-
10 Movies to See Instead of "The Artist" -
On DVD: "Myth of the American Sleepover" -
The Problem with "Hugo" (SPOILERS) -
Review: "Act of Valor" -
Review: "The Forgiveness of Blood"
Interview: Joshua Marston
100 Years of "Titanic" Exploitations
Review: "Pina"
Review: "Titanic" 3D Preview
Review: "The Raid"
Review: "Sound of My Voice"
Review: "The Hunter"One Little Problem with "Hugo" (Spoilers)
To set up the issue I must first admit that I'm not 100% on the facts about the making of "Hugo." Yet as far as I gather at this moment, most if not all of the classic Méliès films seen on screen are recreations rather than restorations of the originals. Scorsese remade much of these old movies using the same technology and materials the magician-turned-filmmaker had available at the turn of the 20th century. However, I understand that they were also shot with stereoscopic cameras to be presented in 3D. I don't quite understand the logic of this, if so.
Not that I disapprove of Scorsese remaking films like "La Melmane" and "A Trip to the Moon," even in 3D. The added-upon spectacle is fantastic and serves a point. And overall I appreciate the filmmaker's apparent retrofitting of 3D, too, which gives new life and depth to ancient documentary footage of World War I. At least I think all this stuff was now in 3D. I'm pretty certain I witnessed intense spatiality in these bits, though I'm also sure 3D enhancement was avoided with the film history lesson illustrated via clips of films like "Dickson Experimental Sound Film," "The Great Train Robbery" and "The General." I believe Scorsese is leaving the 3D-retrofitting of Charlie Chaplin to Uwe Boll.
I've been thinking about the idea of a 2D film screening inside of a 3D movie lately thanks to Wim Wenders' "Pina," the brilliant new 3D dance documentary which features archival footage and presents this material in flat, 2D form, framed by 3D curtains or similar device. I'm pretty sure this logic is adhered to in a scene in "Hugo" in which the kids (Asa Butterfield; Chloë Grace Moretz) watch Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last" in a cinema. This makes it even stranger that the Cinema Society screening would ignore the obvious physics of the moment.
If there is an easy explanation or if I saw/experienced something that's just not there, I apologize dearly. At the very least, I've written this post to hopefully debunk my problem with "Hugo" so that I can continue loving it completely. At the most, maybe this is a discussion worth having. You tell me, please.
If it's not discussion fodder, perhaps Ann Lewison's criticism at The Boston Phoenix is:
Scorsese draws a bludgeoning parallel between 3D and the Lumière Brothers' audience ducking an oncoming train and then has Hugo recreate Harold Lloyd's clock stunt, but 3D's theatrical dimension defeats any sense of jeopardy we might experience in this CGI era. [...] A plea for film preservation made in the medium that's killing it, Hugo unwittingly proves that old movies really were better.
"Hugo" is now playing everywhere. See it.
Recommended If You Like: the films of George Melies; "Amelie"; "From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler"
Follow Christopher Campbell on Twitter: @thefilmcynic
Follow Spout on Twitter: @Spout
Email Updates
Get the latest headlines from Spout delivered to your inbox every day.
4 Comments
nicole | August 18, 2012 2:53 AM
I love these movies .... So much Good Quality
Thomas Holbrook | July 20, 2012 8:07 AM
When talking about law people talk about going by the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. I think the 3D interpretation of the Méliès films does go against the letter of... screen law and logic. But I think it is true to the spirit of Méliès as presented in the film. Méliès was a magician who was all about filling people with amazement and wonder and all about the enjoyment of what he could manage to pull off. And Martin Scorsese tries to embue the film he is making with those same qualities. I don't think the idea was to recreate the confusion people had in the day that things might fly off the screen at them. I think the point was to capture the feeling of really pulling people into a world of fantasy and wonder Méliès was after, his love of playing with effects. All I could think when I saw the 3D sections was how if Méliès could be pulled from the past into today he would have LOVED 3D and would especially love seeing his work in 3D. So does it make logical sense? No. But I think it plays in spirit to the ideas of magic and being pulled into a movie as well as a sort of posthumus gift from one film director (and film fan) to another.
Ron Merk | November 25, 2011 4:32 PM
Here's a little tidbid of recently discovered history. Melies shot two negatives side by side using a special camera, so that he would have a negative to use for export. Unwittingly, he shot several of his films in 3D, and recently the great French raconteur and film preservationist, Serge Bromberg, uncovered this fact while comparing a number of prints of some Melies films. A wildly enthusiastic gasp came out of the mouths of more then 800 spectactors at a recent screening of these Melies 3D films at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco, as presented by Serge who had prepared the films for 3D presentation.