Which one? I've mastered three

[sovay]

Hugo (2011) is not the best movie I have ever seen about movies, but it may be the most loving. There are almost no villains in it, except maybe Time, which is also a magician. Everyone in it turns out to be real.

(Almost everything in it is real. Hugo is invented; the automaton he discovers is not.)

Today was better than yesterday.

Comments

[nineweaving.livejournal.com]

It sounds lovely.

Today was better than yesterday.

Thank heavens.

Nine

[ap-aelfwine.livejournal.com]

It sounds charming. I'll have to keep it in mind.

Today was better than yesterday.

I'm delighted to hear this, and hope the trend continues.

[time-shark.livejournal.com]

Anita and I were pretty much blown away by Hugo at every turn. I'm still thinking about it.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Everyone in it turns out to be real

On second reading I understand what you mean: that the people and things and places mentioned in the movie have real-life antecedents (yes?)

But at first I thought it meant that everything that seems a dream or a wish or an illusion in the movie ends up being real--within the movie. That gave me a sudden sense of joy.

[snowy-owlet.livejournal.com]

Today was better than yesterday.

I'm glad to hear it.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

My daughter keeps telling me I need to see this film.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

More loving than Day for Night? Wow!

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Oh, good -- I have standing plans to see that.

Today was better than yesterday.

I reiterate: Oh, good. :)

[gwynnega]

I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

[sovay]

It sounds lovely.

I recommend it very highly, if it's playing near wherever you are.

[sovay]

I'm delighted to hear this, and hope the trend continues.

Thank you. Today hit a scratch, but the movie was still good.

[sovay]

I'm still thinking about it.

You should write about it.

It was very good.

[sovay]

I'm glad to hear it.

Thank you.

[sovay]

My daughter keeps telling me I need to see this film.

I recommend it!

(3-D is significantly not my preference, but it didn't wreck the experience for me. The film is stronger than its technology.)

[sovay]

More loving than Day for Night? Wow!

I haven't seen Day for Night! Tell me about it.

[sovay]

I reiterate: Oh, good.

Hee. Thank you.

Enjoy Hugo!

[sovay]

I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

I was not entirely sure what to expect, but it was lovely.

[sovay]

On second reading I understand what you mean: that the people and things and places mentioned in the movie have real-life antecedents (yes?)

Well, I meant by the first line that the characters in it are real, even if at first they look like the face cards of children's literature. They have histories. They're complicated. They turn out to be people.

But almost everything in the movie does have a real-life antecedent, which I didn't realize when I was watching it—I thought it was a kind of wishful alternate history. The core story is factual. That knowledge only adds grace.

But at first I thought it meant that everything that seems a dream or a wish or an illusion in the movie ends up being real--within the movie. That gave me a sudden sense of joy.

Actually, it's kind of true.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

Original title La Nuit américaine: François Truffaut's love letter to the movies, from the point of view of the people who make them.

It's an ensemble piece about the making of a film - it doesn't look like a very good film, but that may not be intentional - with Truffaut playing the part of the director (more than a touch of self portrait here). It is one of my top ten films.

And it also contains one genuine oddity, a tiny cameo from Graham Greene as an insurance assessor.

[sovay]

And it also contains one genuine oddity, a tiny cameo from Graham Greene as an insurance assessor.

That's wonderful.

You've seen The Stunt Man (1980), yes?