I saw Hugo today. I’m not really into these kinds of films, but I’d heard it was getting a lot of buzz so I thought I would give it a shot. I was pleasantly surprised. It doesn’t play out like a children’s film at all.  It certainly possesses the elements of one (the prodigal protagonist, the whirlwind adventure, the brash and occasionally comedic antagonist), but as a whole, the heart of the film- and its main theme- is more adult. (Spoilers ahead!) It is, essentially, about the dying art of cinema. I was in tears as Méliès, a once-esteemed filmmaker, and his wife, his muse and lead actress, revisited one of their long-lost films, conserved by a film historian who, as a child, had been irrevocably inspired by their work. It’s about the deterioration of artistic mediums constantly replaced or removed by the modern world, and the legacy left behind from the labour and love put into these mediums. As a photographer and film enthusiast, I am forever appreciative of the time and effort put into art of any form and furthermore, empathetic when it goes unappreciated. I guess in the back of every artist’s mind is that fear of failure, of being a has-been or, to quote The Mighty Ducks, a never-was.The characters are all fleshed out so wonderfully. There is something humane about every character- even the minor ones - that weave together the narrative so well. And the cinematography and art direction was beautiful. I saw it in 3D, which I usually hate, but everything was so intricately entwined that I hardly cared. I was rooting for Melancholia to win the Oscar for Best Cinematography, but since Von Trier’s Nazi-sympathizing shenanigans killed his chances of even a nomination, all bets are now on Hugo. I’ve written a spiel, and far more than I intended. (A far cry from the three-sentence reviews/summations I usually write. I guess being a film minor is finally coming in handy.) But you should see it. It’s definitely my pick for Best Picture.

I saw Hugo today. I’m not really into these kinds of films, but I’d heard it was getting a lot of buzz so I thought I would give it a shot. I was pleasantly surprised. It doesn’t play out like a children’s film at all.  It certainly possesses the elements of one (the prodigal protagonist, the whirlwind adventure, the brash and occasionally comedic antagonist), but as a whole, the heart of the film- and its main theme- is more adult.

(Spoilers ahead!) It is, essentially, about the dying art of cinema. I was in tears as Méliès, a once-esteemed filmmaker, and his wife, his muse and lead actress, revisited one of their long-lost films, conserved by a film historian who, as a child, had been irrevocably inspired by their work. It’s about the deterioration of artistic mediums constantly replaced or removed by the modern world, and the legacy left behind from the labour and love put into these mediums. As a photographer and film enthusiast, I am forever appreciative of the time and effort put into art of any form and furthermore, empathetic when it goes unappreciated. I guess in the back of every artist’s mind is that fear of failure, of being a has-been or, to quote The Mighty Ducks, a never-was.

The characters are all fleshed out so wonderfully. There is something humane about every character- even the minor ones - that weave together the narrative so well. And the cinematography and art direction was beautiful. I saw it in 3D, which I usually hate, but everything was so intricately entwined that I hardly cared. I was rooting for Melancholia to win the Oscar for Best Cinematography, but since Von Trier’s Nazi-sympathizing shenanigans killed his chances of even a nomination, all bets are now on Hugo.

I’ve written a spiel, and far more than I intended. (A far cry from the three-sentence reviews/summations I usually write. I guess being a film minor is finally coming in handy.) But you should see it. It’s definitely my pick for Best Picture.