I made a point of catching Martin Scorsese’s change-of-pace movie, Hugo, because it was highly praised, both by film critic Michael Medved, and our friend Anthony Sacramone of Strange Herring. My own response is ambivalent. This is a brilliant, fascinating, beautiful movie, suitable for all ages. Nevertheless, it hasn’t done very good business (I saw it in a theater almost empty), and that doesn’t actually surprise me much. As Sacramone notes, “…it’s a kids’ film for adults.” I don’t think actual kids will love it (that may not be a bad thing either, as I’ll explain below). But adults, especially ones who love cinema, will embrace it once they discover it. I expect cult status on DVD is in its future.
The titular hero is Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), an orphan boy who lives in the Paris railroad station. He was brought there to live by his drunkard uncle, who took care of the station clocks. After teaching Hugo to do the job, the man disappeared. Hugo has been maintaining the clocks on his own ever since, afraid of apprehension by the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen in an interesting performance), who takes perverse delight in sending orphans to an institution.
Hugo lives off pilfered food, and also steals small mechanical parts, especially from Georges (Ben Kingsley), an old man who runs a toy shop in the station. He wants the parts for his ongoing project of repairing an automaton (a moving clockwork human figure), his only inheritance from his father. The two of them had been repairing it when his father died, and Hugo believes that if he can get it working, it will somehow deliver a message from his father.
But old Georges catches Hugo one day, and confiscates the notebook that has been Hugo’s working guide. He demands that Hugo work for him to earn it back. That’s how Hugo comes to meet Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), Georges’s spunky, book-loving ward. She becomes Hugo’s friend and co-conspirator.
It is finally revealed that Georges is in fact Georges Méliès, the pioneering film director who essentially invented the special effects movie. Embittered by the failure of his film company, Georges wants nothing more to do with films, and won’t even let Isabelle attend one. Hugo’s quest to repair the automaton gets entwined with the attempt to help Georges rediscover his personal achievement. He risks his very life in that pursuit.
This is a visually fascinating film, lovingly photographed, with glorious (and not intrusive) special effects. The beauty of precision machines, and the wonder of dreams, are evoked with equal affection. I thought the story itself a little weak, especially the section where Georges’s spirit is reawakened. I thought his “conversion,” engineered by Hugo, unconvincing. And that relates to my major problem with the film. It’s not a moral objection (the movie is suitable for most audiences), but what I might call a prudential one.
It goes back to what might be called the Parent Trap problem. In that movie (I only know the original version), two children conspire to “fix” their divorced parents’ marriage, just as Hugo tries to “fix” (that’s the word they use) Georges’s broken heart.
The problem is that this story line, while probably harmless for children in happy, secure situations, is precisely the wrong one to send to children in tragic circumstances (such as a divorce or a death in the family) or to children who are suffering abuse of any kind.
Children think magically. They always believe that if their parents are breaking up, or if Grandma dies, it’s somehow because of something they did. Stories that suggest that really clever and courageous children can repair the lives of adults send precisely the wrong message. Children in tragedy need to be unempowered, to be told gently that they are not responsible, and nobody places any weight on their small shoulders. Abused children need to find an adult they can trust, and to whom they can tell the truth (something Hugo steadfastly refuses to do until the very end).
However, I don’t think children will really like this movie much. It’s mainly for grown-ups with a childlike love for the cinema. If you’re one of those, I expect you’ll enjoy it a lot.
Lars, thanks for the review. My 8 year old daughter loves the book on which the movie is based and checks it out of the school library probably once a month. I was inclined to see the movie for that reason alone but knowing it’s a Scorsese flick helps me. As does this positive review.
Lars,
I don’t think Hugo felt responsible for fixing M. Georges’s life so much as his own (and with no adult guidance, what else could he do?). That Melies rediscovered his vocation was a happy accident of the whole ordeal. Nor do I think Hugo ever felt guilty for the loss of his father, only lost and alone. Remember the role the film historian plays — another happy “accident.” The man the historian thinks is dead and Hugo believes is just a mean-spirited toy seller is in fact the key to both their quests. Melies’s true identity has remained hidden because he has had his past ripped from him — and so he, too, is lost. When the past is reborn in the form of those old films, through the detective work of both the boy and the historian, the mystery is solved and resolution, a kind of peace, is possible in more than one life. You do have a point about whether an explicitly moral objective is in view. Probably not, unless you construe finding purpose or one’s place in a chaotic world a moral issue. But I don’t think that mars the film (at least it didn’t for me). It obviously did for you, and as you know much more about constructing story lines with moral cores, I can see why.
As I recall, someone in the movie makes a specific statement that Hugo’s purpose in life is “fixing” things, and that that is specifically related to Georges. But my memory sometimes deceives me.
I have a different take. I have not read the book and I am basing my comment on my viewing with my 12 year old daughter. I would say any younger might be too young.
The film (Non-3D version) was very well done with a unique story line in a great setting – post WW1 Paris. Everything about this film peaked my daughter’s attention. At times it felt slow but very in synch with the film’s events.
I felt that the boy was looking for meaning to his life. He was stoic to the core, never questioning why he was dealt such a bad circumstance. His short time with his Father gave him some personal skills that helped him survive and touch a stranger’s life while improving his own. The boy never wondered if he had done something to cause his Father’s death.
This boy’s life was a blessing for many. My daughter and I liked the film a lot and wondered if we should have seen the 3D version. Some of the cinematography was a little uncomfortable visually knowing it was designed for 3D.
Very well done on all levels – see it!
I was glad I saw it in 3D, but I realize I’m a sucker for visual gimmicks, so I chose not to comment on that.