Those transformations have led some to hypothesize that we are witnessing something of a paradigm shift, from a human to a posthuman world. On this reading, Hugo is an extended meditation on the technological forces that are transforming not only cinema but human beings. Rather than situating Hugo in film’s past as an argument for our cinematic heritage in an age of digital streaming, Hugo can be read as an argument for a future, posthuman vision in which human beings live technologically-mediated lives. In this essay, though, I will suggest another, more forward-looking view, focusing largely on the conceptual and narrative ground both book and film explore. This backward-looking reading of Hugo is certainly not wrong and both book and film are deserving of analysis in terms of questions of form. ![]() Furthermore, Selznick’s book, a graphic novel that literally incorporates in its pages cinema’s past in the form of still images, and Scorsese’s film, evoking cinematic history while employing possibly its technological future, are both meditations on the nature and changing forms of literary and cinematic media. Selznick, and The Invention of Hugo Cabret nostalgically evokes the glory days of cinema’s past. Selznick himself comes from classic cinema royalty, being related to Hollywood producer David O. Such a reading is underscored by Hugo’s source material, Brian Selznick’s children’s picture book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret (2007). Scorsese is founder and chair of The Film Foundation, dedicated to protecting and preserving motion picture history, and Hugo itself can be read as an argument for film preservation, with its loving recreation of the cinematic workshop and output of Georges Méliès and its interpolation of numerous scenes from classic cinema. Upon further reflection, such puzzles might be resolved by recognizing Scorsese’s long-standing interest in film preservation. A big-budget, family-friendly, 3-D film featuring heavy use of computer-generated imagery, hardly seems like the kind of fare expected from an auteur whose oeuvre, including Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and Casino, skews more gritty, realistic, masculine, and violent. On initial viewing, Martin Scorsese’s 2011 film Hugo is likely to leave viewers puzzled. He starts to act more like he did when he was young and becomes a noticeably happier person.× Current About Archive Submit Editorial Board Salisbury University Hugo and the Automaton 1 Dennis M. This knowledge radically alters Georges’ behavior. He learns about the immense impact his films have had on a generation of young film scholars and movie makers. ![]() However, at the end of the story, with the help of Etienne and Monsieur Tabard, Georges discovers that he has not fallen into obscurity after all. He has never emotionally recovered from the tragedy of his past and has a hard time even thinking about it. Later, when Hugo and Isabelle discover some of Georges’ old drawings, Georges looks at them and has a breakdown. ![]() Georges regularly entertains himself with card tricks and he knows something about the automaton in Hugo’s notebook. However, when Hugo starts working for Georges, he realizes that there must be something more to him. Georges is a depressed old man who spends his shift at the toy stand looking at the clock, waiting for the day to end. In the novel, Hugo first meets Georges as the crotchety operator of a toy stand near the train station where Hugo lives. Sadly, Georges sold off all of his films and faded into obscurity until close to the end of his life. Unfortunately, like his real life counterpart, Georges loses his film career at the start of World War I because of financial setbacks. Although his portrayal in the novel is largely fictional, Georges Méliès was a real magician and director, one of the most significant figures in the early days of movie making. Georges Méliès is married to Jeanne Méliès and is the godfather of Isabelle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |