Disappointing but, mysteriously, worth it

Rating: 7/10 (1 May 2007)

When reading the multitude of usual press guff in the dailies, this film appeared to be mature, intelligent period piece, which appealed to me because it tried to combine a conventional story of magic and special effects, with something altogether more adult, namely the themes of government and conspiracy.
Turn of-the-century Europe was beautifully evoked with marvellous ornate sets and locations. The highly-polished and painstakingly lit cinematography portrayed a stuffy and hierarchical society and was aided by superb, understated special effects when master-illusionist Eisenheim stuns his rapt audience with amazing tricks. Burger used his scenario of illicit lovers (as Eisenheim tries to steal his childhood sweet-heart back from the arrogant, sadistic Prince Leopold) as a means of providing an alternative history to the birth entertainment for the masses. Leopold's hatred for Eisenheim is generated not only out of romantic competition or the usurper magician's veiled insults, but by the possibility that Eisenheim might steal the Prince's subjects. Eisenheim's generosity to street children, his rags-to-riches story and his attraction of the people are metaphors for the power of the media to undermine a country's rulers. The magic tricks, perhaps made possible by back projection through smoke in one instance, are early forms of computer trickery which typify much of modern cinematic output.Sadly, these themes are dissipated as the story continues.
The script began to focus on the rivalry between Eisenheim and Leopold over Duchess Sophie, and thus the story boiled down to history of rivals in love. Eisenheim and Leopold became crudely delineated protagonist-antagonist, the former generous and mysterious, the latter cruel and boorish. There is no doubt where our sympathies should lie, and this lack of complexity undermines the film's context, that of a Europe on the cusp of the twentieth-century and inevitable war. Eisenheim and Leopold could have acted as a metaphor for an increasingly fractious political climate, but they simply become duellists.
Nor does the film's plot sustain much interest in the third act. The 'twist' that arrives is not unexpected because of a framing device used at the start of the film and Eisenheim's very profession: we know he will save his greatest magic for the end, and it won't be on stage. Furthermore, the subsequent interpretation of Eisenheim's masterstroke by policeman Uhl only further detracts for the air of mystery. As a result, the last third suffers from serious dull patches. The film leaves a lasting impression but only on the technical rather than scripting level: the sepia-toning, excessive grain on the print and frequent iris shots all indicate the birth of cinema, taking place inside the film's time frame. This perhaps makes one reflect on the very construction of cinema, and how much it has changed since the 1900s, but it does not make one think of how history is written.
That said, I'm probably taking this much too seriously. Come on people, when was the last time we saw a film that took such care in telling such potentially hokey story, and succeeded in loading it with such thematic weight? Can't think. And for all my complaints, it remained an engrossing yarn. This is worth seeking out  it cast quite an incredible atmospheric spell over me at times  but be cautioned: it is never quite as entertaining as you might want, nor as intelligent.