Yes, No, Maybe So: Hugo

Robert (author of Distant Relatives) here. If you, like me, have been wondering how the phrases "Martin Scorsese" and "family-friendly holiday season event film" could possibly fit together ever since the announcement of The Invention of Hugo Cabret...

...later shortened to Hugo Cabret, later shortened to Hugo (by the time the film hits theaters in November it may just be H.) the newly released trailer may answer your questions, though not necessarily satisfactorily, and may leave you with all new ones. Let's discuss.

The name Martin Scorsese was, is, and will continue to be the selling point behind this film, at least for cinephiles who consider each new Scorsese film an event. But the trailer here has definitely been cut for the kind of mass audience that doesn't flock to Scorsese in droves. If you're looking for something non-threatening enough for the kids, but well crafted enough for adults, this trailer is targeting you. And in that sense the trailer does have something of an "instant holiday classic" feel to it. Not to mention some possibly impressive production design by Dante Feretti that could get him noticed again after his Shutter Island snub last season.

Yet while the production design appears promising, there's always the possibility that this busy-looking film will be a gold and teal nightmare. The 3D cinematography is rife with things flying at the camera. In this trailer alone we count at least five: Sacha Baron Cohen's hand, a dog, dragon smoke, a key necklace, and Hugo's hand. (So help me if that scene of Hugo going down a big fun slide is accompanied with a POV shot) Barring the title card there's not much here that feels Scorsese. Sure it's off his genre, but even when he does go off genre, Scorsese explores the same general themes and ideas (once calling The Age of Innocence his most violent picture). So even the slightest hint of a Scorsese touch, like the presence of Ray Winstone, was welcome, though I wanted to shout "No Hugo! Don't go with Mr. French!"

So what is Scorsese doing? Pilling up money for his next project? An academic exercise in trying something new?

Actually what he's doing is a family-friendly holiday season event film in exactly the way Scorsese would do it. Scorsese was never going to do fantasy in the mold of something modern. His films always reference back to the classics. Even Shutter Island disappointed many by possessing the obviousness of an old melodramatic Hammer Horror film instead of something that felt new. But that's what he does. Something tells me that what interested Scorsese in this project was the potential to make an homage to Georges Méliès (played by Ben Kingsley) and the films that birthed the fantasy genre. And those films were indeed intentionally artificial and filled with gimmicks.

So maybe we can't fault Scorsese for inconsistency of vision. We may want Scorsese to be modern and inventive. We may want him to wow us with spectacle like Peter Jackson or Christopher Nolan. But that's the fault of our expectation. What Scorsese clearly wants to do is recreate the magic of the old days. Whether or not you end up liking Hugo may depend on whether you appreciate the note on which the trailer ends, a recreation of the Lumiere's brother's L'arrivée d'un train à La Ciotat this time with the train actually pummelling toward the audience... in 3D.

Lars & Marty Picking Apart The Past

JA from MNPP here, highlighting an exciting bit of news making the rounds today. We'd heard back in February the rumor of this, but now it's seeming official - next year Lars Von Trier will be redoing his Five Obstructions experiment with Martin Scorsese. Excuse me, make that "Oscar-winning pool of awesomesauce, Martin Scorsese."

If you're unfamiliar with The Five Obstructions, in 2003 Von Trier had his mentor the Danish filmmaker Jørgen Leth remake a short film of his own five times under five different sets of limitations. He was forced to shoot it in difficult locations like Cuba and the red light discrict of Bombay; he had to make it in animated form.

And now Von Trier will be training his cinematic sadism on one of the living masters of American movies. But the big question remains - what film will Scorsese be remaking? When the rumor first popped up it was attached to Taxi Driver, but now that Variety's confirmed the project's happening there is no word on if that's true or if it'll be a different film of Marty's. So I ask y'all - what movie do you most want to see Scorsese tackle again under Von Trier's ever-brutal thumb? And what limitations would you like to see set for him?

April Showers: Shutter Island

waterworks weeknights at 11 as we turn on the cinematic shower.

For a movie I claim to have not liked at all, I really have been going back to Scorsese's Shutter Island (2010) repeatedly while blogging, haven't I? It just keeps coming up somehow. A lot of it is just too stiffly serious when it would have been a better sit had it swerved towards the archly horrific on occassion to offset its portentous Sturm und Drang.

But about those Sturms...

Pull yourself together Teddy. Pull yourself together. It's just water. It's a lot of water.

Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island is barely functional considering all the lakes, oceans and storms haunting him. So it's kind of pitiable that he also has to shower in the movie, too. Both times it's just so completely futile.

Two sorry showers after the jump.

Click to read more ...

Reader of the Day: Jamie

Today's Reader of the Day is Jamie who lives in LA.  I've never met her but she once volunteered as a magical Film Experience elf to give us a few articles direct from the Cannes Festival (this year's lineup is announced very soon, so stay tuned). So let's start there.

Nathaniel: How did your Cannes journey come out? What's your favorite memory from it?
JAMIE: I had the privilege of attending twice (2008, 2009) through my university. Unlike many college programs, our mandate was simply to see as many films as possible. Simply getting to worship at the altar of film that frequently over the course of two weeks is irreplaceable.

My favorite memory was not seeing one of the many award-winners or much-hyped titles, but rather attending the world premiere of the restored print of The Red Shoes. Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker hosted the screening, and hearing Scorsese talk at length about the passion the film inspired within him, as well as Thelma's relationship with Powell, made me feel like I was part of some exclusive club of cinephiles. I ended up having to miss the premiere of Precious to attend, a decision that bewildered my fellow festival-goers, but it was so worth it. I had never before seen The Red Shoes and seeing it in that environment was almost a holy experience.

                           

A holy experience.

First movie? First movie obsession?
I do not remember my first movie (for shame), and I had a lot of strange obsessions when I was younger. Due to my father's job, we always had access to all of the premium cable and pay per view channels, so I would just re-watch the films I loved on some type of continuous loop until I could move on. That's why I still know all of the dialogue to Selena.

However, my first informed obsessions came toward the end of my high school career. I impulsively bought a Miramax Best Picture DVD set that included The English Patient and Shakespeare in Love. I fell madly in love with each of the films and became obsessed with the narratives that emerged around them and their unfairly maligned legacies. It's when I first became aware of the many intricacies and politics of Oscar season. The films fostered an obsession with Harvey Weinstein and Miramax that eventually led to my first film internship, my honors thesis, and my current not-allowed-to-talk-about job.

Which current director are you rooting for in a big way in the next few years?
Lone Scherfig earned my eternal devotion with An Education. I think she has the potential to become a vital, female commercial directing voice. I don't usually root for the directors I love to sell out, but I think we need more ladies working within the studios. And Armando Ianucci made me laugh harder than I feel comfortable admitting with In the Loop. I love that he doesn't treat politics as sacrosanct and doesn't allow the humor to get in the way of making a resonant point.

Tell us about the biopic of your life. Who will it star, etcetera?
I will have to anger the movie gods and instead opt for a television series. I want Paul Feig and Judd Apatow to create an updated version of Freaks and Geeks based on my high school experience, still starring the lovely Linda Cardellini. The one thing that always bothered me about that show was that Lindsey was forced to choose between being completely straight-laced with Millie and the mathletes or a burn-out with the freaks. I too went to a suburban public high school rife with the usual parties and drama, but it was also extremely competitive and the popular kids were amongst the highest achieving. I'd love to see someone meaningfully tackle the intricacies of being a seemingly "normal" but hyper-ambitious teen still negotiating the pain and angst of growing up.

Freaks and Geeks is so genius. It takes place in a Michigan High School and name-checks places we actually went while in high school in Michigan. The clothes, the language, the "types" ... everything brings back memories -- more than any other movie or high school set show ever has for me. The show reminds me of my sister (although we were far enough apart in age that we didn't actually go to high school together like the brother / sister in the show) and all my Michigan friends so I ♥ it so hard. I really do.

Oops BIG TANGENT! Ok. Let's wrap up. Your favorite movie in the following 5 genres: musical, drama, romance, Woody Allen, and last year (yes, "last year" is a genre). Go.
Due to some unknown childhood trauma, I've always been wary of traditional musicals but I absolutely love All That Jazz and Dancer in the Dark. Regarding the former, the recent news about Bryan Singer directing a Fosse biopic infuriated me. What can any biopic reveal that All that Jazz didn't already cover? 

Network is my all-time favorite film, so it easily takes the drama category. As much as I tired of Aaron Sorkin's tear through Oscar season, I couldn't help but smile at every Paddy Chayefsky reference. Romance: Before Sunset. Even though I think it's Woody Allen's least favorite, I adore Hannah and Her Sisters. The "not even the rain has such small hands" moves me every time I see it. Having said that, I was raised on Woody Allen films and would jump at the opportunity to watch any of them at the slightest notice.

Finally, despite my previous Sorkin slight, The Social Network was by far my favorite last year. It felt like one of those special movies made just for me.

Distant Relatives: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Shutter Island

Robert here, with my series Distant Relatives, where we look at two films, (one classic, one modern) related through a common theme and ask what their similarities and differences can tell us about the evolution of cinema.  This week since both films deal with a twist ending, be warned there are definitely SPOILERS AHEAD

Madness

Audiences don’t much like engaging with a film, its characters, its plot and anticipating its outcome for two hours only to be told that the entire thing was untrue, a dream, the story of a crazy man, an elaborate roleplay. The two films we’re looking at today, though made ninety years apart do that exact thing. Clearly this is a cinematic convention that has stood the test of time.

In the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a young man named Francis relates the story of a visiting carnival which brings the evil Dr. Caligari and his somnambulist slave to town. After a series of strange murders and the kidnapping of the young man’s betrothed Jane, Francis leads a posse and discovers that, surprise surprise, Dr. Caligari is the mad director of an asylum, and that his catatonic servant are behind it all. Shutter Island follows two U.S. Marshalls, Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck, sent to a hospital for the criminally insane to investigate a disappearance. As their investigation goes deeper and deeper Teddy begins to suspect a deeper plot involving the hospital’s head psychiatrist, the disappeared Rachel Solondo and Andrew Laeddis, the man who killed his wife.

Unreliable narrators

Now for the twist. If you didn’t see it coming, both of our protagonists are in fact patients in their respective mental facilities. Francis has made up his entire story. Jane and the somnambulist are fellow patients. Dr. Calirgari is in fact the good director of the asylum. Teddy meanwhile isn’t Teddy at all. He is Andrew Laeddis. He killed his own wife. The entire investigation is a ruse attempting to jar him back into reality. It doesn’t quite work.

You’d be forgiven for seeing both twist endings coming for miles. Both films feature stories that become increasingly fantastic and highly expressionist production design that seems to be peace with the reality of the film at first, but eventually we wonder. Yet I’m not sure that the purpose of these films is a cheap trick twist. We logically recognize that films are fake, actors and props on a set. Yet we accept it as a reality that plays beyond the limits of the film. We consider pasts and futures for characters, motivations, inner thoughts. There’s something uncomfortable about movies that tell us explicitly that they’re fake.

The mind’s eye

The significant difference between these two movies may be the process by which they do this. Shutter Island makes little effort to cover up the fact that the “surprise” is coming. This in turn turned off a lot of viewers who anticipated the reveal, and took the falsehood of what they were witnessing as a sign that their emotional involvement was for naught. It’s an understandable reaction. Who wants to put their time and emotional effort into something untrue? The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari strings the audience along with more determination. The reveal that the entire plot is the invention of Francis is more likely to be a surprise and more likely to be received with delight (though this isn’t always the case).

Yet, as the film that spends more time winking at the audience with it’s own artificiality, Shutter Island contains more reality than Dr. Caligari. The events (or at least most of the events) in Shutter Island actually happen. It’s simply the perception of Marshall Teddy that is false, leaving us less clear as to what plot points his mind has manufactured and which are objective reality than Francis’s tale which is entirely concocted and untrue. Both of the protagonists in these stories create realities where they are heroes instead of madmen, and thus both lean toward a question asked frequently in such fantasy films (and DiCaprio’s other movie of 2010): Is a pleasant fantasy better than a troubling reality? Is it really wrong if we don’t know the difference?

So too can it be said of the movies. We allow ourselves to experience reality vicariously through characters we know are false but don’t want to believe are false. Teddy and Francis would rather be great than recognize that they are in fact powerless, ordinary, and flawed. When their films admit that they are in fact all those things, are we vicariously forced to admit that we are too?