XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Martin Scorsese => Topic started by: MacGuffin on January 21, 2010, 08:37:24 PM

Title: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: MacGuffin on January 21, 2010, 08:37:24 PM
Scorsese eyes 'Hugo' for next project
Helmer to reunite with 'Departed' producer King
Source: Variety

Martin Scorsese is eyeing a trip back in time to 1930s Paris.

The helmer is in talks with GK Films to direct Brian Selznick's best-selling children's book "The Invention of Hugo Cabret" for what he hopes will be his next project. Pic would reunite Scorsese with his "Departed" producer Graham King.

Story centers on a 12-year-old orphan named Hugo, who lives in a train station and must finish what his late father started by solving the mystery of a broken robot. Project would mark Scorsese's first foray into kid lit -- a genre that is attracting a number of high-profile directors including Wes Anderson ("The Fantastic Mr. Fox") and Spike Jonze ("Where the Wild Things Are"), whose films are resonating with adult audiences.

"Hugo," which won the Randolph Caldecott Medal in 2008 for the most distinguished American picture book for children, is a mammoth tome at 533 pages. More than half of the pages contain elaborate pictures that the New York Times described as looking like movie storyboard frames. "Ice Age" helmer Chris Wedge was previously attached to direct "Hugo Cabret," which was a long-running Times best-seller.

GK Films will independently produce the live-action feature and is in discussions with a number of studios including Sony and Paramount about distributing "Hugo Cabret." Currently on the fast track for a June 1 start in London, pic is also being produced by Scorsese, Tim Headington and Johnny Depp's production company Infinitum Nihil, which is run by Christi Dembrowski.

John Logan, who wrote Scorsese's "The Aviator," adapted the screenplay.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 21, 2010, 11:29:33 PM
John Logan, who wrote Scorsese's "The Aviator," adapted the screenplay.

I think this has been Scorsese's problem. He's allowing writers to carry over and define each of his decades. It was Nicholas Pileggi in the 90s and now it is John Logan and William Monahan in the 00s. It's easy to say his early career is better than his later career, but he's technically gotten better at directing as he has gotten older. A movie like After Hours would be more elaborate stylistically if it was made today, but the simple likelihood is that his early films (excluding After Hours and some others) are better because of the writers. Paul Schrader needs to come back and do more than adapt a limited novel for Scorsese (aka Bringing Out the Dead).

It's disappointing because I want to be excited, but if it's Aviator all over, I can only expect to like parts of the movie at best.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Alexandro on January 22, 2010, 04:06:13 PM
Yes, but Logan doesn't have the personality of schrader or pileggi. I'm not familiar with the material but this is an odd and exciting choice for Scorsese, to say the least. Certainly more than the sinatra biopic. i doubt this will get actually get made with him as director though...
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: modage on March 11, 2010, 12:54:42 PM
More Scorsese: 'Hugo Cabret' Not In 3D? Also Chats About Two More 'Down And Dirty Street Movies'
Source: ThePlaylist

Once you get Martin Scorsese going, the director is more than happy to talk about anything cinematic under the sun. Earlier today, we reported more details on the director's long gestating Sinatra biopic, but digging through the same interview with ShortList, there were a few more interesting nuggets that we overlooked.

Back in February, Variety casually mentioned that Scorsese's upcoming children's film, "Hugo Cabret" was going to be a "3D adaptation." While many assumed that meant Scorsese was jumping on the latest Hollywood bandwagon, when asked directly by ShortList if he would ever like to make a film in 3D the director answered: "I would like to. I’m very excited by 3D. I was always excited by 3D. I was 10 years old when the first 3D wave occurred in 1953. Why should we be limited? I mean, I’m seeing you and the space is real. Time isn’t real. Time is abstract. Space is real." He goes on to say that he would ideally only use 3D for "dramatic purposes – not just throwing spears at the audience." It certainly sounds like the director, who is usually very candid about his projects, isn't planning on shooting "Hugo Cabret" in 3D or visiting the format any time soon. So we're going to scratch that rumor for now.

But that's not all, adding to the growing list of projects on Scorsese's menu are two more, currently secret projects. ShortList asked the director if he would ever like to get to his roots and shoot a "low-budget, down-and-dirty street movie" and he replied, "Absolutely. I’m dying to. And there are two projects that I have in mind that way." Ever the tease, Scorsese said the can't really talk about them right now (probably because they are way too early in the game) but it's certainly exciting news, especially for those who haven't warmed to the director's bigger budgeted work of recent years.

Damn. That's two more features on top of "Hugo Cabret," the forthcoming Jesuit priest drama dream project "Silence," the mob hitman pic "The Irishman" aka "I Heard You Paint Houses" with Robert DeNiro and the still in development Frank Sinatra biopic. And let's not forget the handful of documentaries in various states of the completion that the director also has going on the side. We wish we had a quarter of his energy.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: MacGuffin on March 16, 2010, 12:35:57 AM
Kingsley, Baron Cohen Joining Scorsese
By MIKE FLEMING; Deadline Hollywood
 
EXCLUSIVE: Director Martin Scorsese is in talks with Sacha Baron Cohen and Ben Kingsley to star in The Invention of Hugo Cabret, the director's next film. Graham King's GK Films is financing and still working out distribution.

The film is based on Brian Selznick's childrens book, about the 12-year old title character, an orphan who lives in the walls of a Paris train station in 1930. I'm told that Baron Cohen will play the role of the station inspector.  Kingsley will play George Melies, the famous silent filmmaker who plays a pivotal role in the film.

Sir Ben just worked with Scorsese on  Shutter Island. Baron Cohen most recently starred in Bruno.

The book was originally acquired for Scorsese by Warner Bros and King right after The Departed rained Oscars.  John Logan wrote the script, but Scorsese stepped out. Ice Age's Chris Wedge jumped in, but exited to make another movie. Warner Bros put it into turnaround, but after Scorsese's plan to film Silence didn't come together, he rejoined the project.

King is considered likely to run the film through the overall distribution deal he made with the Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions deal he made last year.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Pubrick on March 16, 2010, 01:47:37 AM
this could be great.

kingsley is due for a comeback and even tho he is pretty much box office and critical poison these days, he always excels when he plays ppl he looks like:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/George_Melies.jpg/220px-George_Melies.jpg)

this will hav to do until they make a film about hamid karzai

(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-3/hamid-karzai.jpg)

the other great thing is that marty seems to not hav found a way to wedge Leo into this project. it just feels like a nice refreshing change from all the crap he's been making.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: polkablues on March 16, 2010, 01:53:15 AM
Leo will play the 12-year-old, obviously.  The articles didn't bother to mention it because they figured we would just assume.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Alexandro on March 16, 2010, 02:35:53 AM
Kingsley can do whatever he wants and it makes no difference in his career. I don't know if he "needs" a comeback. Has he had any other comebacks before? He just rocks like a motherfucker from time to time in between a LOT of really bad movies. He's gotta work. He's like Willem Daffoe. He's never really that hot actor, and he's never really out of work.

Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: MacGuffin on March 16, 2010, 12:06:11 PM
Scorsese Sets Pyjama Boy And Hit Girl For The Invention Of Hugo Cabret
By MIKE FLEMING; Deadline Hollywood
   
EXCLUSIVE: Martin Scorsese's lining up his young leads for The Invention of Hugo Cabret. I'm told that Asa Butterfield will play the title character, with the female lead role of Isabelle going to Chloe Moretz, who is lighting up the screen in trailers for the Matthew Vaughn-directed Kick-Ass. She plays Hit Girl in a film Lionsgate debuted to raucous reaction at SXSW. Moretz also stars in Let Me In, the Americanized remake of the memorable Swedish vampire film Let The Right One In. She plays the bloodsucker.

Butterfield starred in The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas,  and most recently wrapped Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang. Sacha Baron Cohen and Ben Kingsley will also star in The Invention of Hugo Cabret. I've also confirmed the film will be distributed by Sony, through the deal that producer Graham King's GK Films set with the Sony Worldwide Acquisitions Group. It seems odd to imagine Scorsese building a film around children.

I can't think of too many Scorsese films it would be appropriate for these kids to even watch.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: MacGuffin on April 13, 2010, 08:13:13 PM
Scorsese to shoot 'Hugo Cabret' in 3D
Oscar-winning director's next film to open Dec. 9, 2011
Source: Variety

Martin Scorsese is taking the plunge into 3D.

The helmer will employ the technology for his next project, "The Invention of Hugo Cabret."

Sony, which is distributing the GK Films-financed pic, has dated the film for Dec. 9, 2011.

Based on Brian Selznick's best-selling children's book, story is set in 1930s Paris and centers on a 12-year-old orphan named Hugo, who lives in a train station and must finish what his late father started by solving the mystery of a broken robot.

Project, which will begin lensing in London in June, marks Scorsese's first foray into kid lit as well as his debut 3D film.

John Logan, who wrote Scorsese's "The Aviator," will adapt the screenplay.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 14, 2010, 03:45:33 AM
It looks like Silence is always going to remain a mirage to us, but I have no problem with Scorsese going 3D. Shutter Island had a chance for Scorsese to attune himself back to high compositional filmmaking but he went half mass with the project since the story regurgitated a lot of psychological generics, but I have to assume that this film will at least be imaginative and force Scorsese's hand more so than any of his projects in the last 10 years. Thus I am satisfied and if Scorsese is going to make this film and continue to delay the million historical films in which Robert De Niro could aptly direct, then he might as well take on unique fables like this. It should have promise, but I don't know. I always seem to invent new ways to find false hope in Scorsese whenever a new film of his is announced.

I also focus on the filmmaking potential only because I imagine if any of these were killer scripts, Scorsese would have been trumping them since the beginning. The only thing he continuously trumps has been Silence so I imagine it's his standalone great project to be made unless something by happenstance just appears before him and is great. At best, I imagine most of the scripts are good high tier Hollywood stories where nothing that great is present.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Alexandro on April 14, 2010, 10:34:17 AM
fine, but he's not getting any younger.
Silence is supposedly still pretty much in prep, but my personal wish would be for Silence to be a cheaply made film without CGI or elaborate filming involved. I'm sure I'm dreaming.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: MacGuffin on June 29, 2010, 03:58:24 PM
Jude Law cast in Scorsese's 'Cabret'
Ray Winstone, Christopher Lee also added to project
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Jude Law, Ray Winstone, Christopher Lee, Frances de la Tour and Richard Griffiths have been cast in Martin Scorsese's live-action 3D adventure "Hugo Cabret." The film's production began Tuesday in London.

The new cast members join Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Asa Butterfield, Chloe Moretz and Helen McCrory in the GK Films-produced adaptation of Brian Selznick's bestselling 2007 book, "The Invention of Hugo Cabret." "The Aviator" scribe John Logan wrote the screenplay.

Scorsese, Graham King, Tim Headington and Johnny Depp are producing. Emma Tillinger Koskoff, Charles Newirth and Christi Dembrowski are executive producers.

"Cabret," which won the Caldecott Medal and a National Book Award, tells the story of an orphan living in the walls of a Paris train station who encounters a broken machine, an eccentric girl and a reserved toy shop manager.

The project is filming at Shepperton Studios as well as on location in London and Paris. Sony will release the film in December 2011.

Law is repped by WME, Winstone by ICM, Lee and de la Tour by Independent Talent Group and Griffiths by Paradigm.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: MacGuffin on July 20, 2010, 11:30:18 PM
Two more join Martin Scorsese's 3D family adventure 'Hugo Cabret' (exclusive)
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Emily Mortimer and Michael Stuhlbarg have joined the ensemble cast of "Hugo Cabret," Martin Scorsese's first foray into family adventure and 3D.

The movie, an adaptation of Brian Selznick's best-seller "The Invention of Hugo Cabret," is in production in London and is being produced by Scorsese, Graham King, Tim Headington and Johnny Depp.

"Cabret" centers on Hugo (Asa Butterfield), an orphan boy living a secret life in the walls of a Paris train station. When he encounters a broken machine, an eccentric girl (Chloe Moretz) and a cold, reserved man (Ben Kingsley) who runs a toy shop, he is caught up in a magical, mysterious adventure that could put all of his secrets in jeopardy.

Mortimer plays the station's flower shop girl, Lisette, and Stuhlbarg plays Rene Tabard, a film restorer. They join a cast that includes Sacha Baron Cohen, Jude Law, Christopher Lee and Ray Winstone.

"Cabret" reunites Mortimer with Scorsese, having appeared in the director's "Shutter Island." Her other credits include "Harry Brown," "Lars and the Real Girl" and Woody Allen's "Match Point." The actress, repped by ICM and Brillstein Entertainment Partners, next stars opposite Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks and Zooey Deschanel in the comedy "My Idiot Brother."

Stuhlbarg, repped by ICM and Viking Entertainment, received a Golden Globe nomination for his work in the Coen brothers' "A Serious Man" and next co-stars as crime boss Arnold Rothstein in the Scorsese-directed pilot and HBO series "Boardwalk Empire."
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: MacGuffin on November 18, 2010, 11:12:26 PM
Martin Scorsese Talks Hugo Cabret and Shooting in 3D
Source: Screen Crave

As we reported earlier, Martin Scorsese recently participated in a special Q&A with Leonardo Dicaprio called “Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese in Conversation.” The Oscar winning director spoke via satellite from a location in Europe where he’s currently shooting his latest project The Invention of Hugo Cabret. Scorsese gave a status update on the production and revealed that he’s learning something new everyday on the set of his first 3D film…

When asked how the filming of Hugo Cabret was going, Scorsese said, “It’s going. It’s going. It’s an experience. The geometry of it, everything, you’re really redefining. You’re trying to figure out how to tell the story again in pictures with this 3D, which is really interesting.”

He then went on to discuss the movie’s exceptional cast and how much filming they have left for the shoot.

“It’s a film that’s a fable. It involves Hugo Cabret, [a young boy] and playing the part is Asa Butterfield. I think he’s 12 or 13 in the film and he’s the lead. [The rest of the cast] Chloe Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee, Emily Mortimer, Sacha Baron Cohen, it’s a group, quite a group. We had the sets built by Dante Feretti out here in Shepperton Studios and we’ve been shooting for quite a while now. We only have a few more weeks, I hope and I hope to get it out by next year.”
It’s interesting to hear someone as well versed in film as Scorsese get stumped by 3D. The man’s a genius who’s known to focus on stories and characters, and for the most part 3D has been used as a gimmick for action films. Will he be one of the first directors to bring a strong narrative together in the format? Only time will tell.

The Invention of Hugo Cabret is scheduled to hit theaters on December 9, 2011.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: polkablues on February 14, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
According to a couple sites that posted the picture a few weeks ago, this is apparently the design of the robot the kid finds.  Very Metropolis.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/2011_hugocabret.png)

"Show us on the automaton where Mr. Scorsese touched you."

Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Alexandro on February 14, 2011, 03:19:44 PM
This is gonna be a very odd movie.
Trying not to be cynic but it looks like it`s going to tank and be reviled for years, and then in 20 years is going to be an honorable failure like New York, New York...or on a more positive outcome it will be one of those oddball new generation of critics's darling like King of Comedy...

Hope I'm wrong, though.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Pubrick on February 14, 2011, 04:14:47 PM
Trying not to be cynic but it looks like it`s going to tank and be reviled for years, and then in 20 years is going to be an honorable failure like New York, New York...

That would be an improvement on all of his recent output which will be reviled for a hundred years.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Gold Trumpet on July 12, 2011, 12:18:04 PM
Now just titled Hugo...

(http://comingsoon.net/nextraimages/hugoposter.jpg)
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: polkablues on July 12, 2011, 03:55:40 PM
Ugh. The Invention of Hugo Cabret sounds like the title of a film classic that will be treasured for generations. Hugo sounds like the title of a loud kids movie about a boy and his imaginary friend that gets in trouble and farts a lot.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Gold Trumpet on July 14, 2011, 06:18:04 PM
trailer: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/hugo/

My reaction: Why not?
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: polkablues on July 14, 2011, 06:25:49 PM
Looks like Scorcese's a bit of a Jean Pierre Jeunet fan.  I still hate the title change, but it looks great.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: tpfkabi on July 14, 2011, 09:37:45 PM
I hope the soundtrack is not filled with songs like that.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: picolas on July 15, 2011, 06:18:10 PM
:yabbse-undecided: looks like it's a kids only sorta deal... i kind of want to see a mashup of that footage with the soundtrack to the trailer for shutter island though. might get on that.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Alexandro on July 15, 2011, 11:01:05 PM
this trailer is unreliable. looks like any other kids movie. yet those brief seconds within the melies studio hooked me.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: pete on July 16, 2011, 04:56:44 AM
is the film not done yet and the trailer just relies on four or five scenes that have already been completed?
I can't imagine the bumbling policeman chasing this boy through the whole movie.
the cake gag was stupid.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Pedro on July 24, 2011, 03:27:07 PM
Definitely seems like a kids-only affair.  I thought the trailer was unbearable. 
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on September 22, 2011, 07:33:45 PM
the cake gag was stupid.

It reminds me of that one episode of The Simpsons where Homer finds out there is a crayon in his brain that's been shoved up there since he was a kid and that is what has made him stupid.

Then the crayon gets removed and he goes to a "common comedy" movie that is so insipid and stupid that he can't believe people like it.  At one point the Priest in the movie faints into a cake and a person walks up and says "I'll have what HE'S having!"

Scorsese is totally aiming for the ground floor on with this gag.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Alexandro on October 08, 2011, 12:14:12 AM
Hugo "Made For Cineastes" (from Hollywood-Elsewhere)

   
A guy who read my earlier Hugo post and who definitely writes well has conveyed the following: "I saw Martin Scorsese's Hugo at a Chicago test screening earlier this week. Some comments on your posted expectations":

1. "Scorsese's 3D work will be '50s-style, I'm expecting. Lots of House of Wax-y pop-out shots."

Chicago comment: "Not at all. Lots of wide-angle and tracking shots. In fact, there's one tracking shot in the opening 10 minutes that outdoes the Copa shot in Goodfellas in terms of sheer technical razzle-dazzle -- it follows Hugo across and around catwalks, down a ladder, around a spiral slide, through walls, etc. It doesn't have the same narrative effect as the Copa shot, but it left my jaw the floor.

"The most consistently impressive aspect of the 3D is actually the particulate matter Scorsese adds to all the shots in the train station -- amber-hued dust, snow, steam, etc.

"Also, much of the aesthetic is rooted in the wide proscenium framings of silent cinema. This makes a lot of narrative sense once the 'secret' of the film is revealed.

2. 'And it may be a highly satisfying film in this or that way, but this is one of Scorsese's experiments.'

Chicago comment: "Nope. I actually think it may be his most 'personal' film since...I don't know? Without spoiling too much, all the people who know Scorsese are going to be writing about how this is really about him and Thelma Schoonmacher rediscovering Michael Powell in the 70s and their efforts to restore his reputation. I shit you not -- the last act is all about the importance of film preservation. That's before you throw in all the stuff about an outcast kid who watches the world from his window (i.e., Scorsese growing up), trying to avoid getting hit by the local enforcement (Sasha Baron Cohen = the mob), etc.

"Does it work? To a point. Before I saw it, I was willing to write this off as an experiment as well, but it's obvious Scorsese put some heart and soul into this. But you're right -- 'heart' isn't really in Scorsese's wheelhouse. He tries to go full-Spielberg here, but he just doesn't get there. I realize I just made you barf."

3. 'Scorsese doesn't do kid-friendly or family-friendly.'

Chicago comment: "You're right. But, contrary to the trailer's portrayal, this isn't really a kid movie. Frankly, I think kids'll be bored with it. It's a movie made for cineastes.

"The kids are fine (Asa Butterfield is a little stilted), but the showcase performance here is Ben Kingsley's.

"It makes sense they're screening this early. If they try to sell this directly to families, it's going to tank. They really need to get the erudite snobs talking about this one -- unfortunately, The Artist may have the stolen the old-school cineaste cache this might have had."
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: RegularKarate on October 24, 2011, 03:01:06 PM
Newer/better trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sOGdKwoj90o)
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: MacGuffin on November 05, 2011, 10:21:11 PM
Martin Scorsese Calls Filming 'Hugo' in 3D 'An Enjoyable Headache'
Source: THR

The director spoke highly of the third dimension at a screening of his new film, comparing recent advances in the technology to the introduction of color.

Martin Scorsese gave a strong endorsement to 3D and predicted that more innovation is on the way at a Saturday afternoon screening of his new film Hugo, based on the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick.

"Most people have stereoscopic vision so why belittle that element of our existence?" Scorsese said at a post-screening panel with key members of his below the line crew at the Regal 14 in downtown Los Angeles. "Why not use it? Everything moves along and there's no major catastrophe. We're basically headed for holograms. You have to think that way."

Scorsese pointed out that certain technologies that are taken for granted today took years to perfect. For example, he said "there was a mindset against color because . . . people said it didn't look realistic enough."

Director Paul Thomas Anderson moderated the panel, which included editor Thelma Schoonmaker, production designer Dante Ferretti, composer Howard Shore, cinematographer Robert Richardson and effects man Rob Legato.

Scorsese said 3D is "exciting but it demands respect. You really are back to square one. . . We just kept pushing it to see how far we could go. . . We would look at a shot and say, `What could we do to use the depth?' " He summed up the experience this way: "It really was an enjoyable headache."

Hugo, a Paramount release starring Ben Kingsley and Sacha Baron Cohen, opens Nov. 23.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Pubrick on November 06, 2011, 01:53:18 AM
PTA'S NEXT FILM IS GOING TO BE IN 3D!
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: wilder on November 06, 2011, 06:25:22 PM
Martin Scorsese Talks The Endless Possibilities Of 3D With Paul Thomas Anderson At ‘Hugo’ Q&A
via The Playlist

As much a film scholar as a filmmaker, there are few directors better-equipped to discuss the convergence of art and technology than Martin Scorsese. But during a recent Q&A about his latest film, the 3D opus “Hugo,” Scorsese offered a few observations about the past, present and future of entertainment that suggested he’s qualified for another title: futurist. “If everything moves along and there’s no major catastrophes, we’re basically headed towards holograms,” Scorsese said during a panel discussion Saturday. “Why can’t you have Hamlet in 3D who comes out to the audience and does ‘To be or not to be?’ I mean, they do in the theater. You have to think that way. Don’t let the economics, and fashion, inhibit you if you’re being creative.”

In something resembling a film lover’s ultimate fantasy, Scorsese appeared at a preview screening of “Hugo” Saturday afternoon at Los Angeles’ downtown L.A. Live entertainment complex, where he joined Visual Effects Supervisor Robert Legato, Cinematographer Robert Richardson, Composer Howard Shore, Production Designer Dante Ferretti, and Editor Thelma Schoonmaker for an extensive discussion of the film, moderated by none other than filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson. The film itself was in an advanced state of completion, at least in comparison to last month’s preview screening at the New York Film Festival, with only one or two shots still unfinished, and the credits incomplete. But Scorsese indicated that even a passion project like this one is a race to the finish, no matter how seasoned a filmmaker you are.

“It was a lot of fun, and yes it was a headache,” he said to Anderson, who giggled as Scorsese struggled to get comfortable in a seat where the diminutive filmmaker’s feet didn’t touch the ground. “But it was a really enjoyable headache. It’s a discovery with each shot – it was a rethinking about how to make pictures, with of course the obvious element of 3D, but also of a boy’s memory of where he was in the past, and a sense of how to create a heightened impression of Paris in 1929 and 1930. It was arduous, but most of the time, a great deal of fun.”

Although producer Graham King first gave John Logan’s adaptation of Brian Selznick’s book to Scorsese to read, the director said there was a decidedly more personal reason to do the film, independent even of the story’s passionate celebration of classic cinema. “I have a young daughter – she’ll be 12 in a couple of weeks – and so I guess it was sort of two trains running in a way,” he said. “Being with her every day, I just began to see things differently and perceive life and the world around one in a child’s view, through the imagination of a child, the creativity of a child, but also a child’s thoughts and storytelling. So it just seemed to be a very happy coincidence that this story, and also the fact that this story resolves itself through the device of motion pictures.”

Scorsese revealed that the first stop as he undertook “Hugo” was contacting production designer Dante Ferretti to develop the look of the film, whose story took place in Paris in 1929 and 1930. Ferretti said Scorsese perhaps predictably showed him a wide variety of films in order to steer him to what he wanted. “You showed me many, many, many movies, period movies, and it was a big help for me,” he said. “You showed me many movies and said, I like this shot, and so I saw probably 20 movies for just two or three things. But it was very important for me because this is the way in which I work always – and he knows very well what he wants, and I think we did, I hope, so far, something good.”

A cinephile himself, Anderson solicited Scorsese and his collaborators to discuss the creative process, particularly in terms of creating and photographing the film’s central location, a Parisian train station. Even after decades of incredibly accomplished work, however, Scorsese said it was still largely a process of discovery, thanks in no small part to the use of 3D, which was a first for him. “I really honestly don’t know how we thought of it,” Scorsese confessed. “I designed the shots I wanted, and Bob [Richardson] and Dante would tell me and sort of work out a time schedule as to what was going to be ready when.”

VFX supervisor Rob Legato indicated he did a lot of work ahead of time, not just in constructing shots, but virtual locations where Scorsese’s creativity could run free, and then be refined. “We would pre-vis a lot, so prior to the sets being built we created sort of a lighter version of what was created for ‘Avatar’,” Legato explained. “You could pan and tilt the camera, you could move a little mini-crane and figure out and start designing shots – to say, this is too wide, that’s too tight, and we started building it, and we would just pre-build with all of Marty’s ideas. And then we’d bring Bob over and Bob would operate the camera or I would operate the camera and then keep on working on it.”

Legato said that his work continued well into postproduction, as they were whittling down the film into final form. “Pretty much as we were finishing shooting, I would be finishing these pre-vises, and the sets were huge, so as we were shooting we had to figure the best way to get out of this. Sometimes we would have to shorten scenes, we would have elaborate chase scenes and they would have to be boiled down to two or three shots, so we’d go off, talk about it, and it kept on sort of like an organic process we’d just do every day as we were fighting a time schedule.”

Scorsese indicated that the use of 3D was initially a laborious process, but the team quickly adapted to the technology. “The use of 3D is exciting, but it demands a respect,” he said. Richardson agreed that even for experienced filmmakers, they were relative novices, and were forced to make different choices technically in order to get through shooting efficiently. “We hadn’t shot 3D so it was obviously a learning process for us shot by shot,” Richardson said. “We were using two rigs with different lenses so we would just switch rigs prior [to shooting].” Scorsese revealed that switching the lenses initially took 45 minutes, but before long the team got that time down to ten or so. Scorsese said, “We even had a rig put on Larry McConkey with his steadicam. It took him two months to build a rig, to build one of those Segway things, and he rode it on a Segway.”

Thelma Schoonmaker has worked with Scorsese for decades, and she said that the process of editing “Hugo” demanded that she combine past techniques with new technology. “I would cut in the morning just with 2D because my work monitors and my timelines are 2D,” Schoonmaker said. “But then when Marty would come we would always cut in 3D. It was very important for us to do that.”

After Anderson opened up the panel to questions from the audience, the filmmakers received a predictable wealth of compliments on their technical and artistic achievements with the film. After one viewer commented that “Hugo” reminded them what it was like to see a film for the first time, Scorsese talked about how 3D is not just a gimmick, but an important artistic tool which, like so many other advancements in moviemaking, will have to endure many growing pains before it’s fully embraced.

“The first time images started to move, immediately, people wanted color, sound, a big screen, and depth – and that’s just what we’re doing now,” Scorsese said. “Ultimately, it took until 1935 to get Technicolor right, and even then, until 1960 or so, color was only deemed appropriate for musicals, comedies and westerns, no serious, quote-unquote, films. But there was a mindset against color because there were so many attempts at color, from 1895 when they were all hand-tinted. And I think ultimately with the right people behind 3D the way it is now, there are people working in 3D, and other filmmakers who are even more inventive with 3D, for me it’s just another element to tell a story.”

As the Q&A wrapped up, Scorsese said that he thinks a testament to the inevitable success of 3D is the simple fact that in our daily lives, everything we see is already three dimensional. “As I’m sitting here now, I’m seeing you in 3D,” he observed. “Most people have stereo vision, so why belittle that very, very important part of our existence? There’s got to be for all of our technical expertise, a comfortable way of dealing with it. Why not use it?”
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Alexandro on November 23, 2011, 02:23:48 AM
THE VISION THING
BY RICK TETZELI

How Marty Scorsese risked it all and lived to risk again in Hollywood.

AT 69, AN AGE WHEN MOST HOLLYWOOD DIRECTORS have been packed off after a hollow cavalcade of plaudits, roasts, and nostalgic fetes, Martin Scorsese is once again panicked about hitting a deadline. His new movie is Hugo, a 3-D children's movie being released by Paramount Pictures this Thanksgiving weekend, and Scorsese has never before directed in 3-D, nor, God knows, made anything resembling a kid flick. But this is what life is like for Marty, as everyone calls him. The director has achieved the trifecta of a fulfilling, creative life: enough money to do only what truly interests him, enough freedom to attack those projects in a way that is satisfying, and enough appreciation from his peers to tame--just slightly, just ever so slightly--the neurotic beast of self-doubt. After 22 movies, five commercials, 13 documentaries, a handful of music videos, three children, five wives, and 25 studios; after insolvency and misery, after box-office failures and years of going unappreciated; after the one Oscar and all the others he should have won, Marty Scorsese has earned the right that every creative person dreams of: the right never to be bored. And what all this adds up to in his case, what this really means to this particular man, is that he has earned the right to continue to fret every little detail in the world well into the next decade and for as long as he cares to make movies.

So as he sits down for the filmed part of a fastcompany.com interview in his office screening room, a comfortable unostentatious cave surrounded outside by posters of classic films like The Third Man, Citizen Kane, and Ladri di Biciclette (The Bicycle Thief), Hollywood's eminence grise starts off by wanting to get something straight: "Let me ask you: Do I look like Quasimodo? Am I sitting too far down in the chair? The shoulders on this jacket, against these chairs, they can scrunch up so I look like Quasimodo. Okay, is this good?" Yes, Mr. Scorsese. And how are you feeling today?

"I'm good. I'm tired. I'm tired, but in a good way. There's just so much to do. What I'm worried about is, is there confusion in the film? Because there's so many things going on, especially in a movie like this, in 3-D. There's the color timing; Bob Richardson has done the film but he's in Budapest right now shooting another film, and he's got to get the timing right, but he's doing it through Greg Fisher who's living here now, but originally Greg did it with Bob in England, so there's that problem. Rob Legato is living here now for the special effects--he doesn't live here, but he's here in New York till the picture's finished. These special effects are hard! Some take 89 days to render--89 days to render! And what if you don't like it when it comes back? I tell them at a certain point, you've gotta tell me, you've got to say: This is the point of no return, Marty; you've got to make up your mind right now about this facet of the shot! So, you know, that's when you've got to make up your mind."

Scorsese, to pick a side in an endless argument, is America's greatest living director. And yet he still can't make up his damn mind, still gets obsessed, still gets crazed by the same kinds of things that make any creative type nuts. Is he going to get the resources he needs? Will his bosses like what he's doing? Will they give him another chance on another project? How much of his creative vision will get into this project? How much will the powers that be screw with his vision? When does he say "no" to them? When does he say "yes"? Whom does he trust? And how in the world is he going to get away with doing the work he loves for his whole life?

In an era when careers are measured in months rather than decades, Scorsese has reliably delivered for 45 years--but it still isn't easy. "There's always been pressure," he says. "People say you should do it this way, someone else suggests that, yes, there's financing, but maybe you should use this actor. And there are the threats, at the end--if you don't do it this way, you'll lose your box office; if you don't do it that way, you'll never get financed again. . . . 35, 40 years of this, you get beat up." Hollywood has always been a battlefield, as rough as any more-traditional corporate setting.

And yet unlike so many creative geniuses, Scorsese hasn't burned out, he hasn't alienated the people he's worked with, and he's generally not considered a creep. Despite the fact that he's never had a massive box-office hit (Shutter Island is his biggest grosser to date, with $300 million earned worldwide), Paramount decided to give him a reported $85 million to make a 3-D children's movie about a broody child named Hugo Cabret. And while Hugo's success is uncertain (for God's sake, screams conventional wisdom, it's two hours long, it's dark, it takes place in France, and aren't people over live-action 3-D?), Scorsese is well on his way toward funding his next project, Silence--an adaptation of a book about 17th-century missionaries. In Japan! (Which is yet another foreign country, people!). Of course the spectacles audiences will wear to see Hugo will be a cross between Scorsese's own and the flimsy 3-D glasses of yore. Any man who can get this stuff financed--never mind make great art from the material--has clearly learned a trick or two. Scorsese has sweated the details of his career as thoroughly as the details of his movies. As he explains here, in his own rat-a-tat style, the man knows a few things about constructing a life of meaningful work--things that apply to anyone in the business of trying to craft a creative life.

RESPECT THE PAST
Nobody talks about the movies the way Marty Scorsese can talk about the movies. His conversation bounds from John Cassavetes (a mentor) to Steven Spielberg (a friend) to Akira Kurosawa (an acquired taste) to George Melies, the silent-film director and innovator whose story forms the basis of Hugo. "When we begin a film," says Dante Ferretti, the Oscar-winning production designer of Kundun, Gangs of New York, The Age of Innocence, and now Hugo, "I read the script and then Marty shows me films. Many, many films, with many different references he wants me to think of for the look of our movie. He carries all these films in his head. He shows me whole films for just one shot, telling me, 'Remember this image, that's the feel I want.'"

Scorsese revels in such details. He likes to speak of directors on three levels: their films, their careers, and their lives within and without Hollywood. He is fascinated by how these men (and the occasional woman) made it--or didn't make it--through the gauntlet. In 1995, he narrated and codirected a documentary about their careers called A Personal Journey With Martin Scorsese Through American Movies. It's a career how-to video disguised as the greatest lesson in U.S. film history. Going back to D.W. Griffith, through Howard Hawks and Billy Wilder, and up to modern-day filmmakers, he looks at how these "smugglers, iconoclasts, and illusionists" managed to get some version of their creative visions on-screen. "I was mainly interested in the ones who circumvented the system to get their movies done," he explains in the video. "To survive, to master the creative process, each had to develop his own strategy."

For someone whose own innovations are numerous--the introduction of a certain New York street vernacular in Mean Streets and Who's That Knocking at My Door, the intimacy of the boxing scenes in Raging Bull, the rush and flow of Goodfellas, and now, with Hugo, a reinterpretation or rediscovery of how 3-D can bolster a film's beauty without intruding on the story--Scorsese understands himself as a product of, and a battler against, the Hollywood system. He draws clear lines from classics past to his own work: Nicolas Cage's EMT in Bringing Out the Dead is "a modern-day saint, like what Rossellini did in Europa '51"; the fight sequences in Raging Bull draw from, yes, the ballet in The Red Shoes. His comfort with the past is so deep that he romanticizes the old-Hollywood-studio system, where directors worked for one studio churning out at least a movie a year, if not three or four. "There was always a part of me that wanted to be an old-time director," he says, laughing. "But I couldn't do that. I'm not a pro."
 
TRUST YOUR CONFIDANTS...
Ferretti is one of Scorsese's trusted advisers at this point, along with director of photography Bob Richardson, costume designer Sandy Powell, casting director Ellen Lewis, and, above all, editor Thelma Schoonmaker. As much as possible, he enjoys working with the same crew. He enjoys working with the same actors, as well. First came Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, and Joe Pesci; more recently it's been Ben Kingsley and, of course, Leonardo DiCaprio; in Silence, he'll turn once again to Daniel Day-Lewis.
"Any great artist needs a lot of support," says Schoonmaker. "We're a group that is totally committed to his high standards, and we understand what he's after." The creative process of a director, unlike that of an actor, is essentially collaborative. And some of Scorsese's greatest creative moments have come about because of suggestions by those closest to him. Watching some early takes on Raging Bull, British director Michael Powell remarked to Scorsese that "there's something wrong about the color of those red gloves." That, says Scorsese, was when he knew the film had to be shot in black and white. When Scorsese was scouting a location for his great Five Points battle in Gangs of New York, Ferretti pushed him toward the CineCitta production facilities in Rome. "We were in Venice talking about this," says Ferretti." We had considered New York, but there's nothing in the city that looks the way it did back in the 1860s. We thought about Canada, but it's too cold. So we decided to go to Rome to check out CineCitta . I loved this idea, since I live here [in Italy]. Before we went, I called up a restaurant, a good one just outside CineCitta, and I said, 'Listen, I'm bringing Mr. Martin Scorsese, and it's important that we eat well. Do you understand me? It's very important that we eat well!' So we went to CineCitta--Marty, Thelma, all of us--and after, we went to the restaurant. And that is why we shot Gangs at CineCitta! I mean, of course there were other reasons . . . "

...BUT NOT TOO MUCH
"There are two kinds of power you have to fight," Scorsese says. "The first is the money, and that's just our system. The other is the people close around you, knowing when to accept their criticism, knowing when to say no." All directors face pressure to make their films shorter, and Scorsese simply cannot deliver a short film. He hasn't made a sub-two-hour movie in 25 years, since the 119-minute-long The Color of Money. For children's movies, the industry standard is to keep it under 90 minutes. Hugo is a two-hour visual feast, with stretches that even some adults at its New York Film Festival premiere screening found taxing. "Some may suggest--how can I put this?--that there's an indulgence on my part," says Scorsese. "But sometimes something needs time to work on a viewer. People talk about length, but it's not just length. It's pacing and rhythm. I've done some of the fastest pictures--the sequences in Goodfellas, and particularly those in Casino, which is a three-hour film that moves very fast."

It's not just a question of ignoring what may seem like completely sensible suggestions. You've also got to know when a collaboration has run its course. "Over the years, people change and they want other things. You've got to understand when a collaborator isn't satisfied anymore," says Scorsese. "Michael Ballhaus--he was a lifesaver for me, an extraordinary cameraman who helped me relearn how to make a motion picture on After Hours. The last picture he did with me was The Departed. It was a very tough picture to make. We had lots of problems with actors' schedules, and I was constantly reworking the script. For The Aviator, the dialogue was very straightforward. But in The Departed, it was not, and with those actors! I mean, that's why you want them, but that doesn't make it easy. So Michael decided he wanted to do other things. That was very sad."

PLAY THE CORPORATE GAME
Sometimes you just have to give in to the system. Scorsese comfortably admits that he made at least two movies for calculated business reasons: The Color of Money, in 1986, and Cape Fear in 1991. The early '80s were difficult for Scorsese. "For a long time," says Schoonmaker, "our films were not recognized and did not make money--which was a serious problem." As much as critics now admire Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and even The King of Comedy, none of those movies ignited the box office. The Last Temptation of Christ had been ginned up in 1983, but six weeks before production was to begin, the studio pulled the plug. Scorsese's follow-up to The King of Comedy was After Hours, a quirky comedy starring Griffin Dunne. The film was shot on budget and on time over 40 nights in SoHo and did fairly well as a low-budget film. But none of that mattered. "They saw me as outside Hollywood," Scorsese remembers. "'You're gone, you're in independent cinema now, on the outside from now on.'"

Enter The Color of Money. Paul Newman was interested in doing a sequel to The Hustler, the 1961 movie he had starred in with Jackie Gleason. Scorsese abhorred the idea of doing a sequel to anything but says he was intrigued by the character of Eddie Felson: "Again, it was a guy who took too many risks, overstepped the line, didn't understand his own self-destruction, and didn't catch on until it was too late." So he took the job, as a way of proving to Hollywood that he could make a box-office winner. "It was a calculated business move. I needed the new studio heads to think they could give me another chance, finance me again."

Color hit at the box office, and Paul Newman took home the Oscar for best actor. As a result, at least the way Scorsese tells the story, he won the right to finally make his passion project, The Last Temptation. But the tortured production drained Scorsese financially. "I was never interested in the accumulation of money, you know. And I never had a mind for business," he explains. "There have been serious issues with money over the years. I have a nice house now, in New York. But there have been major, major issues. In the mid-'80s it was pathetic, I mean, my father would help me out. I couldn't go out, I couldn't buy anything. But it's all my own doing."

Three confidants pushed him into Cape Fear: his agent, then-CAA chief Michael Ovitz, the best career counselor Scorsese ever had; De Niro, enthralled by the role of Max Cady, the psychotic criminal bent on revenge; and Spielberg. "We were down in Tribeca at dinner," Scorsese remembers, "and I said, 'Steven, I can't do this, I hate the script.' He said, 'Marty, if you did the picture, would the family live at the end?' I nodded yes. So he said, "If that's the case, do whatever you want up until that! And, oh, by the way, this guy over here? He's the scriptwriter. Wesley [Strick], meet Marty.'" He took the movie, with Strick as a willing participant. "We tried to push the genre as far as we could," Scorsese remembers. "We pushed it as good as we could. And I'll never forget the call I got from Ovitz after we'd done it. I pick up the phone and he says, 'Congratulations, Marty, you're solvent! Now don't go screw it up again.'"

DEFY THEM WHEN YOU MUST
In the editing room, in the waning weeks of a production, everything is on the line. The studio pushes harder than ever for the film to satisfy its box-office needs. Actors, through their agents, plead for more screen time. Colleagues have their own ideas, and then there's the despair of the director realizing all the mistakes he made during those precious, long-gone days of shooting. "This is when you see I ain't got certain scenes and I wish I had them," says Scorsese. "Maybe we didn't have the money. Maybe I didn't have time, but if I had chosen to shoot other things other ways, I would have had the time. Whatever--now it's too late. Let's say you make 25 or 30 decisions on a particular scene. If one or two big ones were off, they can ruin everything about that scene. And you only discover this in the editing room."

At this point, he says, everything is focused on one thing: "What does the film need, what does the scene need?" In every movie, whether a commercial play like The Color of Money or a passion project like The Age of Innocence, "there is an essence to the project that you must protect. You cannot make concessions on that, the story cannot be tampered with past that point; you have to fight off every power or force around you."

This is when Scorsese retreats to a long dialogue with his one constant collaborator, Schoonmaker, who has edited every film of his since Raging Bull. Unlike his other collaborators, Schoonmaker is not a child of the movies. Whereas Ferretti and Scorsese can go on and on about films they watched during their isolated childhoods, Schoonmaker grew up intending to be a diplomat and fell into editing after being chided in the early 1960s by State Department interviewers for her anti-apartheid views. Starting with their time together at New York University, she learned everything she knows about films from Scorsese, who also introduced her to her husband (Powell, the British director). "Thelma stays loyal to me, and to what I'm trying to do with the story, through everything. We'll say anything to each other in the editing room--anything," he says, smiling as he raises those famous eyebrows. "What can be done? What shouldn't be done? If the studio is saying this, maybe what they really mean is this. There are so many issues, it can get very tricky, very political. She'll see me getting tired and giving in, let's say, to someone who has my ear and is very influential, to someone who uses threats. There are a lot of those more and more now, and she will say, 'Be careful, because this is going to harm the whole thing, the whole project.' She gets me back on track if I'm going off."

"Marty knows Hollywood very well," says Schoonmaker, "and he handles them brilliantly. I could never do it. I've heard them say things in meetings--once someone said, 'Why don't you take Gone With the Wind and apply it to this movie?' I swear to God! I would walk out, but he just takes it in stride. His neighborhood prepared him for dealing with Hollywood. And he will fight to the death for a film not to be ruined."

"Thelma and I," says Scorsese, "we think alike in terms of culture and politics. The resistance is always there, that '60s thing we grew up with. Not hippies or anything! I'm not a hippie, not that I had anything against them. We have a way, we can tell when something smells too much of being a part of the process, and we don't want to get too close to that. Sometimes you wake up and you've gone there. But then you move on, watch that the next time you're more careful."

FIND ANOTHER OUTLET--OR EIGHT
Here's a little list of the side jobs that Martin Scorsese, who turned 69 this November 17, has been involved in over the past two years.
1) A Letter to Elia, a doc he directed about film director Elia Kazan.
2) Public Speaking, a doc he directed about writer Fran Lebowitz.
3) Boardwalk Empire, HBO's epic gangster series set in Atlantic City. He directed the first episode and now executive-produces.
4) Living in the Material World, the George Harrison doc he directed.
5) Surviving Progress, a doc he produced, based on the book A Short History of Progress.
6) La Tercera Orilla, a 2012 film directed by Argentine director Celina Murga, who was paired with Scorsese in the Rolex Mentor and Protege Arts Initiative. He will executive-produce her movie.
7) A new Terence Winter project for HBO about a drug-fueled movie exec in 1970s New York; Scorsese will direct the first episode and executive-produce the series (with Mick Jagger).
8 ) The Film Foundation, which has restored more than 550 old movies and basically salvaged the silent-film era. Scorsese is the founder and chairman--and is personally involved in the restoration of 10 films this fall, including four silents directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

There are two reasonable responses to this kind of list:
1) You should be doing more with whatever creative gift you have.
2) As Tim Van Patten, an executive producer and director of Boardwalk Empire, says: "I don't know how he does it. He's always juggling. I have enough trouble doing this one job and having a life."

This work on the side, especially the music documentaries, has become increasingly vital for Scorsese. "There was a point with The Departed where I was ready to throw in the towel. I wanted to make the movie I thought the script was about, and I thought the studio wanted something else. I figured, Jeez, at this point in my career, I just want to make films where, granted I'll stay within budget, but I just wanna make the movie I wanna make. You're gonna come to me, especially on a project like this, my home turf sort of, and then you're asking for these actors and this kind of movie? I thought this might be the end, just let me out of here and I'm going to shoot the Rolling Stones on stage, that's it."

He did wind up making The Departed, as you may have heard. But since then, besides shooting the Rolling Stones in their most visceral stage performance in decades (Shine a Light), he also directed a great Bob Dylan doc (No Direction Home) and the George Harrison feature. These films are made on a much smaller budget than, say, Shutter Island or Hugo. But with less money comes more freedom. "When I get frustrated with the commercial playing field of feature films, I go to these movies. I have had the need, more and more, to explore the spiritual or religious. Elements of that find their way into my music films. Music is for me the purest art form. There's a transcendent power to it, to all kinds, to rock 'n' roll. It takes you to another world, you feel it in your body, you feel a change come over you and a desire to live," he says, laughing at his enthusiasm. "That's transcendence." And a far cry from the mundane battles with Hollywood. "The Stones," he says, "working the stage like that at their age, strong and visceral, pure movement and sound and images. That's strong and powerful and defiant."

GIVE BACK AND LEARN
For a filmmaker so conscious of the history of his art, it's hardly surprising that Scorsese is a generous mentor. As Van Patten and Winter were setting up Boardwalk Empire, Scorsese regularly invited them to his offices for screenings. "He's this legend and all that," says Van Patten, "but you get past that instantly because Marty's such a regular guy. Whenever you're with him it's an education. He started us out by meeting once a week, for a double feature or a single movie. He never puts down a film. He'll find something positive about everything. We were watching this one movie called Pete Kelly's Blues [directed by Jack Webb, star of the '60s cop series Dragnet]. After, Marty says, 'Well, this is not Jack Webb's best work,' and I'm thinking, Jack Webb? Really? Does Jack Webb even have best work?' But that's the way he is."

"At this point," says Scorsese, "I find that the excitement of a young student or filmmaker can get me excited again. I like showing them things and seeing how their minds open up, seeing the way their response then gets expressed in their own work." Hugo itself is something of a lesson in film history for kids, with its plot centered around Melies, whose work, which Scorsese has helped restore, is featured in the movie in a run of strange and wild clips.

His biggest teaching project these days is his 12-year-old daughter, Francesca. He's trying to give her a cultural foundation that seems less readily available these days. "I'm concerned about a culture where everything is immediate and then discarded," he says. "I'm exposing her to stuff like musicals and Ray Harryhausen spectaculars, Frank Capra films. I just read her a children's version of The Iliad. I wanted her to know where it all comes from. Every story, I told her, every story is in here, The Iliad."

"Three months ago," he remembers, gesturing to the room around us, "I had a screening here for the family. Francesca had responded to Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, so I decided to try It Happened One Night. I had kind of dismissed the film, which some critics love, of course, but then I realized I had only seen it on a small screen, on television. So I got a 35-millimeter print in here, and we screened it. And I discovered it was a masterpiece. The way Colbert and Gable move, their body language. It's really quite remarkable!"

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/161/martin-scorsese
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: wilder on November 23, 2011, 02:48:46 AM
Thank you for posting this!

this is good news

Scorsese is well on his way toward funding his next project, Silence--an adaptation of a book about 17th-century missionaries.

this sounds cool

7) A new Terence Winter project for HBO about a drug-fueled movie exec in 1970s New York; Scorsese will direct the first episode and executive-produce the series (with Mick Jagger).

and I was wondering what happened to this girl

6) La Tercera Orilla, a 2012 film directed by Argentine director Celina Murga, who was paired with Scorsese in the Rolex Mentor and Protege Arts Initiative. He will executive-produce her movie.

(http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1723/scorsesecelina.jpg)

Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Ghostboy on November 25, 2011, 11:25:50 AM
This movie is sooooo good! I hated the trailers, hated the title change and was generally wary of the entire venture, but it's just great. I saw it in 2D, and it looked absolutely stunning. I can't imagine it looking better in 3D, but I'll probably go see it again in that format just to compare. It was almost 100% true to the book, with just a little bit more added for Sasha Baron Coen to do. I really really loved it.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Reelist on November 25, 2011, 11:35:07 AM
cool! I wasn't sure how to feel about it either, but I really want to see it now after reading Ebert's review (http://rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111121/REVIEWS/111119982)

Definitely gotta make it to the theater for this.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Figure 8 on November 29, 2011, 12:56:13 PM
I'm really surprised more people aren't talking about this one yet.  I, too, was highly skeptical going in; everything I'd seen from it was awful (that clip with Sacha Baron Cohen chasing the kid... the music (which thankfully is nowhere in the movie), the promotional campaign, etc.).  However, my fears were dashed almost immediately.  I saw it in 3D, and I can't recommend it enough.  The opening shot is completely engrossing and engulfing.  I'm not much for 3D on the whole, but this was an incredible experience, and easily the best 3D film I've seen.  It wasn't that the movie was tacky, throwing in stuff to pop out of the screen, but it felt like Scorsese's camera work (which still feels very much like his stuff) has the 3D view in mind, and it frames things and moves around in ways that cater to the audience's perspective.  All in all, though, it's just a really amazing movie.  I haven't really loved a Scorsese movie in years, but I'm excited to see this one again.  One of the best of the year, for sure.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: matt35mm on November 29, 2011, 09:33:43 PM
The 3D is really good in this because of the smoke and dust and snow and environmental texture such as that to give a 3D sense of the world, rather than just have things pop out at you. So it doesn't look like a pop-up book.

I really liked this movie. It's really sweet and beautiful and all the George Melies stuff is really touching. Lots of great faces in the movie, and this version of Paris is so dreamy.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: O. on November 29, 2011, 10:04:49 PM
I guess you shouldn't judge a movie by its trailer but gaaaaaaaaawd... have some decency. To see a 96% rating on a movie with less than a quarter of that percentage given to its trailer quality is disturbing.

I certainly want to see it now though.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on November 30, 2011, 09:22:15 AM
The one thing that really makes me want to see this is remembering back to movies set in the period that I watched as a kid, things like "Oliver" or basically any period film starring a rebellious kiddo.
those were things that didn't offend my parents and brought a sort of purity out of the woodwork.

I know this is being brought to us as a Kids' movie, which may be misleading and, in my experience, alienating to a larger audience base.  But I do hope that kids end up liking this movie.

Personally, I look very forward to seeing it.  Knowing it's based on a book give me comfort that it's not just going to be only for cineastes but for those who like a good story.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Ravi on November 30, 2011, 10:43:11 PM
When I was in college I rented this Melies DVD set (http://www.amazon.com/Melies-Magician-Georges-M%C3%83%C2%A9li%C3%83-s/dp/B00005UM26/ref=sr_1_6?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1322714310&sr=1-6) from the library and was utterly enchanted. He achieved amazing effects with the most primitive film technology. Trip to the Moon was from 1902! The trailer for Hugo didn't look very good, but I can't wait to see it now that I've heard great things about it.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: matt35mm on December 01, 2011, 12:45:23 AM
Yeah, really, everyone, forget the trailer. It has nothing to do with the way the movie actually is.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: chere mill on December 01, 2011, 02:13:51 AM
this made me want to rewatch martin scorsese's a personal journey through american movies. hugo is a gushing love letter to cinema, especially the early years. genuinely moving in it's sincere appreciation of filmmaking. this is scorsese at his warmest and it's a joy to watch.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Neil on December 02, 2011, 01:46:29 AM
I saw this tonight and I can't really find the words to explain this but I'll try.

The 3D is definitely better than anything I have seen in 3D(avatar and the new hp are really my only other comparisons ).

Let me preface this with saying I know nothing about Melies.


I almost erupted in tears of joy at least five times during this film.  We see a positivist view of film that is so god damn endearing it will make you explode with the same joy you had when first got into cinema.

The best thing about the movie is that film is a mere background element to the over all encouragement or romanticism in the movie. Since Hugo is not involved or familiar with that world (the world of film making/hollywood) his dreams are not compromised, whatever they may be.  Hugo still sees and believes in the magic of the act of entertaining someone for a while, or transporting someone to a new environment and taking them for a ride.  Magic is the term here.  And we're not talking about the debate of illusionist VS. Magicians. We are talking about focus. We are talking about attention.  

The types of dreams that capture your attention span.  The type of magic that simply blows your mind and makes you believe in something pure since it takes your mind off of cynical doubt. It makes you see that a grand narrative doesn't require an absolute Truth or view of the universe, or of truth itself, it simply requires searching for the joy in what you love. Finding your place amongst the peers who love the things you love while also understanding that through that experience there is always a time where one can come face to face with the opposing view that mint suggest you don't matter or you can't make a difference.  

This movie says fuck those people. This movie says those people are out to ruin everything they can.  This movie also shows that some people who were once brilliant creators can also get caught up in the doubt, the criticism and the cynicism that people eventually conjure up. It gets conjured up for great reason, but this movie shows that all that shit after the fact doesn't hold as much magic and beauty as what gets conjured up. IMO



So what I'm trying to say is if I ever have children they will see this film and 'the red balloon' on repeat throughout their adolescence.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on December 05, 2011, 12:06:52 PM
This movie was great.
I know that people say it's the "Best use of 3-D in any movie since Avatar", and I'm not going to disagree.  The flashy stuff mostly comes right in the first 15 minutes and after that its mostly a subtle inclusion.
The acting was good on all fronts, and I found Asa Butterfield believable, which was most important.
The only negatives I can think of is there was A LOT of pregnant pause when the audience was waiting for characters to say something.  It was like "uh-huh AND..." which was not fun to have to experience.  There was also plenty of ADR at certain points where the film could have sounded more natural, but I'm not really going to get into that.

What I liked most about this film, even though it shifted focus, was that it was about not giving up on your dreams but made in a way that adults could relate to.  The flashbacks with Melies showed all his sets and whatnot in color, and though I didn't believe that at the time they would spend money to color up these old costumes, you knew that the film critic as a child saw them in color in his imagination.

This film looked great, even with all the CGI, and mostly I'm just glad the whole thing wasn't "here's a Kid in a Train Station with a Robot getting chased around by Borat"
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Pubrick on December 06, 2011, 04:04:53 AM
I didn't believe that at the time they would spend money to color up these old costumes, you knew that the film critic as a child saw them in color in his imagination.

so you think that because films were made in black and white that every costume ever used in a film back then was actually devoid of all colour?

isn't it possible that to get different shades of greys it was necessary to use colour costumes anyway, and not to mention that costumes are by default made of material that USUALLY comes with a colour already.. i mean, not every cloth material in the world is white, unless they're using bedsheets to make every costume..

 i'm pretty sure colour always existed on the other side of the lens, if not yet on ours.

Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on December 06, 2011, 11:41:05 AM
i'm pretty sure colour always existed on the other side of the lens, if not yet on ours.

Where's the evidence?
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Neil on December 06, 2011, 06:28:16 PM
i'm pretty sure colour always existed on the other side of the lens, if not yet on ours.

Where's the evidence?

Personally, not knowing much about fashion; i assume that color has been taken to extravagant levels throughout many of the previous centuries.

With that being said, Hollywood has always been about the appearance of being extravagant and larger than life.  We all know that if you want to keep that myth alive you have to appear that way in front of the lens and when the camera shuts off.


Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Ravi on December 06, 2011, 11:29:33 PM
i'm pretty sure colour always existed on the other side of the lens, if not yet on ours.

(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8405/calvinandhobbesdad1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on December 07, 2011, 12:07:29 AM
(http://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/3829_5.jpg)
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: samsong on December 09, 2011, 01:19:03 AM
i don't get it.

there are worthwhile moments and scorsese in film history and preservation propaganda mode is fine but fuck i can't understand what all the gushing is over.  if scorsese expressing his love of cinema is coming across as something new in this film then either everyone in the world has never seen one of his films or no one paid much attention.  is it because it's more plainly stated that it's held in such focused regard with hugo?

everything in this film that isn't immediately centered around george melies/movies is crap, an excuse for a plot to legitimize an essay on the importance of film history that's at the heart of this movie for broader audiences.  literally everything outside of that feels like an afterthought.  themes of maintaining dreams and finding purpose in life are conveyed so tepidly they might as well not have been there.  the screenplay seems to be mostly at fault since scorsese appears to be firing on all cylinders aesthetically, though i found the 3d to be distracting and mostly superfluous   (the clock pendulum being the worst offender.)  as gorgeous (but ever so plastic) as this movie tends to be i was uninvolved and uninterested for most of its running time.

maybe i need to see this again but as of now, i'm disconcerted and confused as to why this movie is so beloved.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: analogzombie on December 11, 2011, 03:27:37 PM
This was my first... and probably last, 3D movie.

I liked the film. What's most amazing about it is what's already been mentioned: that Scorsese seems to have tricked the studio into giving him $170 million to make a movie about the early days of film making disguised as a Holiday children's adventure. I do like how Scorsese used the process of 3D to mirror Melies pioneering work in special effects. I thought that worked quite well, and totally understand why he chose this subject for experimentation in 3D.

still say it's a gimmick and not the future of cinema, but that was said about talkies too I guess.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: polkablues on December 11, 2011, 05:15:09 PM
There was one sublime moment of 3D in the film, when Sasha Baron Cohen caught Hugo and Hit-Girl together, and as he's questioning the boy, he's gradually leaning down closer to him, and the way he seems to be slowly emerging from the screen and hanging over the audience does an amazing job of reflecting the intimidation that Hugo feels in that moment.  Beyond that, it's still gimmicky and unnecessary.  The movie was good, though.  Very sweet, very moving.  I would call it Scorcese's best film since Casino.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on December 15, 2011, 11:32:14 PM
I didn't believe that at the time they would spend money to color up these old costumes, you knew that the film critic as a child saw them in color in his imagination.

so you think that because films were made in black and white that every costume ever used in a film back then was actually devoid of all colour?

isn't it possible that to get different shades of greys it was necessary to use colour costumes anyway, and not to mention that costumes are by default made of material that USUALLY comes with a colour already.. i mean, not every cloth material in the world is white, unless they're using bedsheets to make every costume..

 i'm pretty sure colour always existed on the other side of the lens, if not yet on ours.




I'm just saying the production probably didn't have to spend money to color the giant lobster costumes red back then.  maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: RegularKarate on December 16, 2011, 01:34:06 PM
I'm just saying the production probably didn't have to spend money to color the giant lobster costumes red back then.  maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

I still don't think you understand what everyone is saying.  What color did you think that Lobster costume originally was?  They probably got to pick what colors they were using in the first place so why not just go with the color that you want the grey to represent the closest?
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on December 17, 2011, 01:50:55 AM
   I understand, that's just my idea of something that was possibly put in as a flourish.  I'm not saying it was or wasn't made to be a certain color, and at this point, I don't get why anyone would think I'm not understanding of choices made in the production of films.  Even the blood in "Psycho" was chocolate syrup.  Look back, and in my review I said "I didn't believe", which is just an opinion, not a matter of fact. (also, in this film, didn't Helen McCrory's character say that they would sometimes color the film by hand?)
   What does this even have to do with this thread as a whole?  I've been coming here for years & stating opinions and all the sudden people are trying to explain "color existed before it did in film" and that's not even contradictory to what I stated in the first place.  
   In fact, I had a discussion with a friend just tonite who said that even when silent films were being made that the directors would make the costumes and sets and decorate them in the colors that they would be in actual life because their color would appear as different shades of grey on the film.  Didn't really consider that possibility while watching the movie though. So sure, it may be something I had misconceptions about, but it doesn't mean I thought the world was "devoid of all color".  
  Think about it though: if you were producing a black & white film yourself, and you had to make a costume out of paper mache that was going to represent a light color, would you spend money on paint to get it all green or red or purple or orange or whatever or just keep it that weird shade of off-white and save a couple bucks?

Anyways, done debating this.  I'd like to know what more people thought of the movie and what made it special to them.  If you care to keep on making a debate about a small detail in my description involving my feelings on the film and consider this a deflection, go ahead.  If you actually just want to talk about the film, that's what the thread's about, no? So yeah. You can do that too.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Ravi on December 18, 2011, 11:19:07 PM
Screenshots of The Man who Wasn't There in Color (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/manwho.htm). Much of the wardrobe and set design is shades of gray or very faded color. Not sure if this is how most black and white films were shot, but that's not really part of the Hugo discussion.

I thought that shot of SBC hovering over us was a fantastic use of 3D. Even better than that opening "hey, we need to justify our use of 3D sequence." The 3D was done well, though not integral to watching the movie.

Film buffs will appreciate this film, though I'm not sure who else will. I saw it with a friend who thought it was just okay, while I liked it a lot. Melies' flashback was particularly moving.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Sleepless on December 19, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
TMWWT is irrelevant to the discussion. It looks like some color correction has already been done to those images, and it was likely designed and shot in such a away that the film would retain its monochromatic aesthetic even if the distributor ultimately balked at a b&w release.

I won't pretend to know the intricate details of pre-color film production, but I've got to imagine that budgetary concerns on some productions didn't necessarily allow for colorful props or costumes since they knew the color wouldn't actually be seen on the screen. Surely filmmakers then as now would be hesitant to waste money on something the audience wouldn't actually be aware of. But yes, if they had elaborate colors available for the same price, then of course it makes sense they'd use them to get as authentic a shade of grey as possible.

I am seeing this tonight. Tres excited.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Sleepless on December 21, 2011, 06:11:24 AM
Talk about depressing. No, not Hugo, but the fact that 3 of the 5 trailers before the movie were rereleases of classic movies coming back to the theaters in 3D: Beauty and the Beast, Star Wars and Titanic. Unfortunately, I remain sure that 3D is in fact a fad and the sooner it dies a death, the better. As others have already pointed out, Scorsese does use 3D better than most thanks to including snow, dust and particles to add depth to the air (which was part of made Avatar's 3D so successful) and the way he moves his camera (and of course he moves his camera better than most anyway). In terms of spectacle, the shots which stick in my mind the most are the opening shots above Paris, along the platform and following Hugo through the walls - as well as the two close-ups which make both the Inspector and Melies appear larger than life. Those tracking shots would have probably looked equally awesome were they in 2D and the powerful close ups could have been just as impactful in IMAX. Maybe part of the problem with non-IMAX 3D is that you see the edge of the frame/screen. When the Inspector leers down over the audience, for example, it was certainly intimidating, but I was distracted by the fact that the top of his head was cut off, thereby ruining the effect of the 3D to an extent.

I don't know what Scorsese is trying to say with this movie. The Lumiere brothers thought (or said) that cinema was just a passing fad. Clearly that's not the case. Is Scorsese trying to make the statement here that 3D is not (as I've hopefully suggested) a passing fad either?

OVerall I liked the film, and I left the theatre with a sense of wonder as if I had fallen in love with film all over again, but I fail to recognize Hugo as a masterpiece. Don't get me wrong, the direction, the acting was all superb. Of course I love the cinephile elements to it (I had virtually not idea what to expect on that when I headed in) and seeing Melies' films rendered in viewmaster-style 3D was a magical experience. Maybe it's because I came to this with some expectations (or at least knowledge) that it would delve into the early history of cinema, but for whatever reason I really didn't feel that the film worked on a structural level at all. It just seemed too choppy and didn't really hold together for me. It would focus on the automaton for 20 mins, then Melies, etc. Yes, it was all ultimately connected, but watching it as a whole, I found it quite jarring how it moved from one aspect to another. The plummy British accents annoyed me too, IT'S SET IN FRANCE!!! In particular, SBC's voice constantly slipping back and forth between Inspector Clouseau and Russell Brand was quite annoying. When the kids were reading the book in the library and the film shifted into VO, it sounded and felt like we were watching a lecture. I wasn't particularly into the vignettes with the adults who spend their days in the station either. I get that those moments are supposed to be reminiscent of early cinema skits, but I didn't really feel they added a great deal.

All that said, however, my come away is that this is a good film. Not great, in my opinion, but I hope that it's a film that kids really truly love. They are after all the target audience, so for them it may be far more staggered by it than I was. I really hope so, because how many films nowadays really inspire a sense of magic or love of cinema? Incredibly few. In an age of digital effects and 3D, it's inspiring to feel such a rush from a film which pulls back the curtain on early cinema's magic and how groundbreaking effects of the time were achieved.

Of course, this being Scorsese, there were plenty of neat movie references hidden in there which I was able to appreciate even if I couldn't tell you what film exactly was being referenced.

To add further comment to the whole black and white argument, while I stand by my previous comments in the above post, I think it's important to note that when we see Tabard in flashback, the color is saturated to give it the feel of an early color photograph, yet when he enters Melies' studio he is met by a burst of color obviously meant to create a overwhelming brightness in comparison to the outside (non-filmmaking) world. Regardless of whether filmmakers would actually have painted paper mache lobster consumes in red for b&w movies back in the day or not, the colors in this scene are there because of production design to create a reaction in the Hugo audience more than anything else.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on December 21, 2011, 08:25:09 AM
Regardless of whether filmmakers would actually have painted paper mache lobster consumes in red for b&w movies back in the day or not, the colors in this scene are there because of production design to create a reaction in the Hugo audience more than anything else.

EXACTLY.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: md on December 24, 2011, 09:04:07 PM
Anyone else catch the Scorsese cameo?
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Reelist on December 28, 2011, 11:43:29 AM
Anyone else catch the Scorsese cameo?
(http://static.moviefanatic.com/images/gallery/martin-scorsese-directs-hugo.jpg)


Happy Birthday to Cinema! (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/the-birthday-of-the-movies.html)


Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on December 28, 2011, 11:22:37 PM
I can't tell what's thicker, the mustache or the eyebrows
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: malkovich on December 29, 2011, 11:17:09 AM
Quote
I can't tell what's thicker, the mustache or the eyebrows

The eyebrows. Always the eyebrows.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Pozer on December 29, 2011, 02:41:44 PM
Quote
I can't tell what's thicker, the mustache or the eyebrows

The eyebrows. Always the eyebrows.

don't be thick in front of me, mal. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOmvD7UUgX4)
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: malkovich on December 30, 2011, 03:02:13 AM
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvdzxbKmZ91qejuea.gif)
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Alexandro on January 28, 2012, 06:43:13 PM
I'm still pretty vague about how I feel with this movie. I don't know wether to celebrate it's obvious disregard for traditional structure or go with my initial feeling, which was unsatisfactory. Also, the 3d was so good it was distracting. Really, it was just too fucking good. Scorsese has always been flashy and I've always love his films for that so I don't have a problem with the way he really thought out all these shots in 3d to make them work in 3d. But damn it was hard to keep track of things when most of the time I was thinking "holy shit that is so cool".

Beyond that, I agree with the comment about the long pauses between dialogues. That surprised me and put me off because it's so weird coming from the Scorsese-Schoonmaker team. I would bet you could trim 20 minutes of this movies with just those pauses. And most of the Sacha Baron Cohen's stuff was superfluous, particularly his coming back as the bad guy at the end. Some of it was not funny at all.

Yet I also share the sentiment and the experience of being about to cry for at least three times when the movie became about cinema itself. The honesty of the whole thing is almost heartbreaking, and I think Kingsley was really good in this performance. Don't know if anyone has read Ebert's review of this movie but his take on how this could be Scorsese's most personal film, almost autobiographical is pretty spot on.

It's a beautiful film to look at and listen to (this is the first of Howard Shore's scores for Marty that stands out for me) and the performances are great. To be honest what I now see as flaws (the weird structure, the "lecture" quality of the film history segments, etc...) may be later seen as wins. But I'm pretty sure a lot of the Baron Cohen and his dog stuff could be left out and no one would miss it. I'm curious as to how kids actually react to it, anyone has seen this with a young kid?
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: tpfkabi on January 29, 2012, 01:12:13 PM
this could be Scorsese's most personal film, almost autobiographical is pretty spot on.

CBS Sunday Morning had a piece on Scorsese this morning and a separate piece on the author of the book. They showed an automaton a lot like the one in the movie and it is actually quite interesting for me to think of how someone would make something like that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57367902/martin-scorsese-on-hugo-a-very-personal-film/
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 02, 2012, 04:38:58 PM
This made me cry. I know it shouldn't but I guess certain films celebrating cinema makes me emotional. I really enjoyed myself and reminded me why I got into the world of show business.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Sleepless on March 05, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
Watched it again last night and it held together much better the second time round. Definitely one of my top few movies of the year and hopefully destined to be a classic.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: BB on April 09, 2012, 10:23:53 PM

to me aviator said much more about his love of film and filmmaking. it showed it was a passion. a compulsion. hugo shows it's a diversion.

My thoughts exactly. Perhaps that's why Hugo has been so embraced by those who are not "movie people." They don't understand movies being anything more than a diversion. Also, that Hugo tells and tells loudly, where The Aviator shows. It's a more accessible film. Not that The Aviator is really inaccessible. I don't know if this is true of most people, but my non-cinephile friends find The Aviator really boring and/or stupid. The ones who have seen Hugo all liked it a lot.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 09, 2012, 10:45:01 PM
The Aviator was a disaster for me. It managed to be excessive and boring at the same time. DiCaprio's performance annoyed me to no end... "Hey, I'm an actor acting! Look at all my fascinating actorly ticks! Are you prepared for my descent into madness? Check out this awesome accent and all my interesting mannerisms, which cause me to BECOME the character. See how many things I can fit into this deeply affecting performance? I'm basically the new Marlon Brando."

I could be misremembering why I disliked it, though, because of how instantly forgettable it was.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: matt35mm on April 10, 2012, 01:10:17 AM
I wasn't a giant fan of The Aviator, either. I'm not gonna say it was a disaster, as a Scorsese film is always going to be filled with tremendous skill and creativity that will, at the very least, make for some exhilarating moments, even when the script is a big old dumb piece of dumb. But I haven't really fully liked anything that Scorsese has made since Casino... until Hugo, which I love completely.

I don't understand what the hell you guys are talking about regarding it presenting cinema as a diversion. I thought it presented cinema as a magical thing that creative people like Méličs could throw themselves into fully to move and thrill people and invite them to dream.

I'm kinda sad that nobody seems to love this movie as much as I do. I've talked to people who say they like it, but I think it's really really great. Even the people who had fond feelings about it will probably forget about it, but I won't. This is a movie that will stick with me.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: chere mill on April 10, 2012, 03:16:30 AM
I'm kinda sad that nobody seems to love this movie as much as I do.

i do. after multiple viewings, i still regard it as scorsese's best effort in a long time. one of the few movies of last year that made me genuinely giddy to be a film lover. i don't think it presents cinema as being simply a diversion, either. melies was working on a highly artistic level at his time. his work could never be classified with terms such as "diversion" or "escapism." especially in the way those terms are used for today's films. sure, scorsese is more upfront about his love for filmmaking here, but why is that bad? his filmmaking still has so much energy and joy. you can tell he's getting a kick out of writing his love letter to melies, and cinema itself.  the film doesn't strive for subtly. scorsese wants you to get excited and enthusiastic about movies. it works for me.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: New Feeling on April 10, 2012, 04:12:56 PM
shit's a masterpiece!  Really hope I get a chance to see it in 3d again one of these days.

this seems like as good a place as any to post this epic interview with Robert Richarson

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/moviegeeksunited/2012/01/22/the-art-of-cinematography-robert-richardson (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/moviegeeksunited/2012/01/22/the-art-of-cinematography-robert-richardson)
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: matt35mm on April 11, 2012, 10:39:51 AM
THANK YOU FOR THAT INTERVIEW!

That was amazing. I'm gonna spend the next few days just listening to this podcast, which I had never heard of before. The discussion part of the show is not all that great from what I've heard so far (they just gush about how great they think everything is), but they've got some great guests that I'm excited to hear from and the interview parts are pretty in-depth and interesting.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: theyarelegion on May 30, 2012, 11:17:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_tzoTHhjFs
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: tpfkabi on May 31, 2012, 11:36:06 PM
 :yabbse-thumbup:
Really cool video.
Title: Re: The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Post by: Just Withnail on November 28, 2012, 03:38:04 PM
My god this was stale. Surprisingly the ”wonder of the movies”-element wasn’t as moving as I’d thought. The montages of clips from the actual films were great, but then the actors wouldn’t mirror any of that wonder, except in the most generic way possible. And after building up a slight sense of wonder, it would knock it down when the actors delivered their lines completely straight forward (especially right after the first screening of Voyage to the Moon). This could’ve used a touch of old Spielberg in the actors faces. The kid who played Hugo wasn’t very good.

The scenes we’re mostly shot in a pretty pedestrian way too. There was so many moments just shouting for some cinematic Scorsese dynamism, that just went flat in shot reverse shot dullness. All the flair was either saved for moneyshots or the big set-pieces, while the bulk of the film was just bleh. For a film trying to convey the wonder of film, it fails pretty miserably to be wonderful.

I also found the overly saturated, intensely lit look pretty ugly.

But there were some good points:
The automaton looked fantastic and weird and had I seen that in a film as a child it would have made an impression.

Mortez’s face is weird and interiesting and sometimes she walks funny.

The always great Michael Sthulbarg almost-but-not-quite channeling Scorsese.

I did get chills from something, but I’ve forgotten what it was.