Hugo: Another Mighty Has Fallen

Rating: Null/10 (25 December 2011)

MINOR SPOILERS The prolific Martin Scorsese is back with another addition to his filmography. This time, however, we do not get a motion picture aimed at adults, but instead aimed at children. This new work seems to be the one closest to his heart as it is the perfect symbolism for his entire life's work.
Mr. Scorsese's downfall began with his previous effort, Shutter Island. A film that is compelling for most of its runtime collapses on itself at the end when you introduce logic into what you sat through for two hours. Its best attribute is its technical prowess and the fact that Mr. Scorsese has not lost his directorial touch. You can apply the style over substance argument perfectly for Hugo.
The story behind Hugo is simple: a young orphaned boy (Asa Butterfield) is fixated on achieving his dream of repairing a device that he and his father worked on prior to his untimely death. Hugo has turned the life of a thief while simultaneously operating the clocks in a Paris railway station. He meets Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley), a cranky old man who has taken Hugo's notebook as punishment, and who eventually hires Hugo to work for him as reparations. While working, Hugo becomes closer to Méliès' god-daughter, Isabelle (Chloe Moretz). This is when the film finally picks up its slacking pace and begins with a plethora of excellent visuals and two charming actors who fill the screen.
That is the only praise to be leveled at this work because it is style over substance. Any substance that it may have (note: may) is overshadowed by the visuals and the over-use of 3D, where watching it in many instances is painful and uncomfortable. Why did Scorsese opt to use this technology when it doesn't suit his close-ups without causing audience members to squirm in their seats? Why did he opt to use this technology when many scenes that have too many items on screen make it difficult to discern and enjoy the format? The substance that may exist lies in the film's messages, and they are very good ones: children should use their imagination to its breaking point; finding a purpose in life is essential; and not giving up on your dreams, no matter the obstacles that pop up. The problem with this is that children are not going to care about these messages when they see spectacular imagery, such as a train crashing through the station, slapstick comedy where an inspector injures his testicles, and overlong subplots involving blossoming relationships with the patrons of the station. These images overshadow anything remotely important for children to learn and the subplots cause the film to drag even more than it already does, boring them in the process.
The gravest of ills in Hugo, however, is when Scorsese goes the Tarantino route and decides to have scene after scene after scene implying that cinema is very, very important. Why would Scorsese pay tribute to an industry that at this very moment in time consists of nothing but derivative, repetitive trash? Sure, there are fun summer movies, but they aren't the bastion of art. Romantic comedies may be perfect choices for dates, but they don't make you think and spark discussion. As the much-maligned Armond White put it:
"As with the preposterous celebration of Howard Hughes' Hell's Angels in The Aviator, Scorsese pretends to honor cinema history by exaggerating the importance and wonder of movies that are frankly unwatchable, only notable as historic footnotes."
Scorsese continues the trend of creating something that will not stimulate a child's mind but will instead cause him or her to only display wonder at what is on screen; he or she will not care what is in the film's subtext but what is in front of their eyes, in glorious 3D.
Another mighty has fallen, and it hurts far more than seeing filmic icons such as Spielberg fall. Scorsese has a near flawless record when it comes to solid entertainment and his first foray into child territory falls flat with his exuberance of style that trumps any message he had hoped to pass along to the younger generation.