Different people go to the movies for different reasons. Some of us want to be entertained. Some of us want to be dazzled. Some of us want to be engaged by a story, or by characters that stick in the mind after the film is done. Some of us want to be transported to a different time or place. And some of us want to see talented actors create a bit of magic in the hands of a masterful director. Martin Scorsese's Hugo does all of these things. It is, more than any other film I've seen this year, _why_ we go to the movies.The film is based on the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. If you've read the book, then you know the story already, but for everyone else I am going to be careful here and not reveal anything that might spoil the film. I will say that Hugo is about many things, but at its heart, it is about obsession, discovery and how one person's story can lead to and become entwined with another's.
The film is set in Paris in the 1930's, in a railway station where an orphan boy named Hugo (engagingly played by Asa Butterfield) lives in the workspaces in the station walls and in the station's central clocktower. He spends most of his time keeping the station's clocks running (so that no one will come into the walls or the tower and discover his hiding places) and pursuing his obsession fixing a man-shaped automaton designed to write with a pen which his father (Jude Law) had found in a museum and was trying to repair when he was killed in a fire. To feed himself, Hugo scrounges and pilfers food from the various food shops in the station, which draws the attention of the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). To feed his efforts to repair the automaton, Hugo steals parts from a toy shop in the station, run by the elderly Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), who finally catches him in the act. He is befriended though by Papa Georges' god-daughter, a girl his age named Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), who ends up helping Hugo pursue his obsession of fixing the automaton. Which, Hugo is convinced, has some secret message for him left by his late father. Where this ultimately leads... you'll have to see the film. Telling you here would only ruin the film's joy of discovery.
There are so many good things about Hugo as a film that it's hard to know where to begin. I can at least start by saying that the look of the film itself is dazzling. Scorsese creates worlds within worlds, taking you first back to Paris in the 1930's and from there into Hugo's hidden world within the walls and clock tower of the train station. And from there, other places that are equally wondrous. The 3D is not wasted here and truly adds to the feel of Hugo's world of narrow passages and massive time-keeping mechanisms with their enormous but intricate gears, springs and pendulums all in motion. And Howard Shore's beautifully crafted musical score evokes the period throughout the film, adding to the feeling of being transported to a different time and place.
Another thing that makes Hugo so worth seeing is that Scorsese is one of those directors who can bring out the best performance an actor has in them, which he does a magnificent job of here, from veteran actors like Ben Kingsley and Christopher Lee to comparative newcomers like Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz.
And just as the look of the sets shows his attention to detail, the populating of the world with characters shows it as well as he makes the train station come alive with its regular denizens, from Sacha Boren Cohen's officious station inspector with his leg brace and the pretty young flower seller Lisette (Emily Mortimer) he secretly yearns for, to the comic attempts at romance between Monsieur Frick (Richard Griffiths), an elderly newspaper seller who keeps attempting to woo Madame Emile (Frances de la Tour), a cafe owner who dotes on her dog who unfortunately attacks Monsieur Frick every time he comes near. Scorsese also works in some famous historical Parisian residents of the period into the background, like jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt (Emil Lager), artist Salvador Dali (Ben Addis) and writer James Joyce (Robert Gill).
Highly, highly recommended for anyone who enjoys movies, and an absolute must-see for anyone who loves movies and what they mean to us.
As the Rottentomato website has already shown (it assembles and correlates scads of reviews from the press and the web, along with reader responses), the critics adore this film, the audience somewhat less so.
Part of this has to do with managing expectations. The marketing presents Hugo as an Avatar-ish 3D fantasy with a C3P0 (StarWars)-type flying robot. this is actively misleading, though that's not the director's fault.
What Hugo is, is a fable--not a fantasy--that's part tween adventure and part infomercial for the preservation and viewing of old silent movies. Most importantly--and this is a point that hasn't been made by most reviewers here and elsewhere--it's a film about ex-magician/early filmmaker Georges Meliés that Scorsese made, to a degree, IN THE STYLE of a Georges Meliés movie. That's part of the homage.
Thus "Hugo" contains a lot of adventurous running-around, a brilliant exploitation of the best 3D filmmaking technology extant, and a leavening of slapstick elements--particularly from the surprisingly restrained Sascha Baron Cohen.
It's a fable based on real events in the early history of movies. "Sleepless in Seattle" was a fable with no fantasy elements other than its happy-ending-inevitability, which you feel from beginning to end. That's the essence of a fable, not whether it has fantasy elements or not. A fable is a kind of ritual that reaffirms the tribe's values and faith in its vision of life.
Hugo reaffirms faith in goodness--that even in many apparently hard-hearted people there's an ember that can be fanned into life by the right person. The movie's vibe from its first seconds tells you that you are riding towards a happy ending.
Two Russian intellectuals that I saw the movie with hated that fact. They think a movie is unrealistic unless everyone's doomed, and if you'd grown up in the Soviet Union that was probably realistic. Especially since Soviet-era fable-movies did guarantee a happy ending--"happy" as defined by Soviet ideology at least. So for my friends. fables aren't just false, but evil State Propaganda. And a lot of Americans who fancy themselves intellectual have a similarly jaundiced perspective about Hollywood's addiction to guaranteed by hook or by crook happy endings.
I think this issue stems from not understanding the ritual validity of fable. I love realistic movies without this guarantee of happy outcomes, but I also love a good fable. I'm certain of my spouse's love for me and of my love for her. I'm certain of our relationship with our closest friends, as they are of us reciprocally. I'm certain of the law-abidingness of my society (especially compared to the third-world countries we've traveled in). Predictable good outcomes are, within reasonable constraints, reasonable to believe in, in many ways.
So "Hugo"'s ultimate predictability is a valid artistic choice. It's not a spoiler to say this because you know it from the start and you should know so you don't confuse this with a Sundance-type art film where everyone is confused and faces an uncertain future, usually alone. I apologize for "Hugo" not being a slit-your-wristsathon. I also like such films, and they usually set your expectations from the start as well, for that matter.
So who will enjoy "Hugo" ?
1. Bright tweens. It stars a pair of bright tweens, so this is a natural. Many younger kids will like it as well--it's visually a treat, and it is based on a kids' story. But duller/much younger/Disneyfied kids who want nonstop action and/or the relentless cheerful action of a Disney film will probably find their attention wandering in places.
2. Everyone who's interested in the history of filmmaking--particularly right at the beginning.
3. Everyone who's interested in modern filmmaking. This does represent the absolute state of the art in 3D cinematography--where its 3Dness is integral and almost taken for granted, not tacked on, not poke-you-in-the-eye, not several layers of 2D images.
4. Everyone who's interested in good fable direction/screenwriting/acting. This is not to say anyone involved in this project can't do naturalistic films or fantasy films, or, in the case of Chloe Grace Moretz, naturalistic fantasy films ("Let me in"). So no negatives are proven here. That said, I believe the casting was spot on for the major and minor roles. This is one area where Scorsese didn't copy the stagy mugging of Meliés' films (except during re recreations of those films). The large, intent close-ups of the major characters really exposed their acting chops, and all came through. The boy, who I'd never seen before, kept it subtle, as well as the other juvenile character, Isabelle (played by Moretz). The young actors in many youth-oriented films tend to mug--again, Disney movie style--and kids who expect that need to be prepped by their parents to look for more lifelike acting here.
Who won't love it?
1. It's not a Selena Gomez/Demi Lovato/Disney vehicle. It's nothing like Lindsay Lohan's wonderful "Parent Trap," one of the best of the normal good-quality kids' film. It too is a fable, but it isn't overlaid with all the stuff about film history and suchlike. "Hugo"'s ideal kid audience is going to be like Isabelle in the move--sweet, bookish, curious, and not locked into peer culture as the source of everything that could possibly be of interest to one.
2. People who don't like the fable genre. The film embeds pretty naturalistic performances and note-perfect sets showing a Paris train station circa 1931, where most of the action takes place within a non-naturalistic film fable. There are lots of non-fable films. See one of those unless you really do want to see state of the art 3D cinematography and want to ratchet up your suspension of disbelief in order to watch this.
3. People with zero interest in film history. This is where a lot of movie critics err. Of course nearly all of them are fascinated by early film history. But this film verges on being a high quality 2 hour infomercial for film preservation, and you know, reading this, whether such prolonged self-regard on the part of the filmmaker towards his medium will fascinate or annoy you.
4. Adults who don't like films starring children. I detect this bias in people who criticize the performances of "Hugo"'s two junior leads, who are both exemplary. Also, I hadn't seen the boy before, but I have seen Moretz costarring in the grim, critically acclaimed "Let Me In," in which she portrays--with almost no dialogue and almost no special effects--a bloodthirsty (literally) yet profoundly conflicted child vampire, and in which those averse to sunny endings will get their wishes more than satisfied. And in which her appearance and performance have been compared favorably to a very young Ingrid Bergman. That is, she has gravitas. Of people in her age bracket, the only other actor I can think of who has that is Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit).
My point here is that Moretz's acting chops are now an established fact. She has a far less complex character to portray in "Hugo," yet even in Isabelle's wide-eyed pre-ingenue role she infuses her character with a kind of luminosity that holds its own even when she's sharing the screen with great adult actors like Ben Kingsley.
5. Adults who only want to see heavily plot-driven films. It's not like "Hugo" is one of those kaleidoscopic non-narrative films. It tells a story, to be sure. But besides the child-centered narrative there's a biopic about Georges Meliés (and his wife) here, told in flashback, along with excursions into film history. Some people will find that as rich as a multicourse meal; others will be annoyed by "Hugo" not being propelled by a singular narrative drive. Such people will sit there saying "All right, Scorsese--get to the point!"
6. Those who are really reluctant to pay to see the film in a theater, even if they're eager to see it on DVD. I agree with this feeling nearly all of the time. However, some films are so visually huge--and, especially, if they're 3D and do that well--you need to bite the bullet and see it in a theater, if only to compare what it's like in a theater in 3D with what it's like on your flat screen TV at home in 2D. Hey, you can always see it in a bargain matinee, as we did. But we'll probably get the DVD when it comes out as well, because it both makes and recalls film history.I was able to legitimately get an early review copy of the 3D version of the Hugo 3D blu-ray. I am not reviewing the film. I am not reviewing the acting. I am reviewing the 3D. It is incredible. Every bit as engrossing as it was in the theater. If you own a 3DTV, you owe it to yourself to buy this movie. Sure, the film itself is not everyone's cup of tea, but if you're just looking for reference quality, mind-blowing 3D? This movie will suck you in from start to finish. You are a part of the world of Hugo, from beginning to end. And, honestly, no 3D has been this engrossing since Avatar. If you love silent film, film preservation, or cinema in general, along with your three dimensions, this will be the absolute must own disc of the year! Even if they don't like the movie itself, your friends will be impressed with the 3D FX. This is one of the few films released where you can genuinely and proudly claim, "This is why I bought a 3D television!" Enjoy.
Read Best Reviews of Hugo (2013) Here
Hopefully "Hugo" finds the new life on Blu-Ray (and 3D Blu-Ray) that it deserves. For some reason, the masses haven't flocked to this film in theaters, but don't let that fool you into thinking it is second tier in any way. "Hugo" is actually one of the best films of 2011 and one of the best family films ever (that adults will enjoy even more). Most importantly, this is one of the best LOOKING films I've ever seen. James Cameron himself called the film a masterpiece and praised it's use of 3D. As of my writing this I can say that "Hugo" and "Avatar" are easily the two best uses of 3D yet seen.Hugo, the latest film from cinematic maestro Martin Scorsese, is both his first film geared for families and his first film shot in 3D. While many noteworthy directors have been weary of the new format, some greats have embraced it and been eager to try it. James Cameron, not the inventor of 3D but certainly a recent innovator, upon seeing Hugo, called it the best use of 3D he'd seen. No matter what your thoughts on 3D may be, this is no small feat coming from this man. The film, based on the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick and with a screenplay by John Logan, who also penned Scorsese's The Aviator, Hugo is largely billed as a family film but it's worth noting that the film's biggest fans will probably be adults, although there's enough whimsical fantasy to tug at the heartstrings of even the most jaded child.Hugo largely takes place in the early 1930s at a Paris railway station. Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is a young boy whose father (Jude Law), a clockmaker, dies suddenly in a fire. His alcoholic Uncle Claude (Ray Winstone) is responsible for maintaining the clocks at the railway station and teaches Hugo how to do so before taking an indefinite leave of absence. Hugo, left all alone, lives within the walls of the train station, maintaining the clocks, acquiring food by stealing, and spending his free time trying to fix the automaton his father left behind. The automaton is a mechanical man that, once wound up, is supposed to write; his father found it difficult to fix and it's Hugo's mission to see that it finally works. To successfully accomplish this goal, Hugo steals mechanical parts from a toyshop owner named Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), a callused, angry old man who eventually catches Hugo and steals his blueprints that guide him in fixing the automaton. Hopeless, Hugo befriends Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), Georges goddaughter, and begins to uncover the mystery of Papa Georges cinematic past. The film co-stars Sacha Baron Cohen as the feared Station inspector, who will happily whisk Hugo away to the orphanage if he catches him and Christopher Lee as a generous librarian who specializes in finding a good home for books.
Hugo is without a doubt the most visual film that Scorsese has ever directed. Armed with a large budget, the film is heavy on CGI yet moves with the grace of a silent film. The production design by Dante Ferretti and the art direction, credited to ten people, is luxurious and Oscar-worthy, although I confess that it's hard to differentiate between reality and CGI at times. The look, among other things, is completely different from anything Scorsese has made before. The man that directed such gritty films as Mean Streets and Taxi Driver has had a much smoother style in recent years with films like The Departed and Shutter Island, but until now Scorsese has never made a movie that could truly be described as a visual feast for the eyes. As for the story, it's easy to see what made Scorsese respond so strongly to it but taken at face-value it's a rich, lovely fairy tale with shades of Charles Dickens. Of course, in true Scorsese fashion, it's also a history of and love letter to cinema with the importance of film preservation being a theme at the forefront of it all.
The performances are great all around, striking and heartbreaking. Butterfield carries the emotional weight of the character well, while Moretz continues to establish herself as one of the best child actors working today. Kingsley delivers a performance that is, at first, cold but gradually turns to sympathetic. Cohen is quietly hilarious but brings genuine pathos to his role. It's a memorable performance that proves what a gifted actor he is and it's worthy of an Oscar-nomination, although if anyone is nominated it will likely be Kingsley and deservedly so.
As Hugo is very much a cinematic love letter to early cinema, young children may be bored by it. It has enough magical imagery, but I'm not sure how successfully it could capture some people's ADD-riddled attention spans. It's one of the most classic-feeling modern films I've seen, which could be good or bad depending on your perspective. However, it's a joyous film that both children and adults should give a fair shake.
In my humble opinion, Hugo is one of the best films of the year. Who else but Scorsese, well-known as such an incredibly passionate lover of film, could make such a wondrous film about the wonder of film? It's a celebration of all that cinema can be, as well as where cinema came from. It illustrates the progression between cinema being made of dreams to becoming the thing dreams are made of. It's amazing that a major studio would release this film at a time when major studios are largely considered creatively bankrupt. In making a film that celebrates early, silent cinema Scorsese seems to be winking at the audience by creating a film that could not exist without modern technology. Hugo is a perpetually heartwarming and smile-inducing film. Beautiful, not just aesthetically, it's a triumph of spirit; a soulful, magical masterpiece that actually brought tears to my eyes.
GRADE: A
As for the 3D; I've always preferred to see 3D used as the gimmick that it is rather than seeing an attempt to be artistic with it. I was not impressed by James Cameron's Avatar and have only seen it used with true purpose in Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams. Truth be told, I have not been particularly impressed with any use of it I've seen thus far. That changed with Hugo. Scorsese does not use it as a gimmick, but as a way to provide the film with an additional dimension and deepen one's immersion into the overall experience. Would this film still function as magically without it? Yes, it would. Does this use of 3D actually add something to the experience? Undoubtedly. While 3D is still not a fad that I'm particularly hip to, it's good to see a director trying to use it with purpose and actually succeeding.
Save 24% Off
No comments:
Post a Comment