In Martin Scorsese’s Hugo, there appear to be two
distinct but interrelated notions of the automaton as 1) an agent approaching
human-like capability through its use of delicate, mimetic actions and 2) a
lifeless, explicitly non-human machine that is nothing more than the sum of its
parts. Embodied most explicitly in the image of the automaton created by Milies,
and later restored by Hugo and his father, these two notions of the automaton
manifest at various moments within the film.
The first conception of the automaton as a human-like agent
is strongly linked to Hugo’s memories of his deceased father, his later
relationship with George Milies, and his attraction to Isabelle. Although the
scenes that show father and son repairing the automaton depict an immobile
machine, the very act of restoration imbues the automaton with a sense of
potential life. The broken automaton is more lifelike in these scenes due to the
way in which it mediates the dynamic relationship between Hugo and a particular
father figure. In addition, the heart shaped key used to initiate the
automaton’s actions is not merely a simplistic metaphor (heart=life) but is
strongly connected to Hugo’s burgeoning romance with Isabelle.
Conversely, the lifeless mechanism of the automaton surfaces
most strongly in Hugo’s back-to-back dream sequence in which he is first run
over by a train while attempting to rescue the heart shaped key and then awakes
to discover that he is transforming into the automaton. In this scenario, the relationship
between the human and the automaton (life and non-life) is inverted. Rather
than an immobile machine surging with life-like potential, the human subject is
pulled into the lifeless worlds of death (the train) and automatism. Tellingly,
this pull towards lifelessness occurs within Hugo’s unconscious which
reinforces the psychoanalytic reading of Hugo’s underlying fear of the automata
that poses the greatest threat in stealing his humanity: Gustav.
The combative relationship between Hugo and Gustav
represents a social commentary of the film’s more conceptual and fantastical
treatment of difference between the human and the automaton. Specifically,
Gustav’s position as a law enforcement officer reveals his metonymic linkage to
those unnatural (non-human) elements that pervade bureaucratic systems and are
abstracted from the individual instantiations of everyday “life” and
concretized into the static, lifeless form of laws.
Likewise, Gustav’s leg
brace indicates his identification with the non-human automatisms of the law. Indeed,
Gustav’s embodiment of this tension between a human life and a lifeless
automaton of the state is revealed most explicitly when he finally catches Hugo,
and, Madame Emilie, reacting in protest, shouts “Gustav! Have a heart!” Once
again, the link between automaton (Gustav) and humanity is bolstered through a
human relationship. Holding Hugo by the scruff of his shirt, Gustav catches a
glimpse of Lisette’s face and recognizes her compassion for Hugo. Furthermore,
the film hints at Gustav’s inability to read people’s faces earlier when
Isabelle and Hugo are stopped by Gustav who is unable to recognize Hugo even
though his disguise consists of nothing more than a beret. In addition, the
fact that Gustav describes Maximillion’s (the dog) detective abilities in terms
of visual and facial recognition betrays the degree to which Gustav is further
detached from human relationships and the kind of connection to life that makes
it possible for him to read someone’s face.
In this interaction between Hugo and Gustav, Scorsese pits
the abstracted, lifeless state substitute for “family” (orphanage) against the
dynamic, individuated relationships among the characters. In this way, the film
makes the case for life not as a static substance but rather as an active
connection among perceiving entities.
No comments:
Post a Comment