For the last few posts, I have expressed my great
interest in conducting collaborations with individuals that I feel are some of
the great bloggers, vloggers, and reviewers that I have interacted with. I did
this with my friend and web show editor, John, back in January in a post where
we discussed the NFL playoffs. This time around, I will be reviewing a movie
that was released back in 2011 based off of a Brian Selznick novel released in
2007. The novel was titled The Invention
of Hugo Cabret, and the movie was known as Hugo, directed by Martin Scorsese.
The person that will be discussing this with me is a
great friend of mine and someone I wrote with back in high school! Yep, while I
was reporting tournaments and launching Caponomics, this gentleman was creating
his own column known as Reviews You Can
Use. He even took the step of creating a segment on our school's channel.
Hopefully, he takes even more steps (like start a blog). This is Will Hoheisel.
Will, welcome to my blog!Will
Well, thank you very much, Josh! Thanks for inviting
me to be a part of this review!
Josh
It is my pleasure! I will now grant you the honor of summarizing this film.
Will
With pleasure!
This is a historical fiction story that takes place in
a Paris train station in the year 1931. Our main character is a boy named Hugo
Cabret (it rhymes with beret). A few months prior to the events of the story,
his father discovers an "automaton," an amazing human-like machine
that can write thanks to a series of complicated clockwork/machinery within its
body. The machine is broken, however. So, being clockmakers by trade, Hugo and
his father decide to fix it.
Unfortunately, Hugo's father tragically dies in a fire
at the local museum, and the boy is forced to live with his drunk uncle in the
secret "Timekeeper's Apartments" at the train station. There, Hugo
learns how to learn manage the clocks throughout the building, and keep them
all in time with each other. Then, one day, his uncle mysteriously disappears,
and the boy is forced to tend to the clocks on his own, and he's remained here
since.
While living and surviving within the walls of the
train station, Hugo also takes time to locate spare pieces to try and finish
repairing the automaton (one of the few things he brought with him), so he can
see the "message" that it's sure to write (which he believes will be
from his father). He finds most of these pieces in a toy booth run by a cranky,
but also mysterious, old man. One day, Hugo gets caught in the act of stealing,
and suddenly, his world (of secrets and machinery) collides not only with that
of the old man but also his book-loving god-daughter, Isabelle. What follows is
one adventure after another that, ultimately, ends up with Hugo seeing this
mysterious message, which leads him toward incredible revelations and a safe
place that he can call "home."
I'm not going to lie to you, Josh, but this is one of
my all-time favorite films! Top 10 easily!
I love the diverse cast of characters! I love the
parallel stories of a boy trying to find his purpose and a safe haven, and a
man who's lost his purpose who needs "fixing." I love the
Academy-Award winning cinematography and special effects that literally bring
you into this magical environment. There's a good reason why I believe this is
the best 3-D experience I've ever experienced at the cinema! Most of all, I
love the atmosphere. The movie is so well told, visualized, and realized, that
you can't help but become invested in the story and feel for these characters.
Josh
I am usually a stickler for a film being loyal to
text. I would not say that this was perfectly reliable, but I think that the
film and the text were able to create compromises for one another's flaws. I
feel that the visuals and the stories were the strongest part, because a conclusion
can be made that while the automaton was physically broken, in a way, so were
the characters.
However, they were repaired in some way or another.
Will
You know, that's a good point, Josh. I know that the
old man was the primary one who needed "fixing." How do you believe
some of the other characters were "fixed?"
Josh
Georges is one of those that was so successful, but
was reduced to becoming a toy shop owner in a train station. I feel that Hugo
is, in fact, someone that not necessarily needed to be "fixed," but
is instead in a period of "building." I felt that the movie made him
much friendlier than he was in the book. In the book, he was a thief just about
throughout the entire piece, his interactions with Isabelle were shakier, and things
got so intense that he had his hand slammed on him and it interfered with the
flow of how Hugo went about things. Georges and Hugo were just two individuals
that were coming from opposite directions, but just needed to find some way to
meet in the middle of what they were each going through. This middle ground was
an idea of where each of them wanted to be.
This brings me to the idea of how the station
inspector was given a much larger role. I felt a lot of that had to do with
humor, because he came off as much more of a comic relief instead of a feared
figure at the station. Of course, this is Sacha Baron Cohen we are talking
about...
Will
Of course.
The Station Inspector, I think, was still a
"threat" from the perspective of Hugo and the other orphans, but I love
how the movie also made him "human" and capable of error/problems.
Sacha really capitalized on the humorous aspects of the character (I still
crack up when he crashes into a musician's cello, gets back up, and says
"As you were." to everyone!), as well as the tragic side (when he's
trying to talk to the flower girl while suffering from a war injury).
On the note of kids, I love the chemistry between Asa
Butterfield and Chloe Moretz, who played Hugo and Isabelle. Asa was great at
performing the sad and secretive side of Hugo as well as the curious side,
while Chloe showed great enthusiasm, but also concern, as Isabelle.
Do you think the relationship between Hugo and
Isabelle was better conveyed in the book or the movie? Personally, I like the
movie version better.
Also, I agree that the story and visuals of the movie
are its strongest assets.
Josh
I agree that both Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace
Moretz were the perfect selections to play Hugo and Isabelle, respectively. I
also agree with the idea that the movie captured their relationship a bit
better. Then again, I felt Hugo's character was a bit more likeable in the film
and that the film was able to patch up the flaws I was not particularly fond of
in the book.
As for the Station Inspector (Gustave), I feel that
they allowed him to be more than just an inspector that keeps things in line. I
tackle with the question of whether or not his role was too much or was it just
enough.
Will
I will just briefly give note to four more little
things:
1. Its ties with early cinema. It's so cool to think
about how the early "magicians" of cinema were inspired to create
magic on the screen, and Melies and his crew made making movies look so fun and
exciting. It makes me appreciate the art form more and inspires me to pursue my
own dreams.
2. The "Purpose" Scene: One of the scenes I
felt was executed equally well in both versions of the story (with a slight
edge to the movie). Very powerful in its simplicity, and it's still makes me
consider what purpose God has given me to perform within this "earthly
machine" of His.
3. Howard Shore's Oscar-nominated Score: The
"Lord of the Rings" composer creates a gem of a score for this movie
that evokes the French setting and beautifully conveys the uplifting, sad, and
mysterious moments of the story. I still get teary-eyed during the final
credits song.
4. Brian Selznick Cameo: Within the final two-minute
shot of the movie, the author of the original "Hugo" book makes an
appearance as a film academy student. He's the one with black hair and glasses
walking with Georges and Tebard.
Overall, this is an amazing movie. Like the automaton,
it has the potential to fill you with wonder at its story, the messages, and
the incredible art forms brought to light within it (film and literature,
particularly). I've loved every viewing, and I look forward to many more and
hopefully, sharing this gem with other people, some of whom may feel broken
within this world.
If you haven't seen this incredible film yet, do so! I
guarantee you won't regret it!
I
give the book 8.5 film cameras out of 10, and the movie "Hugo" 10
automatons out of 10!
Josh
As I said before, I think that where the book lacks,
the film addresses and succeeds at, and vice-versa. If there was one thing I
wish they did, it was find some way to include Etienne in the film. I felt he
was one of the strongest side characters in the film and in some particular
way, they could have fit him in. I liked how they kept the bookshop owner and
assigned the role to the great Christopher Lee, who did a fine job, but I think
that with most Hollywood films, they do their best to cater to their big names.
This is partly why Isabelle and The Station Inspector get larger roles.
I still think that I was a part of the magic that this
film had to offer and that I could feel the thrill that Hugo and those around
him felt. I agree that the film does a better job in capturing Hugo's modesty,
but I feel the book addresses the step by step issues a bit better. Still, if
we are judging the film as a film, it was quite nice!
I will do the verdict as you do. I give the book 8 rocket ships out of 10 and the film 8 wind-up mice
out of 10. I think that in each way, the book and film were respectively
magnificent. They excelled in their imagery and in the growth or re-growth of
their characters, even if they had their little flaws.
Those are some good observations that you make about
Brian Selznick's cameo. The one observation that I made was that during the
first chase, I swore that I saw James Joyce sitting and mingling with someone.
I most certainly agree that both the book and film do
a spectacular job in capturing Paris during a time that it was flourishing in
history.
Will
I will finish by saying that sometimes, the
"flaws" in something are what make a piece of work special. I'm not
saying that's the case for "Hugo," but flaws can have two perks:
1. They show that nothing on Earth is
"perfect," no matter how great it is.
2. They allow viewers/readers to develop their
imaginations/thinking and create their own unique and special
opinions/perspectives.
3. It was James Joyce at the table, mingling with
Salvador Dali.
On that note, I agree with you in that I think both
the "Hugo" book and movie compliment each other as non-perfect
partners.
Also, you're right in that Paris looked absolutely
stunning!
Listen, Josh, thank you so much for inviting me to be
a part of this collaboration. It was a pleasure talking with you about this
very special movie. Not bad for Martin Scorsese directing his first "kid's
movie," eh?
Josh
Will, I want to thank you for taking time to
participate in this review. It is always a delight to work on a collaboration
like this and hopefully I will be able to read, follow, and promote Reviews You
Can Use when it becomes the next big thing!
I certainly agree that nothing can be perfect, just
things that are perfect for the beholder. Martin Scorsese did quite a fine job
not just as a director for his first children's film, but also adapting it from
a book that was targeted for children. I certainly agree that the book and
movie complimented each other as being non-perfect partners.
Thank you again, Will!
Will
No problem, Josh, and thank you too!