Hugo - 3D (2011)

I was torn when Hugo came out. On the one hand I hate 3D Cinema, on the other, I adore Martin Scorsese, and find him to be one of the most exciting film makers working today and for the last 40 years or so. Then there was the trailer, I thought the trailer was weak, and I became concerned that Scorsese had lost it when making his first fully fledged kids film. However, reviews were strong and I was likely to miss out on a Scorsese experience, so I went to see it... in 2D. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, however after seeing it I read yet more reviews and saw even hardened anti-3D folk saying that Hugo was the most interesting 3D film yet. So I'd always kinda regretted not going to see it in 3D. Then, joy of joys it won some awards and reappeared back at the cinema, for a one off screening in 3D. So I jumped at the chance.

First of all, some background. Hugo is the story of a young boy named Hugo who lives in a train station taking care of the clocks. His father died in a fire and his uncle has disappeared so he is left to his own devises to survive. Before his death his father and he were fixing a machine that when working properly will write a message. Hugo believes that this message will be from his father and put an end to his sadness. In this respect it is like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close... but not shit. He meets Isabelle who he forms an unlikely friendship with as she is the god daughter of a shop keeper who has caught Hugo stealing from his store. She also has a key which fits into Hugo's machine and makes it work. From this point the film becomes an incredibly poignant love letter to the heroes of early cinema.

This may sound like two different stories being smashed together, but they flow into and out of each other with great execution and really end up moving you by the end of the film. Added to this are the incidental characters, the station guard (played by Sacha Baron Cohen) is both the comic relief, and a moving character in love with a flower girl in the station (Emily Mortimer). You have Christopher Lee as the book store owner, Richard Griffiths and Fraces De La Tour as another prospective couple in the station and more to boot. No character is wasted, and each, despite their relatively little screen time shines and becomes engrained in your mind. This is a testament to both the high calibre acting and the wonderful screenplay.

The film looks beautiful, seeming both dream like and very real world at the same time, as the film never shys away from the cruel realities of the world this is all too fitting. It also plays with the inspiration of early cinema beautifully. Scorsese grew up in the cinema, going there when he was too ill to go and play with the other children or spend time in school. He is a true lover of cinema, the type of cinema nut who makes good films because of their inspirations (see also Woody Allen), and in less skillfull hands I fear this film could have been a mess. There are references here to Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, George Melies, and the Lumiere Brothers, and probably more that I don't know about. It explores what draws us to cinema, and why it leaves such a lasting impression on you, affecting your very soul.

My only concern with this film is the audience. It's billed as a kids film, and whilst I am fortunate to be able to view it through the eyes of a 22 year old film obsessive and view it as a love letter to cinema, I do wonder what children will make of it. I hope that they will see it for the adventure that it is, the adventure that the children go on running in parallel to the adventure that cinema went through to get to the stage it was in. I hope this to be the case, but I fear that the poor box office shows that this was perhaps not the case. For Shame.

So... the 3D. What did I make of it? Well first of all it is definitely the best use of 3D I have seen. Stuff doesn't fly at the screen, you could happily watch it in 2D and not realise that it was supposed to be in 3D (as I did originally). However, the 3D adds a nice layer to the film, it indicates that cinema is always advancing, and perhaps indicates that what was once a sideshow spectacle then became the norm, both with cinema in general and then talkies. So perhaps we should give 3D a chance. I am unconvinced that the film is better in 3D; but for once I didn't feel as though the film was worse in 3D, which is a crowning achievement if ever there was one.

This is a wondeful film that should be viewed in whatever format you can get it in, you won't be disappointed whatever happens. Best Scorsese film in a long time.