4/5
This would, surprisingly, not make my top 10. I describe this movie as a nice little treat you'd see in a History of Cinema gift shop. It's a great gimmick. A silent movie made in 2011, made with the same acting style and story telling style. But this isn't what I'd want. They describe this as a love letter to American cinema, paying homage to the silent film age. But this doesnt pay homage to silent films to me. Rather, it's copying them. Paying homage would be using certain qualities of silent films, but this is literally almost indistinguishable. It was fun, and charming. But I don't think anyone in it was outright brilliant, I don't think that the story was that magnificent. Truly I just found it to be a fun movie. I'd rather see Midnight in Paris or Hugo win the Oscar even though this is the clear winner. I did like it, I did find a lot to appreciate in it. But at the end of the day, I don't know if I'd call it a masterpiece. Perhaps just a fun break from the standard American films being pushed out in the cinemas now.
While I can't be sure if you've ever actually seen a silent film, your comment about the Artist being indistinguishable from a silent film is entirely off base. It's visual style is entirely distinct from silent films and is more akin to the classic Hollywood style of the '30s and '40s. Were it "literally almost indistinguishable" from silent films, it would have been shot with a frame rate of 14-22 frames per second instead of the standard 24 fps.
ReplyDeleteThe film works as a love letter to this era of cinema because it bridges the gap between the techniques of silent and sound film, both visually and thematically. The film's visual style suggests the 1930s, but, because we see the film through the eyes of a silent film actor, the narrative is told silently. Thus the audience experiences the anachronistic tension the character feels.
Calling the silent presentation of the film a gimmick suggests that it was done for commercial reasons and to attract attention, as opposed to artistic purposes. It is no more a gimmick than the music is in "Singing in the Rain", a film that tackles similar issues. Perhaps you simply belong a generation that is so removed from silent cinema that it is impossible to view a film in its style without it being considered a gimmick.
Incidentally, The fact that this film is considered for the same Oscar as Midnight in Paris and Hugo is a crude basis for a comparison between three films that should be viewed and evaluated based on their own merits, instead of in competition with each other.
I've seen many silent films actually, and I will agree that the frame rate is an obvious update. But still, I will defend that stylistically if not technologically, the film matches many silent films. And I feel as if many people felt the same thing.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the comment about it being a gimmick, I absolutely feel that it was done for commercial reasons and can see that it worked. I have yet to talk to a single person who didn't go to see this movie for no other reason than the novelty of a silent film made in 2012. Singing in the rain is a movie of its time from its time and has no place in what I am talking about, rather its part of the era that I think the film is copying rather than paying homage to.
And of course people should see films and judge on their own merit. However, I personally have a lot of fun getting into oscar hype and letting myself have a bit of friendly competition with friends picking potential winners and ranking my movies. It's fun, and its a hobby of mine. Frankly, I don't think I have the track record or trust of readers yet as to even remotely influence their decisions to see movies.