Martin Scorsese must have seen the children's book "Hugo" as the perfect way to pay homage to some of his early film heroes and bring attention to the cause of film preservation. It's a film that is spectacular to look at. I mean it. Spectacular. And I only saw it in 2D on my little flat screen. You are probably well advised to see it in 3D on a big screen. The sets and props have a magical feel. It's when we get to the people who inhabit the world that we run in to a little trouble.
The protagonist of this story is 12 year old Hugo Cabret, who lives a solitary life in the Paris train station winding all the clocks and fixing mechanical devices while his Uncle drinks the day away. He lives by his wits, avoiding the station security guard (the always oddball Sasha Baron Cohen). He meets a solemn toy vendor (Ben Kingsley) and his pretty niece Isabella (Chloe Grace Moretz) and soon an adolescent love story blossoms. That's the first half of the film. The second (and better) half is concerned with early filmmakers and film making and is if nothing else a master class on the early days of motion pictures. This is, of course Martin Scorsese's passion and he is much more sure-handed with this portion of the story.
Directing children is another matter. The two young leads are really not very engaging. Their not terrible, but their stiff Frenchness and odd character look makes them just slightly more creepy than heroic, almost like a Tim Burton film. Part of the problem may be that these characters are of French ancestry and live in Paris, but are played by English actors with decidedly English accents, and all of it directed by an American director. It's a mish-mosh. The world straddles the simplistic tone of a children's book and Scorsese's prodigious intellect and it just doesn't mesh.
The second half of the film is fascinating for any one who loves cinema or history or (especially) cinema history. It almost makes "Hugo" a great movie, but not quite. Beautiful yes, interesting indeed, but not quite a satisfying movie-watching experience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok Rich, You might think that I would be smug about The Artist winning so many of the major Oscars - Picture, Director, Actor, because I was so vehement about its greatness, but I actually find it curious Hugo won as many awards. 5 and 5 out of 24 total...Does this say something about an industry that is nostalgic for the idea of a time when film was the new art? Though I thought Hugo was uneven, there are moments when it touches the heavens. The Artist, of course you know my thoughts there... In the new technology era, when a you tube video might get 5 million hits and a feature film might be fortunate to get half that, the playing field has shifted, and what we dreamed of 30 years ago, or even maybe even a century ago, can now seem old fashioned, maybe even antiquated.
ReplyDeleteTom, Tom, Tom. You're making me bad-mouth a film that I really liked again but the Oscar for "The Artist" speaks more to a mediocre year in film making more than it does to any issue of 'Greatness'. Again the story is pedestrian and predictable. The weakness is in plot. You'll notice that amongst its five awards was NOT one for screenplay. As for Hugo,didn't you think it was sometimes more creepy that fanciful? 2011 was not an awesome year in film.
ReplyDelete