonist who shared his (birth)name but was not (in any straightforward way) himself. Allegory is a form that naturally invites and accommodates more than one meaning and interpretation. Your insistence that Tati's film was simply about Tati's relationship to Helga (and about nothing else) runs against the very allegorical form that Tati adopted for his story. Chomet, however, has respected and maintained Tati's chosen form. And by restricting Tati's history to the story of Helga, you in fact are the one who is ignoring the full set of historical factors that might have informed and inspired Tati's writing. There is more to Tati's history than just Helga (although I do not doubt her significance), and more to Tati's scripted story too. I have never denied that the 'Helga story' might be reflected in Tati's script (and Chomet's film highlights this very aspect of Tati's history, amongst others). You deny that there could be anything else to it.
That said, had Tati made the film in the early Sixties, the 'Helga reading' that you insist is its bread and butter would have been entirely unavailable to the average viewer, who did not then have McDonald's letter to decode this particular aspect of Tati's allegory.
Cus
• 2 years agoThis is not the case this is a Chomet addition as is the name given to the character Alice.
"You deny that there could be anything else to it".
No I have not argued dismissively of another strand of Tati life being present in his script; what I have argued is that Helga's story is central to The Illusionist script about a uneasy parental relationship between a father and a daughter that moans a passing of a era that both his(Tati’s) and her(Helga’s) existence is forever tragically tied.
Anton Biet
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoCus, if you read McDonald's own synopsis of "the original script for l'Illusionniste" (paragraph 6 of his letter), you will immediately recognise that its relationship to Tati's own life is allegorical, or if you prefer, figurative. Tati never practised as a stage illusionist, did not take up residence in Prague, or even in Czechoslovakia, and certainly did not live there with a young woman; and when Helga was a young woman, Tati was in fact a successful filmmaker (who did not, at the time, meet her once, let alone live with her). The original script was not by any measure a literalist biopic - and Chomet has remained true to the allegorical form which Tati chose for it. Tati may not have called the girl Alice (I simply don't know) - but I somehow suspect that if Tati had given her the name Helga in his script (which I take it you are implying was the case), McDonald would have made a point of mentioning this. In McDonald's summary, she is just 'the young girl'. Chomet has given her a name - Alice - that is neutral (within the argument encompassed here). What is your point? I am not aware that the statement of mine that you have chosen to criticise is in any way controversial.
Any parent can tell you that watching children grow up and become more independent inevitably brings with it a melancholy sense of the passage of time and of one's own increasing obsolescence. That is the allegorical aspect of Tati's script that evidently struck a particular chord with Chomet. It strikes a chord with me as well (I'm a father too, not that I would have to be to be moved by this aspect of Chomet's film). But Chomet has not excluded the reading that you prefer. It's right there. Everyone ought to be happy (well, in a melancholy manner, anyway). But no. Let's all hate Chomet, the nasty, bitter cad (or whatever) for having the audacity to make a film rich enough to appeal (or otherwise) to a broader audience than the (relatively small) one obsessed with the unpleasant particulars of Tati's biographical history - particulars that Tati himself chose both to live out, and to conceal from the public eye.
@lemkess
• 2 years agoapex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoWhilst the effect of Mr Mcdonald's letter and subsequent stance cannot easily be measured in terms of how this film's performance at the box office has subsequently fared (if any). It would, however, be interesting to speculate, if, somehow The Illusionist's general appeal could have been in some way heightened in the eyes of the public, and therefore its overall poor box-office performance lessened by a strategy of reconciliation over outright 'remonstrance' (and I use this word loosely, as Sylvain Chomet's varying accounts as to how he came by this script have at times been anything but 'reasoned', or consistent) with Tati's estranged family....
Cus
• 2 years ago"Tati had set l'Illusionniste in the Czech capital city of Prague. The mother of his eldest child Herta Schiel was of duel nationality and escaped the German annexation of Vienna using Czech papers. She remained a Czech citizen throughout the war. Tati always referred to Herta as being Czech".
As for Chomet's relationships to his own children he refers to his likewise estranged daughter, like Tati's own relationship with Helga, as the key to his understand Tati's motives for writing the script, "I have 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."
Cus
• 2 years agoSo has Chomet taken Tati's intended apology to his estranged daughter, Helga and dusted it down as a second hand gift to his own daughter who he does not live with? If this is the case isn't just a little bit warped on Chomet's part to deny Helga her father apology that Chomet, "bitterly dismisses McDonald's claim as "madness", asking how could Tati have written something so personal about a daughter he never lived with?”
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoThis whole 'strategy of reconciliation' thing just seems to me a very odd requirement or expectation of a filmmaker. It was for Tati to forge a reconciliation with his abandoned family - although of course he never did. Chomet is just making a film - although I would say that his inclusion in his film of a likeness of Helga's husband might be interpreted as a filmmaker's gesture of reconciliation (in the sense that it gives McDonald something like what he wanted). If Chomet had engaged in some kind of grand exercise of reconciliation with the Tatischeff family, perhaps he might have delivered the sort of redemptive story arc that certain mainstream filmgoers (myself excluded) seem to love - but this would hardly have been true to Tati's script, or indeed to Tati's real life. Tati had literally decades of opportunities to be reconciled to Helga, but never saw her again, and even rejected a written request for help from her. If you and Cus and others would prefer a story (an inherently dishonest story) of family reconciliation to have been written into Chomet's adaptation, and for Tati's lugubrious script to have been transformed by Chomet into a sort of happy love-in, good for you. It is a bit like the fact that I'd prefer the ending of Return Of the Jedi to be completely different. It is an issue of personal taste. I do wonder, though, in the case of Chomet's film, how many of our hypothetical 'general mainstream filmgoers' could honestly care less, or even knows how Tati is.
That said, I have little trouble imagining why Chomet might find McDonald's attempts to co-opt and control not only the interpretation, but also the very form, of Chomet's film, a tad irritating. Chomet is the filmmaker here - McDonald can of course respond to the finished product any way he pleases. But, you know, I've never met Chomet, I can only speak for him in an absurdly speak for him any mo
You know, I keep reading second-hand about all these varying accounts from Chomet about the script's acquisition. Personally, I've read only three or four interviews with him, which seemed pretty consistent to me, but no doubt he has given hundreds more. Could somebody actually link a list of the inconsistent ones so that we can all see the inconsistencies for ourselves.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoBut, you know, I've never met Chomet, I can only speak for him in an absurdly speculative manner - just as we can all only speak for Tati and his intentions in a speculative manner. If you want to know specifically why Chomet did X or Y, ask him, not me. Chomet's film, however, is in the public domain. That's what I am interested in talking about - and that is what I think is being unfairly treated by some of the comments here.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoyour quote about Czechoslovakia is in fact the very first argument you presented to me in this thread. It's like an anniversary. We should get balloons or something. For my response, I direct you to my response to your argument there, way, way, way above. Your quote demonstrates my point: the relationship of the story in Tati's script to Tati's own life is allegorical, or if you prefer, figurative. The character Tatischeff's journey to Czechoslovakia with Alice does not correspond literally to Tati's actual biography (he never did travel to Czechoslovakia with a young girl) - but it does correspond figuratively, for those in the know, to aspects of his life (by alluding to the birthplace of the mother whom he abandoned along with their infant child Helga). I think you actually agree with this point a little more than you appear to think you do. The story in Tati's script is a non-literal allegory which requires some imaginative decoding. McDonald's letter provides a key to one way of decoding it. Welcome,to use your phrase, to the same pge. This is what I have been saying all along.
i am not sure what point you are making in your second para. Chomet has left his film open to being read as allegorising Tati's relationship with Helga. He just thinks it's about much more than that - and he has also emphasised the time that Tati was forced to be away from Sophie while on set for Mon Oncle.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoWhere, btw, does that quote actually come from? Just curious. It sounds kinda familiar, but I'd like to see who actually wrote it, and in which context. It is written in the third person, so it seems unlikely to be a quote from an interview with Chomet - and the adverb "bitterly" implies which side of the argument this quote is coming from....
apex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoapex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoapex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoApologies Anton, the website has been unable to post my full comment until now:/
apex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoHelen Warren
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPBNsGgyEXA
Avoiding any mention of the controversy discussed here Bob Last opens with, “Jacques Tati had a very troubled life in many ways and one of his great regrets is that he never had a close relationship with his daughter Sophie. Many people feel that the character of the young girl was his way of trying to explain to Sophie that his life, his art, his work took him away from her, so it’s a bit of a concede on our part and one that we will probably never know the answer too”.
Cus
• 2 years ago“Sophie died in about eh 2002 is that right Bob? So Sylvain never actually spoke to Sophie or ever met Sophie but it’s his interpretation of what Jacques was trying to do with his original story”.
Paul Dutton
Cus
• 2 years agoQ&A audience
“He was seeking the rights to use a Jacques Tati script in Bellville and so he was talking to the estate and emm ?????? actually never directly talked to Sophie I don’t think but they actually suggested to him that he might like to take a look as they loved Triplets so much”.
Bob Last
Sophie Tatischeff died Sophie Tatischeff died on 27 October 2001, almost two years before the 11th June 2003 French release of Les Triplettes de Belleville.
Cus
• 2 years agoRichard McDonald
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter...
Cus
• 2 years agohttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland...
Cus
• 2 years agohttp://www.bigissuescotland.com/features/view/328
Cus
• 2 years agohttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news...
Cus
• 2 years agohttp://edinburghfestival.list.co.uk/article/26048...
Cus
• 2 years ago“We bought the rights to make the film and Deschamps and Micheff were both very happy with it, so there is no controversy”.
http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/features/2...
Cus
• 2 years ago"Catalogued in the CNC (Centre National de la Cinématographie) archives under the impersonal moniker ‘Film Tati Nº 4’, this un-produced script has waited half a century for hands to flick through its pages and realize its potential".
http://www.theplayground.co.uk/film/home.php?aID=...
Cus
• 2 years ago"it was obvious it was for Sophie. And I knew it from her,"
“And when that happened I felt it was very unfair to get criticised even before the film had screened, by someone who didn't dare even to talk to us and didn't dare to see the film”
http://news.scotsman.com/movies/Interview-Sylvain...
Gordon
• 2 years agoEssentially, someone is telling the truth, but it doesn't look as though its Chomet!
Cus
• 2 years agoand what about this account of his own movie
"He is reconstructing a family and the girl is craving a father figure. It all works perfectly,"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jun/10/sylvai...
Further little white lies perhaps?
Aldorf
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoMcDonalds letter does not actually state that the Christmas Eve bombing was in 1955 only that she had became trapped in "As a refugee Helga Marie-Jeanne had become trapped in Marrakech during the Moroccan 1955 uprising for independence against its French protectorate. Having been at the centre of the Christmas Eve bombing of the main Marrakech market in which she witnessed the massacre of a number of her boarding school friends, Helga Marie-Jeanne was actively encouraged by the French Consulate to flee Morocco for her own safety. Holding only a French passport she wrote to her father in hope that he would show compassion towards her plight and help her escape the hostilities that had built up in Morocco by offering her safe passage back to her home city of Paris".
Cus
• 2 years agoMcDonalds letter does not actually state that the Christmas Eve bombing was in 1955 only that "As a refugee Helga Marie-Jeanne................
and
No matter how the postal service was then(even in 1950's Marrakech was only a three hour flight across the Meditation to Paris and Helga’s letter was sent via the French Consulate) Helga's letter would have had a whole 12 months to arrive to coincide with Tati putting pen to paper for his ”Love letter from a father to a daughter” whose contents is ingrained with the life of Helga.
Cus
• 2 years agoChomet himself says that is the movie he made.
"He is reconstructing a family and the girl is craving a father figure. It all works perfectly,"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jun/10/sylvai....
keyboard terrorist
• 2 years agoBy the way, I myself am incredibly shy, with little desire and many years past caring about self promotion. Plus, I don't feel my mind is fresh enough to get the ring with such intellectual heavy weights.
Andy
• 2 years agoapex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoAldorf
• 2 years agoAldorf
• 2 years agoAldorf
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jun/10/sylvai...
Rachel Seal
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoIt is, though, hard to muster any enthusiasm about posting further here when several of my lengthier recent posts have mysteriously vanished. Out of curiosity, is anyone else having this problem? (Apex has implied a similar problem)
Meredith
• 2 years agoChomets description on the central theme to the movie; "He is reconstructing a family and the girl is craving a father figure. It all works perfectly," is appallingly insensitive to the family history of Jacques Tati and especially to Tati’s neglected daughter. Chomet's statement reads as pure spite when taking into account that Helga wrote to Tati seeking her father's help at exactly the time of The Illusionists first draft.
Frank.
• 2 years agoapex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoYou know what, Cus, you're right. The bombing could well have been 1954, or 1953, or even earlier – but given that both of us are using McDonald's letter as our sole evidence (I have not been able to find any reference to this bombing anywhere on-line apart from McDonald's letter, and frankly cannot afford the time to go digging for facts in a newspaper archive in London), we can only go by what McDonald actually says. He lists a series of events in sequence, with clear tense markers:
"As a refugee Helga Marie-Jeanne had become trapped in Marrakech during the Moroccan 1955 uprising for independence against its French protectorate [note the use of the pluperfect tense in a main clause, marking a background frame for the narrative events in the subsequent clauses – i.e. the subsequent clauses refer to events during, or after, the 1955 uprising]. Having been at the centre of the Christmas Eve bombing of the main Marrakech market in which she witnessed the massacre of a number of her boarding school friends [note that the past participle marks the bombing as prior to the event of the following main clause], Helga Marie-Jeanne was actively encouraged by the French Consulate to flee Morocco for her own safety [main clause temporally/causally related to preceding participial clause, i.e. it was after the 1955 bombing that Helga was actively encouraged to flee, whether in very late – post-Christmas Eve – 1955, or in 1956]. Holding only a French passport she wrote to her father in hope that he would show compassion towards her plight and help her escape the hostilities that had built up in Morocco by offering her safe passage back to her home city of Paris [this sentence clearly follows from the preceding one – i.e. she writes to her father after being encouraged to flee, which was after the New year's Eve bombing, which was part of the 1955 uprising]"
I have no idea if that is what McDonald meant to say – but it is what he actually says. His words place the Christmas Eve bombing in 1955. Not that it really matters, of course – it is not as though receiving that letter from Helga - the one whose plea he summarily rejected – is all that happened to Tati in the Fifties, or in 1955 (or, if we take McDonald's words at face value, more probably some time in 1956, given the sequence of events). He was also spending much of that time with, e.g., his daughter Sophie. Why are you so insistent that Sophie could not also have been an influence, perhaps even a greater influence, on his allegorical, fictive story about an aging entertainer living with a much younger woman?
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoHey Aldorf (aka 'Chomet'?), reading back through this thread, it strikes me that actually quite a lot of people have been arguing precisely that until rather recently.
Your concession here that the supposed omission of Helga is "not necessarily from within the piece itself" in fact picks up what I said in my opening contribution to this thread: " I see no reason why an allegorical reference to Helga, and to Tati's regrets about abandoning her, cannot also be traced in Chomet's film (for those who know the family history - surely a small constituency of the audience)." We may now be in agreement on this (we seem to be), but it has been a long and circuitous route that has brought us to this agreement. Who would have imagined that we would find some common ground? We can argue endlessly about Tati's and Chomet's motives and intentions without getting anywhere, because they are ultimately unknowable - but it is the film itself that really matters. I'd be (mildly) curious to know what McDonald (or more importantly Helga) makes of it, if either of them ever sees it - but they are not, and never were, its only target audience.
apex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoSo:
"Given the realities of the international postal system at the time, it would seem simply implausible that the first version - the 1955 version - of the script that Tati wrote could have been influenced by this letter."
This is highly speculative. Could you please outline the reality's of the Morrocan postal system, and any subsequent experience you may have had with them;)
The only way I can reasonably suggest this be resolved is over a frothy-skinny-focchacino down the boozer...up for it?
Anton Bitel
• 2 years ago" the maker's of the film have directly dismissed Helga and her life, shunning the family completely"
That is simply not true. Chomet has never suggested that Helga does not exist, or that her life was anything other than as McDonald has recorded. He just happens to feel that his film is more about Sophie (while still leaving his film open to being read differently). He also hasn't shunned the family completely – but McDonald, when he did meet with Chomet, was "very aggressive" (electric sheep magazine), so it is hardly surprising that Chomet did not pursue further contact with him. McDonald's letter, it might be added, addresses not Chomet's actual film, but a version of the film's script written before their meeting took place.
" is it necessarily wrong for Tati's estranged family to have a voice and express an opinion"
Of course not. Nor is it necessarily wrong for others to voice and express a different opinion.a
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoI'm having difficulty posting anything on this page (overloaded with replies and sub-replies and sub-sub-replies?), so I'll put my response, which is lengthy, on the next page, at the very end of the thread.
Also, if any moderator is reading this, I stopped getting e-mail notifications of 'all new comments' about a week ago...
Cus
• 2 years ago“Tati, in keeping with his preference of not working with professional actors, had singled out Sylvette David who had modelled for Picasso for the role as the teenage girl due to her resemblance to Bridget Bardot. In her letter from Morocco Helga Marie-Jeanne had innocently joked that the locals of Marrakech had nicknamed her the brunette Bardot of the Sahara. David did not sit for Picasso until 1954 so it can only be concluded that Tati did not know of her until after this date”.
Richard McDonald 26th May 2010 quoting a letter sent by Helga Marie-Jeanne Schiel to her Father Jacques Tatischeff from 1955 http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter...
Cus
• 2 years ago“In the original script maybe it was a bit more obvious because the woman character was a bit older. When Tati originally wrote the script he actually contacted a woman to play the role and she really looked like Brigitte Bardot, and she was a model for Picasso at the time”.
Sylvain Chomet in the above interview.
Cus
• 2 years ago11th December interview with Sylvette David http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2004/dec/1...
Cus
• 2 years agoIt has been proven that Chomet has constantly lied about how he obtained the script; it can therefore be safely concluded that it is no inconceivable that he has also lied about many aspects, including its intended meaning, of The Illusionist.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoIn working out how Tati came to have Tati's script for The Illusionist, it is worth teasing apart what Chomet himself has actually said in interviews (which is obviously relevant to the discussion here) from what others have said about or for him (which is irrelevant). It is also worth observing how easily what others have said about or for Chomet gets cited as though it were Chomet's own words.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoCited from an interview in Pathé's production notes: "There was a moment in that movie [Belleville Rendez-vous] where the triplets are watching television in bed. I thought it would be funny to have the cartoon characters view a live-action clip close in feeling to its Tour de France cycling story. Jacques Tati’s wonderful Jour de fête/Holiday sprang to mind because it featured him as a postman on a bicycle. So Didier Brunner (the producer) contacted the Tati estate, run by his sole surviving daughter Sophie Tatischeff, for permission to use an extract. Her authorisation was based on pictures and a set of design developments for The Triplets of Belleville. She clearly liked what she saw because she mentioned an un-filmed script by her father and hinted that my animation style might suit it... Because the character of The Illusionist is definitely not another Monsieur Hulot, Sophie Tatischeff didn’t want to see any of that character’s familiar trademarks dramatised by another actor. So animation seemed to be the ideal medium to solve all those problems by providing the ideal way to create an animated version of Tati playing The Illusionist character from scratch. Sadly, Sophie died four months after our first contact. But the relatives who took over the estate [the reference here is to Jérome Deschamps and his partner Macha Makeieff; Deschamps is a (distant) blood-relative of Tati: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Des... agreed with her decision to entrust me with the family jewels. I had no intention of doing anything they wouldn’t approve of and because we shared the same precise vision they felt in completely safe hands."
Sight & Sound, Sept 2010, p.45: "We contacted the Tati estate, run by his daughter Sophie Tatischeff, for permission to use an extract from his wonderful Jour de Fête in Belleville Rendez-vous. Her authorization was based on pictures and a set of design developments, and she clearly liked what she saw, because she mentioned an unfilmed script by her father and hinted that my animation style might suit it."
Tom Seymour's IV for LWLies (above): "well we approached her when we were doing The Triplets of Belleville in Montreal because we needed to get some footage from one of Tati’s films, Monsieur Hulot's Holiday, to put in Triplets, so one of our producers in France actually contacted Sophie Tatischeff to get some of this material. We showed her some elements of Triplets and then she had this idea that my kind of animation, my graphic style, would work really well with her Dad’s script. I was supposed to meet her two months later but she died in the meantime so I never met her, or even got to talk to her on the phone, so it was a very brief encounter. When Triplets was finished I was going to Cannes to present the film and I asked the producer to pass me the script so I could read it on the train."
Edinburgh Festival Interview, 2010: "when I went to Cannes [for Belleville’s world premiere in 2003] I read the script she had passed on to me through her will. I was reading the script on the train and I was completely surprised by the beauty and emotion of it."
Electric Sheep Magazine: "When I was working on Belleville Rendezvous I contacted Jacques Tati’s daughter, Sophie Tatisheff, to seek permission to use a segment of Jour de Fête in the film. To get her authorisation we showed her the material, small clips we had ready at the time and the script of Belleville Rendez-Vous, and she really liked it. All this rang a bell, and she remembered she had this script from her father. She knew that it was connected to her, because it is obvious that it is a letter from a father to his daughter. Tati wrote the script over quite a long period, three or four years [1955-9], and Sophie was 13 when he started working on it [1959-60], so he saw her change into a woman. She gave us permission to use the clip from Jour de Fête and she mentioned the script, but that was it. She died shortly after our conversation and so, unfortunately, we never met her. One day I contacted the estate of Jacques Tati, Jerome Deschamps and Mikall Micheff [i.e. Macha Makeieff, badly transcribed by the journalist] at Les Films de Mon Oncle, and they passed me the script – and I fell in love with it. I really loved the simplicity of the story and this very strong, beautiful relationship between father and daughter. It also felt very close to my relationship with my own daughter, who was five years old when we started the film and who is now 17. We bought the rights to make the film and Deschamps and Micheff [Makeieff] were both very happy with it."
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoOn the other hand, Cus' citations from the TIFF Q&A, Timesonline, bigissuescotland and The Telegraph all paint a slightly (although not what I would call a dramatically) different picture – but they are also not quotes from Chomet. He cannot be blamed for the confused accounts given by others.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoHere is McDonald's complete account (from his letter): "On hearing that Sylvain Chomet had started production on l'Illusionniste in what for centuries has been my father's family home county of Northumberland on the Scottish border I confidentially approached him with the difficult true story that lay at the heart of my grandfather's script. Gratefully acknowledging l'Illusionniste true meaning that he had apparently always known was written by Tati as a "personal letter to his daughter" Chomet invited me to his Edinburgh studio to read the script he had adapted and to see the progress he was making.
After a long conversation Chomet revealed he had obtained the script for l'Illusionniste from my Aunt Sophie Tatischeff following nothing more than a single telephone conversation he had with her whilst seeking permission to use a segment of Jour de Fete in his Belleville Rendez-Vous animated movie."
The final paragraph here involves an error on either McDonald's or Chomet's part (the personal phone call with Sophie) which Chomet has been careful to correct many times since. Otherwise, McDonald's account is entirely consistent with Chomet's accounts (above) of how he acquired the script. For what it is worth, McDonald's claim to have "confidentially approached" Chomet automatically ceased to be true the moment that he published his letter.
Now let's look at Chomet's account of this meeting (electric sheep magazine): "I received a letter from a man called Richard MacDonald, who said he was the grandson of Jacques Tati. He told me the story that Tati had met someone at the Lido in Paris during the war and she became pregnant with a little girl. But Tati was married at the time, and he didn’t want to take responsibility. After I received this letter I decided to meet with this man, because I was interested in the details of this story. But when we met he became very aggressive and accused me of provocation and all that, and I said: ‘Look, if you are telling such a strong, emotional story about a father and a daughter you have to live with your daughter, you have to experience that. And that’s why I don’t see any reason why this script should have been dedicated to this girl he never lived with and who he didn’t see growing up.’ So I told him that if he had any problem with that, he should go speak to the estate of Jacques Tati. And he went off and I never saw him again. Then one day, there was this article in The Guardian saying all these terrible things about the film by a person who had never actually seen it."
Then there is this from the Scotsman: "when that happened [McDonald publishing his letter days before the world premier of The Illusionist], I felt it was very unfair to get criticised even before the film had screened, by someone who didn't dare even to talk to us and didn't dare to see the film."
Again, there is no inconsistency. In their first (and last, as it happens) meeting, Chomet had invited McDonald to talk to the Tati estate about any problems he had, but McDonald didn't take up this invitation – and he published his highly critical letter of Chomet's film before ever seeing the finished product. Which is a pity – because if he had seen it, he might have recognized that Chomet, who was after all "interested in the details of this story", has in fact, despite his own rather different personal take on the film, addressed many of McDonald's concerns by making the story of Helga one of its allegorical strands.
Anton Bitel
• 2 years agoAnton Bitel
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agohttp://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Jacques_T...
Cus
• 2 years agoA point verified in Mcdonald letter
After Chomet became aware of the troubled story that lay beneath l'Illusionniste he informed the current caretakers of my grandfather's estate, Jerome Deschamps and Mikall Micheff at Les Films de Mon Oncle, who without consent published the most deplorable inaccurate account of my family in the biography Jacques Tati by Jean-Philippe Guerand. This intolerable disfiguring of our lives provoked us as a family and all that remains of the Tatischeff line with no choice but to finally put on record our true heritage to which everybody who is currently promoting themselves through my grandfathers celebrity have no legitimate claim whatsoever.
Cus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoIt was Chomet who broke the confidentiality when,
"After Chomet became aware of the troubled story that lay beneath l'Illusionniste he informed the current caretakers of my grandfather's estate, Jerome Deschamps and Mikall Micheff at Les Films de Mon Oncle, who without consent published the most deplorable inaccurate account of my family in the biography Jacques Tati by Jean-Philippe Guerand".
Published in 1997, 3 years before McDonald letter.
http://www.amazon.fr/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?__mk_fr_FR=...
Cus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoapex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoTherefore any reading of Helga in this piece severely upsets the applecart. Henceforth, throughout the publicity for this piece no room whatsoever has been allowed to accomodate her. You yourself argue for multiple readings with a potential for a myriad of fluctuating nuances accomodating each sister and more besides. Its telling, however, that the establishments behind L'Illusionniste, allow for none. Its Sophie, just Sophie. I wonder what the reason might be?
apex_of_the_curve
• 2 years agoHulot
• 2 years agojust how long has this film been in production!!!!!?
Cus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years agoCus
• 2 years ago"Tati wrote the script over quite a long period, three or four years [1955-9], and Sophie was 13 when he started working on it [1959-60]",
When the actual history is as follows
"It has been acknowledged that the script for l'Illusionniste was written as a personal letter to Tati's teenage daughter. Sophie his second child was not a teenager at the time of its writing, only his eldest daughter, Helga Marie-Jeanne whom he had adversely neglected as an infant was. In 1955 Helga was thirteen years of age, Sophie had just turned nine. Consecutive versions of l'Illusionniste script exist dated from 1955 through to 1959".
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter...
Cus
• 2 years agoNSAB
• 2 years agoI've genuinelly enjoyed your arguements defending the indefencible.
Just remember don't look out of the window i morning, otherwise you might have nothing to do in the afternoon!
Aldorf
• 2 years agoEileen
• 2 years agoEileen
• 2 years agoGhandiman
• 2 years agoDid not last long, though: he hates them now and moved back to France (so Sylvain: a rare misanthrope, as anyone who knows him would confirm). This 'love' is just a pose for The Illusionist promotion. Very talented man but just lost his spark. The Illusionist does not have half of the ingenuity of The Triplets of Belleville.Too bad!
Buy Made from Us!
• 10 months ago