 |
| There is no audio portion this week |
Joshua Efron: I'm sorry to hear that. I had hoped that I was the only one to feel the way I did about it - especially since I had wanted to to really like it. Because I went into the theatre with hope and wonder and awe - and the film didn't fulfill its part of that bargain. And the more people I speak to the more I hear similar opinions.
Sandell Stangl: To start off this time, "Hugo" is about a little boy that lives in the walls of a busy train station. But when he meets the owner of a toy shop and the shop owner's god-daughter, he must figure out why the toy shop owner is so sad?
Sandell Stangl: Do you think that's a fair description Josh? Honestly it's hard to write a description of the film.
Joshua Efron: And that's precisely what's wrong with this movie.
Joshua Efron: I came out of the movie and asked my friend what it was about. He said to me "It's about wonder and -..." and caught himself because he knew that wasn't a real answer. He couldn't tell me what the movie was about because the movie didn't decide what it was about. Without a strong narrative or dramatic focus the film reduced itself to a series of visually impressive but unimpressing moments.
Joshua Efron: Hugo is about a boy that lives in the walls of a train station who has his notebook taken by a shop owner he's stolen from and the lengths he goes to get it back. That's what it's about.
Joshua Efron: ...for a while. It then becomes a little about some of the other people in the train station, but not really about them, and not really about Hugo, and not really Hugo's relationship with them. Then it becomes about a series of flashbacks telling us about Hugo's past. Then it becomes about Hugo and the goddaughter of the shop owner trying to discover... something, with the main character motivated to fix a machine he (nonsensically) believes holds a message from his father. Then it's suddenly and almost inexplicably about filmmaking and specifically Georges Méliès, the girl's god-father, director of "Journey to the Moon".
Joshua Efron: And I think it's about that for the 45 minutes of the film, almost to the point of Hugo no longer having anything to do with the film's plot, if it even has a plot at that point.
Sandell Stangl: You know I actually disagree with your statement about the movie not know what it wanted to be. I think it's the opposite. I think the movie DID know what it wanted to be (And I'm basing this on how it ended). It wanted to be a movie about how we take VFX and modern day movies for granted. "Hugo" actually shows this movie twice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEH5UgVB92I&feature=related in order to illustrate that. To us this clip is pretty boring, but when people first saw this clip the audience actually [supposedly] thought the train was heading straight for them! My point is, I think this movie intended on reminding us of a this 'time of wonder', if you'll forgive the term. I just don't think the movie knew HOW it wanted to illustrate this message.
Joshua Efron: That's an interesting idea. And if that was the director's intent, the first half of the film needed to be completely refocused, possibly more towards the automaton Hugo has been stealing the parts to repair. There isn't any wonder inherent in the first half of the film because to Hugo, the only one who interacts with the clocks and machines, fixing things is second nature and matter-of-fact Without wonder.
Sandell Stangl: Clocks and movies really don't have much to do with each other....
Joshua Efron: While its true that in real life Méliès did do much experience with automation, clock/machinework and so on, the combination of the clockmaking/automoton first half and the filmmaking/stage/magicianhood of the second were COMPLETELY disconnected from one another.
Joshua Efron: The method of the film switching to Melies was Hugo and the god-daughter going to see a movie and then being directed to the library to study film history. So while the first half of the film is about this boy Hugo and his quest to reconnect with his father by completing the work they left unfinished, the second half is basically a film history class.
Sandell Stangl: That could be said to be the movie's theme: 'disconnection'. And I mean nothing in this movie connected with each other. [JE: this is an interesting idea I wish we'd discussed more]
Joshua Efron: Never separate stories running in harmony, it was one story that began with and then lost its focus, unsure of its meaning, theme, or purpose. Was it supposed to be about about finding what you are meant to do in life? Finding your place in the world? Finding a family or so way to not be alone? All of these things are ideas brought up by Hugo and the plot in the first half of the film, but none of them are satisfied, none of them addressed in the second half of the film.
Sandell Stangl: To be fair, Hugo did find a family. It just just seemed to be tacked on to the end though as an afterthought.
Joshua Efron: Despite my reaction to this film being a resounding "eh" (and this is having gone into the theatre interested), there were a number of strong things things about Hugo. So lets talk about those!
Sandell Stangl: I'm not really sure what to talk about other then the visuals. It was really nice to see a shout out towards the film makers of old.
Joshua Efron: The visuals were excellent. The design-work was great, the 3d work (although not actually Adding anything) was avoided being too distracting. If I was going to make a Steampunk film, I would hire all those designers and tell them to crank it up several notches.
Joshua Efron: The acting was pretty spectacular. Sort Of. The script was honestly lackluster in the dialogue, but the actors did a very good job with what they had, Ben Kingsly standing out the most.
Joshua Efron: The kids were both good but honestly underused, again, by the script (and therefore Scorcesce as well).
Sandell Stangl: It did have good direction.
Joshua Efron: I agree. That being said, Scorsese should not have been director. Honestly, really, he didn't bring anything to the film beyond general competency. He basically just didn't fuck up the design.
Sandell Stangl: Do you have someone else in mind?
Joshua Efron: I don't. But someone else could have brought some life to the film that Scorsese didn't. I'd be interested in hearing some other people's thoughts as to who Should have directed Hugo.
Joshua Efron: Listen, I really wanted to come out of the theatre happy and recommending you see this film. But I can't. I formally do not recommend seeing Hugo (note that's different then my recommending you not see it!) If you do decide you want to see Hugo and have a large television, rent it when it is released on DVD or Blue Ray. If you do decide see it in the theatre, I do not recommend paying to see it in 3d.
Joshua Efron: I had said that after paying $14 to see Hugo tonight that if it was lousy I would poop in Scorsese's breakfast. The film wasn't bad, but it wasn't particularly good either. Therefore I'm just going to distract him long enough for his cereal to get soggy.
Joshua Efron: Honestly, that's the adjective I would use to describe this movie.
Joshua Efron: Soggy.
Sandell Stangl: There we have it folks. The JNS team gives Hugo a rating of 'soggy'.
No comments:
Post a Comment