Has Scorsese's Hugo Flopped?

Scorsese's Hugo is groundbreaking not only because Scorsese departs from his usual themes to something more accessible - an adventure film - but because it sees the legendary filmmaker incorporate 3D technology for the first time. The result is a labor of love for Scorsese - a tribute to one of cinema's earliest pioneers using today's most cutting edge technology. Because of this, Hugo has become one of 2011's most critically acclaimed film - it has already been nominated for, and won, several accolades, mostly for the Best Film and Best Director categories, respectively, but also for its achievements in Writing, Cinematography and Editing.

But since being released in November 23, however, the film has apparently stalled at the box office, earning just a little over 52,000,000 as of December 30th. And while this does sound like a modest success for an adventure film geared towards families, Hugo has an estimated budget of 150,000,000, which is also too excessive for a film of this kind. So what went wrong? Hugo's box office performance can only be blamed on its marketing campaign and time of release.

To start, the film's title has had a rather pathetic journey, originally to be called The Invention of Hugo Cabret after Brian Selznick's novel, then shortened to Hugo Cabret and finally shortened even more to merely Hugo. The dissatisfaction and confusion surrounding the title is a clear indication that Paramount Pictures were oblivious as to how they were going to market this film. Trailers were then released, portraying the film as a "family adventure," while Scorsese's name sang loud and clear in print, also illustrating Hugo as his first foray in 3D.

Granted, Scorsese is more synonymous with violence and melancholic men rather than box office returns. But his last four films - Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed and Shutter Island - were all extremely successful in theaters, giving Scorsese his most highest-grossing films. These four films, on the other hand, featured someone Hugo does not - Leonardo DiCaprio. While it is overreaching to base those films' successes simply because of DiCaprio, those films were not troubling to market. Simply mention DiCaprio and Scorsese, and you have a guaranteed moneymaker. Hugo, while it does feature Ben Kingsley and Jude Law, is ultimately carried by Asa Butterfield, an incredibly gifted young actor but relative unknown.  How can you possibly market a film to children about the late life of filmmaker Georges Melies disguised as a simple action-adventure film? Mentioning Scorsese's name countless time didn't help either.


Hugo's release date was also problematic. Released alongside Happy Feet Two, Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Arthur Christmas and The Muppets, it really never had a chance in the first place. The aforementioned films, excluding Arthur Christmas, have such a strong and grounded fanbase that, regardless of marketing strategies or release dates, the films were already box office successes. Is Hugo a great film? Surely, yes, and is already being heralding is not only one of the year's best films, but also one of Scorsese's most triumphant efforts. Does it have a chance to recuperate its budget, much less make profit? If the film is a big winner come Oscars season, then it can make a profit, but at this pace, not likely.