Topic: Hugo ****

[Najemikon]

This is a massive review I meant to post last week. I apologise for the length of it, but you might remember I posted before about the book on which this film is based and I felt it deserved a detailed response.  I think there are several things worth discussing both in general about how the film was made and how it was adapted.

This was the original thread: http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,6519.0.html

[Najemikon]

Hugo **** Year: 2011 Director: Martin Scorcese

The Invention of Hugo Cabret is a wonderful book by Brian Selznick. It’s an unusual format and so wrapped up in the history of cinema that it is ready made to be adapted. It’s already so good though, that all that is left to do by a prospective film-maker is to get it wrong.

While I was intrigued by and enthusiastic about Martin Scorcese doing it (a story based on the history of cinema couldn’t be better suited to him), even in dreaded 3D, the trailer was a let-down. In truth, that was a very poor trailer! Hugo, despite the uninspired title change, is actually a very good film, better in some respects than I could have hoped for, but it does still make fundamental mistakes. I wanted to love it and for the first time, I felt the expectations a book set could have been met, but they weren’t. I’ll just have to settle for ‘bloody good’.

It’s a very easy film to recommend and I hope you make the effort to see it. It’s an uplifting and poetic story, and if you love cinema in general, you should respond to it very well. It’s the story of an orphan, living in the walls of the Paris train station. Following the death of his father, Hugo had been taken in by his alcoholic Uncle, the stations time-keeper. Hugo’s Uncle has since disappeared, so to avoid the orphanage, he keeps the clocks running so no-one is the wiser and has cause to check. Meanwhile, he steals food as he needs it and parts from a toymaker’s stall. He needs the bits and pieces to repair an “Automaton”, a mechanical man he and his father worked on together. The clockwork man will be able to write a message and Hugo dreams that it will be a message from his dad. But the Toymaker has a sad history tied up with the Automaton and when he catches Hugo stealing one day, he takes the boys notebook to stop him continuing the repair. The Toymaker’s grand-daughter is intrigued and wants to help Hugo…

Martin Scorcese is not known for making mainstream films like this, much less children’s stories, but he has crafted a beautiful film. It has a steady, effortless pace, that perfectly matches the books unique melancholy but optimistic tone. I think the trick is Scorcese doesn’t force any scenes; he just lets the camera mingle with the typical comings and goings of the station, observing rather than chasing and zooming. This is complemented by the photography, that although is in colour contrary to the originals black and white, still retains the shadowy, warm depth the book had. The camera glides through the station following Hugo as he spies on people from behind the clocks; sort of a mini Phantom of the Opera, but without the unhinged stalker angle! Here we see additions to Selznick’s story, in expanded characters. There’s a lovely relationship between Frances de la Tour and Richard Griffiths. He keeps trying to talk to her, but her little dog growls and bites him every time! The sequences are all the better for the fact we largely see them from a distance with little dialogue. Same goes for the Station Inspector (Sascha Baron Cohen) and his attempts to chat up a flower seller (Emily Mortimer). They make for nice asides to the main plot, although the Station Inspector does have a larger role as Hugo’s nemesis, a feared orphan catcher!

Sascha Baron Cohen’s performance is one of the films highlights and a great relief. From the trailer, I’d assumed he would be a ridiculous character, but actually he fits in perfectly and so does his hilarious dog. The absolute star of the film is Ben Kingsley as the Toy Maker though. He is a heart-breaking character in line with that general melancholic theme and Kingsley gives such a delicate and open performance, considering who he turns out to be. I’m determined not to spoil that, even though if you pay too close attention to the films promotional press you’ll probably work it out. It won’t ruin the film, but still, I remember the revelation in the book and if I can pass it on, I will.

The films weaknesses come in with the kids. Asa Butterfield who plays Hugo is very good, but rather reliant on whom he plays opposite. So the scenes with Kingsley, Baron Cohen and Christopher Lee (great extended cameo as a book seller, another nicely judged built up minor character) are superb. Sadly though, his relationship with Isabelle, the Toymaker’s grand-daughter played by Chloe Moretz lacks the essential innocent chemistry.

Isabelle as a character is the failure and despite Chloe Moretz’s incredible performances in Kick Ass and Let Me In, she just doesn’t have the experience to rescue it. I can’t fathom why the ball would be dropped here; the character was perfect on the page. The Isabelle in the original story loves books and cinema and Hugo hasn’t been to the pictures since his dad died, so Isabelle shows him how she sneaks in regularly. They bond over a shared, illicit love of film (her grandfather forbids her from seeing films). In retrospect, she is a vital character because by the end she has not only been instrumental in the relationship between her grandfather and Hugo, but she represents why her grandfather was so haunted in the first place. Around her neck she has a key on a chain which Hugo realises fits the Automaton, but you could also see it as a metaphor for how important she is in the narrative.

The book had a dark side, especially where the early years of cinema were concerned, and that gave it a more solid grounding. The film occasionally feels fluffy and sentimental in comparison because Isabelle’s tragic history is not mentioned and that undermines the impact on her grandfather and his philosophy. She is entirely ignorant of film and it is Hugo who sneaks her in to the cinema, but that doesn’t make sense. The fact Hugo hadn’t set foot in a cinema since his father’s death was a perfectly judged emotional hook. Possibly worst of all, Isabelle’s love of books has given the film version of her an infuriating habit of using big words, as if to demonstrate how educated she is. For example, she exclaims at one moment, “Oh! It’s suuu-per-lative!!!”. Makes you want to slap her. Unfortunately it rendered the chemistry with Hugo cold and her character unbelievable. She still has the key on a chain, but once it’s used and they rush to her grandparents –which is the pivotal point in the film- she kind of just drifts into the background. Such a shame, and unforgivable because there was no need to alter her at all. I’m not sure Moretz was ever right for the role, but she was handicapped from the beginning.

Still there is no hiding the story altogether. The reveal is magnificent and as the film shifts into the second half, it becomes an unashamed love letter to cinema. I’m still determined not to tell you who Gramps actually is, but it’s tough now! Suffice to say, Scorcese makes use of an opportunity to re-imagine the silent era and it’s gorgeous. Full of colour and wonder. There are also two dream sequences that really stand out (I don’t remember them in the book) and reveal an effort to give the film a deeper identity. And, may I be struck down for saying this, the 3D is used brilliantly.

For the first time ever, not only was I not distracted by the 3D, there are moments that actually benefited from it. I’ve always said the Achilles’ Heel of 3D, the reason it will always be a gimmick, is that it is impossible to support it in a narrative. Every other element of a film can be dictated by story. There’s a reason for colour, a reason for sound, a reason for widescreen. It all sums up the theory of Mise en scene and 3D in live action can only be an interruption. Scorcese has demonstrated that the story of Hugo can not only support 3D, but it flourishes with it. His use is very subtle and I think the smooth style I spoke of earlier, with long takes that rarely need to quickly zoom or pan, really helps. Being mainly set in a train station and especially within the walls where Hugo hides, there is a huge amount of natural obstacles (railings, clock faces, giant cogs, lift shafts) that allow the film to live in a 3D world while rarely needing to wave something at the audience. I was particularly impressed with how he was able to extend a close-up in several instances. There is a moment the Inspector leans down to speak to Hugo and he leans over the audience too! Very effective.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. 3D is still invalid until it can be seen without the need of tinted glasses and there are still problems with perspective in some shots. Not only that, serendipity helped Scorcese in this case with such a story. Unless every 3D film from now on is going to be leisurely paced and set in a train station, I’m still cynical about its use overall! Still, hopefully directors will look at his achievement and realise slow and steady is artistically better than lobbing things at the viewer.

Like I said, I wanted to love this film and I almost do. The fact it looks so beautiful and brings to wonderful life a turbulent period in film, not to mention it’s a huge step forward for 3D, this should be a solid five star children’s classic. But while the steady pace was already going to test attention spans, the treatment of the Isabelle character threatens to derail the entire thing and it was such an unnecessary change, taking away some of the warmth and allowing the narrative to drift. It’s odd that a story that features so many clocks lacks a sense of time.

Still Hugo is so damn close to special and there is so much to embrace and cheer for, I encourage you to do just that.

[Najemikon]

So Hugo leads the Oscar nominations with 11! It'll be interesting to see which way the Academy leans this year, with a choice between this old fashioned film that benefits from and embraces new methods like 3D; or The Artist, another old fashioned film which benefits from and embraces old methods...  Of course, maybe neither will scoop the big prize.

I'm disappointed that in the major categories Ben Kingsley has not been nominated for supporting actor. I'd have thought he was in the running with this. I would be happy with Hugo or The Artist nabbing Best Picture, but I'd definitely give Scorcese Best Director. I was expecting him to buckle to convention when making Hugo, a 3D children's film, but by obeying the story and not the commercial pull (despite a disappointingly shortened title) he made a rather special film that can be appreciated by all ages. Not to mention he made 3D work properly!

I would absolutely not give John Logan Best Adapted Screenplay though. The only reason I gave Hugo "****" and not "*****" is because of what it lost in translation from the book, in particular around the Isabelle character. No need to change it and it allows the film to drift and become over sentimental.

[goodguy]

Don't get me started on The Artist, the amount of awards thrown at this (not just the Oscars) is just plain ridiculous. Still haven't seen Hugo.

[Najemikon]

 

I know what you're getting at. Taken for what it is, I loved it, and part of me is happy to see it celebrated because of the optimistic story and that it can stand to be a passionate defence of film as a visual medium, considering that so much modern cinema is just too damn noisy and exploitative. I can't deny that I basically really enjoyed it. On the other hand, it doesn't compare with the classics of the silent era and so awarding it heavily feels rather dishonest and any success it enjoys should be carefully handled.

[Achim]

Listening to Mayo & Kermode it would appear that the majority of Britain's movie-going audience did rather enjoy The Artist. The comments of you two now make cautious about seeing it...

[goodguy]

I wouldn't want to discourage you from watching The Artist, but watch this one as well. Unlike The Artist, it actually does recall some of the great silent films.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E0RoL68t4o

Sorry Jon, for hijacking the Hugo thread (but you started it).

[Achim]

Added La Antena to my Wish List, although I found the trailer became a bit overly frenetic towards the end.

[Najemikon]

Listening to Mayo & Kermode it would appear that the majority of Britain's movie-going audience did rather enjoy The Artist. The comments of you two now make cautious about seeing it...

Ok, let me put it this way. I saw The Artist at a preview and intended to do a review after it and never got the opportunity. I won't bother now until I see it again, so for now, I'll just say this...

(click to show/hide)

*****     

It's fantastic entertainment, brilliantly made and although it only aims to be classic Hollywood romance, it has one or two moments that stand out. A dream sequence for instance.

My only reservation is that if they are going to shower it with awards, is that a knee-jerk reaction, or based on something multiple viewings may reveal to me? Something important that will mean it should be considered in deserving of pure critical praise rather than it was just bloody good fun.

I wouldn't want to discourage you from watching The Artist, but watch this one as well. Unlike The Artist, it actually does recall some of the great silent films.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E0RoL68t4o

Sorry Jon, for hijacking the Hugo thread (but you started it).

No need to apologise! It's all about having a chat at the end of the day.  And the two films share a common DNA of nostalgia for the silent era anyway.

I want to see La Antena, but be fair, it's a different kettle of fish and neither film deserves direct comparison. The Artist is an unashamed love affair with cinema. La Antena has characters that look like they belong in a really screwed up episode of Doctor Who! A kid with no eyes saying, "Mamma?". I'd rather have a prat-falling terrier, if it's all the same.  It's agenda is very different.

[goodguy]

See, I don't buy that The Artist is in love with cinema, at least not with what that term means to me. I'm not that well-educated when it comes to the silent era, but I have seen films by Lang, Murnau, Wiene, Eisenstein, Protazanov and probably a couple of others, and I find nothing of the sort in The Artist. But even as fluffy entertainment The Artist fell pretty flat for me, so my overall reaction would be a resounding meh if it weren't for the critical reception. It really pisses me off when a daring and innovative, yet still very accessible modern silent film like La antena is ignored and people who should know better fawn over some middlebrow drivel void of any artistic merit.

[Najemikon]

It really pisses me off when a daring and innovative, yet still very accessible modern silent film like La antena is ignored and people who should know better fawn over some middlebrow drivel void of any artistic merit.

But that's really unfair. Hollywood was built on Romantic Realism and The Artist represents that and the industry that created it. You listed the European masters, fair enough, but The Artist comes from the same sentimental pedigree as Chaplin and is just as valid. No matter how good La Antena is, it's clearly Surrealist... I say "clearly", I'm only going by the trailer. You say "daring and innovative", and maybe you're right, but it's only accessible if you're so inclined otherwisesuch material would be perverse and unapproachable.

[Achim]

No matter how good La Antena is, it's clearly Surrealist...

That's the word I was looking for... Which is probably the difference in appeal for the masses right there. ...and most awards look more at films with a broad appeal than (pardon the following) "artsy stuff".

I wonder if Kermode has seen La Antena and what he thought of it, in comparison to The Artist.

[goodguy]

It is actually a fairly simple and straightforward story. There is a villain to defeat and there is even a love story on the fringes. The style is very bold and the allegory easy to grasp. It's almost like a children's film, so Jon's Doctor Who analogy isn't that far off in that regard. It is also surrealist in a broader sense, but then so is Metropolis.

[mrubs]

I searched for this movie but can't find better print, anyone have solution ?

[Najemikon]

How about waiting for it to be released and buying or renting it? Mate, look at the name of this site. 

You mentioned downloading 36 movies in another thread. We don't do that here. Such an attitude is unwelcome quite frankly.