Chủ Nhật, 26 tháng 2, 2012

Hugo should have won the Oscar for Best Motion Picture

My tea doesn't taste right. It tastes, how do I put this, bitterness. The Artist was awarded the Oscar award tonight for Best Motion Picture, and I think it actually deserves it. Michel Hazanavicius has done a great job in recreating a black-and-white silent movie that unexpectedly accomplished such high reception from the audience and critics. The cast was awesome; both Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo were able to express their "muted" characters successfully, and I admit acting a silent role requires much more from the actor, from facial expressions to gestures, than acting a normal role. Yet, Hugo, the movie I had expected and hoped for, did not get the Oscar for Best Picture (even though it won the most Oscars this time, for Best Cinematography, Art Direction, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Visual Effect).



Hugo has its charm. The movie is the adaption from an original of Brian Selznick "The invention of Hugo Cabret", which portrays an orphan boy who lives in a railway station after losing his father due to a museum fire. He often steals toys from a toy store in the station to extract the gear motives and other mechanical parts of the toys that would help him fix an automaton that was left by his father, hoping to retrieve a message from his late father.




Personally, I think the most creative part of the story is the shift of focus of the movie from a boy looking for a message from his dead father to the lives of the characters around him. An old man, owner of the toy shop, who lives in agony trying to forget his great past of being a film-maker; a little girl who also lost her parents but loves wonderful adventures; a writer who so believes that his childhood great idol has been killed during war,... all contribute to fill Hugo the wonderful stories of extraordinary lives, those that without Hugo's adventure would have never been known of. Without the young boy's journey, the toy shop owner would still just make toy, the little girl would still live her lives unchallenged, and the writer would still think that his childhood admired man was dead.






Blogger Prospero from The Economist has commented on the structure of Hugo: "Hugo has its structural problem. Like so many movies, Hugo has too many endings." However, that is actually what makes Hugo special. The story is not very much about how the boy ends up in the railway station, how his father dies or what the message his father left. In fact, if it had gone that way, Hugo would have been a non-original, non-creative plot. Some people cannot "digest" Hugo for its free-floating story line, with focus shifting from one life to another. However, it is simply because we are so conditioned to stick to the traditional way of movie making, which consists of a main centerpiece, the building up of the tension and the climax occurs on that centerpiece. For Hugo, it's rather a pleasure to just sit back and peacefully enjoy the adventure of a boy through many people's lives.


The movie also contains a message. In Hugo's own words: "Sometimes I imagine this whole world as a giant machine. Any part of a machine has its own function and purpose, and everyone in the world must also have their own purpose. No part is extra, and no one is extra" (sorry for any imprecision). I also think the movie is beautiful, because, unlike in other movies, this message is not said as a propaganda. A lot of time, in movies, there are inspirational slogans that are repeated throughout without being proven. In Hugo, the message goes deeper than that. It doesn't just say "everyone in the world has his own purpose" to convince audience of a perfect world, a utopia where everyone is assured to have a good function. On contrary, the movie tries to focus on the fact that sometimes, this purpose is lost, or not yet found; and Hugo, described in the movie as "a boy whose purpose is to fix things", selflessly walks through his journey to fix, to look for, to regain, to transform the purposes of other people around him so their parts are no longer extra.




Besides excellent cinematography (which the movie has won the Oscar for), Hugo also has very expressive and unique soundtracks. Simple uses of piano, blended with the sound of accordion which brings in the French feeling and elegant strings section (mostly violin, sometimes there are guitars). The music of Hugo surely makes the movie a time machine that brings the audience back to the real Paris in the 1930s. Songs are often written with a main melody with wide-range, disjunct (and sometimes dissonant) sound, accompanied by soft, repetitive, floating chords in the background. Overall, the melody line tends to stay simple, with little polyphony. The music seems to decorate the movie with a layer of fog, of mystery, of adventure that is slowly explored throughout the movie. I think the music fits perfectly well with the steamy train station in Paris at the time, describing the "magical" world of the young boy Hugo.


Asa Butterfield, playing the role Hugo.
Last but not least, the best decision of Hugo's director would be to cast Asa Butterfield into playing the role Hugo. In fact, this is not my first time watching a movie with Asa Butterfield playing the main actor. The previous movie was one that I especially liked - "The boy in striped pyjamas", in which Asa played a German boy whose father works for the Nazi. Compared to last time, Asa obviously has grown a lot, both physically and emotionally. His ability to convey emotions is, without exaggeration, unlimited. Even though, sometimes I feel like Hugo cries too much in the movie (which is pretty understandable for a 12-year-old orphan who has to live on his own), I admit that Asa did those scenes so perfectly that the crying of the character Hugo just does not seem fake.


Approaching the audience with a fresh and new approach, Hugo deserves all the awards it's got. Even though it didn't get the Oscar for the Best Motion Picture this year, for sure it has won my heart. It will be a while longer, probably decades, until my passion for this movie fades away. Until then, I will keep treasuring it.

Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 2, 2012

The Fed's Job under Political Hands.

This blog post is a response to the article "Sympathy for Ben Bernanke" (can be found at http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/monetary-policy-2).
-----------------------------------------------

When the Federal Reserves (Fed) of the United States was created in 1913, it was structured so that it could maintain independence from the Government and Congress; the idea was that, in the Fed's own terms, "the people who control the country's money supply should be independent of the people who frame the government's spending decisions" (i.e. Congress). Now the situation is rather bizarre: the Republicans in the Congress try their best to make sure Ben Bernanke stop injecting money into the economy - or to be very honest, they actually would want Ben Bernanke to be gone. 


Ron Paul debating with Ben Bernanke during a Congress meeting
Photo: CNN
The Republicans are concerned by the very basis knowledge that any first-time learner in Introduction to Macroeconomics must know: when you implement expansionary monetary policy, inflationary expectation and, hence, actual inflation tend to move up together. However, I would argue that they had ignored two things:

1) When consumer confidence is low and aggregate demand is weak, inflation can't pick up that fast, which still leaves the government capacity to stimulate the weak economy further more. In fact, inflation rate in 2011 was well-below 4%. People look at inflation as the first derivative of price (how fast price changes), I would like to look at the second derivative (how the rate of inflation changes). In fact, after inflation picked up at the beginning of 2011, the rate of increase of inflation has started to slowed down. By January 2012, inflation has dropped. That doesn't look to me like a booming economy at all - rather a weak economy fluctuating up and down. Hence, now is not the time to worry about inflation.
US Consumer Price Index from 2009-2011
Photo: Tradingeconomics.com
2) The increase of inflation isn't necessarily bad, especially when the economy is not at full employment. Normal Keynesian stabilization policies require that we must endure a bit of inflation during expansionary time. Yet, Republicans - as mostly the haters of Keynesian economics - tend to favor the self-correcting mechanism. That is, they would rather wait for unemployed people to beg for lower wages, which would in turn increase aggregate supply, fixing the economy without the cost of inflation. Let me tell you how this won't work (and I'm not reusing the Keynesian usual reason "stickiness of wages"): The minimum wage is already too low. Even though the nominal wage seems to have continuously increased, the real wage actually has mostly decreased since 1970. Any attempt to lower people's real wage further is simply inhumane. In the end, the price won't rise as much, yet that doesn't even matter because people don't have money to buy the goods anyways.


The movement of federal minimum wage
(Pink line indicates real wage)
Personally, I consider the Republicans' concerns over inflation is in fact partisanship, i.e. they feel the need to oppose the Democrats. Or, if there should be other reasons, I think they are acting just to fit into their general stereotypes that "Republicans are conservative, Republicans are classical economists, Republicans oppose stabilization policies, and inflation must be the very first target". This is what I consider the failure of democracy: the opposing parties are so busy fighting each other that they forget or ignore what the country actually needs. Just to be fair to the Democrats, back when Republican Ronald Reagan was in office in the 1980s, the actual person that put aside the employment goal of the Fed and engineered the way out of double-digit inflation at the time was actually a Democrat: Paul Volcker (a Princeton professor who served as the Chairman of the Fed from 1979 to 1987). That said, I wonder why Republicans can't be as compromising and act according to the economy's need like what the Democrats did?


This post is another reason why one should really think twice when voting for a Republican - be it Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul or whoever else - to be President. Any of them is so ready to get rid of Ben Bernanke, and trust me, it's hard to find another intellectual and creative Fed Chairman like him.

------------------------------
Vu T. Chau
Princeton, Feb 7th, 2012

--I don't own or make any photos in this blog post.--