Few read reviews to find out whether the reviewer liked the film. They
want to know whether THEY will like the film--to decide whether to see
the movie or not, and whether to see it in the theater or wait and see
the DVD (or the download). That's the task I'll take on here.
As
the Rottentomato website has already shown (it assembles and correlates
scads of reviews from the press and the web, along with reader
responses), the critics adore this film, the audience somewhat less so.
Part
of this has to do with managing expectations. The marketing presents
Hugo as an Avatar-ish 3D fantasy with a C3P0 (StarWars)-type flying
robot. this is actively misleading, though that's not the director's
fault.
What Hugo is, is a fable--not a fantasy--that's part tween
adventure and part infomercial for the preservation and viewing of old
silent movies. Most importantly--and this is a point that hasn't been
made by most reviewers here and elsewhere--it's a film about
ex-magician/early filmmaker Georges Meliés that Scorsese made, to a
degree, IN THE STYLE of a Georges Meliés movie. That's part of the
homage.
Thus "Hugo" contains a lot of adventurous running-around,
a brilliant exploitation of the best 3D filmmaking technology extant,
and a leavening of slapstick elements--particularly from the
surprisingly restrained Sascha Baron Cohen.
It's a fable based
on real events in the early history of movies. "Sleepless in Seattle"
was a fable with no fantasy elements other than its
happy-ending-inevitability, which you feel from beginning to end. That's
the essence of a fable, not whether it has fantasy elements or not. A
fable is a kind of ritual that reaffirms the tribe's values and faith in
its vision of life.
Hugo reaffirms faith in goodness--that even
in many apparently hard-hearted people there's an ember that can be
fanned into life by the right person. The movie's vibe from its first
seconds tells you that you are riding towards a happy ending.
Two
Russian intellectuals that I saw the movie with hated that fact. They
think a movie is unrealistic unless everyone's doomed, and if you'd
grown up in the Soviet Union that was probably realistic. Especially
since Soviet-era fable-movies did guarantee a happy ending--"happy" as
defined by Soviet ideology at least. So for my friends. fables aren't
just false, but evil State Propaganda. And a lot of Americans who fancy
themselves intellectual have a similarly jaundiced perspective about
Hollywood's addiction to guaranteed by hook or by crook happy endings.
I
think this issue stems from not understanding the ritual validity of
fable. I love realistic movies without this guarantee of happy outcomes,
but I also love a good fable. I'm certain of my spouse's love for me
and of my love for her. I'm certain of our relationship with our closest
friends, as they are of us reciprocally. I'm certain of the
law-abidingness of my society (especially compared to the third-world
countries we've traveled in). Predictable good outcomes are, within
reasonable constraints, reasonable to believe in, in many ways.
So
"Hugo"'s ultimate predictability is a valid artistic choice. It's not a
spoiler to say this because you know it from the start and you should
know so you don't confuse this with a Sundance-type art film where
everyone is confused and faces an uncertain future, usually alone. I
apologize for "Hugo" not being a slit-your-wristsathon. I also like such
films, and they usually set your expectations from the start as well,
for that matter.
So who will enjoy "Hugo" ?
1. Bright tweens. It stars a pair of bright tweens, so this is a
natural. Many younger kids will like it as well--it's visually a treat,
and it is based on a kids' story. But duller/much younger/Disneyfied
kids who want nonstop action and/or the relentless cheerful action of a
Disney film will probably find their attention wandering in places.
2. Everyone who's interested in the history of filmmaking--particularly right at the beginning.
3.
Everyone who's interested in modern filmmaking. This does represent the
absolute state of the art in 3D cinematography--where its 3Dness is
integral and almost taken for granted, not tacked on, not
poke-you-in-the-eye, not several layers of 2D images.
4.
Everyone who's interested in good fable direction/screenwriting/acting.
This is not to say anyone involved in this project can't do naturalistic
films or fantasy films, or, in the case of Chloe Grace Moretz,
naturalistic fantasy films ("Let me in"). So no negatives are proven
here. That said, I believe the casting was spot on for the major and
minor roles. This is one area where Scorsese didn't copy the stagy
mugging of Meliés' films (except during re recreations of those films).
The large, intent close-ups of the major characters really exposed their
acting chops, and all came through. The boy, who I'd never seen before,
kept it subtle, as well as the other juvenile character, Isabelle
(played by Moretz). The young actors in many youth-oriented films tend
to mug--again, Disney movie style--and kids who expect that need to be
prepped by their parents to look for more lifelike acting here.
Who won't love it?
1.
It's not a Selena Gomez/Demi Lovato/Disney vehicle. It's nothing like
Lindsay Lohan's wonderful "Parent Trap," one of the best of the normal
good-quality kids' film. It too is a fable, but it isn't overlaid with
all the stuff about film history and suchlike. "Hugo"'s ideal kid
audience is going to be like Isabelle in the move--sweet, bookish,
curious, and not locked into peer culture as the source of everything
that could possibly be of interest to one.
2. People who don't
like the fable genre. The film embeds pretty naturalistic performances
and note-perfect sets showing a Paris train station circa 1931, where
most of the action takes place within a non-naturalistic film fable.
There are lots of non-fable films. See one of those unless you really do
want to see state of the art 3D cinematography and want to ratchet up
your suspension of disbelief in order to watch this.
3. People
with zero interest in film history. This is where a lot of movie critics
err. Of course nearly all of them are fascinated by early film history.
But this film verges on being a high quality 2 hour infomercial for
film preservation, and you know, reading this, whether such prolonged
self-regard on the part of the filmmaker towards his medium will
fascinate or annoy you.
4. Adults who don't like films starring
children. I detect this bias in people who criticize the performances of
"Hugo"'s two junior leads, who are both exemplary. Also, I hadn't seen
the boy before, but I have seen Moretz costarring in the grim,
critically acclaimed "Let Me In,"
in which she portrays--with almost no dialogue and almost no special
effects--a bloodthirsty (literally) yet profoundly conflicted child
vampire, and in which those averse to sunny endings will get their
wishes more than satisfied. And in which her appearance and performance
have been compared favorably to a very young Ingrid Bergman. That is,
she has gravitas. Of people in her age bracket, the only other actor I
can think of who has that is Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit).
My
point here is that Moretz's acting chops are now an established fact.
She has a far less complex character to portray in "Hugo," yet even in
Isabelle's wide-eyed pre-ingenue role she infuses her character with a
kind of luminosity that holds its own even when she's sharing the screen
with great adult actors like Ben Kingsley.
5. Adults who only
want to see heavily plot-driven films. It's not like "Hugo" is one of
those kaleidoscopic non-narrative films. It tells a story, to be sure.
But besides the child-centered narrative there's a biopic about Georges
Meliés (and his wife) here, told in flashback, along with excursions
into film history. Some people will find that as rich as a multicourse
meal; others will be annoyed by "Hugo" not being propelled by a singular
narrative drive. Such people will sit there saying "All right,
Scorsese--get to the point!"
6. Those who are really reluctant to
pay to see the film in a theater, even if they're eager to see it on
DVD. I agree with this feeling nearly all of the time. However, some
films are so visually huge--and, especially, if they're 3D and do that
well--you need to bite the bullet and see it in a theater, if only to
compare what it's like in a theater in 3D with what it's like on your
flat screen TV at home in 2D. Hey, you can always see it in a bargain
matinee, as we did. But we'll probably get the DVD when it comes out as
well, because it both makes and recalls film history.
No comments:
Post a Comment