Thanks, man. It’s been one of those days.
Here’s raising a beverage to you all.
Haha, civil folk in the Hugo thread. Cheers indeed.
Curtis—I can re-post your post if you friend me. Since your profile is private I can’t go back into your history. Up to you.
Also feeling the need to see this again. I’m afraid that I may have misjudged it on a first viewing due to a combination of a) having preconceived ideas about the kind of cinematic territory I like to see Scorsese exploring; and b) sitting directly in front of a group of rowdy teenagers who would have kept me from enjoying any film (I should know better than to go to the multiplex on a Saturday).
Good job that I was misanthropic enough to complain about the disturbance, thus procuring a replacement ticket to a future screening. Hopefully I can give this a fair viewing within the next couple of weeks.
@Adam: i’m often hesitant to watch again films i love in case the magic is lost, or in this instance, from what others are saying, i may start blubbing and shouting and plucking visions from the row in front- and make a general exhibition of myself, find myself resisting and tazered by the boys in blue, and carted off to the gloomiest of cells.
What is the book like?
The colours are part of the overall appeal- the combination of blues, purples and browns stay in the mind, but there are warm bright moments too, and i like the Gothic statuary. The early stages are promising, but finally every scene is splendid, to be savoured. It is a rapturous vindication of cinema, with a love of books thrown in for good measure
“I wonder how it will do at the Oscars- the fools having given Best Picture to The Departed. Is it too good for the academy or will they finally rise above mediocrity?”
The Academy loves this stuff and I would imagine it’s competing with The Artist (another feel goody) as the front runner to win Best Picture.
“What is the book like?”
As mentioned before, the book is awesome and you should read it.
house of leaves, it is cool, maybe better to let sleeping dogs lie at this point, however i have chummed you anyway because you seem like a very chummy fellow (:
Dear Mr. Scorsese, next time you make a movie filled with envelope-pushing 3D, don’t do so at the mercy of the most boring color design in the history of cinema. There is a reason that Technicolor evolved beyond the 2-strip process.
Also, when paying homage to the very early pioneers of your medium through a couple of minutes of selected excepts from their work, make damned well sure that those couple of minutes don’t upstage the other 120 minutes of movie you had actual directorial control over.
Regardless, your lesson about film preservation was indeed admirable. The movie began with previews for TITANIC 3D and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST 3D, and I left really wishing that Melies might have a shot at some analogous repackaging.
And Dante Ferretti, as always, rules. Hard.
@Ben – Also, when paying homage to the very early pioneers of your medium through a couple of minutes of selected excepts from their work, make damned well sure that those couple of minutes don’t upstage the other 120 minutes of movie you had actual directorial control over.
I enjoyed Hugo as a whole, but that sequence was positively orgasmic. I felt wasted when it was over. Not sure if anyone else in the theatre had the same experience, but…
The original early cinema footage was great, and the (approximately) 30 seconds of Scorsese’s re-creations of Melies films, frontally oriented, head-on, layered neatly in the 3D depth over the span of a few planes like a diorama, and colored subtly but distinctly like a hand tinted film were completely stunning. More of this in HUGO PART 2, please, and fewer teary-eyed waifs.
agree with this ^ but is it better than tin tin? based on my foreign friends’ ratings, looks like yes
Yup. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better. Very different, but overall TINTIN has less ingenious 3D, though still well used, but it rules way more.
Ben, you can always pass on your thoughts directly to Mr Scorsese on his page here!
Hahaha…you’re right, why bitch to the masses when I can go directly to the man. I’m sure it’s actually him, and he is checking his account regularly.
Anyone else notice the repeated directorial cameo from AGE OF INNOCENCE?
Hitch, eat your heart out- and an extra layer of filmic self-reference
I published my piece on Hugo today, if anyone is interested
You do this masterpiece proud, Adam- a very detailed exploration of Scorsese’s intricate weaving- beautifully integrated into an innovative and delightful experience.
While cinephiles and devotees of the early pioneering silent era will appreciate the wealth of references as well as clips, i wonder if there may be resistance to the possibility that a warm-hearted film ostensibly for kids- and with Borat/Ali G in a central role!- may even be not only Scorsese’s but also the millenium’s best so far. Far from a grand monumental contender for a place in the critical and US pantheon, it wears its hidden depths lightly.
Many thanks, Kenji. I’d say Hugo is my favourite American film since Public Enemies in 2009. No small praise.
At the moment it’s my favourite US film since North by Northwest and Some Like it Hot in 1959, and certainly since Mulholland Dr in 2001. It doesn’t deal with the important pressing facets of modern life, warfare, famine, environmental destruction, the credit crunch etc and it doesn’t set out to be a spiritually transcendent meditation on the meaning of life and the universe, but it’s a casket of joy.
^^damn Kenji, that is high praise
i’m honestly shocked at how people have reacted to this film.
that was an impressive piece of writing Adam. Actually made me want to see the film more!!
I feel like I missed something when I saw this film. I liked it, but I am far from the complete adoration of so many others. Perhaps had I not read the book I would have had a different reaction. I like whimsy, and even children’s films, and I thought this was visually nice but….I don’t know, just not outstanding. Also, while they stuck pretty closely to the main story, I found the additions of several side stories to be mostly pointless. They also eliminated a character whom I I liked so perhaps I’m holding a grudge.
Again, I liked it, but it feels like perhaps the subject matter is really what’s appealing – since most reviews are naturally from fans of movies.
@ Dorothée, I read the book long before seeing the film, and I don’t have the same issues you do. I did really like the book, it has its own charms, but I immensely prefer the film.
@ Kenji, that is damn high praise indeed! :D
Looks like “Scorsese for hire” to me. I’ll pass, or just wait until I can rent it on Blu-ray or iTunes.
Well, Tony, it’s certainly not that. If you know anything about Scorsese this is obviously a deeply personal film for him. Whether it’s wholly effective or not is another matter.
Oh yes, this is deeply personal, a labour of love, with love of film and its history shining through each pore. The film feels alive and breathing.
I can now confirm that Hugo is by far the superior auteurist family 3D film of the year. Tintin was good—not great.
Finally saw this.
In answer to my own initial question, Hugo has a much better and dramatically fleshed out story than The Invention of Hugo Cabret, but the book has a better reworking of its own form. This is definitely a situation where the writer Selznick was trying to show off something about books, and the director Scorsese was trying to show off something about movies, and they each used their respective media around this centralized story—kind of like how The Shining the book is an alcoholic confessional untranslateable to film but The Shining the movie is winding maze of corridors indescribable in text.
So there’s that.
I also liked that the movie earns its happy ending and cares about its characters, truly. I like movies like that.
Random nitpick of no real importance that has something more to do with something else I’ve been noticing in how modern movies “look”, compare the blues and oranges of Hugo:
with these following posters:
As the joke sez, once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
(Explanation: it has to do with the color grading during the digital intermediate. Certainly there are a variety of ways to do it that doesn’t result in that same orange/blue look, but the orange/blue look is one of the richest and easiest ways to go about the process. You just crank the shadows to cold and the highlights to warm and call it a day.)