Hardly quite fair, Eve? Denby spends about a page and a half talking about The Artist in a four-page article on the silent movie genre and what has happened to it since the talkies came in, including the current tribute films The Artist and Hugo. He doesn’t think The Artist is any big deal but he certainly didn’t say it “sucks”.
Eh. What I took away is basically Denby thinks everyone except Louise Brooks needs to be boiled in oil and thrown from a cliff. He certainly called John Gilbert untalented, which means he doesn’t seem to have seen many John Gilbert films–he also repeated the “high squeaky voice ended his career” urban legend, which caps *that *globe.
Sorry, I’m not getting the “everyone except Louise Brooks needs to be boiled in oil and thrown from a cliff” theme there.
Personally, although I thought The Artist was great, I’m not inclined to hate on Denby for having a more lukewarm opinion of it. I thought his comments were fair and his analysis of the uniqueness of the art of silent movies was very interesting.
I’ve looked in this thread several times and I keep forgetting I have an amusing anecdote related to it!
I saw the film last year during the New Orleans Film Festival and John Goodman was in attendance (and just across the aisle from me, as it happens). But he kept talking to the person next to him and getting texts on his phone (which was NOT on vibrate, I heard every beep and bloop!) – wow.
As for the movie, it was enjoyable, but it’s not really my kind of thing (Bellflower and Sucker Punch were my faves from last year). It’ll probably win all the Oscars this year though.
Hmm, he calls the film and leading actors likeable. I take it back. He can throw himself off a very small cliff to a soft landing, and he doesn’t have to fuck himself on the way down.
I saw The Artist this week and I thought the movie was good as an homage to silent movies but George Valentin’s character wasn’t clear enough.
I think it would have been a better movie if they had based him on John Gilbert - make him somebody that was unable to switch to talkies rather than just unwilling to. Because all the agonizing we see him going through during the movie is undercut at the end when we see him apparently decide, “Screw this. I’ll just go ahead and make a talkie after all.” It makes his earlier suffering look whiny instead of tragic.
It could have worked if they had made more of an emphasis on his pride. It was hinted at but never said that he was too proud to switch to talkies. But they should have shown that that pride was a cover for fear. As long as Valentin refused to make a talkie, he could tell himself it was his choice and retain his pride. But if he tried to make a talkie and failed, then he would have nothing left. But this point was never made in the movie.
I also wonder if the final scene was a subtle shot at Hollywood in general. The American movie system is pretty parochial - American movies play all over the world but American audiences don’t want to watch foreign movies. Hazanavicius may have been making a point about the difficulty a European actor faces in Hollywood.