Hugo, the Martin Scorsese Film

I just saw this.And I got angry. So be warned that this is merely a rant on my part, and I am expecting to be refuted, since that is the main goal of intelligent discussion, which is what I'm hoping for here.

This movie is absolutely praised by its visuals and its intelligent use of 3D, of which I can't speak since I watched it in 2D. No word about the plot anywhere.

And I can see why. Everything is vague. I couldn't care less about Hugo or about his father. The make makes no effort about it, since the real force of the plor is telling you how cool old movies were. And it succeeds, because I felt like watching old movies instead of the one I was watching.

Why is the automaton important? Why can it draw a scene from an old film? Where the drawings in the box made by the automaton or by somebody else? What is the purpose of Christopher Lee's character? Why make this a story for kids when it blatantly isn't?

The situations of danger are stupid. Either that or I'm just not the target audience for this film.

The only thing that made this movie worthwhile where the locations. And, maybe, the fact that this is probably Scorsese's most inocuous film ever.

edited 9th Jul '12 7:06:56 PM by Chorle

Ok, youre gonna get what you wanted.

Yes the goal of the film was to pay tribute to the history of cinema and to the pioneering work of Georges Melies. The plot of the film however was a child trying to find his place in the world and by helping an old man gain the recognition (and closure) he deserved in order to do so.

The automaton was a symbol of dreams, innovation, the past and it was it's completion that ultimately gave Hugo his happy ending. You could that the past and repair of the automaton was a mirror for Hugo's own. Believe it or not, but the real Melies actually did make automata. Some could write and some could even draw. It's more than possible that he programmed it to draw. As for the drawings in the box, they were most likely the work of Melies himself. The guy was an artists and literally filled dozens of books with his sketches and ideas, many of which went on to inspire his films.

I admit that I too can't really understand why Lee's character was included, but the gift he gives to Hugo (the copy of Robin Hood) is significant for two reasons. A) It was a film he saw with his father and B) His thievery was ultimately put towards a good purpose i.e rebuilding the automaton and restoring a man's faith in the world and his own life's work.

I don't understand how being turned into a strawberry pancake by a train, dangling off a tower (safety last style) or being sent to an orphanage is a stupid situation. Especially since the train accident in the dream really did occur in real life.

So yeah, I loved the film.

The film is really made of 2 halves: the story of Hugo and his search for a message from his late father, and the story of Melies. It's even broken up like that in the book. I've noticed that quite a few people dislike this and feel that the 2 don't mesh together very well. I think that there is enough overlap that they do.

I seem to remember that Lee's character was more important in the book, but I can't remember why and I'll have to dig it out to see.

We have a thread for this.