Hugo is one of the best films of this year because the story is structured in a coherent fashion and it offers a fresh visual palette to the eye that is uniquely its own. There were some predictable elements but the themes of the story were clear and it was manifested accurately through each character. The story, set in Paris 1931, is about the young individual Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), who resides in the clock tower of the train station where he keeps the clocks ticking, seeking to complete the reconstruction of a mysterious automaton discovered by his deceased father who worked in the museum where it was discovered before it was engulfed by flames. During his reconstruction of the automaton he encounters a mysterious toy maker, from whom he steals parts, working in the station’s toy shop named George Melies (Ben Kingsley) who we eventually learn was once a pioneer in filmmaking. Through the construction by Hugo of the automaton and his urge to discover the message which is supposedly left by his father we come to discover the original magic of the cinema. Along the way he encounters several important characters such as the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) and Isabelle (Chloe Moretz). The film may be seen as a call for the preservation of the older generation of films however one can still see it independently as the birth of a movement and how this movement can be preserved despite the possibility that it would fade into existence. ‘Hope lives’ seems to be the message promoted by the film. The film deals accurately with the themes of decline vs. descent for it highlights that although Melies decline as a filmmaker resulted in the end of his career the only possibility for it to be discovered was through this young boy. The line of descent becomes firmly established in this film and so from this perspective it does not necessarily have to be viewed as a children’s film. There comes a time when everyone will become old and you become concerned with the legacy you will leave behind. The film will be seen as one for children especially as the source material is based on the popular children’s book The Invention of Hugo Cabret however the thematic elements will make it relevant to future audiences especially as it has a visual texture enhanced by 3D that seems truly original and is one associated with the passage of time. The effective use of visual textures to convey thematic elements is better than most films released this year. The concept of the machine is also highlighted effectively and demonstrates the extent that each piece in the puzzle is relevant to the construction of the whole. This is more of a functionalist philosophy and this is debatable especially as it used to justify emotional expressions in the film. I have witnessed firsthand how individuals can be forgotten and how their legacy hangs by a thread because of the lessons passed on to a youth or how the youth discovers something in the past that will ensure the survival of that particular idea or object. There is the notion that most of the great works in science, technology and art in the past are subject to new interpretations which will result in new formulations for the betterment of mankind. In this present day humans are unable to move beyond the abstract debates of the past with regards to human nature and notions of the universe. Most of our experiences are apocryphal and do not result in any new formulations about human nature that were not already known. Our practical applications have only expanded in the form of technology but not in its essence i.e. what technology is used for. This can be seen with the current release The Artist (2011). This also makes a strong claim regarding the value of art.
The subjective development of film as a medium to expand the possibilities of what we can imagine is still relevant today and will be for whatever art form emerges. The concept of a legacy is more of a central theme as opposed to the preservation of film. If one removes the personal association of director Martin Scorsese the objective elements of the film must be discussed based on the thematic elements on display. This is done when the construction of the machine and the objective framework is assessed. This film is a good swansong for the master Martin Scorsese.
What’s good about this film?
The first good thing about this film is the coherent structure of the story. This is one of the few times I was able to just sit back and watch a film without wondering about loopholes in the story or inconsistencies in the plot. The film exposes its many layers very well with some surprising moments. This is what good films do anyway and you are supposed to sit back and relax. I also appreciated the visual textures of the film enhanced by the 3D effect. The opening shots and some during the middle emphasize this. We see the camera swooping down over Paris in 1931 and then there is a sudden explosion of light to suggest the movement of time or busy life in the city. This is well done because it is not superfluous. It seems like a image unique to the Hugo universe. Hugo is eventually located as he stares outside from the clock tower which he is responsible for since his guardian, following his father’s death, the drunken uncle, who is usually responsible for the clock, has vanished. The film has another fantastic shot of the city when Hugo takes Isabelle into his secret abode in the clock tower explains to her the way he sees the world. We see the city looking ordinary and then there is that sudden burst of energy in the form of dazzling light which shows the passage of time. This shot alone should see it nominated for best visual effects and cinematography. The 3D does help this film particularly to enhance the visual images. For instance when Hugo is building the automaton and he discovers a missing piece in the puzzle a 3D shot comes to the fore to enhance it and give it a sense of importance. This reinforces the skewed functionalist philosophy that every piece has its place in the grand design of mankind. When they discover the locked away sketches of Melies we see them flash before the screen after there is an accident and they are sent flying in the air, there is a sequence in the sketches involving a dragon and as it unfold during the air it comes alive based on the visual enhancement afforded by 3D. These are just examples and it should not be spoiled since people still have a chance to go and experience it for themselves. There is one last shot I would like to discuss however and it makes a strong argument for the use of 3D in film. The train crash sequence which is supposed to re create the sensation of the Wright brothers’ famous clip where audiences, seeing a movie for the first time, thought that the oncoming train was going to hit them and so they leapt from their seats. In these days that kind of shot would not even stir a child. With the use of 3D on the other hand one can at least attempt to give the audience that sort of sensation which was one of the early wonders of the movies. Imax and 3D does this because it presents things on a larger scale. There are some people unaccustomed to 3D who will be moved in their seats with the right sort of shot and Scorsese attempts to do that here. This was one of the reasons why 3D is here to stay especially since people still want to be immersed in these fictional worlds. I saw people jump during the screening of Avatar and I never realized until watching this film that this was the same sensation of those experiencing movies for the first time in plain 2D in the late 19th century. This was a positive for me as a young man.
The thematic elements were well developed in this film along the lines of decline vs. descent. This notion of decline vs. descent also has various subtexts such as the objective vs. the subjective and so on as well as the true value of art. These thematic elements are discussed when we encounter the character of George Melies the pioneer in filmmaking. He remained forgotten while other shared in his creations. His most famous one seems to be the rocket which landed in the eye of the moon. When it is discovered that the automaton belongs to him it is poignant to hear him say that he put his heart and soul into the machine. This suggests that through his subjective imagination he was able to create an objective creation which would influence future generations in the form of Hugo Cabret. When Melies says that happy endings only occur in the movies we realize that through the lines of descent associated with the objective influence of one’s creation on later generations one’s essence is likely to be preserved. This is the notion of your legacy. Even if he died and passed a forgotten man in the flesh his creation of the automaton and the pioneering films which he created would add to the objective framework of filmdom. He would live on among the host as they say. It is only sad when the person is forgotten by the crowd who relish in his discovery which is why when we first encounter a worn Melies he feels that his work, which was an extension of his mind or soul, has faded without any form of recognition. When he discovers the line of descent through Hugo Cabret we understand his jubilation. This is why although there is a decline there is still a line of descent; those that get caught up in the decline of their way of living will not be able to see the line of descent that inevitably follows. In the moments of decline you must therefore seek that line of descent to ensure that there is some form of continuation (check my Decline of the Old South series).
This film also speaks to the true value of art. When we hear Melies story you come to realize that making a film requires a significant investment of capital unlike the performing arts where you only pay for the talent of the actor and the theatre building with the stage. The transition from the stage to film is well documented here for Melies was first a magician with his wife as an assistant before he saw the Wright brothers in action. He sold everything he had to invest not only in a Glass theatre House but in Cameras and props used in the recreation of environments you will never find in the theatre. This is why the scope for the imagination is increased. The level of investment is significant when creating a film because it is an investment in technology which is a source of objective/constant capital. It is because of this investment why Melies works remains preserved. When the Great War hit and people became less interested in his films he was forced to melt down his prints which became a chemical source for the raw materials used in the creation of shoe heels. This is sad but it shows you Art is valuable when you look at it from the perspective of film. It is also valuable when it comes to the imagination for this film demonstrates particularly with the train sequence that the audience has to be continually challenged by the so called auteur that will enhance our understanding of a particular subject from an artistic point of view. There are things I can imagine now that I would not be able to in the 12th century and this has only occurred through the expansion of the mediums used to express art which has culminated, so far, in film/the movies. This film shows you the extent to which our imaginations are determined in some cases by individuals who dared to dream. It' s the same with religion for instance when Jesus came he inculcated the glories of heaven etc to his disciples and this ensured that his legend would live on. The many interpretations of god can be seen as an essence of the imagination. This was further enhanced by science and technology which would reach deep into the frontiers of space.
There is also the notion at the end that Hugo has surmounted his obstacles associated with the machine and has fully embraced the mystery of creation or the process of something being born.
The film also has a good supporting cast which adds some added dimensions to the film. There is the station inspector on the lookout for orphans probably because he was one himself; an experience which hardened him to the world’s fortunes. Hugo’s fate is tied in with this station inspector as he might as well be considered an orphan. There is the courtship between the inspector and the flower girl, Lisette, which helps to soften him somewhat. There is the expert on books played by Christopher Lee and the lady with her dog who constantly bites any man who tries to approach her master. There is also Isabelle whose fixation on having an adventure Hugo indulges.
What’s bad about this film?
The main downside to this film was that despite the ornate imagery I was not moved as I should have been probably because the story has been told in some way like this before. I could predict the outcome of several scenes particularly the ones designed to evoke emotion. This is due more to the screenplay. It lacked the kinetic, fast paced impact I have come to expect from Scorsese. This was probably because Scorsese and his famous editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, felt that the film should have been slowed down. This is why people have been complaining that film seems like a drag. I do not share this view but this is why a more fast paced film would have connected better with some audiences. Goodfellas, for instance was 2and a ½ hours yet it flew by in a flash. This is why the other supporting actors did not resonate with me as much as they should have. Some members of the supporting cast also seem redundant as a result. They should have been better incorporated into the life of the station for instance when Hugo takes Isabelle into the clock tower he should have highlighted them for her and their stories. We are only able to take visual cues and this would make it seem forgettable. The courtship between the station inspector and the flower girl could have been more magical and it would have been in keeping with the mood of the main narrative. In the end we see Isabelle go into some form of overhead narration; maybe this would have solved the problem had it been included from the beginning. When she speaks at the end it seems a bit unnecessary since we get the gist. Her concluding words should have been at the beginning for instance.
The functionalist view that everyone has a role to play regardless of how small is skewed. This is a fault of the source material and not necessarily the film. It does not take into account the surplus population left on the fringes of society that will never find a place due to the expansion of capital and the inevitable impoverishment of the underclass groups who are cast out into the void. It is credit to Hugo’s optimism that he can see himself that way but that is not the true reality of existence in today's world. In a capitalist society not everyone will be deemed necessary to the whole.
All in All one of the year’s best films.
No comments:
Post a Comment