Hugo and the Continuum
Guest essay by Michael in Florida
Right after the first dreadful Hugo trailer premiered in July, I conjectured that Hugo was Martin Scorsese’s Schindler’s List, i.e., a film outside the director’s comfort zone. After seeing the film several times now, I can safely say that prediction turned out to be prescient, but for a different reason. While both films stretch their respective filmmakers as artists, they remain anchored to their hearts and their obsessions, arguably turning into their most personal works. Scorsese’s cinematic touchstones are still evident in Hugo: society’s self-loathing outcasts, living on the fringes with a last chance at redemption. The final shot in Hugo is a closeup of a machine, built with a movie camera’s parts, which brings the two grieving lead characters together. Georges grieves for a lost passion and Hugo grieves for a lost family. The machine is the redeemer of the forgotten artist and the abandoned thief. It gives their life purpose. If it sounds autobiographical, it is.
In a speech he delivered two years ago right before he started principal photography on Hugo, Martin Scorsese said that “making films and preserving them are the same thing.” Losing a film through deterioration would be as if it was never made at all, as if it never existed. This is something that Georges palpably feels in Hugo.
“Time hasn’t been kind to old movies,” claims Hugo’s fictional film historian René Tabard. An allegedly non-fictional New York Film Critics Circle member (whose name escapes me at the moment) implies a big fat “who cares” in response. In his review for Hugo, the NYFCC member writes that “Scorsese pretends to honor cinema history by exaggerating the importance and wonder of movies that are frankly unwatchable, only notable as historic footnotes.” He goes on to say that Scorsese’s celebration of Méliès is disingenuous as if Méliès is not a figure worthy of honoring. It’s ironic that the contrarian persona created by this critic is the one who brings up the subject of ingenuity. Between he and Scorsese, only one of these men wears an open cinematic heart on his sleeve, while the other carries it way up his tightly-buttoned and starched ass. Scorsese has argued that “motion pictures are part of a continuum, a living on-going history,” not a footnote. Hugo’s silent film homages aren’t self-reflexive and gimmicky, like an extended SNL digital short.
In that same speech in 2010, Scorsese quoted William Faulkner’s “the past is never dead, it is not even past.” Earlier this month, he said that “100 years ago [Méliès] pretty much did everything we’re doing now.” But not only does Scorsese stretch as an artist in Hugo, he creates new ways of expressing himself and, I dare say, creates new film grammar. There’s an intense closeup of the Station Inspector’s face as he interrogates Hugo while Sacha Baron Cohen’s nose and chin seem to push through the flat screen and hover over the audience. This type of “hyper-closeup” (as I’ve labeled it) could not be accomplished without Scorsese’s artistic use of 3D. Adam Cook on Mubi.com refers to this new technique as an “extreme foreground close-up.”
It’s a totally new kind of shot suggesting a violation of space that couldn’t be accomplished any other way. The hyper-closeup is unnerving, but Scorsese attempts to go further by making the form and content of the Station Inspector’s dialogue one and the same. The “face” synonyms attempt to undercut the danger of the spatial invasion. “Seems Maximilian doesn’t like the cut of your jib young man. He is disturbed by your physiognomy. He is upset by your visage. Why would he not like your face?” asks the Station Inspector. Every time he says a “face” word, his own face pushes further out into our faces.
Scorsese as innovator also occurs in a more emotional vein later in the movie’s climactic film academy gala. Essentially, there appears to be a very deliberate reverse zoom ending with a closeup of Ben Kingsley on stage. Traditionally with this kind of camera move, the foreground retains the same space, while the background appears to change. But Scorsese’s innovation seems to be a variation of a Méliès in-camera trick. It’s as if an ethereal Kingsley floats closer to the camera, gaining size through forced perspective. Amidst all the talk of “immersion” and “depth,” it’s the intimacy between Kingsley and the camera that is a testament to the artistic possibilities of 3D’s future.
But the eccentric NYFCC member can’t see beyond his own limitations as a critic and instead chooses to infantilize Scorsese, preferring he not grow as a person nor advance as an artist. He would rather Scorsese remain frozen in a time capsule as the “poet of the streets.” What a quaint moniker. Regardless of what this condescending crank says, Scorsese does look back to his roots. As he said about his style in the aforementioned 2010 speech, his intention “was to tap into the powerful cinematic experience” that characterized his filmic forefathers. Regarding their films, he said that “always within the spectacle was a strong story on a more human scale” which he also strove to emulate. He didn’t forget that lesson with Hugo. He just made the story stronger and more human and the spectacle more relevant. What more could you ask for? Only one Best Picture hopeful this year looks thoughtfully back to our cinematic past, while simultaneously looking boldly toward its future. That film is Martin Scorsese’s Hugo.
26 Comments
Leave a Comment
Tracker Pages
Recently on AD
Follow Us!
Tags
Gallery
Wish I had more than two thumbs.
Excellent article. Scorsese’s love of film makes him he perfect director for “Hugo.” Director and subject matter are perfectly attuned.
How often does this happen? Rarely. But, when it does, it is magic.
am I the only one who thought hugo was beautiful but an absolute bore?
Well said. This years best film. I believe Midnight in Paris is the only film to come close.(but not that close)
“am I the only one who thought hugo was beautiful but an absolute bore?”
not at all. there are tons of us who see through it as pandering manipulative nonsense.
Hugo – film of the year definitely. Just edges Senna and Drive for me.
Yes, Hugo is 3/4 a bore, and the other part is nice until the big get together at the end
Great article, Michael. Well composed and insightful.
And taking on new genres and styles and forms so adroitly definitely represents growth
I appreciate and admire Hugo, but I do not love it, and I suspect many share that view.
The problem to me isn’t that it’s a love letter to cinema — it truly is a beautiful one — but the fact that he somehow attempted to couch that within the concept of a children’s movie, where he proves less than successful. There are parts of this movie that glow, and other parts that entertain neither children nor adults. Tack in the 3D, and you have too many ideas where one or two would have sufficed.
“Only one Best Picture hopeful this year looks thoughtfully back to our cinematic past, while simultaneously looking boldly toward its future. That film is Martin Scorsese’s Hugo.”
Very true and well put! Enjoyed reading your article Michael. Truly inspired film-making from Scorsese. Saw it twice in 3D last December and reading your article makes me want to see it again this weekend– in 3D, of course!
“In his review for Hugo, the NYFCC member writes that “Scorsese pretends to honor cinema history by exaggerating the importance and wonder of movies that are frankly unwatchable, only notable as historic footnotes.” He goes on to say that Scorsese’s celebration of Méliès is disingenuous as if Méliès is not a figure worthy of honoring. It’s ironic that the contrarian persona created by this critic is the one who brings up the subject of ingenuity. Between he and Scorsese, only one of these men wears an open cinematic heart on his sleeve, while the other carries it way up his tightly-buttoned and starched ass. Scorsese has argued that “motion pictures are part of a continuum, a living on-going history,” not a footnote.”
Translation:
Someone has a valid complaint about Hugo. He’s an idiot because I say so.
Brilliant writing.
Hahalives, I’m assuming the critic who is quoted in this article is Armond White who is an idiot. Look him up. He almost never makes valid points. He is also intentionally the most contrarian critic in the US(RT has stats that prove this).
Roger Ebert once called him a troll.
Hahalives, just one more point. Armond White has bashed EVERY FILM PixAr has made. Need more proof?
My favorite film of the year. I admit that there is about a half hour or so in the middle that drags a bit. But I was completely enchanted by the rest. It’s a weak year for me. ‘Hugo’ probably would have only been somewhere in my mid-to-bottom half of a top 10 in other years. But as is, it’s my fave of the year. Great article!
Thanks for pointing out the hyper close-up. When it was taking place in the film, I was thinking “This is extraordinary, Cohen’s face is literally coming out of the screen straight at me.” Hugo boasts the most extraordinary use of 3D that I’ve ever seen and should be just applauded for that. Although I had some problems with the structuring and pace of the film itself, I think it’s a remarkable achievement for its director, still experimenting this far into his career. I’d be very happy to see Scorsese win his second Oscar.
Excellent essay. Hugo is by far my favorite film of 2011. It was the perfect match of director and material. I suspect Scorsese will be best man at the DGA, and the film will garner only two Oscars, but the key is not minding.
How can a movie be deemed a modern classic with a wooden child actor as lead?
Asa Butterfield’s performance is really incredibly subtle and nuanced. The formal tone of every character’s acting has a heightened Dickensian quality. Sir Ben Kingsley himself is equally stylized. It works if you’re open to it. If you’re not, you’re not.
The kid does more subtlety with a flicker of his eyes than Sandra Bullock has done in her entire plastic career.
Wait a minute. Asa Butterfield was amazing. The whole entire time I watched it I was amazed that he did not get nominated for any awards this season (or did he?). He conveyed so much without even speaking half the time and he didn’t rely on exaggerated facial expressions, ect. He showed tremendous restraint and depth of soul for such a young kid. I loved him. Moretz is a different story. I’m not sure what was going on with her. We know she’s capable of more if you’ve seen Let Me In.
I liked Chloe too — she was definitely in a different mode than the rest of the ensemble. But I liked that. I felt she was actually more naturalistic in a way that worked as an emotional bridge between old-school and new-school, which functioned fine for me. She was more self-assured, and that fit her character’s role well for me; saw her as the sparky catalyst between two guys in her life who both kept their lives tightly buttoned up.
Asa Butterfield and Chloe Moretz gave the type of performances that made me think “If they want it, both could have very long careers in Hollywood.” They were sharp, they drew emotions out of each other that felt real, and Chloe especially has an immense amount of charisma. Even with its visual splendor, Hugo could have only succeeded with strong work from the kids, and they delivered.
I’ve yet to see Hugo in 2D, but am planning to do so. Hugo is what convinced me that no filmmaker, not even Scorsese, could made 3D palatable to me. Every pan or zoom or minute movement of the camera made me cringe, and the constant blurriness in the foreground made my eyes water. If I hadn’t felt so dizzy, so anxious, so nauseous watching Hugo, it might be higher on my list. What little I was physically able to enjoy, however, was magical. That Kinglsey missed out on supporting for this film hurts my heart a little.
Moretz seemed to be acting for the stage to me. It didn’t KILL it for me, but seeing Ryan’s thoughts I could see how without that inexplicable perk and enthusiasm it might have been a little unbalanced.
As I’ve posted before and echoing the sentiments of Gregoire, Rashad and kkja, I found this film to be a complete bore. There are those who love this movie and I respect their opinions but the fact remains that Scorsese couched this film as a “children’s movie” which it clearly was not. Case in point from the story above:
“The final shot in Hugo is a closeup of a machine, built with a movie camera’s parts, which brings the two grieving lead characters together. Georges grieves for a lost passion and Hugo grieves for a lost family. The machine is the redeemer of the forgotten artist and the abandoned thief. It gives their life purpose. If it sounds autobiographical, it is.”
Although this review demonstrates the author’s advanced formal operational thought and a clear passion for the film, I just don’t know many 7-year olds with the ability to think in the abstract. I do respect those who love this film but this film was made for you, not for your kids. Therefore, to market this movie as a kids film is disingenuous and downright unethical.
“How can a movie be deemed a modern classic with a wooden child actor as lead?”
thank you! I saw the film with my best friend and we BOTH joked that a better adaptation would have been to remove the children altogether and make Kingsley the lead.
the child actors were awful – particularly Chloe Grace Moritz with here splendiferous dialogue and her awful accent!
Ever since December, I’ve been tipping HUGO as my dark horse for Best Picture. Back then nobody was tipping it, yet since then it’s won the National Board of Review Award for Best Film, the Golden Globe for Best Director and earned the largest number of Academy Award nominations. Slowly and slowly it’s gaining support. If, at the weekend, the the SAG and the DGA choose THE ARTIST for their main awards, then THE ARTIST will win Best Film, 100% certain of that. However, if the SAG (who haven’t nominated HUGO) choose, say, THE HELP and the DGA choose Scorsese, then expect HUGO to win Best Film at the end of Feb.