Monday, November 28, 2011
The New York Times review called it a movie one might expect from the celebrated director. Well, it’s not what I expected.
When my friend Dave Darrow recommends a film, I generally take notice. Hugo jumped to the top of my list. He also included a spoiler alert. “The less you know about this one, the more you’ll enjoy it,” he said.
So, in that spirit, I will suggest here that you stop reading until you’ve seen it – except to add that you ought to buy a 3D ticket. It’s worth the extra couple of bucks. OK. Stop here.
Unless, like me, the more you know, the more you see. These days, serious movies pack significance into every frame. A casual run-through means you probably missed a lot. Another friend, Brandon Cesmat, professor of cinema at the State University in San Marcos, advises his students that any film worth watching at all is worth watching twice. He recommends that the first time you include sub-titles, then watch it again without. (Sadly, this can’t be done in the theater.)
The first surprise, that Martin Scorsese would make a film suitable for children (PG) is followed by the second – that it would have a happy ending (there’s the first spoiler – more to come). For me, great films are not about the surprises, the twists or the sudden shocks that trigger an adrenaline burst. Great films are not predictable either – but are, instead, soul food. They speak to human longing. They capture emotion. They articulate our questions. Our fears. Our hopes and dreams. Our tragedies. Our triumphs. They teach. They lead to discoveries; reveal secrets; bring insight. That silver screen transports us to worlds we would otherwise never know. Some imagined. Some real. Great movies are a process; from beginning to end. Keats said it in poetry: “A thing of beauty is a joy forever.” Some films are just plain beautiful.
Hugo is Scorsese’s tribute to the birth of cinema. Both adults and kids will get it. As the director’s career has matured, he has devoted considerable time and resource to the restoration of otherwise lost film. No surprise, then, that he took special note of The Invention of Hugo Cabret, a 2007 book by Brian Selznick (cousin to David O., who directed Gone with the Wind in 1939). It is a sort of historical novel that traces the evolution of film making all the way back to one of the most notable cinematic pioneers, Georges Méliès. A Parisian magician, Méliès, fascinated by one of the first projectors invented in 1895, employed his own silent movie creations in his magic act. He developed some of the first “special effects.” You may recall the grainy, jerky, quirky space flight sequence. A missile (that resembles a man-sized bullet) containing a half dozen science wizards is launched from a giant cannon aimed directly at a full moon. As a stunned audience watches from earth, the spacecraft strikes the smiling man in the moon in the eye – a direct hit. It is a lunar landing imagined over a hundred years ago. Some call it the first sci-fi flick. That was Georges Méliès, 1902.
The Great War (WWI) decimated a good portion of Europe, but also Méliès’ entertainment business. Weary of the bloodshed and the devastating ruins, Parisian crowds had little interest in magicians or comedy, much less the shadowy, farcical images projected on a screen in a darkened room. George went bust. His back lot, which once was the scene of wild imagination and intrigue, costuming and outrageous adventure, demons and dragons, mermaids and Greek mythology all went the way of the rubble still smoldering in the battlefield. Demoralized and broke, Méliès set the place ablaze, all the props and costumes and sets lit the night sky in a bonfire that sent his life’s work up in smoke. In the searing heat of the flames, in a tragic moment of deep despair, with the dramatic flair he had once captured on film, he tossed in those old celluloid reels, too.
With what remaining resources he had left, he purchased a little toyshop at the fabled train station at Montparnasse in the heart of Paris. There, he repaired and sold little mechanical toys until, one fateful day, he encountered young Hugo Cabret, whom he recognized immediately as a no-good little thief – a street urchin who, if in London, would have been a main character in a Dickens novel. Hugo, a boy orphaned by his father’s accidental death, worked all the mechanical clocks in the huge turn-of-the-century station, where steam engines transported Parisians all over France and beyond.
Accusing him of theft, and at the same time recognizing his mechanical gift, he forces the boy to work in his shop in exchange for the value of the stolen goods. There, he meets George’s adopted daughter, young Isabelle. She is smart, too. Hugo, street wise, loves to fix things, complicated things. He has an eye for gears and wheels and springs and pulleys and weights and chains, large and small. He finds adventure in the tunnels and on catwalks and the secret hideaways of the train station, watching the world through slots in the clock faces. Isabelle, a couple of years older, is book smart. She finds her adventures in the library and the piled up books that line the shelves – Charles Dickens and John Burrows (The Adventures of Robin Hood). She employs unlikely words like “reprobate” and “clandestine” and “your covert lair.” Too charming.
Their adventure becomes ours. There are chases and train wrecks and nightmares and an ever-foreboding gendarme (the Inspector) who, in spite of his knee brace, must be avoided at every turn. But the centerpiece of the story is an automaton, a mechanical human with a metal face whose innards are a complex combination of music box and clockworks. The steel manikin plays a role, too. He writes with a fountain pen.
The heart-shaped key will be all the explanation you need.
Scorsese may well identify with Méliès who arrives at his latter years – when one reflects on a lifetime of work and wonders, what did it all mean? Who cares? What is really important, after all?
The answer is in Hugo’s eyes. And the brass key in the shape of a heart.
Copyright Kenneth E Kemp 2011
I really enjoyed the movie, so much so, that I am now going to take your advice, and my friend and I are going to see it again, today. This time I will see if we can drag my mom to it
There were so many rich messages of creativity, imagination, perseverance and even unfathomable grace in that movie. I found myself with tears in my eyes many times. And this from Martin “Taxi Driver” Scorsese? Martin “Last Temptation” Scorsese? Martin “Good Fellas” Scorsese?
I was surprised at the un-conservative, in-your-face messages running through out the film: we are all seemingly broken, but we are never useless. We have all been designed — or allowed to form — the way we are. Like clocks, there are never any extra pieces… we are delivered as the Maker intended, despite what others see or judge. We are all useful in the world of creations.
I found it to be a realistic approach to life in a fantastical movie, and I was touched.
I learned a great deal about the movies, too. And I am amazed at the introduction of, in my lifetime, 2D historical films from WWI and the earliest of Hollywood, presented in 3D. A whole new genre is being created as movies shot in traditional manner are being converted through painstaking trickery to 3D adventures, with Titanic and Star Wars: Episode I soon to be released in 3D!
I’m already rolling my eyes at the ideas the bean counters in Hollywood will force into 3D existence — its inevitable… many movies probably should not be made 3D… but they will. Hollywood bean counters rarely have any taste.
Thanks for asking. 2nd time around it was still a treat to watch. The 3D aspect was still enchanting, but I found I was not as distracted by the ‘ooos and ahhhhs’ going on in my mind, and I really got to enjoy the story even more… perhaps because of some of the things you point out here: the girl’s penchant for large words — and the boy’s seeming blank mind when she uses them…
Picked up more on movie-making and history, too.
I definitely wanted to see this one again while it was LARGE and in the 3D theaters, so I bit it and paid the money. We even took my 83-year-old mother — her first 3D experience, and she loved it. Said she was a little apprehensive about what the 3D effect might do to her, but found it all wonderful and comfortable.
That having been said, I hope I never spend this much money on movies in a week again. Where are my values!?
I took my 10 year old to see “Hugo” over the weekend and we both loved it. Most films I would not see in 3D because of the price, but this one was worth it as the depth of the world Scorsese creates is truly spectacular as are the performances. I’m not a huge fan of the director but I know of his passion for film history and preservation and the story was truly for the whole family. Very enjoyable!
Relative to photography/cinematography, there is an interesting article about film pioneering here.
One of the interesting things I have run across with the purchase of my 42″ HDTV last year, is the “smooth motion” feature (by as many other names as there are manufacturers) of my Vizio.
To me the “advantage” I was told about by the salesman was that ’240mhz was better than 120mhz was better than 60mhz.’ This is where they are referring to the refresh rate of the screen, and before your eyes glaze over, I’ll just say that there are probably instances (sports?) where you don’t mind that kind of removal of all things jerky, but this advance absolutely ruins movies. All live action movies.
I have set my “advanced TV” back to ‘turn of the century’ settings, and I am just fine with this for everything. Movies look completely wrong any other way.
Film has traditionally been shot at 24 frames per second, or 24fps. Video is 30fps, (or more precisely 29.97fps), and just that much ‘improvement’ is enough to distinguish it from film to even casual observers.
I first noticed this when I watched a movie (Inception) on my HDTV the week it came out on BluRay.
From the moment it started, I felt like I was watching a high school film class attempt at making a blockbuster. I had no idea what this was all about, and it took me a while to even consider that perhaps it was settings on my TV — after all, I was watching a disc. (putting together search terms for Google to get to the bottom of this was another issue… all I could think of was “HD BluRay fake-looking” at first, but then started running into entries that referred to a weird “soap opera look,” and I knew I was on track. That’s when I found my solution).
The feature that turns on smoothing (and reduces that shuttering, jerky effect from frame to frame) is actually just letting the advance 240mhz do its job: the result is the absence of jerkiness. I would never have thought that I prefer the 24fps look over something more real or smooth. But that simple change is what destroys the look of any movie. Even my Indiana Jones DVD from 20 years ago… smoothing ruins any movie except cartoons and computer animation.
It was effectively “too real.” One could instantly sense the heavier make-up, the freshly made costumes, the overly directed lighting, the dimensionality of a scene and set. It was as if I was taken from my home to a movie set and allowed to watch the actors acting. It was that real.
But I didn’t want it that real. When I watch a film, I don’t want to know I am watching a film. I want to get lost in the story. When there is any element of the visual, whether a clever camera angle, an epic long-duration camera shoot (like this legendary one in Atonement), or whatever that shows off cool camera stuff, I am immediately taken out of the story to some remote planning room where movie makers are discussing the intricacies of pulling off this shot. Can’t I just enjoy their mastery some other time than in the middle of a story?? (The Atonement shot is wonderfully epic, though!)
I am not alone in my fear that improved technology will take away the magic of the movies I have enjoyed all my life, and that hyper-HD is the goal, and that bedazzlement will overtake great storytelling.
Oh, Progress… I was able to enjoy movies again by setting my HDTV back to “smoothing OFF” which is 60mhz, which allows the look of 24fps. Back to the Past.