Current Mood: calm

Entry tags:

But it would have been better if…OR You didn’t write the story I wanted to read

There are spoilers below for the movie “Hugo” and also, perhaps, for the novel entitled The Invention of Hugo Cabret. You have been Warned.

* * *

Last night, I watched a movie called “Hugo,” about a boy who has been the recipient of several devastating tragedies in his short life, including the loss of both parents, the unwelcome arrival of a drunken uncle into what is left of his life, and that uncle’s almost immediate, and somewhat problematic, departure.

Hugo and his father were, just before his father’s death, rebuilding an automaton that the museum his father worked at had received but had never put on display. After his father’s death, repairing the automaton becomes a sort of a quest for Hugo. He half-believes that the automaton — which writes, like The Writer built by Pierre Jaquet-Droz, in 1768 — will, when repaired, transcribe a message for Hugo from his father. Hugo also states explicitly, that, after the automaton is repaired, he’ll be “less alone.”

Hugo lives in the clocks of the Paris train station. His drunken uncle had a job keeping the clocks running; he trained Hugo to do the work so he could spend more time drinking — this is fortunate, for the uncle soon drops out of Hugo’s life, leaving him utterly alone.

Hugo’s life in the train station is perilous. Presumably, the uncle was paid for his labor, but his nephew is not; he is afraid that he’ll be caught by the Station Inspector and sent to the orphanage, so he stays out of sight as much as possible. He steals food, and he steals mechanical toys from the old man who runs the toy shop in the train station.

Until one day, the old man nabs him, makes him empty his pockets and takes the notebook that the plans for the automaton are drawn in.

The lives of the lonely boy and the old man have now touched and they rapidly become entwined. The old man is revealed, through the efforts of Hugo and the old man’s god-daughter Isabelle, who befriends Hugo, layer-by-layer, as old men ought to be revealed, because lives are like onions, as someone who is not me once wisely said.

The movie is remarkably clear in stating the desires of the characters: Hugo wants to belong, Isabelle wants to belong, the fearsome Station Inspector wants to belong, though he denies it (You’ll learn a lot in the orphanage, he tells Hugo; I did. You’ll learn discipline and how to keep yourself. You’ll learn that you don’t need a family. And he repeats that, fiercely, as if to convince himself, as well as the boy — “You don’t need a family!”). The old man…wants to forget the past.

He’s not alone in this — the Great War has recently ended. The Station Inspector, again, when trying to woo the pretty flower girl, sees her looking at his mechanical leg and he says to her, flatly, “Yes, I was wounded in the war, and it will never heal.”

Wars are like that.

Life is like that.

I won’t go on any further, except to say that the entwining of the lives of the old man, the boy, the girl produce an outcome in which all of them belong; the old man, far from forgetting the past, is brought to remember it, to see it through the eyes of others — and recovers his soul.

* * *

It’s hard for me to see this as anything but one cohesive story — the boy’s happy ending depends upon the old man remembering who he is; the old man will not remember until the boy forces him to do so. These two outcomes are inextricable; they cannot be separated without damage being done to both.

And yet — yes, I’m finally coming to the point, thank you — And yet. . .

There were professional reviews of “Hugo” which complained that the filmmaker had really wanted to make a movie about Georges Melies (the name of the old man in “Hugo”), a pioneer of filmmaking in the 1900s, and should therefore have done so, and left the little boy out of the thing.

There were other professional reviews which complained that the story of the old man could easily have been dispensed with, in favor of the story of the boy who lived in the clock.

They said, some of these reviewers that these other stories — the stories that they would have preferred to see, would have been better than the story the filmmaker actually made. (Regular people said the same thing; a young lady said so in my LJ this morning, which is sort of why you have this rant.)

But here, they — the professional reviewers and private viewers — are wrong.

What they would have had, absent the old man, or the boy, would not have been, necessarily, a better film, but a different film. This is a small, but important difference.

It’s perfectly fine to say, of a book, a movie, a poem — this wasn’t the story I expected, or I wanted a different story, or even I didn’t like this story.

The error lies in stating, unilaterally, that, by mutilating the work as it stands, it will become “better” — which is to say, more in line with the taste of the viewer or reader. That is an error, and it does no justice to the actual work that has been done.

. . .and having said this, I feel much better, thank you.

Originally published at Sharon Lee, Writer. You can comment here or there.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I will never understand why people build up such pre-conceptions when going to the movies. You go to see the story that the filmmaker wants to tell you. You don't go to see the story you *think* the story teller is going to tell.

Doc

Well, you can't blame people for having preconceptions, and misconceptions, of films, since advertisements and film trailers are specifically crafted to give one an idea of what the film is about and sometimes they are, to put it mildly, misleading. Hugo was enjoyable, but it was not the film I was expecting from said advertising.

When I read the story and then saw the film, it all fit as one cohesive story. I have heard these sorts of criticisms as well and it seems to me that the story the way Selznik and the movie tell it does honor to the fullness of the characters of the old man and the boy both. I think that's an admirable stance, given our culture where we glorify youth so much.

Well said. Thank you. I have had the same discussion over and over with my spouse about the latest Star Trek movie; because it conflicts with other stories he has read or seen. Let it GO already!

We watched the film prior to the Academy Awards. We thought it might win something: cinematography, screenplay, something. It was totally engrossing even knowing who M. Melies was -- we were just delighted to see all the old chunks of his films. But the story was the thing. We thought it was perfect.

I had only the vaguest notions of what the film was about when I saw it; something about an orphaned boy who lived in the clocks of a Paris train station prior to the start of WWII. There was nothing at all in the trailers to suggest it had anything to do with early silent films in general, and the works of Georges Melies in particular.

While it was not the film I had been expecting via the trailers, once I cottoned on to what it was really about, I thought it was wonderfully well-crafted and I enjoyed it a lot. Yes, I had to adjust my expectations, but that happens so much these days when studios are given a film they don't know how to market because it doesn't fall into an easily defined category like Romance, Mystery, or Thriller. The trailers for The Adjustment Bureau made it look like an Inception-style thriller when it was actually a romance. That's the advertizing department's fault, not the film's. At this point, I don't trust trailers to tell me anything about a movie other than who is in it and who directed it.

Yes. This.
Also, I loved Hugo. It was slow in a gently unrolling way, not at all in a boring way. We bought the DVD, too.

It is really, really hard to surprise me with a plot these days... Been studying plots too long. This did not go for a big splashy surprise, but rather a lovely quirkiness and compassion for the characters.

The only thing about it that actually surprised me was the fact that the automaton didn't get destroyed on the train tracks...I've become so accustomed to the tragic in story telling...but the tale? I loved it. I loved the fact that things worked out well in the end for everybody (even the nasty little dog!) and that people got back to where they were supposed to be even after hurting each other, even though they had or hadn't meant to. I adored the glimpses of the early film world, and the bits and pieces of the actual contemporary culture (the music!!! it all fit!) and the long elegant shots of the nouveau architecture..... That was one of the most satisfying movies I have ever seen.

In general it is easier to gripe about what should be the focus of the story.
Writing the story you wanted is to much like work.

Well...and there's not, I think, a realization among non-writers that, if you decide just to tell, for instance, the diverting adventures of the boy who lived in the clock -- you would immediately need a new main character. Hugo's too emotionally frail to lead the viewer a merry chase. He's lost everything, but his automaton and his autonomy -- and he stands in constant fear of losing that. He's a hero, but he's not the hero of That Other Story.

It isn't just movies. I handle the email triage for a popular webcomic, and many is the time I've gotten infuriated rants from readers explaining that (whatever it was that just happened) couldn't *possibly* be right, and that the authors ought to fix it.

I'm betting you get some of that yourself.

Yes, but thank ghu not while we're in the midst of writing it.

If I got outraged emails detailing the errors of my plots and my deficiencies as a writer while I was actually working on the book that was drawing ire, I'd retire under the desk and never emerge.

The blessing of not working real-time is that by the time the emails arrive, or the reviews hit Amazon, I'm working one, or even two, books down the line.

That must have been a big part of the challenge when working on Fledgling and Saltation. You graciously allowed us to discuss, question, expound, and generally muck about in your story.

I'm just glad you didn't retire under the desk during that time. To me, the Liaden Universe just becomes more and more enjoyable with every book.

Well...the Fledgling and Saltation discussions were polite and speculative, and they were happening in an arena that I didn't have to visit. Angry letters didn't arrive in my inbox weekly, engaging me directly.

In fact, I think we only had two nasty moments in the whole overwhelmingly positive Fledgling/Saltation experiment.

One was a reader who was Angry Beyond Words that we should be attempting the experiment at all -- upsetting, but ultimately easy to ignore, because I didn't notice that he was offering to pay our mortgage for us so we'd stop prostituting ourselves.

The other was the fellow who publicly demanded his donation back because when we declared a DRAFT, he pronounced the story Awful and Unfinished and stated that he had lost all respect for the writers. This was actually on the discussion list, not as a private email. I expect he was a troll, but he had sent in money, and as he was only escalating as various of the other members of the group tried to ~~pound nails into a rock~~ express the idea of "draft" to him, I refunded his donation, and he kept his part of the bargain, which was to go away and say no more.

It was a little more difficult during the writing of Longeye because the hate mail for Duainfey had begun to arrive, and it was vicious and nasty and personal, and we still had to turn the book around very quickly and we wanted to do a good job. I think the book suffered from the storm of negativity that it was born in, I'm sorry for it.

As a colleague once said, "The best thing about the internet for writers is that they have more interaction with their readers. ...and the worst thing about the internet for writers is that they have more interaction with their readers."

Thank-you for saying so eloquently that which I have been trying to articulate for a week now.

Happily, the Respected Reviewers in Australia (Margaret and David of "The Movie Show"), were simply delighted by the film as it stands. Which was quite remarkable as it wasn't in a foreign language, naturally lit, set in a run-down apartment block, and ending with everyone dying slow, painful and pointless deaths. All of which, up until now, appeared to be a requirement for a film to be legitimate Art.

I went to see Hugo with my SIL & brother. They insisted we see it in 3-D as that was "integral to the plot". WHich meant paying through the nose and going to a theater I don't care for. I enjoyed the movie, was surpised because I really thought it was going to be all animated. But afterwards, discussing the movie on the way home, it was like we had seen 2 different films. I thought the 3-D was completely unneccesary, and it did nothing for the movie. It was a nice movie about a man, a boy and family and how they are found or made. They felt that the movie itself was a huge homage to the history of the movie industry culminating in the 3-D technology, and the boy and girl and man were incidental.

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who think in Stories and those who think in Events...

They felt that the movie itself was a huge homage to the history of the movie industry culminating in the 3-D technology, and the boy and girl and man were incidental.

That's just. . .wow.

I liked the movie very much. My favorite character was the Station Inspector played by Sacha Baron Cohen formerlly of Borat. I thought it was an Oscar worthy performance. But oh no. Can't give any recognition to Cohen. He showed up at the Oscars dressed as his next character the Dictator and did something else outrageous which now I've forgotten. I think they threw him out of the building!

Of course one can't complain that the movie should have been made differently. That's silly. Go make your own movie.

I'd love to know how you liked John Carter if you ever see it. I liked it a lot. There's a mystery here. The critics didn't like it but that doesn't matter. The movie going public often likes movies that the critics reject. But why did the public reject this one? It's being called the biggest flop that Disney ever made. I can't understand it. Someone told me that it's doing ok abroad.

Disney didn't have the first clue how to market the film. They just thought they'd throw it out there and the Star Wars fans would eat it up. Forgetting -- or not knowing -- that the Star Wars fans would see John Carter as DERIVATIVE, not as one of the grandfathers of the genre. Like the guy on Usenet years ago who -- I kid you not -- complained that that Tolkien guy was ripping off Terry Brooks.

Plus? Disney TOTALLY FORGOT TO MENTION that 2012 is the 100th anniversary of the first publication of A Princess of Mars; they produced some of the most boring trailers I've ever seen out of Disney -- I'm just thinking that the creative home-team wasn't on-board with the project -- that Corporate had shoved it down their throats.

Plus, plus -- as many have said John Carter was just a stupid title. John Carter: Warlord of Mars, or as Mike says, A Fighting Man of Mars, or even Under the Moons of Mars -- all much more exciting, all in-canon titles that evoke the flavor of the Golden Age.

Da Mouse just blew it.

Or, yanno, maybe there's a contractual advantage to them. Maybe if they can show the first movie to have flopped, there's an exit clause and they won't have to pay the Burroughs family a piece of any future films made from the property. Maybe the Burroughs family was stupid enough to agree to receive a share of the "profits," and now things have been arranged so that there was a Really Big Loss and any "profits" from subsequent films will go "pay back" the loss, first.

They did no promo, and the name is useless. Princess of Mars would have caught the eye at least. Many people no longer remember ERB or John Carter of Mars. Then the theaters dumped it so no one Could see it. Self-fulfilling all the way. Apparently new brooms at Disney didn't "get" it. Or are just stupid, as per usual with corporate power players. How they get where they get is beyond me. I really, really liked the movie. It even warranted 3D I think. Not many do.

I liked John Carter, but having never read Princess of Mars, I kept drawing a blank whenever I heard the name. Now I'm working on reading the book :) and can hardly wait for the DVD. Having seen the movie, "John Carter" makes sense as the name, but a title is supposed to draw in people who haven't seen it. Unlike "Tarzan," which was exotic (while being easy to pronounce), "John Carter" is too ordinary. It's a title for a biography.
"Princess of Mars" is slightly hokey, but then, so is "Star Wars" - and look how great that turned out! :)

Perhaps they could have used "A Fighting Man of Mars" -- I could swear that was the subtitle that went with John Carter somewhere. Anyway, it would be a bit more suggestive.

Incidentally, the movie is coming to Japan (or just arrived?) and has been heavily promoted here.

Yep, there was A Fighting Man of Mars, Warlord of Mars, Swords of Mars. I mean, they could've called the thing "BARSOOM!" and it would've been more exciting than "John Cater."

And of course you were quite right, and it would have been a completely different film - I think my problem was that I completely missed the way the two stories were intertwined & that one couldn't be told without the other.

Lesson for me here - stick to sci-fi.. Much easier to work out what was going on - just look at the Matrix.

And you of course know that I wasn't venting at you, personally.

I've been making stories for all of my life, near enough. Given that long a time doing one thing, having to figure out why that didn't work; why that DID work, when it shouldn't have, should it?; and omighod HOW am I going to make that work, given all the rest of it? I notice things on the professional level, even when I'll tell you that I'm not analyzing, I'm Just Watching.

Building stories is the only thing I'm good at; couldn't build a bridge, say, if I wanted to. That said, I trust the guys who are laying the plates and driving the pilings to know what they're doing, and that they're doing what they're doing purposefully and for solid reasons well-known in their trade.

Certainly not! I love the 'controversy' this kicked up but I know that everybody's view of a film is subjective.. and I did like both stories, just not together!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But it would have been better if…OR You didn’t write the story I wanted to read

* * *

* * *

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Hugo

no subject

no subject

Spoiler!

The story they wanted

Re: The story they wanted

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Hugo

John Carter

Re: John Carter

John Carter

Re: John Carter

Re: John Carter

Re: John Carter

Oh, so right...

Re: Oh, so right...

Re: Oh, so right...