'Hugo' - a far cry from being a masterpiece

I was rather excited about watching this - I had no interest when it initially came out but when I read a couple of reviews and saw the trailer, I was taken with its magical and exciting feel.

I think it aspired to be both those things but didn't quite reach them. The film is gorgeous to look at, the world of the station brought brilliantly to life and the it was pitted with some great moments but as a whole it was lacking and so drawn out. I was expecting something gripping that would have me utterly absorbed (thanks to the reviewer on IMDb - grrr) but I found myself wondering when it was going to kick start. There was too much time wasted on the annoying 'give me my notebook/No/I need it/No, go away thief/Give it back' exchange. I suspended my frustration hoping their would be an intriguing pay off in the mystery around the automaton, the father dying etc - but no it never came about. Instead it became about dreams and the first hooray years of film making and 'searching for an adventure' but not really having one other than to unveil the history of 'Papa George' played by Ben Kingsley. And Chloe Moretz's (she is everywhere these days!) character was rather useless - she was more of a half device to bring about a little colour but she had no real reason in the story as a whole. Her concluding speech as narration at the end was poignant but it didn't match the journey of the main character, Hugo, played bravely but passably by Asa Butterfield.

For a Scorcese film, it was not up to the task for me at all. As a child's story, it was still so drawn out but it did have the feel and a pace more akin to a book unfolding measuredly and assuredly, with the character's pivotal moments easing in rather than 'hitting' home. I think 'The Artist' probably makes a better go at celebrating early film making - in 'Hugo' it falls rather flat. There were other small vignettes of life and 'opening up', shown by Richard Griffith's character and Sacha Baron Cohen's character but he's not nearly menacing enough as an antagonist.

Some people are calling this film a masterpiece but the story is littered with problems and as a viewer, I just couldn't engage. I think what gets me most is that it has so much promise and beauty yet it failed to bring it all home.

In the words of Mooderino on the blog, Moody Writing, which I concur with:

'A sweet message about the love of imagination, but quite a long, drawn out narrative structure with lots of Tell me/It's a secret/ But you must/No, I can't/Oh, go on/No, really, I can't... And quite a few plot holes too, where stuff that's important one minute is totally forgotten the next.'

VERDICT: 6/10

The Hunger Games

So, I've been in what I can only say is something of a reading 'depression' and it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that it's been going on for some time - perhaps years really, when I try and think about any book that has ignited me - I mean, really and truly to the point where I'm immersed in it my head it still in the narrative long before I put the book down. I was momentarily lifted by 'Revolution' by Jennifer Donnelly but that is a stand alone book and the momentum didn't carry me on to further great reads.

So I stumbled upon 'The Hunger Games' by Susanne Collins - thanks to my sis, who sent me a link to the trailer of the upcoming movie. I watched it, read the general premise for the original books and was like 'OM%G, why haven't I heard of these?' Apparently, it was the series that Hogwarts graduates fell into after the void Potter left us in (Hogwarts graduates meaning the age group of people who are Harry Potter's year - i.e. when the first book came in 1997, we were the kids starting Year 7. So if JK had stayed true to the book a year thing, we would have been graduating high school the same year as Harry - what? Don't give me that look!) I must have missed the memo about these books though because I only came to know of it the Friday two weeks ago, harassed my sister into buying the series on Monday and was reading it Monday evening. I've read the second but am putting a breather between tackling the third.

It really is riveting - the premise is strong, clear (and though I know The Hunger Games fans will hate me for it, it has shades of the ORIGINAL Battle Royale books by Koshun Takami) which makes me a wee bit envious because I sometimes forget the whole premise/purpose of my own book because it's such a huge story. Writing one person POV must be nice too. I let various characters sidetrack me totally.

I love that the Minotaur-Cretan-Athenian-conflict legend inspired the whole 'send the kids to their death' - of course I would love that!

Why am I blabbering about this, you wonder? Well because these series are about to movies very soon and I wonder whether they will capture the nature of the books because I loved how well the film adaptation of Battle Royale went down. And I'm wondering whether the USAns can do the same, because often, I'm left pretty darn miffed with their adaptations - I even got into a Twitter back and forth with Philip Bloom, much respected camera-man and my reference to all things Canon 7D (thank you) - but we had a difference of opinion regarding 'IMMORTALS' - I put an end to the discussion when I saw that Bloom had written 'You won't see a better looking film.' *I grits my teeth* Oh, Philip, you don't know me AT all! (he wouldn't, naturally...but yeh) It is so typical of a DoP to put the aesthetics over all other elements - flashbacks of university when we watched fellow students work and when left to give feedback, people would always talk about 'how pretty' it was, while I was dying to blurt out 'Did anyone get it?' or 'The story was rather weak, dude - sorry. While you're all admiring the lighting and framing and everything, I'm sitting there thinking 'why do I care about this character or whatever is happening for 5 mins'...' *sigh* Sorry, got diverted there - the discussion of story, truthful adaptation and 'good looking' film is to be left to another blog post soon.

Anyhow, I will look forward to this film coming it is all.

The 'Debate' Film vs Digital

I've been researching some really good articles and information regarding digital cinema and film. It's all really interesting, in so far it's help to brush up on technical knowledge that had laid dormant since graduating university. I still *pretend* to know what DPs talk about - hopefully it will get my by without them spotting my ignorance.

One thing that really stands out for me among all of this (seemingly pointless argument), is that:

You can shoot any format, and if the script is good, it will integrate and help tell the story with out drawing attention to “the format”.  http://fcproducer.com/2008/11/red-one-vs-film/#comment-23695

BAM!!! (For all those directors out there who think otherwise and degrade story to a bit part in their play of 'Self Indulgence is my Middle Name!') 

Another great resource out there is the blog, Cinemoose.com - though the writer no longer appears to be updating it since Dec 2008, it has some real gems in there. I stumbled on this epically wise: The Importance of Shooting on Film - the writer makes a good case that these days, film makers or digital cinema directors come from a features television background and not a photographic one where the old school were encouraged to really think about how to tell a story with pcitures and how it cuts etc. I won't try to badly paraphrase this great text, I just encourage all to read it!