I detest 3-D. The whole time I was watching Hugo I was thinking how much better it could have been in two dimensions. 3-D in film is counter-intuitive and distracting. For example, it makes nonsense of careful focus-pulling: if 3-D is meant to immerse us in the screen how can one use anything but deep focus, allowing the eye to look clearly at any element of the image? Scorsese favours classical image-making, in which careful use of focus is important to the mise-en-scène, and the 3-D cinematography goes against that kind of visual discourse. It also makes everything look CG even if it isn’t (and judging from what I’ve read it seems that a great deal of effort was taken to make the set dressing and design true to 1930s Paris). I think there was a very good film behind the bad cinematography. The plot is certainly engaging, especially for someone like me who loves early twentieth-century Paris and film history. Ben Kingsley is very good as Méliès, and the two kids are also great. I look forward to watching this in glorious 2-D on DVD, when I’ll be able to form a better opinion of the film.
No comments:
Post a Comment