HUGO

11/26/2011

It's a long time since I have been so transported, impressed and inspired by a film. There are so many things I love about everyone's work here that I simply don't know where to begin. Except to say that in my humble opinion, it really is a masterpiece. See it as soon as you can!

14 Comments

Martin

12/11/2011 07:32:35 am

I thought it was ever so slow. You can count a clear two seconds between every single line of dialogue. I know, because I got so bored in places I started doing it. If only it had been edited with a bit more variety of pace, without all those langeuse for 'acting', all placed with the same plodding rhythm then it might have been quite a sweet 90 minute movie. And I hated the 3D. I hate 3D full stop. Film is ALREADY three dimensional - in fact 2D film is inherently FOUR dimensional because it is a temporal medium. All 3D does is make the frame dark, give the viewer a headache, distract, and disorientate. And then when he started to use focus pulls, I thought 'Gordon Bennet, make your mind up'.

As for the story... well... I did enjoy aspects of it, but when it veered off into a documentary on film history it dropped the ball. It didn't know whether it was a story about a kid in a station clock or a neglected film maker....

I didn't hate it, but I only sat through it because it was Scorcese, and the handful of people in the cinema weren't particularly captivated given the amount of texting going on.

Matthew

12/11/2011 08:15:14 am

Very interesting Martin. Thanks so much for responding here, hopefully you'll stimulate a heated debate! I respect your opinion.
My only question is, if you didn't hate it, what did you like about it?
I looked it up on Rotten Tomatoes to see if I am alone in really loving it. and it got a 94% there which is very rare. The only really negative British reviews I could find there were from The Mirror and The Telegraph. In the states (ironically) The San Francisco Chronicle didn't like it either. So you are definitely not alone either.
Maybe this really is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes and a lot of people have been duped, in which case more power to you for pointing this out.
Personally, I took the definitely mannered style (acting and everything) to be part and parcel of his desire to do the Powell/Pressburger thing with this - so the pace didn't worry me. In fact it was one of the things I loved.
However I love your point about the dimensions of film, I've never thought about it like that. Again I don't have the same problem as you with most 3D exhibition. But there are quite a few different ways in which it is exhibited and when it's bad it definitely gives me a headache and darkens the screen. Obviously you had a bad time, so if you went to see it because of my rave here, then I apologize.

Martin

12/11/2011 08:52:09 am

No, I was going anyway because it was MS, and despite some lukewarm reviews in the Brit papers, that made it sound worthy but ultimately a bit dull, which I concurred with. Bits I liked? It looked pretty - but I would have preferred to have seen it in 2D. There's a view in the UK that 3D is on the way out, and I certainly hope so. I won't go and see 3D generally - preferring the 2D screenings of 3D films - and many people feel similarly. Indeed there have been a couple of movies recently where the 2D screenings have outsold the 3D The 3D is projected ok, it's just that it's a crappy technology that doesn't really work. There will always be ghosting around figures, and bits of 3D that simply don't equate with how the human eye works, and so all that does is wreck the visual clarity of the cinematography. I chose to see this in 3D because it wasn't retro fitted (like most 3D these days) and it was specifically designed for 3D by Scorcese.

I quite liked some of the reciprocal healing storyline between Hugo and Kingsley, but I thought that was poorly told because all the other characters - especially the stagey girl - and Scorcese's desire to lecture us on film history - got in the way. One or the other Marty, one or the other.

The bottom line is that Hugo came in at 4 in the UK top ten, and my guess is that it will dip out very quickly, because it's certainly not a kids' film and has been released at Xmas when people want a bit of grabby entertainment, not an homage to early cinema and a loving tribute to P&P.

Matthew

12/13/2011 02:49:39 pm

Have you seen "The Artist" yet? Everyone's raving about that. It's meant to be good (won Cannes and all that) so I'm looking forward to it. Two movies about silent cinema, what does this mean?

MArtin

12/15/2011 06:48:28 am

It means that people know that 3D is bogus - even though Hugo is in 3D - and they want to remind people of the fundamentals of cinema. Also note that The Artist and Andrea Arnold's Wuthering Heights (which is sadly a disappointment) are both shot in the Academy ratio.

Matthew

12/17/2011 07:24:48 am

(corrected)

Yes 4:3 is so refreshing especially now most TV and cinema is 16:9, 1.85 or 2.39 ...

The other day I screened "Hallelujah Anyhow" and the 4:3 ratio on a big screen plus the rather stagey acting worked in a completely different way to "Your Good Friend". Even when Hallelujah played Sundance and the London Film Festival 4:3 was out of vogue in the cinema and the BFI print felt more arthouse than the other films at the time. Ratio carries so much baggage. I've yet tp explore 2.39 ... Right now, that's what I want to do next.

But the bigger change for now in my opinion is the different disciplines of working the restricted the restricted shooting ration of film as opposed to the unlimited shooting ratio of digital. In my experience this makes the process of directing very different for some directors. Both have their plusses. I adore the freedom of improvisation that comes from a limitless ratio. Maybe the improvisational aspects of certain digital directing techniques hark back to the freedoms enjoyed by film makers before sound.

If you look at a silent movie script, it is actually quite close to the guide scripts used for the improvised movies these days. I've only done three improvised films (Kreutzer Sonata, Your Good Friend and Boxing Day) and all three had scripts that were no more than 20 odd pages and read like the wind ... It's an exciting time!

Maybe next we'll have cinema that transports us into a new dimension altogether, cinemas will be like a dark room, and the screen will be in our head ... HELLO RADIO!!

Smartartz

1/2/2012 03:34:24 am

I think Wuthering Heights is actually square.

Matthew

1/2/2012 04:33:23 am

Is the acting square as well :) (I haven't seen it)

Smartartz

1/2/2012 11:51:22 pm

No, far from it! It's Andrea Arnold so it's in the style of Fish Tank, but it's quite disappointing. I struggled with Heathcliffe saying: 'Fuck you, you cunts'. Not that he wouldn't have done, but it made me laugh, and I missed the next three minutes... also the older Cathy is miscast. But it's such an interesting take on a classic that it's definitely worth catching it if you can.

Matthew

1/3/2012 12:15:21 am

I had no idea it's Andrea Arnold. She's wonderful. I often show Wasp to my students as a wonderful example of getting great performances in a short, and Fish Tank drew me in like the best of Ken Loach. To think of her doing Wuthering Heights ... Wow!

Smartartz

1/3/2012 01:22:56 am

Don't get too excited. There are a lot of disappointed AA fans around... it never really takes off, but it's a bold attempt. In some ways it reminded me most of Ken Loach's film of the Leon Garfield book Black Jack. But with lots of swearing.

Smartartz

1/7/2012 08:43:11 pm

Went to see The Artist. Now THAT'S a coherent film about early cinema that tells a proper story rather than giving us a bleeding' lecture.

Matthew

1/8/2012 04:51:54 am

Good point. I enjoyed it too, even though I was a little bit disappointed by how predictable the story was.

Matthew

1/24/2012 11:15:02 am

"Hugo" 11 Academy Award Nominations and "The Artist" 10 nominations. How apt.

MATTHEW JACOBS

HUGO

Leave a Reply.

MJBlog

Archives

Categories