The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari 1920 /
Hugo 2011
The review will meander a bit around a modern film before talking about the classic silent era horror film
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920). Earlier this week I gave in to the pressures of positive reviews, academy awards and my love of all flicks by
Martin Scorsese and went to see Scorsese's new children's adventure movie
Hugo (2011).
Hugo has some interesting ties back to early cinema and inspired me to re-watch to review one of my favorites of the silent era. It was a hard choice between
Metropolis (1927),
Dr. Caligari, or a movie by
Georges Melies (discussed below), but I chose my favorite silent flick
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Now to stop dancing around the issue and get into the details of historic characters, film history, and finally some movie recommendations.
Hugo was the inspiration for writing about a silent film so I should discuss it and its ties to silent movies first. It is a great adventure story with fantastic effects, sound, costumes, and a pretty darn good story, but that is better explained by the awards it received. At the 2012 Oscars it took home awards for Art Direction, Cinematography, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and lastly Visual Effects. Personally I saw it in 3D and minus a scene or two ruined with heavy 3D snow I can see how it won both cinematography and effects categories. It is a great looking work that does some amazing tricks with 3D and regularly has staggering shots involving the mechanics of clocks. It is no great surprise that it was a technically solid, beautiful movie with
Robert Richardson as the cinematographer and Scorsese directing. Richardson has worked with Scorsese in the past as director of photography on
Shutter Island (2010) and worked on both
Kill Bill flicks. Scorsese is a directing powerhouse famous for a long list of masterpieces such as
Raging Bull (1980),
Goodfellas (1990),
Gangs of New York (2002), and
The Departed (2006). Enough gushing about the talent behind the flick and to why it is relevant to my romp back into the silent era.
Hugo is the story of an orphaned boy seeking a last connection to his dead father. The boy named Hugo, played competently by
Asa Butterfeild, befriends the goddaughter of the owner of a toy shop in the train station where Hugo lives. The store owner's story intertwines with the story of Hugo and his dead father through an early clockwork robot. The historical significance in the film comes back to this toy shop owner. The toy maker,
Ben Kingsley who is awesome as always, turns out to be famous early film and effects genius George Melies. The story of the character intertwines with Melies's fall from film making into obscurity working in a Paris train station and his rise back to recognition. The movie does deviate from the true story of Melies but much of the silent movies shown are actual Melies films.
Hugo does a great job of opening up this fantastic film maker to a modern audience. Meleies made silent movies from 1986 to 1913 and was an early pioneer in special effects. He was one of the earliest film makers to explore genres of horror, science fiction, and fantasy with famous films that drew upon ideas from contemporary science fiction writers such as
Jules Verne. Kingsley portrays Melies as a man damaged by his fall from grace and financial failures which closely reflects the real life Melies.
So after a two hour modern flick extolling the wonders of early film making, I was overwhelmed with a desire to watch a silent era horror or fantasy film. Naturally I drifted back to the film class favorite
The Cabinet of Caligari because it was my first non-
Buster Keaton silent film.
Dr. Caligari is one of best examples of early horror and
expressionism in film. It involves ideas of reality and insanity. The story unfolds through a character recounting the tale of how he came to track a murdering hypnotist and asylum director back to the insane asylum. It questions what is reality and who really is insane. The recent Martin Scorsese film
Shutter Island closely mirrors much of the same ideas and themes.
Dr. Caligari draws heavily on expressionism for its style and its heavy use of angles give the whole story the surreal qualities that further confuses reality and fantasy. It is hard to explain the aesthetic style of
Dr. Caligari and I suggest everyone checks out at least a few minutes of the film to understand how fantastic the art and sets could be in the early era of film.
OK enough of me feeding you a film history lesson and down to the important recommendations.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a wonderful film. It is a simple story with very complex ideas and subtext. The set design and style create a wonderful fantasy world and you will recognize parts of the set because modern film makers draw heavily from
Dr. Caligari (
Tim Burton flicks and coffin scenes from
Dracula [1931] are a great example). On the other hand I can't recommend
Dr. Caligari to most audiences. It suffers from the slow pace common in silent films. Unless you like black and white or silent movies,
Dr. Caligari will only be interesting for its historic context.
Hugo on the other hand should appeal to a modern audience from children right up to jaded art house fans. Scorsese again pulls off a blend of pop film making and beautiful art. It borders at time on a pretentious film history lesson (like this article!), but it is exciting and entertaining. I didn't think that
Hugo could live up to critical acclaim it has received, but I think it did. While it wasn't the most engaging or fun movie last year it certainly was one of the most beautiful with staggering effects and some of the best sound work I have ever seen. I would recommend
Hugo to anyone looking for a deeper kids movie and anyone who loves Scorsese.
The director, Guy Moshe, deserves the credit for the successes in this film. Drawing together the desperate styles had to be done by a true artist. The film has some writing missteps, but it mostly falls down due to the acting. The narrator (apparently stylistically straight out of Bunraku theater), voiced by Mike Patton, is heavy handed and over used despite sounding awesome. The acting leaves a lot to be desired, even by some of the actors that originally drew me to the film such as Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I can't bring myself to like Josh Hartnett despite him doing great in this film and several minor characters seemed to be miscast. Other actors saved the film from becoming an artist, stylish bore. Ron Perlman as the antagonist woodcutter Nicola was great. Perlman really nails roles where he needs to be a likeable bad guy (see him in Sons of Anarchy he makes the show). The androgynous Japanese actor Gackt plays the second protagonist Yoshi spectacularly. His acting, makeup, and costuming bring to life the Japanese aesthetics. Killer Number Two (I mentioned numbered enemies right?), Kevin McKidd of Grey's Anatomy fame, was a great cold, analytica bad guy who reminded me of the awesome antagonist the Swede from AMC's Hell on Wheels. 
