Hugo
Unlike what the trailers suggest, I think “Hugo” is definitely not a kid’s movie. If I were, say, 7 or 8 years old, I probably would have been bored to death by it. The message of the film – nostalgy and a certain sadness about being somebody who is now “useless” – is something that I would totally not have been able to relate to as a child. When I was a child, I was convinced that everybody is worth something and nobody could possibly be useless, the simple notion of a “human without purpose” is incomprehensible to me. When I was small I also didn’t understand what “Jews” or “homosexuals” were, or why they were in any way different than “us”. Considering how large parts of “Hugo” were rather slow and sentimental, and were heavily focused on George Méliès, I think this film reeks of the handwriting of an old man who nostalgically pays tribute to the beginning of film.
To make the tribute perfect, it is no surprise that Scorsese leaves a lot of aspects in the film lacking substance. First of all, the biggest adventure the kids ever have in the film is how they sneak into a movie theatre. The film looks like there is some big mystery out there (they heart-shaped key, the automaton, who George Méliès is etc. etc.), perhaps even something supernatural happening, but at the end of the day, the outcomes are rather disappointing. The film also has exactly one character of note, Ben Kingley’s lovely George Méliès. Hugo doesn’t have any specific character traits and – worse of all – does not get any character development whatsoever, Isabelle is mostly just decoration and does nothing but support Hugo, so does Méliès’s wife with her broken husband. Everybody else – the inspector, the flower girl, other people, even professor Tabard – are just there somehow, these characters are just there to drive the plot or provide comical relief, without really saying or doing anything of note. I am also quite convinced that I do not like this “everybody has a purpose!” kind of philosophy. Both Hugo and Isabelle ask themselves this rather important question, but they never come to a conclusion. It seems almost like these two children were only there to selflessly serve Méliès to find back to his films. (Incidentally, they have to overcome Méliès’s unfriendliness too, like children often have to in movies like this.)
But then again, as a tribute to early films, I think that the film was absolutely wonderful. I don’t think I have seen a film this beautiful in a long, long time. There are many ways a film can be beautiful, and perhaps I am comparing apples with oranges, but optically I’d say “Hugo”, with its 1930’s Paris, lush colors and clichéd Frenchness, is exactly what I am into. I want to dress like the characters in the film and live in a world where clocks must be winded, where train stations are housing toy shops, and where romantic cafés are frequented by regulars. I actually have to admit that I might like berets partially because of the cultural cliché, because it is reminiscent of Paris (where I actually never wore a beret).
As much as I have hated the one-dimensionality of most characters, I find the portrait George Méliès gripping and full of emotions. The realism with which he is described is quite wonderful, and I like how Scorsese researched his life properly, without altering much. It was lovely to see Méliès’s story come to life, and I strongly sympathized with him and his immense creativity, which I too want to see appreciated.
If you want to see a single 3D movie, then “Hugo” might be a good one to go with. It’s a love story to old movies in 3D – how awesome is that?