Oxford University Press's
Academic Insights for the Thinking World

Martin Scorsese, 3D, and Hugo

By Robert Kolker

“That’s that,” quoting Ace Rothstein at the end of Casino. I didn’t end the Martin Scorsese chapter on an optimistic note in the fourth edition of A Cinema of Loneliness. There is more than a hint that the Scorsese’s creative energies might be flagging.

My pessimism grew from the direction — or lack of direction — Scorsese’s films had taken over the past decade. I thought that the big productions of the 2000s — Gangs of New York, The Aviator, and The Departed — indicated some kind of flailing about for ideas. These films were not as lean and mean as the earlier gangster movies that worked at the speed of light and were deliriously comic in their basic brutality.

Copyright Paramount Pictures. Source: shutterisland.com.

Shutter Island seemed to seal the decline. An unofficial remake of Samuel Fuller’s 1963 Shock Corridor, the film could have been made, I thought, by anyone. It bore none of the hallmarks of Scorsese’s style and all of the hallmarks of an overwrought Hollywood gothic tale.

An obvious riposte to my pessimism is that I am not in a position to question an artist’s evolution. Scorsese no more than any other filmmaker is bound to repeat himself, and the great gangster and street films of his early period are a thing of the past. Artists change with time, and the results of that change may not be to everyone’s taste. At least not to mine.

With this in mind, I went to see Hugo with a lot of skepticism. Why would Scorsese make a film in 3D? The only reason I could come up with — aside from the fact that he might just wish to experiment with the old/new screen technology of the moment — is that Alfred Hitchcock made a 3D film when that format was first introduced in the 1950s: Dial M For Murder. Scorsese almost always roots his work in films of the past. His imagination is constructed of film. He is an amateur archivist, with a huge collection of movies that he watches continually. He has his cast and crew look at old movies when they are preparing a new one. His films become something of archival works themselves, full of allusions to their predecessors. But there is more to it than this.

I have resisted the recent 3D craze. I did go to see Avatar out of curiosity. James Cameron does not often repay curiosity. But something stood out in that film. The mise-en-scène of Cameron’s mythical world, with its floating vegetation in a liquid like atmosphere, reminded me of the underwater sequences of Georges Méliès’s A Trip to the Moon (Le voyage dans la lune, 1902). This magical film — Méliès was a magician as well as a filmmaker — was just one entry into his enormous filmography of fantasy filmmaking, his counter to the “documentary” style of the Lumière brothers. Cameron’s alternative universe owes much to the alternative reality of an old French filmmaker.

Seeing Hugo some years later lead to a chain of thought. 3D is in itself a kind of alternative reality to the two dimensional image we are used to looking at on the screen. The cinematic “reality” that we take for granted is, in fact, a trick that we allow to be played on our eyes. 3D creates yet another reality and another trick to the eye, obtained by squinting through glasses in order to see an illusion of the depth that we otherwise have to supply ourselves when looking at the conventional 2D image. Scorsese’s decision to shoot Hugo in 3D is therefore based at least in part to honor cinematic trickery — which was what Georges Méliès was all about — and create his own alternative reality, more convincing than Cameron’s.

Copyright GK Films. Source: hugomovie.com.

Hugo is a time machine, using modern digital and 3D technology to create a world about time, about keeping time going, which is what Hugo does, as he tends to the clocks in a Parisian railroad station, discovering Georges Méliès in the process. The film is about old technologies and old movies, about automata and the whirring mechanisms of a film camera (Hugo was shot digitally; whirring was virtually non-existent.) But it would be a mistake to call the film nostalgic. It is celebratory rather than sentimental. It speaks to the robustness of the history of film by recreating that history within the spaces of modern cinematic technology. It enfolds that history within a narrative of discovery and revelation. It proves Scorsese’s imagination is still vital and nourished, as always, by the history of film in which he lives.

Robert Kolker is Emeritus Professor of English at the University of Maryland and Adjunct Professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia. He is the author of numerous works on film and media, including A Cinema of Loneliness; The Altering Eye; Film, Form, and Culture; and Media Studies: An Introductory Textbook.

View more about this book on the

Recent Comments

  1. Zak

    I think Gangs of New York would have been saved if it had made Daniel Day Lewis the protagonist instead and dramatized the story he told of his conflict with the Liam Neeson character. Like early De Niro, Day Lewis is able to use his performances to foreground the ideological makeup of his characters. I think it’s because he seems to pay close attention to what his characters are emulating consciously, almost the way Godard had Belmondo do Bogart. It’s a pity that he didn’t become Scorsese’s new muse, because his approach complements Scorsese’s former anthropological approach, and the last film that captured this was actually Age of Innocence, due in no small part to Day Lewis’ work. (Actually, someone should write a book about the career he’s built examining the construction of American maleness through history) Di Caprio, however moving, hasn’t seemed able to achieve the same sort of layering in his work. Instead, we get caught up in his characters’ individual plights, in much the way we’ve grown to expect from conventional melodrama.

    Hugo was compelling as long as it focused on the adolescent’s drive to unlock the puzzle. There was something about the obsessive attention to detail there that complemented the 3D imagery’s immersiveness. I felt like I was watching cinephilia itself take hold in a young asthmatic Scorsese as he stood cooped up at his window, watching the world from afar. However, the film rapidly descended into sentimental pageantry, and I realized that it’s one thing to depict with empathy how a sensibility like this is formed, and it’s quite another to then celebrate it without irony as a wholesome and healthy way for a child to develop. “This is the place where your dreams are born” says Melies of his cinema studio – I thought this was a distractingly wrongheaded statement. A medium can filter or channel dreams, but the dreams themselves come from life, and the problem with Scorsese’s last twenty years of filmmaking is that they seem to be just about films, rather than films trying to engage with life.

    Another thing I noticed about Hugo was that, to the extent that it worked, it worked just as well in 2D. Numerous attempts have been made to amp up the experience of cinema – just ask William Castle – but unless someone is able to use them to actually extend the meaning of the film, like sound does in Citizen Kane, then they remain circus gimmicks. On the level of meaning, I haven’t seen anything in 3D that couldn’t have been expressed just as effectively using the deep focus cinematography of, say, a Greg Toland on a large screen. Achieving depth on a graphic surface is an ancient creative problem, and it’s the cinema itself that was the latest breakthrough there. I think the only way to extend it further that way would be to make it interactive and allow us to move away from a fixed physical position, as we do when we explore a piece of sculpture or architecture. I don’t know what that would do to the concept of watching a narrative spectacle. What would Brecht think?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *