The Artist reviews

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:
Mister Tee

When it turned out he was instead laughing at the very idea of sound cinema, it seemed like the film had a real existential idea -- one underlined by the sound effects nightmare: that people could be so locked into one way of living that making what seems a small change (given that many actors were already used to talking, onstage) could be terrifying and paralyzing. I started seeing parallels with the American economic situation -- the crash/Depression wreaked similar havoc on long-held assumptions -- and also thought the film's title might indicate George Valentin was, like Chaplin, resistant to the new form because he thought it genuinely esthetically inferior to what had preceded. (Peppy's reaction to his film hinted at this; that he was doing something bigger and grander than her popular comedies) That might have been a truly exciting film, with enough thematic richness to make even the rest of the Star is Born dramaturgy seem fresh. But once Dujardin sets his new apartment on fire, any such broad context goes out the window. Having the dog summon the policeman was bad enough; but the later cheap"Bang!" mislead was enough to make me actively angry at the film. And even the Star is Born stuff wasn't followed through on. When Peppy and George have their confrontation, there's a real issue in the air -- can he now live with being propped up by another's success? The film doesn't seem to care about the answer; the final moments basically say, screw it; let's just tack on a happy ending. For a second I thought there was some attempt at Brechtian irony. But, no, it was more like Melina Mercouri's Never on Sunday rewrite of the endings of the Greek tragedies -- "and then they all went to the seashore". In the end, the film is simply pastiche, and I can't fathom how it's seen as a fitting choice for best picture even in a weak year.
Clap.

Clap.

Clap.

ClapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP-ROOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAR!


Please.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee

When it turned out he was instead laughing at the very idea of sound cinema, it seemed like the film had a real existential idea -- one underlined by the sound effects nightmare: that people could be so locked into one way of living that making what seems a small change (given that many actors were already used to talking, onstage) could be terrifying and paralyzing. I started seeing parallels with the American economic situation -- the crash/Depression wreaked similar havoc on long-held assumptions -- and also thought the film's title might indicate George Valentin was, like Chaplin, resistant to the new form because he thought it genuinely esthetically inferior to what had preceded. (Peppy's reaction to his film hinted at this; that he was doing something bigger and grander than her popular comedies) That might have been a truly exciting film, with enough thematic richness to make even the rest of the Star is Born dramaturgy seem fresh. But once Dujardin sets his new apartment on fire, any such broad context goes out the window. Having the dog summon the policeman was bad enough; but the later cheap"Bang!" mislead was enough to make me actively angry at the film. And even the Star is Born stuff wasn't followed through on. When Peppy and George have their confrontation, there's a real issue in the air -- can he now live with being propped up by another's success? The film doesn't seem to care about the answer; the final moments basically say, screw it; let's just tack on a happy ending. For a second I thought there was some attempt at Brechtian irony. But, no, it was more like Melina Mercouri's Never on Sunday rewrite of the endings of the Greek tragedies -- "and then they all went to the seashore". In the end, the film is simply pastiche, and I can't fathom how it's seen as a fitting choice for best picture even in a weak year.
Clap.

Clap.

Clap.

ClapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP-ROOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAR!
Mister Tee
What was that series of close-ups of the policeman's lips while George started in the store window supposed to mean? I honestly started wondering if he was going deaf.
Probably nothing. It'd be nice if he was going deaf though, wouldn't it?
Mister Tee
Can anyone justify the "sampling" of the Vertigo music? Why?
It is more indefensible than using Beethoven as Bertie concludes his speech.
Mister Tee
I truly don't understand how the NY Film Critics could have found this the year's best film. Best director? Fine. Best film, no way.
Because the NYFCC kinda sucks these days.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

Granting it's an unfair burden on any film to see it after it's been labelled the sure winner of this year's contest, but...I was disappointed. I understand liking it; there's plenty there to like. Loving it is simply beyond me -- there's just not enough there there to generate the kind of love that even some critics have shown.

I guess I fall on Sabin's side of the debate: I just felt like the movie needed to be about more. For a while there, I was thinking it would be -- when Dujardin laughed at his former co-star's sound test, I assumed she must be meant to be Jean Hagen/Singin' in the Rain-ing it. When it turned out he was instead laughing at the very idea of sound cinema, it seemed like the film had a real existential idea -- one underlined by the sound effects nightmare: that people could be so locked into one way of living that making what seems a small change (given that many actors were already used to talking, onstage) could be terrifying and paralyzing. I started seeing parallels with the American economic situation -- the crash/Depression wreaked similar havoc on long-held assumptions -- and also thought the film's title might indicate George Valentin was, like Chaplin, resistant to the new form because he thought it genuinely esthetically inferior to what had preceded. (Peppy's reaction to his film hinted at this; that he was doing something bigger and grander than her popular comedies) That might have been a truly exciting film, with enough thematic richness to make even the rest of the Star is Born dramaturgy seem fresh. But once Dujardin sets his new apartment on fire, any such broad context goes out the window. Having the dog summon the policeman was bad enough; but the later cheap"Bang!" mislead was enough to make me actively angry at the film. And even the Star is Born stuff wasn't followed through on. When Peppy and George have their confrontation, there's a real issue in the air -- can he now live with being propped up by another's success? The film doesn't seem to care about the answer; the final moments basically say, screw it; let's just tack on a happy ending. For a second I thought there was some attempt at Brechtian irony. But, no, it was more like Melina Mercouri's Never on Sunday rewrite of the endings of the Greek tragedies -- "and then they all went to the seashore". In the end, the film is simply pastiche, and I can't fathom how it's seen as a fitting choice for best picture even in a weak year.

To spend a little more time on what I liked: the film is really quite well directed. Unlike last year's usurper, Hazanavicius, should he win on Sunday, will have some visual talent backing him up. My favorite shot came fairly early, when Peppy and George met on the staircase just after he was dismissed from his contract. After she leaves, the long shot of him getting in step with others descending the staircase brought The Crowd to mind -- it foretold that he was now just one of the throng. This was another moment when I felt the film was going somewhere more interesting than it turned out.

Questions:

What was that series of close-ups of the policeman's lips while George started in the store window supposed to mean? I honestly started wondering if he was going deaf.

Can anyone justify the "sampling" of the Vertigo music? Why?

I trul don't understand how the NY Film Critics could have found this the year's best film. Best director? Fine. Best film, no way.
nightwingnova
Assistant
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by nightwingnova »

The screenplay is not much more than "A Star is Born" with a happy ending - and doesn't have the opportunities of spoken word.

Nevertheless, the film is less about plot and dialogue than it is about poetry. This film is acutely aware of the artistic qualities of silent film and focused on heightening them. Hazanivicius does it with exquisite, sophisticated and humane grace and humor, without any pretense.

That is the film's accomplishment.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by ITALIANO »

No, it's not just that, bizarre, but see the movie, ok? We'll talk later. If I'm in the right mood.
bizarre
Assistant
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by bizarre »

I haven't seen the film yet but I can't see how gimmickry should be praised just for being gimmickry. I'm sure The Artist is perfectly pleasant - it looks fun, and I like Jean Dujardin (and he's cute!) - but basing your appraisal on the premise itself seems akin to a defense of 'high concept': "A silent film? In 2011?! It's just so crazy it might work!"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:And I don't believe that the creativity in The Artist extended beyond that choice..
Probably. But what a choice!
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by Sabin »

Italiano wrote
I'm sure that it's an intelligent movie - and not only because, while I must admit that I'm not the genius I sometimes think I am, I like to believe that my feelings ARE intelligent. And since you talked about "message", I think that one can really apply to The Artist Marshall McLuhan's famous words "The medium is the message". The choice of making such a movie in 2011 is meaningful in itself.
And I don't believe that the creativity in The Artist extended beyond that choice. That it will likely be rewarded with the Oscar is testament to that. Making a silent movie in 2011 is amazing. And that's where the amazingness ended: with intent.

I wouldn't call it a bad film, but there is nothing beyond the choice of making it (save for the casting of Jean Dujardin) that warrants calling it a good one. That's just me.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:I'd argue that there isn't anything intelligent in The Artist still, but I won't try to convince you of how you felt.
Well, but the opposite of intellligent is stupid - there's no middle ground. Do you think it's a stupid movie?

I don't. I'm sure that it's an intelligent movie - and not only because, while I must admit that I'm not the genius I sometimes think I am, I like to believe that my feelings ARE intelligent. And since you talked about "message", I think that one can really apply to The Artist Marshall McLuhan's famous words "The medium is the message". The choice of making such a movie in 2011 is meaningful in itself.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by Sabin »

Okay. That I can understand. You enjoyed it because it blew past your defenses and took you back. Funny is funny, and so too is the sensation of being swept away in the movies. Can't talk you out of that one. I'd argue that there isn't anything intelligent in The Artist still, but I won't try to convince you of how you felt.

Likewise, I have been predispositioned towards Woody Allen from a young age, so I'm naturally inclined towards the charms of his films. I'm not all-forgiving (for instance, I hated Vicky Cristina Barcelona), but this trifle worked enough for me.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote: What I will do is compare The Artist to a pair of shiny keys. It's rather like a pair of shiny keys that you can dangle in front of somebody's face. Perhaps to distract someone. Perhaps to entertain a small baby. There's nothing there past the motion or the glean of the bronze, and sure, we can all agree that, yes, in the right state of mind, a pair of shiny keys can be rather entertaining. And in that sense, sure, I kind of enjoyed The Artist.
I actually agree with this. And I guess that I liked, for once, to be the small baby - and as I was only a child when I started loving movies, I was glad to get back, for one hour and a half, to that state of mind. It's not what I'm looking for in movies today, of course, but in this case I was grateful, like others were. In this sense, the movie worked for me.

But no, sorry, I couldnt disagree more about The Artist vs Midnight in Paris. I'll always prefer real (though technically efficient) nostalgia to something ABOUT nostalgia (especially as, in Allen's case, I just couldn't "feel" it).
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by Sabin »

Italiano wrote
Sabin wrote:
You just said that The Artist is more profound than Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The latter film has a clear message. The former doesn't have a message. How is the former more profound?
"Clear" is the word. I don't think that a truly profound movie should necessarily have a "message" (I agree with John Ford on this - a meaning, maybe, but not a message), and if it has one, it definitely shouldn't be "clear". And a "clear message" combined with an intentionally complicated narrative structure is, for me, the ultimate contradiction - and a deeply irritating one.

So for all its efforts (and I'm sure that if you see this movie now, after a few years, you'd agree with me, though you'll never admit it) it ends up being much more superficial (and more easily forgettable) than a movie like The Artist that, though certainly much more simple from a narrative point of view - it's actually the opposite of Eternal Sunshine from this point of view - may be, not more profound maybe (it doesn't want to be), but at least more intelligent, which is a way of also being more profound. But I agree with you - it doesn't have a clear message.
My fault for saying "a CLEAR message" when I should have said "clearly A message". Or meaning. Anything. A palpable reason for existing which betters the viewer for having watched it. A textured richness. And Lord knows, John Ford is the king of the hypocrites because his films were anything but devoid of message, and God bless him.

You can only argue with people with whom you basically agree. I'm not going to continue to list those two films in the same sentence because it's an absurd comparison. What I will do is compare The Artist to a pair of shiny keys. It's rather like a pair of shiny keys that you can dangle in front of somebody's face. Perhaps to distract someone. Perhaps to entertain a small baby. There's nothing there past the motion or the glean of the bronze, and sure, we can all agree that, yes, in the right state of mind, a pair of shiny keys can be rather entertaining. And in that sense, sure, I kind of enjoyed The Artist. It's not a bad film, it's just not a particularly good film outside of what it is - which is a silent film. I cannot think of a single thing to recommend about The Artist outside of the fact that it is a silent film. Actually, no. I liked George's nightmare of the world of burgeoning sound and I liked the dance number at the end, but that is it. The main thing that I liked and recommended about The Artist is that it is a silent film you can watch on the big screen.

Let's compare The Artist to Midnight in Paris instead. Neither film is very good. Neither film has a mature or intelligent view of the world they portray. Both flatter the audience with reference and require a lot of self-projection. I'd argue that Midnight in Paris is the superior film because it's more fleet on its feet, it has a joyous little performance by Cory Stall as Ernest Hemmingway, it has something to say and a twist or two in the middle, and it only picks up in charm as it goes along whereas The Artist - again! - doesn't have much charm aside from What It Is. Right now I'd certainly recommend both films, but I'm a little more warm towards Midnight in Paris because more thought went into the story, whereas not much thought at all went into The Artist.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:You just said that The Artist is more profound than Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The latter film has a clear message. The former doesn't have a message. How is the former more profound?

"Clear" is the word. I don't think that a truly profound movie should necessarily have a "message" (I agree with John Ford on this - a meaning, maybe, but not a message), and if it has one, it definitely shouldn't be "clear". And a "clear message" combined with an intentionally complicated narrative structure is, for me, the ultimate contradiction - and a deeply irritating one.

So for all its efforts (and I'm sure that if you see this movie now, after a few years, you'd agree with me, though you'll never admit it) it ends up being much more superficial (and more easily forgettable) than a movie like The Artist that, though certainly much more simple from a narrative point of view - it's actually the opposite of Eternal Sunshine from this point of view - may be, not more profound maybe (it doesn't want to be), but at least more intelligent, which is a way of also being more profound. But I agree with you - it doesn't have a clear message.
nightwingnova
Assistant
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by nightwingnova »

Sublime poetry.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Artist reviews

Post by Sabin »

You just said that The Artist is more profound than Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The latter film has a clear message. The former doesn't have a message. How is the former more profound?
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “2011”