![]() While accounts of the birth of the posthuman in human-technology co-evolution typically move us beyond simplistic accounts of technology as neutral or autonomous, they are often under-theorized, especially in regard to examining the nature of these relations and their shape relative to specific human beings, the so-called users of technology. Central to the story of Hugo Cabret is a sophisticated philosophical account of technology that contributes to our understanding of how technology mediates culture while simultaneously being mediated by culture. ![]() ![]() It is in this posthuman context that Scorsese’s film deserves a close, critical reading. It is widely maintained today that the convergence of nano-, bio-, cogno-, and information technologies has disrupted the once firm boundaries between human and technology, technology is seen as central to the human condition, and the human being is portrayed as a product of technological relations. Those transformations have led some to hypothesize that we are witnessing something of a paradigm shift, from a human to a posthuman world. On this reading, Hugo is an extended meditation on the technological forces that are transforming not only cinema but human beings. Rather than situating Hugo in film’s past as an argument for our cinematic heritage in an age of digital streaming, Hugo can be read as an argument for a future, posthuman vision in which human beings live technologically-mediated lives. In this essay, though, I will suggest another, more forward-looking view, focusing largely on the conceptual and narrative ground both book and film explore. This backward-looking reading of Hugo is certainly not wrong and both book and film are deserving of analysis in terms of questions of form. Furthermore, Selznick’s book, a graphic novel that literally incorporates in its pages cinema’s past in the form of still images, and Scorsese’s film, evoking cinematic history while employing possibly its technological future, are both meditations on the nature and changing forms of literary and cinematic media. Selznick, and The Invention of Hugo Cabret nostalgically evokes the glory days of cinema’s past. Selznick himself comes from classic cinema royalty, being related to Hollywood producer David O. Such a reading is underscored by Hugo’s source material, Brian Selznick’s children’s picture book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret (2007). Scorsese is founder and chair of The Film Foundation, dedicated to protecting and preserving motion picture history, and Hugo itself can be read as an argument for film preservation, with its loving recreation of the cinematic workshop and output of Georges Méliès and its interpolation of numerous scenes from classic cinema. Upon further reflection, such puzzles might be resolved by recognizing Scorsese’s long-standing interest in film preservation. A big-budget, family-friendly, 3-D film featuring heavy use of computer-generated imagery, hardly seems like the kind of fare expected from an auteur whose oeuvre, including Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and Casino, skews more gritty, realistic, masculine, and violent. On initial viewing, Martin Scorsese’s 2011 film Hugo is likely to leave viewers puzzled. ![]() × Current About Archive Submit Editorial Board Salisbury University Hugo and the Automaton 1 Dennis M. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |