I decided today to go see a movie today; to get out of the house for something other than shopping for supplies and gifts for the upcoming holiday. I had two choices that were high on my list: Muppets and Hugo. The theater I was going to see either at was next to where I was going to shop, so I checked the times and headed over. Muppets was to show at 1:40, Hugo at 1:50, and since I arrived about 1:30. Muppets it would be…
But since this post is titled 'Hugo' you can guess what happened. I read the times wrong. Muppets would be on at 2:40.
So I bought my ticket and headed in, avoiding the refreshment stand (after paying nearly $15 for a MATINEE show, I was rather less than willing to give them anymore money.). Sat down and waited for the show to begin.
Hugo is Martin Scorsese’s newest film. Set in a Paris train station in the 1930’s, it is about Hugo Cabret, a young boy whose parents have both died (at different times) who’s drunken uncle apprentices him in the ways of keeping the station clocks running. Since Hugo’s dad was an expert clockmaker who taught him the ways of his craft, Hugo quickly learned the ins and outs of his uncle’s job- who then promptly left him to do the work so he could go out drinking. Alone, he does the station’s work, avoiding the security to steal food and assorted parts for his special project: an automaton his father had found in the museum he worked at that they had been restoring together before a fire at the museum he worked at claimed his life. It’s the stealing of parts that starts the main story, since he was nicking clockwork pieces from a toymaker who had a shop in station- a man who is more than he first appears to be. The man catches him and the story goes from there. Turns out said man is Georges Méliès, a pioneer of filmmaking who has been trying to bury his past, since he thought he was nothing but a forgotten footnote in history.
This film is a love story from Martin Scorsese to the medium he has worked in for decades. And it is very nearly a truly excellent film. But there is a big problem with it. What is it you ask? This film has two firsts for Scorsese, and while one he succeeds in beyond expectations, the other proves the film’s downfall.
The first is that this is the first ever children’s film he has ever done. I admit I was a bit worried about this, since the only film genre I would have a harder believing he would do is science fiction. I guess the biggest reason I felt this way was that Scorsese has always tackled mature themes and issues, something I wasn’t sure would work in a children’s film. I guess my thoughts on this were formed in what today passes for children’s films. So used to the likes of “Baby’s Day Out’ and the constant stream of current event jokes combined with bodily functions that seems to be the standard that one forgets that sometimes mature issues and good storytelling can make a great film for all ages. It’s like if you had told me that the director of the ‘Mad Max’ series would make one of my favorite children’s movies before seeing ‘Babe’ I would have laughed in your face. But like George Miller, Martin Scorsese pulls it off. From a stellar cast to beautiful location settings, you can see it was a film that he had his heart into, something I frankly missed in ‘Shutter Island’. THIS is the Scorsese that Tony forced me to watch and love.
Before I get to the problem, I have to single out two actors for similar reasons. I first saw Sir Ben Kingsley in Gandhi, and for a long time that was what I thought of when I thought of him. Then I saw Sexy Beast, and my eyes were opened to the skills he had as an actor. Now I have yet another standard to think of him by with Hugo. He goes from bitter old man to almost childish glee in what he is doing with such smoothness and ease you really felt he was portraying his own life. I also had this revelation with Sacha Baron Cohen. He took what could have been a simple role and gave it a depth I did not expect. To see him portray a man who has endured much who still cannot do the one thing he wants to do more than anything else was impressive. I hope he does more (semi) serious work in the future.
Now to the big problem…
The second thing Martin Scorsese did for the first time in this movie was shoot it in 3D. And this was NOT a good choice. 3D movies tend to be gimmicky to me, and yes, he went that route as well. I wish I had seen this film in 2D, as I would have liked it far more. The funny thing about this is Georges Méliès is considered the forefather of visual effects in film. All the scenes that show Méliès working on his films were nothing short of breathtaking. It was where Scorsese’s love shown through the brightest. Recreating the practical magic Méliès did for his films was perhaps the greatest tribute one could do. I just wish that Scorsese had gone for more traditional filmmaking for the entire film. The 3D was not needed. In fact, I will go a step further. I would have loved to see this filmed with as much practical effects as possible. I know that there is a lot the has to be done in CGI because of the setting, but some of it just was too obvious- in part since it was used for the 3D. I will give a perfect example from Hugo, along with a similar example from another amazing director.
