I saw it a couple of weeks ago and thought it was charming. I loved the tap-dancing ending, and the fact that it was in long takes. That sort of thing–both the tap dancing and the dance being filmed in anything but quick cuts–seem to be lost arts.
The main lesson I took away from this film, though, was that you can pile a whole bunch of celluloid in the middle of a room and set it on fire… and not only will the whole building not burn down, but the room will suffer minimal damage.
Well, *I *found the Emperor perfectly well-dressed, and I went in prepared to dislike the film. Though speaking of “no clothes,” women did *not *wear cloche hats and knee-length dresses in 1932!
What does that even mean? Obviously lots of people like or love the film. Not just here, but everywhere (link to awards page). They’re all deluded just because you don’t like it? It’s obviously not for everyone, no movie is, but that doesn’t reflect on the quality of the movie.
It isn’t as if Michel Hazanavicius was trying to be slavishly accurate to the period. Just the inclusion of the delightful “Pennies From Heaven” by the beyond delightful Rose Murphy shows that. The song was written in 1936, and Rose released her version in 1957.
Speaking of, even if I didn’t already love this movie, it had my heart and soul forever in its grip because it included a Rose Murphy song (links are to other songs by Rose). My husband and I recognized Rose’s voice immediately and we impulsively started laughing and clapping. I think we were the only ones in the theater who knew who she was though. I’ve liked Hazanavicius for years now anyway, because of the OSS 117 films he and Dujardin did, and now that I know he likes Rose Murphy I love him even more.
I said, in early December:
Congratulations to The Artist for its 10 Academy Award nominations!
Best Motion Picture of the Year
Thomas Langmann (Producer)
Best Achievement in Directing
Michel Hazanavicius
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Jean Dujardin
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Bérénice Bejo
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Michel Hazanavicius
Best Achievement in Art Direction
Laurence Bennett
Robert Gould
Best Achievement in Cinematography
Guillaume Schiffman
Best Achievement in Costume Design
Mark Bridges
Best Achievement in Editing
Anne-Sophie Bion
Michel Hazanavicius
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Ludovic Bource
I hope it wins everything it’s up for. Not because it’s my favorite movie, because if I ranked them it probably wouldn’t even be in the To 20, and not because I think it’s better than the other nominees, but because it’d be such an unlikely, odd, strange and bizarre Oscar winner. This movie easily could have died a slow, unheralded death, playing in art houses for a couple of weeks then showing up on Netflix streaming and DVD for people to discover on their own. It’s not Oscar bait, it’s a quirky little film that made it to the big time, like Peppy. Its story is almost better than the movie itself, and I think it’s a damned good movie.
Just saw it today, and my verdict would be very enjoyable but not quite Oscar worthy. The main flaw is that the plot is a little too thin and predictable to make it a fully moving experience. A good subplot would have both made it feel less padded and broadened the scope of the film. Plus I wish they’d have put a lot more dialogue cards in the first half hour; it was hard to follow when you had to wait four minutes for dialogue.
Now for the good parts: I think all the actors did fine jobs, and avoided the stereotypical “play to the balcony” overacting we associate with silent films. The setpiece where Valentin dreams everyone but him makes sound was witty, and the scence where he views his self produced movie was powerful. The score was fantastic, filling out some of the slower parts while never being overbearing. You know what the best part was though? The art theater I saw it at was quiet except for funny scenes. When the score was quiet or briefly took a break, you could even hear the click of the film projector.
This whole thread and no one’s mentioned the dog.
I think the last minute was the reason why he didn’t want to do talkies. I take on board what Eve said above about the silent actors not wanting to do talkies but it was just the way they revealed it right at the end. Came as a surprise to me although I admit I should have seen it coming given as I knew it was a French film and that he is a French actor.
Which actors made the best transition to talkies? I would say Laurel and Hardy - they were funny anyway and actually managed to get funnier when they could talk.
See post #18
Ah yeah sorry. I’m glad it survived to the end. I was convinced it was gonna die to allow for a sentimental “sad” bit
Lots and lots, actually: Garbo, Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Gary Cooper, Ronald Colman, John Barrymore, Dolores Del Rio, Bebe Daniels, Marie Dressler, Wallace Beery, Warner Baxter—all successful in silents and even more so in talkies.
Uh, I don’t think anyone intended to expected this film to “bring back silent movies.” It was an homage, not a revival.
Anyway, I saw it on Sunday and I was enchanted. The acting, particularly Dujardin, was fabulous, and the movie just looked good.
People in this thread are complaining that the plot was cliched and predictable and I think that’s missing the point – of course it was. Of course we knew what was going to happen! This movie is a love letter to the silent movies and early talkies of the 20s and 30s. I loved the scenes that recalled famous works from Mornau, or Renoir, all the way up to the Citizen Kane breakfast table. The loyal butler, the scrappy dog, the shrewish wife, the starry-eyed ingenue, the gruff studio owner - those are all archetypes the movie made nods to. I thought it was pitch perfect in capturing the right tone.
My only quibble, as has been mentioned, is that the movie could have been 15-20 minutes shorter with tighter editing. The late-middle part of the film dragged on a bit.
I’m still catching up on my Oscar movies – I’ve only seen 3/9 Best Picture nominees so far – but this one is at the top of my list right now.
There have been similar quotes in the reviews as well. I’ve read several and could probably search them out if I had to. The real point is that Hollywood copies - usually badly - anything and everything that is successful. I can’t imagine why you would argue that.
Well he’s delusional then. We’re not going back to mainstream silent movies any more than we’re going back to kinemascopes or hand-cranked cameras.
I should have learned my lesson when we were flooded with black & white movies after the success of Schindler’s List.
I think artistic, enjoyable, *modern *silent movies *could *be made, of course–but they will never be economically feasible. Maybe on YouTube, or as money-losing indies . . . It’s a whole other art form, as sculpting is different from painting. It *is *a shame it was lost.
You’re right, of course. There have also been many modern short films that effectively used the technique. But it’s not going to become a commercial movie staple like video projection or even a well-used gimmick like 3D.
Whoever said those things would happen? According to the article, Hazanavicius just said he hoped that The Artist would be the first of many films to revisit the silent era.
“Many” is not most or a majority or even necessarily a large amount, just more than now, and since there’s only one now, many might be 3-4 a year. There’s nothing wrong with that. Some will be worth seeing, some won’t. Some filmmakers might find a whole new cinematic language to use via the silent treatment. It’s yet another tool. Most won’t use it, just as most don’t/won’t use 3D. Perhaps we’ll get one or two truly great movies in the next decade or so. Perhaps not. But no one, NO ONE, not even Hazanavicius thinks silent films will become mainstream or commonplace. Eve is, as always, right.
I saw The Artist again last night, an Oscar nightish double-feature with the great A Separation (which should be nominated for Best Picture itself). It held up for me and was just as good, if not slightly better, than the first time I saw it. It’s a frothy little thing, but oh so wonderful.
Saw it yesterday. In my opinion, the film is not Oscar-worthy, and really not even nomination-worthy (at least not in the Best Picture category). It’s worth seeing, but not an awards-level movie.
It is a gimmick film, designed to appeal to movie geeks and people in the industry. The plot is hackneyed and trite. Prideful protagonist on top of the world falls off his perch, but in the end is rescued by his true love. (Didn’t I see a slightly broader version of this with Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters? 
)
This film is literally Oscar bait. As in, the filmmakers understand perfectly how to appeal to Oscar voters. Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood. This film is to Oscar fishing as a jitterbug on a moonlit night is to bass fishing. Almost a sure thing.
Quick, tell me it isn’t silent during the tap-dancing. If you can hear that, this may be my Super Bowl movie. Need answer fast!
The taps are loud and clear.
By the way, this movie marks what must be at least the 500th appearance of the Bradbury Building on film.
This right here proves that the term “Oscar bait” is pure and utter bullshit, as meaningless as meaningless can be, and is thrown out by people when they don’t know any better. It’s always been meaningless, but now it’s jumped about a thousand sharks.
The Artist is as far away from “Oscar bait” (as you “understand” the term) as you could possibly get. The Human Centipede might be less “Oscar baity” but not by much.
This thing premiered in MAY of 2011 and was not seen as any kind of an Awards contender. Harvey Weinstein had to be forced into pushing it for awards season, probably the first time that’s ever happened to him.
NOW that people love it, and NOW that it’s been improbably nominated for several Oscars and NOW that it looks to win several Oscars, it’s called “Oscar bait” but only because you and your kin just don’t like it as much as other people do.
Oscar bait my ass. I spent half the year gnawing on my fingers worrying that it wouldn’t even OPEN in Chicago, assuming it probably would, but wondering if it would play one arthouse for a couple of weeks and then close, with only a few token nominations and wins here and there among critic groups.
I’d say more, but I have to go get over my laughing fit.
Saw it yesterday, and I think it fully merits the attention it’s been getting. I was watching it quite happily but without being that impressed when it reached the dream sequence, which was a truly great bit of cinema. After that I was hooked. It’s quite an innocent film, capturing the artistic ethos of the era, and needs to be approached as such. It freely borrows from the tropes of the silent movies, but the liberties they took had me laughing rather than groaning. Especially:
Doggie saves the day.
The lack of dialogue gave me more time to think about what was happening. At one point, I even wondered if the film itself was actually Valentin’s private production, making the whole thing a meta-film of a meta-film. (It wasn’t, and I don’t think that idea would have quite worked, but I enjoyed thinking about it while still being able to follow the story.)
My favourite film of last year was True Grit (a 2011 release in the UK). The Artist is a very different film, but in it’s own way it may be as good. As always, people who disliked it will try to rationalise their dislike. I’ve just read the plot summary on Wikipedia and from that it sounds abysmal. I think the key to enjoying it is engaging with the very likeable lead character and the style of comedy.