The Artist Review
Looks like I was wrong.
I will be the first to admit I have faults. They are far too many to list here in full, but they include a certain amount of arrogance, narcissism, OCD, paranoia, and self-delusion (Paranoia image courtesy of the Cheap T Shirt category). However, one fault I do not suffer from is an inability to admit when I was wrong about something, and it is obvious I was wrong about the Artist.
Regular readers might recall my discussion of the Artist during my Post Oscarlyptic Review and my questioning how a foreign, silent film could possible win all those awards? I didn’t go into detail at the time but my thought was that this was just Hollywood intelligentsia pandering to to an artistic ideal in an attempt to convince themselves that they produce something other than mindless pap for the ignorant, unwashed masses of the world. I am not a fan of silent films, and with a few notable exceptions (Man Bites Dog, City of Lost Children, Delicatessen) am not a fan of French films. How can a man who never says any words win Best Actor? How can a movie that ignores two facets of cinema (dialog and color) win Best Picture? Even the black and white aspect normally only flashes me back to my miserable childhood TV back in the slums of Southern California.
However, I had a couple hours free yesterday and felt I should see this film if only to find out what all the buzz was about. I have to say, I was truly impressed on a level that goes far beyond the pale. Somehow director Michel Hazanavicius has crafted an extremely well told story using only visuals. Main stars Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo (whom I am totally in love with now) deliver a complete range of emotions with only facial expressions and body language. They story gives us an exploration of early film production more in depth than any number of talkie films about the same subject matter.
What struck me about 2/3rds of the way through the film was the completeness of the story. By that point I wasn’t missing dialogue or sound in the least. In fact, the few times it was added it sounded really out of place and jarring, an effect that was obviously intentional and well executed by Mr. Hazanavicius. I felt the main character George Valentin’s pain and despair far more than I have from movies where the actor bellows on about feelings and such. The chemistry and romance between George and co-star Peppy Miller was clearly delivered with a few looks and a lot of body language. At no time did I feel a lack of understanding of any of the characters motivations or feelings, something that cannot often be said about movies with sound.
I am going to forgo my usual star/black hole rating system, as I feel it would be kind of wasted on this film. I honestly can’t think of any real black holes that would be anything more than petty nit picking, and that stars should be obvious to anyone watching the film. The story is relatively simple and fairly derivative (two examples of nit picks I could do if I were going in that direction). It tells of George Valentin, famous actor of the silent film generation. He is popular and talented. On his last film production he meets Peppy Miller, young up and coming actress. There is a huge chemistry between the two that actually hurts the film production in a short montage that was incredibly well done.
Sound is introduced and the studio jumps on board, cancelling all silent film production to focus on talkies. George derides the new technology as a fad and storms out. He then pays for his hubris as his career tanks and he goes broke. Peppy Miller becomes a rising star in Hollywood, embracing sound. I don’t want to get into the story too deeply, as I would expect everyone out there to see it. Just know that the story is well told and delivered brilliantly. Plus it has a super cute and cool dog in it.
The thing that struck me as I left the theater to the sound of the other patrons applauding was that this film illustrates how much movie dialog is actually completely worthless and unnecessary. A romantic scene in a normal movie would require a complete 3 act mini play: opening witty introduction, central banter and interaction, and finally the conclusion and possible kiss. In this film that is all accomplished with a few looks and at worst one or two one line dialog placards. I think the bottom line is that Mr. Hazanavicius isn’t under the reigning Hollywood belief that the audience is mostly comprised of marginally trained baboons that need to have everything spoon fed to them. I can only hope that this example of what can be accomplished by using the delete key when editing a screenplay is not lost on the rest of the film industry.
Should you see this film? Abso-freaking-lutely. See it on the biggest screen you can find (I didn’t go into it, but the camera work is pretty brilliant too). Date movie? Yes. This is an everyone movie. The real question, however, is do I really believe it deserves all those Oscars? That is a tough question. Comparing this film to movies like the Descendants or Moneyball is literally comparing apples to oranges. The Artist belongs in a category of it’s own. I think I can now see why it won all those awards, and cannot disagree with the choices the Academy made. I do now believe that Jean Dujardin does actually deserve Best Actor. He was amazing in this.
By the way, I would like to say that one of the greatest things about starting this blog and doing all these review is the fact that I am now exposed to films I would never in a million years have watched back in the day. There is no way I would have seen this film three years ago.
Thanks for reading, and please forgive me if my earlier comments kept you from seeing this great film. Follow me on Twitter @nerdkungfu, or email comments, questions, or suggestions to [email protected]. Feel free to post comments here as well. I have a ticket to see Silent House later this afternoon, so look for a review on that tomorrow. Have a great day.
Dave
