Posts
Hugo finally came out on disc yesterday. With the amount of awards it garnered, I was eager to watch it last night.
It left me feeling unsatisfied, the anti-Snickers bar of cinema. I understand why critics love it, but it was such a boring movie. All the parts were there for a great film: terrific set and costume design (especially the latter half of the movie), pretty good acting - especially the strong supporting cast of Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Christopher Lee, the cinematography was very good for the most part, and the dialogue was serviceable, if unremarkable.
The best scenes were the brief glimpses we get of the remarkable films produced by Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley). They showed far more ingenuity than anything else on screen.
I think Hugo got so much love because it incorporated a few elements that critics are absolute suckers for:
a) it took place just after World War I
b) it dealt with the origins of cinema
c) an orphan kid was the main protagonist
For an estimated 170 million, it better be a good looking film - and it is. But the basic story driving the action is just that. Basic. Nothing of worth really happens for the first half of the running time. When I finally abandoned the movie to go do something else for 10-15 minutes I apparently missed all of the important plot movement that there was to see. I came back to the couch and the story was wrapping up. If you missed those crucial few minutes, like I did, you find it hard to believe in the outcome.
Again, Hugo had the parts to be a great movie. They just fit together in a way that I found unappealing. In that way this reminds me forcibly of Super 8. The same lesson could be learned here. Story first, kids.
2.5/4
Ok let’s do this – just watched that sucker the other day.
ReplyDeleteHugo’s story may be basic and plays on common orphan tropes of loneliness and abandonment seen frequently in film but as the Great One says “It’s not what a movie’s about. It’s how it’s about it.” And this movie is about it at a Master’s level as the opening shot illustrates. I think this is up there with Scorsese’s best efforts and that is not small praise. Basic stories are not intrinsically bad. I mean does anything really happen in The Shawshank Redemption besides laundry duty and Andy doing the guards taxes and blacktopping roofs until the last 10 minutes? He does mail some letters to fund a prison library. I guess that counts right?
I’ve heard from the web that the film is slow and boring and I can see how an average movie goer might get that (and small children will be bored I bet) but this film is unapologetically for lovers of cinema. I mean there’s basically a lecture in the middle of the movie about the origins of filmmakers discovering the storytelling medium with their new found tech (which is AMAZING BTW) and if you thought you were getting a kiddie adventure movie than – yeah – you are going to be disappointed. This is a classy period piece for sure. Having said all that I found Hugo to be a compelling story and I was emotionally invested in the characters and their lives. I loved it. Is it Academy worthy? Yes. Should it have won? Who knows? It’s not my favorite film of the year but it’s on the short list for Top 10 or 2011.
4/4
I'm not surprised that you loved it. MuTron weighs things like cinematography, direction and art design far more heavily than I do. I prefer a well written story with interesting dialogue and good acting.
ReplyDeleteHugo heaps on gobs of the former while skimping on the latter.
Did you really try to take a dig at Shawshank? Really? It's an emotionally compelling story of an innocent man wrestling with his own demons while being thrown into a veritable hell on earth. The 'action' of re-tarring a roof is symbolic (not even slightly veiled symbolism with Red acting as the narrator) - which can be said of virtually all of the challenges that he faces in prison. Andy's story is the quintessential triumph over adversity.
The story in Hugo was well written. John Logan adapted the screenplay. Check his credits - he's a pro's pro.
DeleteAnd for the official record no dig at SR was intended. Just comparing the concept of "basic" storytelling translating to "good" films. I happen to agree with everything you've said about SR.
This means nothing to whether or not you or I liked the film (and box office means even less) but for what it's worth Hugo is 93% Fresh on RT but more importantly the more reliable Meta-Critic is clocking in at a very impressive 83.
Another thing I found interesting and thought I'd mention real quick was the kind of meta / art imitating life feeling the film projects taking into account Scorsese is the director of the material. Given his historical background and his personal passion for film and the work he has done for preserving older films and film restoration and such it occurs to me Hugo could be his most personal work and has shades of his own biography within. He became a filmmaker in large part due to his difficult upbringing. I wonder if the Dickensian nature of the character of Hugo mirrored to the connection Scorsese feels towards to Georges Méliès artistically and professionally was not the perfect vehicle for him to work out of.
Let me preface this with I have not seen Hugo yet.
ReplyDeleteThen lets proceed with the assumption that films are made primary to elicit an emotional reaction while a movie is made more to provide an escape or distraction from everyday life.
Some films for one reason or another fail to elicit the intended response, while some movies inadvertently drawls an emotional reaction from you. I think a lot of this has to do with the perception you have going in, and the atmosphere in which it's seen.
My bet would be that Brad was thinking Scorsese and taking into account the entire film-making process. While Andrew was just wanting to see a good story. I bet Brad "set the mood" for his viewing while I assume Andrew just popped it in. Neither way is wrong but, it's going to impact what you get out of it.
Obviously Brad was thrilled,
"this movie is about it at a Master’s level as the opening shot illustrates. I think this is up there with Scorsese’s best efforts and that is not small praise"
while Andrew didn't,
"It left me feeling unsatisfied, the anti-Snickers bar of cinema. I understand why critics love it, but it was such a boring movie."
I get what Andrew is saying, I'm all about the story, I don't care how a film looks if the story isn't there or doesn't grab you then what's the point.
I'm not a huge fan of RT or other sites that show what the masses think of a film or movie. They have there place but, I'd never use that as an argument that "Hugo is 93% Fresh on RT but more importantly the more reliable Meta-Critic is clocking in at a very impressive 83." I really don't care.
Take Brad's Batman experience . . . .
Is Batman a great film, no - Is it a fun movie, yes
Did it emotionally move Brad? Maybe not but he was none-the-less moved by the experience. He remembers the atmosphere of a shared group experience which trumps his knowledge that it's just a fun summer movie and not a great film.
Not every film needs to be picked into it's basic pieces, if you enjoy it watch it. I would recommend Andrew spend a little more time delving into the non Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson film set and Brad spending a little time cutting loose and watching more stupid popcorn movies. Learn to appreciate both for what they are.
Good post. I think there are some interesting ground to discuss.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I do not understand how I suddenly do not appreciate storytelling because I also value the more technical aspects of film. They are all slave to the whole experience IMO. I love The Blair Witch Project and it looks like a piece of shit. I love There Will Be Blood which has almost no conventional story narrative but looks amazing. Because I can appreciate something more experimental like I'm Still Here or Koyaanisqatsi or something shot particularly well like Tree of Life doesn't mean I don't also like more conventional story driven fare like Oceans 11 or Empire Strikes Back or whatever. It's all good if it's all good so can we please dispense with this idea that somehow I don't like well written stories. It's ridiculous.
We all loved District 9 which is not especially well written (at least beyond a video game level), has no "snappy dialogue", and is not particularly original story wise. But it's elevated by being shot awesomely with a director that has vision taking it to a greater level than it deserves via atmosphere, design, shot composition etc. The technical aspects picked up the slack of the story and made it into something special.
If Paul Anderson (not the good one) shot District 9 I assure you, you would suddenly have a care about how a film looks. If you can't acknowledge that the look of a film has something to do with the presentation of the story than I don't know what to tell you other than quit watching movies in total and just read the scripts.
I don't distinguish between "film" and "movies". They are all films to me. It is however important to ascertain what a movie is attempting to accomplish and take that into account which is (I think) what you are getting at.
Take per your example Batman. Batman is a good summer film. It's not as good as say The Dark Knight which is a great summer film but it is far better than say Transformer's 3 which is not a good film in any season.
I'm not giving TF3 or Green Lantern or TPM a pass because its a "movie" and not a "film" when Chris Nolan or Steven Speilberg seem to have no problems what so ever turning water into wine or what you call movies into films. This is not the Special Olympics and I'm not giving out participation ribbons.
I already prefaced the RT and MC scores as not being relevant to Andrew's or my opinion. I just mentioned it as something to note. The figures I quoted are not from the masses but rather composite scores from the critics. I could care less what the masses opine other than I usually head in the opposite direction from where they are gathered. However I do find it interesting and useful to take into account what professional critics have to say when they head to the theater and wrestle with all different types of films every day as part of their profession. Experience can bring expertise after all. I'm not always on board with the critics. They mostly loved Mary, Martha, May, Marlene (RT score at 90%) and I did not. But I'm still interested in what others have to say about it. Maybe there is something I missed that other opinions can draw my attention to. I think it makes me a better watcher of films to get other thoughts and mix them with my own.
Back to Hugo real quick - expectation wise I had zero. I was not that excited to check it out. Janet wanted to see it very badly so perhaps my low expectation had something to do with it? I truly don't care - It's just a great film.
I've watched almost 300 films in 2011 alone. I can assure you I've seen a balance of arthouse, indie, pop, documentary, exploitation, whatever your pleasure. I'm the guy that bought Sucker Punch after all remember? I promise I can appreciate all the colors of the rainbow.
I never meant to imply that you don't enjoy a good story, I was just saying that to me story is king all else in film-making is ancillary. You, on the other hand, seem to place a higher value on the other parts to a film. You can accept a weak story if the other elements are solid. How else can love John Carpenter so much?
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with your approach and in fact it creates fertile ground for discourse with people like myself and Chris.