Beautiful, engrossing film just misses full satisfaction

Rating: 7/10 (4 February 2007)

The interesting, surprisingly effective casting of Norton, Giamatti and Biel in the title role, the police investigator and the lady involved with a prince (even, to a lesser extent, Sewell's slightly over the top crown prince) combine with outstanding cinematography and an atmospheric story to make a film that just misses being a quiet classic.
The fascinating tie of the original short story (and screenplay) to a period of European history once wildly over worked in popular theatre and literature - the Mayerling scandal - has enormous potential for reexamination. The story's (by then) married crown prince killed himself some years LATER at his hunting lodge at Mayerling for reasons which have never been adequately explained with a woman who may or may not have been his mistress. His successor in the position of heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had his own tragic but passionate love story that culminated in the start of the First World War following his assassination on his 14th Wedding Anniversary (he had taken his Sophie away from the strict court protocol of Vienna to oversee maneuvers outside Serejevo as a romantic gesture for their anniversary).
None of this unfortunately is touched on in this lush, enjoyable but ultimately unsatisfying film. Would that it were - rather than merely offering a simple, nicely told, but all too fictional special effects mystery/love story.
So much of the history we think we know comes from our popular entertainment (Shakespeare's RICHARD III is a rattling good thriller, but lousy history), it is more than arguable that writers on the page, stage or screen who take their settings and inspiration from our history have an active obligation to get as many of the FACTS right as possible. Ultimately, it even makes good commercial sense (how much longer would THE ILLUSIONIST have stayed in theatres with the added intrigue of knowledgeable audiences arguing if something like this could have been the reason Leopold ultimately killed himself!?).
Since both of the essential figures at the center of the film we were given were based on real people (the actual illusionist lived to be murdered by Nazis in the next century under Hitler's rule), how much we ought to wish that the writers had worked harder and woven their story closer to actual known events. It could have only enhanced the basic story they chose to tell.
The research as to the look and feel of the movie - as far as it went - is admirable, but there are distressing misconceptions in the director's commentary on the DVD. For the most part these are simply the misconceptions of a partially educated but bright - and very talented - 20th century film maker, but they contribute to the few weaknesses in the film itself.
Case in point: the director goes out of the way to point out that the scenes at the "crown prince's estate" were filmed at one of the actual estates of the eventual heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It was, in fact, his hunting lodge (at a time when a royal hunting lodge was a palace), and the director remarks disapprovingly on the high ceilinged hall covered with the Archduke's hunting trophies. The director calls the hall "horrifying" and speculates that the "bad karma" of the "thousands of slaughtered animals" eventually caught up with the archduke when he himself was murdered. That analysis *might* seem apt for the heavyhanded (slightly psychopathic) Crown Prince Leopold the director is painting from a 21st century perspective, but IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ACTUAL ERA OF THE STORY, it would have marked the hunter - as it did our own Teddy Roosevelt who helped establish our National Park system - as a committed naturalist and the opposite of the image the director imagines.
This was a real opportunity missed, but a very enjoyable film for what is there. The screenplay keeps the audience guessing a little too long - one or two slightly more obvious clues earlier on would have paid off enormously later on in the satisfaction level. The unexpected depth of Norton and Giamatti's performances however finesse most problems of what one initially suspects are "tricks" more CGI "sweetened" than they may actually have been (if the director is to be believed).
Worth a look. For most of us, the biggest problem will be wanting a film we enjoyed to have been even better. It could have been.