Hugo (Martin Scorsese, 2011)

[Jeff]

Other than a few gratuitous 3-D bits, this looks like lots of fun.

[Professor Wagstaff]

It's a shame the changed the original title which was really wonderful. That name change, along with John Carter and Carnage, really have me scratching my head as to why the studios would ditch such great titles for the bland and unmemorable.

[Tom Hagen]

I'm so confused/conflicted about this. But you're right, Jeff, this looks like it might be okay, though my early warning sign is the use of a 30 Seconds to Mars song in the trailer.

[Cde.]

I'm so confused/conflicted about this. But you're right, Jeff, this looks like it might be okay, though my early warning sign is the use of a 30 Seconds to Mars song in the trailer.

That's an early warning sign that the film is awesome and the studio are unsure of how to handle it.
The music and editing of the trailer don't suit the footage at all.

[rs98762001]

If this trailer is to be trusted, the film mostly involves Borat chasing a child around a train station, with wacky pratfall hilarity ensuing.

[matrixschmatrix]

Oh my Lord, that thing felt like that mock-trailer for the Shining that was cut together to make it look like a fun family comedy.

[Cde.]

If this trailer is to be trusted, the film mostly involves Borat chasing a child around a train station, with wacky pratfall hilarity ensuing.

And yet the best they could come up with is two slapstick Borat shots amidst some Fellini/Gilliamesque imagery.

[The Third Man]

Twitter is abuzz over the surprise screening at the New York Film Festival last night. Here's the thoughts of a few viewers collected in one place.

[Jeff]

The Twitter reactions were all very positive. David Ehrlich has a more detailed take. Sounds like this is Scorsese's most personal film in some time. It's a kids' movie about film preservation.

[Professor Wagstaff]

It's a kids' movie about film preservation.

Though I got the impression from most of these reactions that kids and families would be a harder sell for this film. Kid versions of all of us on the boards is another story.

[Anhedionisiac]

I won't lie: Back when I read the script in about February, I shed a tear at the ending. It really is extremely moving, especially for film fans.

[Adam]

The Twitter reactions were all very positive. David Ehrlich has a more detailed take. Sounds like this is Scorsese's most personal film in some time. It's a kids' movie about film preservation.

Except that's all in the original book. Even the use of 3-D, through the 2-D drawings. I recommend checking out the book.

[Jeff]

Except that's all in the original book. Even the use of 3-D, through the 2-D drawings. I recommend checking out the book.

I've got the book. Scorsese has found source material that connects with him on a very personal level and, I suspect, expounded on those themes and made it his own.

Andrew O'Heir is over the moon. Although he describes the film as "artistically uneven," he also says:

It’s premature for me to declare that this is Scorsese’s best work in 10 to 15 years — and easily among the top five of his career — but I strongly suspect that’s the case.

His piece is worth a read.

[hearthesilence]

Jesus, really?? I want to believe, but....

[domino harvey]

Well, in theory it at least shouldn't contain any classic rock, which can only help

[knives]

Does Pink Anderson count as classic rock? I'd be amused to see a depression era blues soundtrack on this.

[Jeff]

In a year in which it seems the original concept of cinema has finally been laid to rest at the age of 115, Hugo feels like an elegy.

I suppose it should be clear that I was in the tank for Hugo from the get-go. With Martin Scorsese adapting a clever children’s book in which cinema history plays a pivotal role, how could I not be? The film surpassed my expectations. Roger Ebert has already expressed far more eloquently than I could how Hugo’s story mirrors Scorsese’s own in many ways: watching the world from a window, falling in love with cinema, rescuing a forgotten filmmaker. And when an early cinephile in the film laments to our hero that “time hasn’t been kind to old movies,” that’s Mr. Scorsese talking to us.

With material so close to his heart, he can’t help but fire on all cylinders. I think that in many ways, it’s probably his best film since Casino, but I haven’t been among those who had problems with his later films, finding lots to admire in The Departed, The Aviator, Shutter Island, and even Gangs of New York. Even if you are among those who contend that he lost his touch years ago, you can’t debate his passion for cinema.

Scorsese’s commitment to the importance of preservation, education, and reverence for the art of making movies is unparalleled. It’s that passion and commitment that Hugo represents, and that he wants to share with an audience. As a grown man who went to what is presumably a children’s film and sat alone in a dark theater wearing ridiculous 3-D glasses and had tears streaming down my face, I can tell you that he has shared his passion for cinema with me.

Truffaut said, “I demand that a film express either the joy of making cinema or the agony of making cinema.” Hugo deftly expresses both the joy of making cinema and the agony of losing it. I can’t imagine that anyone who cherishes the magic of moving pictures won’t share in the joy.

Great black & white set photos at NYT

[knives]

With material so close to his heart, he can’t help but fire on all cylinders. I think that in many ways, it’s probably his best film since Casino, but I haven’t been among those who had problems with his later films, finding lots to admire in The Departed, The Aviator, Shutter Island, and even Gangs of New York. Even if you are among those who contend that he lost his touch years ago, you can’t debate his passion for cinema.

This is the part I'm most eager for. even though Scorsese hasn't made a bad film in years it has been a long while since his heart was completely into a project. This honestly sounds like the most personal film he's made since at least Kundun (which is less good, but that's besides the point). I can't think of anything else that could make him fall back in love with making movies again than this project.

[Highway 61]

To Jeff or anyone else who's seen this: how important is the 3D? Is this a 3D-driven project like Pina? Or a blatant cash grab like any number of recent Hollywood films? I've never seen a 3D film before, and I wish the fad would just go away. That said, I'm really excited about this project, and I suppose I'm willing to let go of my purist prejudices if Scorsese is actually trying to make something other than a novelty here.

[Jeff]

To Jeff or anyone else who's seen this: how important is the 3D? Is this a 3D-driven project like Pina? Or a blatant cash grab like any number of recent Hollywood films? I've never seen a 3D film before, and I wish the fad would just go away. That said, I'm really excited about this project, and I suppose I'm willing to let go of my purist prejudices if Scorsese is actually trying to make something other than a novelty here.

I also wish the 3-D gimmick would go away. This was only my third modern 3-D film (after Avatar and Cave of Forgotten Dreams, both of which I was told it was essential for). I thought Scorsese and Richardson used it quite well. There weren't too many pop-out effects, and I like the way they structured some of the camera angles around the 3-D environment. One thing I didn't like about the film was the constant swooping CG camera, but the 3-D certainly comes in to play there. I think would recommend giving this one a shot in 3-D as I think they really tried to make it part of the cinematography rather than an effect. It's an immersive environment. I'll probably give it another go in standard format just to see how they compare. Still don't plan to make 3-D a regular part of my viewing experience and hope the novelty fades away soon.

[Professor Wagstaff]

I would second Jeff's assessment (noting I've only seen Avatar in 3-D). Since this was made for 3-D unlike so many other films, it's worth a look, though I'll admit I'm going back to see it again in standard format so I can reprocess how I feel about the movie. I love those elements that involve the early history of film and what are clearly surrogates characters for Scorsese, Michael Powell, and Thelma Schoonmaker. Hugo's story outside of the mystery and the discovery never involved me though, with his orphan woes feeling like second-rate Dickens. I'll say more once I've seen it again.

Also, I was surprised to see Scorsese's ex-wife Barbara De Fina had a producing credit on the film, considering she produced everything from The Color of Money through Bringing Out the Dead, only to disappear with his last several pictures. Can anyone provide insight into their actual work relationship?

[vogler]

In a year in which it seems the original concept of cinema has finally been laid to rest at the age of 115, Hugo feels like an elegy.

Strange article from Ebert there. "The sudden death of film" - Film is definitely not dead (both Kodak and Fuji are still producing it) and when it does eventually die it certainly won't have been sudden.

[Bill Thompson]

I've never read anything from Karina Longworth, but her equating Scorsese using 3D with selling out makes me more interested in seeing a film I wasn't too interested to see in the first place, but less interested in ever reading any of her other thoughts on film. I did quite enjoy Richard Brody's witty dismissal of her claims,

Claiming Scorsese uses 3-D cynically is like calling Dylan a sell-out for plugging in.

[Buttercream]

This film's success may explain why George Harrison: Living in the Material World was so tepid. I think his last great film was Gangs of New York, but this has something going for it. It's easy to call it the best of the pseudo-Victorian modern children's adaptations, but that's not really saying much. I think the true success is how enveloping the world is on screen and how the motifs run in and out of the story, rather than being hammered down your throat. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved it, but at times it feels like Hugo is to The Movies what Field of Dreams is to Baseball. Still, it's too soon for me to gather whether I feel it truly warrants such praise or if the Méliès sequences just got me all sorts of excited.

[hearthesilence]

I still think The Age of Innocence was Scorsese's last, truly great picture. But everything he's done since has something to recommend - I'll have to check out Hugo again, but until then, I remain skeptical of the film's biggest supporters. Quite a bit of it's wonderful, but it's far from perfect, and I'm not sure if the film's greatest strengths carry a whole lot of weight. At worst, Buttercream may be right and Hugo is to cinema what Field of Dreams is to baseball.