Saturday, November 26, 2011

The Wonders of Hugo

The greatest wonder of Martin Scorsese’s Hugo is the production design of Dante Ferretti. In the film’s leisurely prologue, Hugo (Asa Butterfield), the orphaned boy who lives in the station and winds the many clocks, moves through the set for the Gare de Montparnasse that is much more than a little world film set. It is all of Paris under one roof. Here, Hugo weaves through busy shopkeepers and people rushing off to trains, pursued by Station Master (Sacha Baron Cohen) and his black Doberman, and he passes the café proprietress with her long-haired dachshund and the shy old man whose fancy for the woman is thwarted by her snapping dog, and we easily get a sense of the size of this world within a world, with its alleys and passageways into attics and clock towers. We hardly ever leave the station, except in flashback or to go to Isabelle's house, but we don’t need to. Here, all the world’s a train station.

Of the wonderful performances in a fine cast, my favorite is Sacha Baron Cohen as Station Master. He is slender and ramrod-stiff, impeccable in his bright blue uniform, but any authority is lost when he runs haltingly with his leg in a rusty brace, gets caught up on a train door, and dragged down the platform, a wonderful routine fit for the silent film era to which Scorsese's film pays tribute. An orphan in his youth, Station Master captures runaway orphans hiding in the station so that they can be sent to the orphanage where they will learn life the hard way as he did. Cohen is controlled, thoughtful, sensitive in every glance and articulation, and his smiles attempted to please the pretty flower salesgirl (Emily Mortimer) he loves are a laugh. But the film is led by the performances of Asa Butterfield as Hugo and Chloë Grace Moretz as Isabelle, the girl who joins Hugo in his quest to fix a mechanical man and understand the message the automaton delivers. As the young girl who has only found adventure in books, Moretz is especially talented and graceful in her role. Cutting out a tendency to overact, Ben Kingsley delivers a fine performance as filmmaker Georges Méliès, and it is magical how CGI transforms Kingsley into the young Georges, the stage magician who becomes a cinematic magician.

Wonderful is the masterful eye of Martin Scorsese. He captures the dazzle of Paris as seen through the number panels of the massive train station clock, the huge moon reminding us of Méliès’s moon-shot masterpiece. He keeps the camera on the faces of Hugo and Isabelle so that we might feel their sense of wonder. I also admire how he never rushes a scene. Here the pace is thoughtful, careful, often taking the time to emulate the wordless demonstration of a silent-film-like scene. Then he turns around and dazzles the eye with a clock tower stairway chase that elongates the tower in Vertigo to a hyperbolic degree or with a room full of swirling drawings.

Hugo is about the power of books and movies to transport readers and viewers to other worlds. It is about a boy’s search for a family. It is about the history of silent films, and the magic of cinema. It is an enjoyable film whose wonderful elements never amounted to a wonderful experience for me.

Especially during the sequences that document the emergence of silent films, from the Lumière brothers’ first cinematic showing and the creations of filmmaker Georges Méliès, I felt on the outside, looking in on a curious, interesting documentary that never made me feel the magic portrayed. As an amateur filmmaker, I found it fun to watch the trickery of filmmaking, how a story can be told with a camera focused on a single set inside a glass studio, and how the special effect of a magical disappearance is done by freezing the action, taking out the character, continuing the action, and then later cutting the film to fit together. Of course, I knew all this already, but the film failed to generate the thrill in response to the magic that I readily identify as thrilling. I felt as though the dramatic story had been pushed aside to allow time for didactic documentation of silent filmmaking, the life of Méliès, and the importance of film preservation. It is always clear that this is a film by a passionate filmmaker. (You can see the delight on Marty’s face in his cameo as a photographer capturing Georges and his glass studio.) But the sense of excitement and dazzle falls a little flat.

The Méliès flashbacks and the Méliès tribute sequence are interesting, curious, and informative, but the drama and magic of Scorsese’s story about a young boy and girl discovering the past is lost in the documentation. I never felt the same thrill as that generated by the opening prologue. As a sequence that is obviously a nightmare, the famous 1895 train wreck generates neither suspense nor impact. A repeat viewing, I'm sure, will reveal other tributes to filmmaking seeded throughout Scorsese's film, and it will be fun to discover them. The film is meticulously made, but like Hugo in the crowded train station, the story gets orphaned within the meticulous filmmaking.


Anonymous said...

Superb posting, I share the same views. I wonder why this particular world truly does not picture for a moment like me and also the blog site creator :D

Sam Juliano said...

Oh, I don't think I could disagree with you more on this one Hokahey! But we will still remain good friends anyway. lol.

Ferretti's work was indeed worth singling out, but so is Richardson's, Butterfield's, Kingsley's and the ring leader Martin Scorsese, who was the perfect choice to bring Selznick's magical Caldecott Medal winner to the scrren. From the dazzling opening when the camera glides through a snowy Paris and the Eiffel Tower to rest on a boy's face behind an overhead clock in a train station to the subsequent adventures involving a robot, a train station officer and the myesterious owner of a toy shop, this is a buoyant, exuberant and utterly winning film that extends the boundaries of the form, and stands for it's legendary director a triumph that may well be his finest films since 1990's GOODFELLAS. Like THE ARTIST is a splendid and charming silent film homage that is in perfect hands with the Maestro. I must side in this instance with the generally spectacular reviews and the awards it has been getting, but sadly it comes at a price. Scorsese insisted on doing things his way, without concessions, and the result is poor box office.

I have assigned THE INVENTION OF HUGO CABRET to my classes, and the results have been most encouraging.

As always you bring great writing and a refreshing personal perspective to the table my friend.

Hokahey said...

Sam, thank you for your gracious and passionate comment.

But I don't think we disagree. I have praised the strength of the acting and Scorsese's direction. I love that opening shot you describe.

The difference here is that I didn't find it as "utterly winning" as you did. I can objectively praise all its fine filmmaking, but it just didn't suck me in. Despite all the positive reviews, others agree with me - see the comments to Craig's post at The Man from Porlock.

No worries about being friends. I have no problem with anyone who responds to a film in a different way.

Anonymous said...

Hi there, I apreciated this writing in your page, you are writing down with great knowledge! This blog is very interesting!
I´m Rosie, I´m from Lisbon, so I am going to be a follower of this web page, my personal details may be boring but I will tell them off course I like reading as well as sports in general, and I also listen a lot Shakira on my roadtrips, I´m without boyfriend now so male users....just kidding :)! I already tried online dating it didn´t work out very well....
I wrote this comment cause as I already mentioned I really like your page I also have a web community just like you, but mine is many different from yours, it is about playing poker with real money for free....:)
I will also have to apologize by my writting it was the only way I get to talk with you guys....see ya to everybody, Goodbye