Hugo Film and Literature Adaptation

When looking at ‘Hugo’ directed by Martin Scorsese the adaptation from the Novel ‘The Invention of Hugo Cabret’ by Brian Selzink I believe it is a close adaptation. There are differences however in order to accomplish what the director was trying to portray. These differences are what made the film a close adaptation. The way dialogue is portrayed differs in the novel. The film has time and background music to elaborate on details. The novel has to keep the audience engaged. Camera angle also help portray this dialogue. Thes camera angles can “add meaning to the subject being filmed” (Desmond Hawkes p. 8). In this aspect the characters can get into more detail in the film. The connection between Hugo and the Automaton and how it relates to his father differs from the novel and film. In the novel Hugo is presented the Automaton at the Museum by his father, but it never leaves the museums sight until Hugo retrieves it after the fire. In the film Hugo’s father takes the Automaton home where him and Hugo work on it together. Not only does this bring the two characters closer together prior to a turning point in the film, but also it creates a stronger connection between Hugo and the Automaton.

This Automaton represents Hugo fixing himself. In order to really make that connection in the film Scorsese brought the association with the father and automaton. In the novel the automaton is a representation of a real automaton as is the one in the film, however the film did not use CGI to portray this amazing feature and mechanics, the film did use tricks in order to best portray the automaton and mechanics. One of the visual differences is the lack of jacket, which is present in the book. The jacket hides the mechanics of the automaton.

This not only distracts from the reoccurring theme of fixing broken things, but it also hides the hard work the team did on the project. A mechanical trick used in production of the automaton was using magnets in the pen and the desk. This allowed for a cleaner drawing and was easier to portray on film. Scorsese also uses lighting to his advantage in order to help portray the scene and the tone. During the scenes that were sad or depressing there was key lighting creating many shadows and high contrast. This was usually present in his hidden apartment, in the tunnels of the station or when he follows Georges home from the train station.

Hugo all around was a close adaptation. Scorsese worked with Butterfield to help further character development “…Scorsese helped teach him all about the history of cinema…” (Hugo Movie Companion, Selznick p. 88). Butterfield also worked with clocks and mechanics to help further the realism felt when attending to the automaton “I did a lot with screwdrivers, making clocks…So I’d hold it quite up close with this little eyepiece magnifier, and I’d take it apart and put it together again. ” (Hugo Movie Companion, Selznick p. 89). This helped the theme of broken things.

In the novel the inspector was never revealed to us as an orphan but in the film he is portrayed as having to work his way to wear he is and going through extreme hardships. I believe in the end of the film it give the inspector a lighter heart. This allows not only Hugo to have a connection with him, but also the audience. I believe the camera work ad camera movement also helps successfully adapt the novel to film. The different shots portray different things on screen. This allows an audience member to view the scene from a different perspective.

The camera movement also helps portray the shot in a different perspective, but this is how the audience is moved through the scene visually. The main point is a love and dedication to film and cinema. Geroges Melies was the first one to try and portray this art of story telling. WE learned this earlier in the semester through reading Desmond and Hawks “Melies… came from an entertainment background, and so adapting theatrical conventions to the new medium was natural for him. ” (Desmond Hawkes p. 11). Many view Scorsese as the same type of innovator in the cinematic world. This is also were Kingsley channels most of his inspiration from. …my role model for playing Georges Melies should be Martin Scorsese! There he is. Why look any further? You don’t have to go out and research somebody who’s been dead a long time who you can’t speak to. You are with a living pioneer of cinema…” (Hugo Movie Companion, Selznick p. 73). I believe the set design also stayed true to the novel and to the time period of the setting. The set director gather inspiration from various Paris stations and re-created the station in an enclosed set warehouse in England. This allowed the film crew and cast to iron out the details to make the film as close an adaptation as possible.

This was also tied with costume and lighting. The film crew wanted to achieve the color palate and texture of the time period. This was done through the setting, costume, makeup, lighting and editing. Overall the adaptation was very good. The small differences only helped further the film to create the best film in Scorsese’s eyes. These small adjustments made the film what it is and why it was nominated for what it was. This film shows how adaptation when observed by any medium can be adapted successfully allowing the audience a different perspective for already good work now, in the past and towards the future.