Video: ‘Hugo’ Featurette With Crew And Cast

COMMENTS (12)

• It’s great to see this video with a few glimpses of behind-the-scenes of “Hugo”. The Aero Theatre in Santa Monica just showed a program of Melies short films recently and the theatre was sold out. The host asked the audience how many had seen “Hugo” and about 75% raised their hands. So it’s wonderful that Martin Scorsese’s film has created an awareness of the history of early film with today’s audiences. The same can be said for “The Artist”. How wonderful that we have these two great films in the same year.

  Comment by Jack M — Friday February 3, 2012 @ 11:21pm PST  Reply to this post

• Jack, I haven’t seen THE ARTIST. Does it fill you with as much love for film (and perhaps curiosity about old, unfamiliar film) as does HUGO?

  Comment by Rish Outfield — Saturday February 4, 2012 @ 11:13am PST  Reply to this post

• Well, it would crate that awareness of film history if anyone had bothered to see it.

  Comment by mkl — Saturday February 4, 2012 @ 12:09pm PST  Reply to this post

  • And if the studio had been honest about what sort of movie it was, instead of trying to disguise it as a children’s film, more people might have watched it.

    Comment by NotQuiteRight — Saturday February 4, 2012 @ 10:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Scorsese, Schoonmaker, Richardson, Ferretti, Legato, Powell, Shore, Logan, Kingsley…pretty talented little group of people there I’d say.

  Comment by M — Saturday February 4, 2012 @ 12:15pm PST  Reply to this post

• Rish – “The Artist” is highly recommended as well. For those interested, on Feb. 25 the Aero Theatre in Santa Monica will also be screening the restored version of Melies “A Trip To The Moon” in tinted color like the original. Don’t miss it.

  See: http://www.americancinemathequecalendar.com/content/%E2%80%9Ca-trip-to-the-moon%E2%80%9D-the-extraordinary-voyage

  Comment by Jack M — Saturday February 4, 2012 @ 3:32pm PST  Reply to this post

• I’ve seen both films and find it interesting that the two are being compared so often. They are vastly different. The biggest “homage” I could say that “The Artist” pays to film’s of the past is that it was shot in black and white and was silent. But in terms of actually capturing the spirit, feeling and emotion of earlier silent cinema like 7th Heaven, Sunrise, and others, I’m not sure it does the job, which is not a dig at the movie actually as I enjoyed it very much. But after seeing it, I felt it very modern in its approach. Will it ignite an interest in exploring the wide breadth of absolutely enchanting silent movies in our film history? Not sure… did enough people even see it to be inspired by it? Probably not, which is a shame as its very entertaining and cute. By contrast, Hugo did reference many older films, even in the most subtle ways – Metropolis, clearly all of the Melies films which were re-created, LUmiere Brothers and City Girl….. there’s so much there from the smallest and most subtle reference to the more obvious ones like a train arrives at the station. and because the lives of the main characters are actually “saved” or completely transformed by cinema, there is a more prominent throughline to what the movies of our past mean to us as a society. No surprise really since Scorsese isn’t just a great filmmaker, he could properly be called a film historian who has dedicated his life to preserving the films of our past. While each film has their charms, if you’re interested in film history and getting inspired to go see some great old movies, I highly recommend Hugo.

  Comment by lenser64 — Saturday February 4, 2012 @ 3:39pm PST  Reply to this post

• Wow. I HATED Hugo. I found it so boring and poorly constructed from a story standpoint. If Scorsese wanted to make a film about Melies, he should have. The children in this film (the boy is unappealing, the girl overplaying) aren’t compelling and their story (I don’t even know what their story is) is forced and uninteresting at the same time. Honestly, to spend this much money and succeed only in patting yourself on the back so strenuously while achieving nothing in terms of emotional heft or satisfying narrative is pretty appalling (especially in light of what The Artist accomplished with so much less). There is no connection between the little boy’s story, the wind-up man, the denizens of the train station and the career of Melies. It does not hold together and relentlessly tries the patience of its audience members of ANY age and ends up muddying and falsifying the story of the genius filmmaker it pretends to celebrate. I completely mystified by the love for this bloated and contrived botch of a film. And I don’t see what ANY of the 3-D fuss was about.

  Comment by doobage — Saturday February 4, 2012 @ 6:37pm PST  Reply to this post

  • You are so right – I totally agree. The film should more aptly be entitled “EGO”.

    It bears no resemblance to the clever resourcefulness of Melies – every sequence is full of excess and reeks of being over-produced. And none of the effort leads you through a story with genuine heart or drama.

    It was a film that spent more than twice its budget as Marty and his ‘creative team’ never viewed limitation as an opportunity for inspiration and invention – to them, more was better. This was not the aesthetic of Melies, or to many others who have achieved greatness in cinema history. Indeed, Marty’s best films were the ones that thrived in the world of location shooting on the streets of New York with small budgets. He’s lost the magic.

    Comment by Anonymous — Saturday February 4, 2012 @ 9:10pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Forgive me for thinking that films that are nominated for 11 Oscars, should be films that will remembered in ten to twenty years time, and not forgotten as soon as the curtains close on this years Oscars, which in my eyes, Hugo will be.

      In comparison: No Country For Old Men, one of the greatest films made in modern times, was nominated for 8 Oscars, yet Hugo grabs 11.

      Go figure.

      Comment by Paul Dinkov — Sunday February 5, 2012 @ 4:26am PST  Reply to this post

• What gets recognized by ‘the academy’ has only a passing relationship to what is remembered for 50 years. The history of the Academy is rich with films that are considered classics being ignored or beaten by dreck. Hugo is more about navel gazing than being a film that even 5 out of 20 people would like to see. It’s a classic set-up though, make a film that speaks to the academy members about how meaningful a life working in film is and they often respond.

  Comment by mkl — Sunday February 5, 2012 @ 11:32am PST  Reply to this post

• I can understand some saying there is a lack of drama or serious conflict in Hugo. He is on his own journey that morphs into Georges Melies’s story. However, it is an incredibly charming film that does create a sense of nostalgia for cinema’s infancy. Movies like this, The Artist, and even Midnight in Paris celebrate their heritage.

  I don’t see why anyone would complain about the Academy recognizing “historically significant” films. I’m not sure there were any this year and most years you have movies like The Social Network or Goodfellas or Saving Private Ryan being overlooked for the King Speeches, Dances With Wolves and Shakespeare in Loves of the world.

  Comment by raine — Monday February 6, 2012 @ 2:44pm PST  Reply to this post