Copyright © 2012 by James Clark
There is, about a silent, black and white feature movie introduced in the year 2011, something so apparently hopeless that you know it has something up its sleeve to amaze and charm us. Even granting this design frappe, Michel Hazanavicius’ The Artist carries a mastery of dynamics so agile, witty and daring as to leave us speechless during the final credits.
A silent film star digs in his heels when pressured to contemplate a feature involving talk that can be heard, insisting, “I’m an artist!” [after all, and speaking, however well-considered, self-evidently kills the magic sustaining the rewards of cinema]. His aces in the hole include a devil-may-care smile, a twinkle in his eyes and easy laughter—not very unlike the pop of Gene Kelly in his prime (say, in Singin’ in the Rain)—and, the source of much of that laughter, a winsome little terrier with a repertoire of lightning-quick human responses—not very unlike that of Nick and Nora’s Asta (the talkie home field of which sends out some promising vibrations, like a restaurant pager announcing one’s table is ready). Getting in the way of a smooth, Hollywood ending, however, is his imminent exile (as suddenly unemployable) to palatial quarters not very unlike those of Norma Desmond in the sobering viscosity coming to us under the title, Sunset Boulevard. We begin with him on a night like so many he’s had, self-impressedly basking in adulation from his huge fan-base on the occasion of his newest hit. After a curtain-call spent cavorting with that irresistible pup and ignoring his blonde, klutzy co-star, he’s out on the sidewalk in front of the theatre, giving the kind of press and radio interview Gene Kelly brought off with such incandescent conviviality at the beginning of that classic about the dialectics of gloomy (rainy) times. Then one of his fans, hitherto held behind a security line, a girl with her own reservoir of devil-may-care, plunges forward to retrieve her purse, dislodged in the commotion; and he’s as delighted to see her as he is when beholding the spunk of his terrier. She is Peppy Miller, and in her will-o’-the-wisp spareness she reminds us of someone in another Gene Kelly movie (only this time Gene’s lost his mojo, he’s called Andy Miller and he meets the love of his life in helping her retrieve the contents of a somewhat larger than purse-size container, a book bag vibing a world of talk and [musical] sounds). That would be The Young Girls of Rochefort, and that would be our French filmmaker bringing his Hollywood dust-up into the more comprehensive tribulations of a Gallic precursor, Jacques Demy.
Having now shaken free a bit of what’s up the sleeve of this movie seemingly looking for trouble, we can begin to appreciate its cinematic deliciousness—first of all, in the little touch of our star’s eventually drawing a beauty spot on Peppy’s cheek. This bemusing gesture dates from the early stages of their rather rocky and yet consistently gentle romance (the star being named, George Valentin). Peppy goes from being a front-page photo, included in the great man’s sizzle when first bumping into her—the press doing their damnedest, with the inane caption, “Who’s That Girl?” (to no avail to her nascent career in the movies)—to being an extra in his next work of art, unknowingly charming him with a bit of warm-up tap dancing, and therewith landing a meatier part wherein she dances with the protagonist (and their love for each other causes multiple snafus and re-takes, shown in a lovely little passage where the demands of doing justice to life encroach upon the demands of delivering a stilted product), to breaking into his studio office and being discovered by him making love to his dinner jacket on a hanger, a delightful little flight of her body language (that could be convertible to pithy speech) wherein she inserts one of her arms in a sleeve, turning it into his arm and hand pressing upon her hip. The busy man, having pretty well forgotten her, can’t help but be flattered; and it is then that he flips her way the presumably invaluable heads-up about what it takes to become a bona fide film artist. “You need to have something the other girls don’t.” He anoints her, and then his chauffeur comes in with some glittering jewellery he’d ordered to buy some patience from his largely ignored and increasingly resentful wife (collateral damage due to his precious and vain sensual carte blanche, which evokes from her the repeated tirade, “Why won’t you talk!?”) So there is Peppy, her lithe face corrected for mass consumption, and feeling very out of her element, in fact washed out to sea. (The chauffeur had side-tracked their readiness for a kiss.) She had inscribed on his mirror, “Thank you.” When he notices it after she’s gone, he realizes how much better a solicitude she deserves, and then he shrugs and resorts to the glib gesture of making his fingers perform shooting himself in the head, part of a vivid juxtaposition revealing the discrepancy between what each has brought to the encounter.
Being a spunky kid, she’s soon back in the game; but we want to savor in slo-mo the ins and outs of her brush with that half-hearted advice. While they carried on that very public flirtation, the radiance of her smile and the intuitive glamor of her body’s kinetics traced across the microcosm of a whole sound stage, as did the corresponding humor and warmth of the Valentin. She had already the makings of a star, being distinctively evocative to the point of inducing him to put his best foot forward, not merely glowing with verve and wit for the cameras, but for all of life. (He pulls rank on a stodgy director [whose first impulse is to run her off the lot for skewing Variety’s publicity away from the film] to get her a role as an individual, not merely one of a crowd.) In presuming to get her on track by means of a static speck, Valentin sends our way the unsteadiness of his powers and priorities, and the state of being mortgaged to prim (only faintly kinetic) schemes that had always paid off until then (Don Lockwood, at the outset of Singin’). The source of the question, “Who’s That Girl?” is the show-biz publication, Variety, and its surfacing over multiple ticks of the narrative gives us to understand that flexibility (variety) of presence is an issue not to be taken for granted. Later on, after she hits her stride, there is a rapid sequence of a variety of clips from films where she’s in the spotlight, for example, as a cute maid coming between a middle-aged couple, and as a baseball player in a professional woman’s league. Then we have her as Miss Isadora, where, in her chic whites, she graces a tennis club—and we have to recall La Deneuve in Belle de Jour.
The faux-mole functions as a premonition of a keyhole fade-out on George’s gravy train. The stodgy producer-director shows marked flexibility about the meteoric popularity of talkies, which he covers with the careless cliché, “The public wants fresh meat.” George, waving aside the boss’ linking the future to the play of spoken sounds (“You can keep it [i.e., the future]”), goes on to produce an entrenchment called Tears of Love, which opens at the same time as the studio’s talkie, Beauty Spot—starring Peppy (proof against superficial non-starters). The behind-the-scenes vignettes of his striking forth on his own, showing him swamped with the workload of writer-director-star-producer, presage disaster. He’s at a Barton Fink typewriter; he’s straining to enthuse, from the director’s chair, about the Ed Wood-like unfolding of a wannabe jungle epic; and he’s signing a load of checks, with nothing incoming. Even before getting underway, he has a moment recalling Guido, the hapless, but headed for enlightenment about extra-curricular love, filmmaker, in Fellini’s 8 ½. He’s just burned his bridges with Zimmer (the Head), he steps out of the office and into blazing sunlight and close to blinding reflection from the white walls of a sound stage, and a group of leggy showgirls walk past, their laughter somewhat painful to him. (Zimmer’s concern, “Kinogram,” is a German term for “Cinema of Trouble.”
His semi-secret admirer’s skills with devil-may-care adventures have not precluded, but have in fact embraced spoken interactions as a means of reaching an audience living in the perhaps grubby (but at least not precious) world of 360 degrees expressivity. Valentine’s doleful pith-helmet misadventure ends with his character’s death by quicksand, and a musty farewell speech to the love-interest (played by a sort of Grace Kelly-handsome but wooden figure), “Farewell, Norma! I never loved you!”—Norma Desmond’s Joe’s position, for sure, and also Valentin’s position of not conveying any overriding love. The attendance level of the premiere is reminiscent of a mid-week vespers service, or wee-small-hours at Club Silencio. And there is Peppy, in that balcony alcove, feeling the hurt and crying a little. Her hot new ticket, playing in a theatre next door, is jam-packed, celebration is in the air; and you might never guess how closely this early-Depression escape fits with an escape-deprived twenty-first century.
The pep emanating from Beauty Spot sets in relief George’s listless self-pity and personal and financial tailspin. Unlike Norma, he capitulates to the judgment of the market—the concomitant 1929 Crash and subsequent Depression rolling along just outside his window—and thereby virtually abandons the kinetic gifts he so validly (if confusedly) maintained. His wife, getting nowhere with the gambit, “I’m unhappy… We have to talk…” and producing a series of defaced portraits of the emasculated mover and shaker, gives him a week to clear out (by contrast with the fate of Adam in Mulholland Drive). Now far more akin to Andy Miller than Don Lockwood—whose retuning with the assistance of (seldom-seen) Kathy Selden’s more robust wit and love strikes a promising note amidst the quicksand—Valentin drifts downward, auctioning off his mementos (which Peppy directs her servants to buy) and settling into a dreary room reminiscent of Barton Fink’s home base for floundering amidst the more bewildering aspects of Hollywood.
At this point, augmenting Peppy’s coming to bear as a keynote of non-careerist priorities—a point largely missed by commentators intent on pegging it as a well-crafted curiosity about inconsequentially innocent show-biz charmers of yesteryear—two figures from Valentin’s entourage, his terrier and his valet-chauffeur, struggle against the deadly wake streaming out of the tackiness that jumped at us in the form of that beauty spot. Uggy the dog—far more focused on hugs than applause—never lets his master’s preoccupation with whisky dull his purchase upon meaningful love, and thus he can still occasionally bring a twinkle to the eyes of the lachrymose star-no-more. When, finally, the emotional insolvency becomes emotional bankruptcy, he rips all the reels of his triumphs from their canisters and torches them in a mordant self-immolation, and Uggy runs for a cop and has him saved at the last minute (though severely burned). As we see the little guy racing along the street to bring off the rescue, we’re struck by how this most empty of clichés takes fire from its being centered in a struggle to maintain a strain of grace seldom seen, which would supersede bathetic gestures. Speaking of turning one’s back on show-biz glories, we have Clifton, not a former A-list director, like Norma’s butler-chauffeur, Max, but willing to work for nothing at Valentin’s flea-bag and, even when dismissed for his reminding the faded star how faded he is, lingering day and night outside with the limo that his employer gives him in lieu of salary. He eventually moves on to work for Peppy (reminding George at one point, “Miss Miller is a good person, believe me”), who brings us to the central and unlikely force downplaying a smashing career for the sake of real pizzazz.
On reading in the paper about the bygone star’s being hospitalized, she rushes from the set of her latest successful communication to confront that unfinished business with him, which has proved intractable to every one of her overtures to date. She is heartened to find that the film he had clung to in what he expected to be his dying moments was the one she had popped up in, and she promptly offers her place for the still comatose Valentin’s convalescence. On awakening he regains a bit of the old Kelly grin on realizing she has cared for him; but, on being presented (by Clifton) with the script of her current film project, in order to prep for the part she has finagled for him and on finding all his auction sales in one of her many rooms to spare, his careerist vanity clicks in, he feels like a stereotypical charity case and he races back to the now-charred precincts of Barton Fink, finally sure of riding that downbeat to a savage conclusion, in accordance with losing heart in face of an elusive artistry. Taking a pistol from a Pandora’s Box that registers in only one direction, he puts the barrel into his mouth (site of so much malaise), and Uggy struggles to pull his arm away. Peppy, finding him gone, races through the streets of LA in her limo, on several occasions escaping by inches a deadly collision. The predictability of the rescue—as with the rescue from the fire—is tempered in three ways, each one speaking to matters far beyond filmic melodrama and pat “happily ever after.” The “Bang!” taking over the screen turns out to be Peppy harmlessly crashing into the tree out front where Clifton had enacted his pointless vigil beside another limo. This funny coincidence asserts the exigency of amusement and laughter as against sombre self-destruction. Valentin’s not being able to pull the trigger speaks to his still reserving a place in his heart for that glimmer of delight which, unbeknown, informed his formerly effective devil-may-care with communicative factors transcending the entertainment business. And Uggy’s playing dead at the bang deliriously covers the windfall of dangerous fun and its basis of (much relieved) love.
The young girls of Rochefort only put it all together for one song as stand-ins at a Sunday afternoon show in the provinces before an undiscriminating audience. Now we have two pros (one of them an ex-pro) who know about wowing the world but still can’t put it all together as partners in a changing world. Peppy—like Kathy in Singin’—proposes a musical overlay to her current vehicle, Sparkle of Love, and she’s hit upon a way to induce from Valentin his calling as a funny valentine—a way that has been inspired by the funny suicide. Valentin’s former bagman—Zimmer (head over heart), played by John Goodman, who, in Barton Fink, facilitates the protagonist’s timorous resentments and moonlights as a serial killer (on one occasion seriously singeing the digs after beheading a recalcitrant and gracious woman)—still on the job of thrilling millions for the sake of millions and now the business end of Peppy’s celluloid magic, is less than enthusiastic about her plan to bring Valentin on board The Sparkle of Love. “He’s a nobody.” She faces him down the way Valentin did, on her behalf, even skidding into a Valentin-resembling state of tongue-tied—“It’s either him or me.” Zimmer once again proves far more flexible than Barton’s pal, and there they are, in his office, giving him a sample of what he’s now financing, a scene that blends into the sound stage, cameras rolling. They’re into a dance routine together, both turning out high-wattage smiles and bodily delight—now perhaps kinetically more on the order of Fred and Ginger. Valentine doesn’t speak or sing words, but he talks a little with the taps on his dancing shoes. During the film’s piquant little plunge into sound and its metabolic shift, Valentin remarks (with completely no sense of momentousness and with a French accent that’s jarring here), “Weez playzoor,” when Zimmer asks for a second take of the scene. Sure, he has a way to go (as does she, and as do all of us). But he has regained the comedic touch and, with a lot of help from friends, found his way into the gossamer exertions of modern comedy. The last moment, showing a Busby Berkley-reminiscent platoon of clapperboards on a set trailing from Sparkle of Love, comprises a crosscurrent between popular material success and being on a pressurized firing line. You have to have your wits about you not to fall for this little charmer’s soupcon of “happily ever after.” The prickly producer—he, of a hidden and scary track record—beams at their little debut, and, in pushover mode, yells out, “That’s perfect!” (If only all the stumbling blocks were as good-natured as Ed Wood!) The essential fractiousness that these sweethearts have gallantly touched upon has been brought into its bruising stature by none other than Peppy herself. During the episode of the premieres passing in opposite directions, Valentin—who was, at a screening of Peppy’s efficient little concoction (promisingly, he thought), approached by a rapturous filmgoer, only to hear her enthuse about Uggy (a flash of the general public liking what Norma had, along lines of her remarkable car)—takes a subdued bite at a Hollywood hang-out and who should come in (not noticing him) but Peppy, doing a radio interview at the next table? The interviewer marvels that, though this was just her first starring role, she’s already approached iconic status. “How do you explain that, Miss Miller?” Peppy, who, turned out as the ne plus ultra of flapper chic, was definitely no stranger to career ambitions, smiles self-satisfiedly and reaches back for reflections that had occurred to her for some time. She’s pleased to note that she has an affinity with the general public, and goes on to specify the contours of this confluence. “I talk, and the audience can hear me” [as immersed in the heartland of their strongest interests]… My work has nothing to do with the mugging you see in old movies, that they imagined helping them to be understood… Make way for the young—that’s life!” Valentin painfully comes over to her table, offers his congratulations and says without gusto, “I’ve made way for you.” Her face registers quiet shock that she’s hurt someone she loves and that, for all their soundness, her remarks were stupid, evoking in fact a never-ending cycle of hate and destruction, whereby those briefly basking in some mumbo jumbo of idiomatic advantage will in turn take that ride to the slaughter-house.
This film’s title appears to pose the question of in what way each of them is an “artist.” Or, does it playfully include Uggy? This is a cast brimming with sensual mastery in various states of disarray, not, therefore, so unlike that of The Young Girls of Rochefort. On seeing his money quickly go down the drains called Tears of Love and the Crash, Valentin still manages a believable smile and says, like a character in one of his movies, “It looks like we’ve gone broke.” In such cavalier, devil-may-care gestures (however fleeting) toward world historical advantage, we might be upon an extension of artistry away from the spotlights and toward keeping other lights burning. One rainy night, soon after her putting her foot in her mouth, Peppy drives over to his mansion accompanied by a young boyfriend (during her-bit-part-days she bumps into George at the studio and assures him that such picturesque entities are “Toys”) who unhelpfully avers, “My father is a big fan of yours.” She tells the falling star that that bit about mugging was “not true.” He’s not in a conciliatory mood—“You were right. Make way for the young.” Back in the car, she tells her friend, “I want to be alone.” Here we have: Garbo, trying to get beyond Tinseltown; Norma’s Joe, trying to get back to Dayton; and Demy’s Guy (from The Umbrellas of Cherbourg), brushing off Geneviève (whose child is in the car parked at Guy’s place and uses snowfall for her toy)—his only purchase upon poetry—for a segment of Pandora’s Box wherein stolid family life will have to do. Such a chequered provenance seems to speak to a bit of sunlight gracing our more doughty adventurers. Hence, perhaps, the film’s only sustained song, “Pennies from Heaven” (“Don’t you know each cloud contains pennies from heaven?”), its saccharine fillip for a world struggling with the Great Depression, undergoes a recycle to meet a monstrously harsh vein of productivity. During the sequence wherein that upbeat confirmation trips along, we see Peppy surrounded by make-up and wardrobe ladies, and she is fitted for silver slippers, à la Cinderella and à la the Princess in Donkey Skin, played by that guiding spirit, Catherine Deneuve. This somewhat mordant royalty serves as a remote tuning device, inasmuch as the modest triumph of Valentin and Peppy, due to the palpable love they fold into their career, has struggled to an adult vantage point, markedly different from the childishness of the Blue Princess and the Red Prince. In the glow of the loving upshot of the suicide attempt (the run-up to which features a tense and eerie musical theme from Hitchcock’s Vertigo, for a revelation of having been duped), Peppy, setting forth, as she caresses him, “If only you’d allow me to help you!”, finds to her surprise that Valentin is at last ready to pay attention. (In addition to his face frequently disclosing that he knows he’s being an ass, there is the moment of alcoholic delirium at a bar, when he imagines miniatures of the star [himself] and a tribe of Zulus from Tears of Love trying to rally him, the guy in the pith helmet calling him a “loser.”) What he pays attention to is enacted in the fleeting final moments of this eventful circling of their moment of truth. They’re auditioning for Zimmer a dance number and, from out of their mutual affection, we hear their tap dance rhythms which, though winsome, are hardly epiphantic. And that’s just it. The reflux that won’t go away has been folded into a quite modest entertainment. Zimmer hopefully inflates it to, “That’s perfect!” They’re on the set, having a ball—even doing a few (heretical) Fred and Ginger turns—and after the call, “Cut,” they’re asked to do the scene again. Valentin, suddenly the co-star he’d laughed at during her test for a part in a talkie, gives us the “Weez playzoor,” and its startling deficit. They take their places behind a long corridor of clapboards, anticipating a life of reaching out, for better or worse.










“….Michel Hazanavicius’ The Artist carries a mastery of dynamics so agile, witty and daring as to leave us speechless during the final credits.”
I couldn’t agree more Jim. The winner of ‘Best Film of the Year’ citations from critics’ groups all over America and Europe, a spectacular hit at Cannes (where Dejardin won the Best Actor trophy) and the odds-on favorite to win the Oscar for Best Picture, THE ARTIST is one of those rare gems that like fine wine gets better and better with every viewing. That revelation in itself would seem to fly in the face of the contentions of a tiny minority who have made claim that the film is a lightweight. With a pastry like this all I can say it give me an everyday helping. You really framed the allure economically in the above exerpt, and I’ll add that there is enough charm and wistful nostalgia in THE ARTIST for a dozen films. It’s a love song, a black and white celebration of an era long gone but fondly revered, and it invites us to dream and allow ourselves to be transported to a place where bliss and despair co-existed, but when love was the find cement that sealed the deal. The leads are utterly magnificent, and Ludovic Bource’s score is one of the most beautifully-composed (and adapted) as any in years, a stand-alone that keeps you captivated and smiling while driving in your car.
The Jack Russell Terrier who saved the day may well be the most remarkable screen animal of all-time, at least equalling Toto, and the gimmick that lies at the film’s center is expanded with an infectious spirit that permeates the entire film and the characters who drive it. Glistening black and white is a joy to behold, and there’s a current of lyricism that elevates the film even higher in an artistic sense. The film’s title is apt.
Your marvelous incorporation of Demy’s THE YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT into the spirit and the dance sequences is superlatively transcribed, and your remarkable prose translation of the film’s most unforgettable sequences (indeed of it’s story arc) has breathed some fresh insights into a film that has given so many people joy in a far more profound and lasting way than nearly the full range of the film parading around as heavyweights.
This essay is infused with real passion, and I can’t say how much I enjoyed reading it Jim.
Sam, don’t you think the Harvey Weinstein juggernaut has something to do with the bouquet of awards? Just asking, because I was shocked when I heard that Streep had thwarted Viola Davis for the Best Actress Globe.
Mark:
Harvey Weinstein’s clout with Awards groups like the Globes has been proven, but he’s not an iota of an influence with critics’ groups no more than he’d have any influence with you or me when they make lists. THE ARTIST is quite simply a great film, and it’s getting it’s just rewards not only here but in Europe. It was also a huge hit at Cannes. Surely the entire world can’t be wrong.
Thanks, Sam, for your kind words and spirited appreciation of this strange and wonderful film.
You know, I’m putting the final touches on the next piece, concerning A Dangerous Method, and I’m struck by how the rather gruesome strivings there carry a real kinship to Valentin and Peppy’s more instinctive struggle.
Jim, I’m more than intrigued by that parallel, and greatly look forward to the essay on A DANGEROUS METHOD, and another 2011 film I rate highly!
Your a wonderful man Jim and a great writer, but I have no idea how A Dangerous Method and The Artist have any sort of kinship other than both being 100 minutes long each. I will eagerly wait your attempt at such an explanation in two weeks, but for the moment I see more of a kinship between Lassie and Le Sang Des Betes.
Maurizio, thanks for dropping by. Your skepticism is always enlivening. Here’s a little hint. Peppy and Valentin were adherents (sometimes careless adherents) to Variety. Jung was at great pains to convince Freud (and himself) that his schema lacked a vital factor—variety.
Maurizio Roca is just about the only person in the population who doesn’t love this film. I’ve seen both films and ‘The Artist’ is far away the greater (and more enjoyable) film.
Carry on Jim!
Not true. Slant magazine disliked it as well lol…..
Oh I’ve used this argument with my good friend Maurizio, and it never goes off well I’m afraid. It is seen as an intimidation tactic, which it may well be. But THE ARTIST was named Best Film of the Year by 22 critics’ groups in the US and the UK, won the Golden Globe, is the heavy favorite at the BAFTAs and at the Oscars and probably has the highest composite of any film this year. Maurizio is speaking for himself here, which he is certainly strongly encouraged and entitled to do. With WAR HORSE he had a lot of support, with this film, he’ll struggle to find comparable views. Again, fair enough.
But critical concensus aside, what counts today is that Jim Clark has expanded the literature of this film mightily, finding just the right tone and reference point.
Slant Magazine thrives on writing negative reviews for just about every release. But they do back themselves up with some amazing writing. They hated SHAME as I recall too.
Yes I was being sarcastic bringing them up and I also don’t have a problem with anyone viewing the The Artist as a fun playful romp. But for “experts” to say its the BEST film of the year… that phrase would never be uttered by any serious film lover.
Really Sam, you are resorting to throwing the Golden Globes as an example now. Your addiction to critic-dropping is officially out of hand lol.
I was amused by published reports that angry theater patrons were demanding their money back when they realized the film was silent.
And Uggie is incredible throughout, no question.
…and I was no huge fan either. It’s an entertaining “gimmick” film. You go in. You enjoy it for two hours.
I couldn’t remember most of it the following morning…
Maurizio I used the Globes not because of their inherent artistic value (they are indeed worthless and an embarrassment of the highest order) but they are part of the ‘larger’ picture I was trying to illustrate here. The most demanding critics’ groups this year loved the film and honored it, the general public ordered it, Cannes adored, the European critics went bonkers over it, the reviews were the most favorable among any film released this past year, and the Oscar voters are preparing to shower the film with the top awards. What I am trying to show here is that ‘everyone’ seeems to genuinely adore the film.
You didn’t, fine. Heck I didn’t like Woody Allen’s MIDNIGHT IN PARIS much at all, but everyone else did. On that one I am questioning my own taste of lack of it. Ha! And while the critics were celebrating MARCY MARLENE and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE I was crying foul in both instances. I greatly respect your views my friend, but will chide you here and there!
Like I will chide Dennis, who this year is shooting down one critically-praised film after the next. Just two weeks ago he made the Guiness World Book of Records for his pooh-poohing of the Iranian A SEPARATION. I understand reps from the book firm are slated to do an interview with Mr. Polifroni early next week. When Dennis says he ‘forgot about THE ARTIST the next morning’ that is precisely the opposite reaction most peopel I’ve spoken to have had. It’s greatest attribute alas is that it’s unforgettable, and is thought of for weeks and months after it’s seen.
Peter, I wonder if the problem, in taking The Artist seriously, lies in being able to track the interplay of kinetic resilience (Peppy) and kinetic flabbiness (Valentin). It doesn’t pay, in my opinion, to engage this film as a replica of silent era productions. Its sensibility, if you look at it closely, is far more overtly germane to the 21st century than to 90 years ago. I think Hazanavicius wants the audience to discover (with surprise) that something important they’ve overlooked was percolating in a context generally assumed to be naive and obsolete.
@ Sam- You weren’t the only one that didn’t care for Midnight in Paris. I’m just as big an Allen fan as the next person, but I thought it was rather forgettable and not even outstandingly acted or particularly well made in any sort of defining way.
@ Jim- “I think Hazanavicius wants the audience to discover (with surprise) that something important they’ve overlooked was percolating in a context generally assumed to be naive and obsolete”
This seems a rather interesting comment. II like it.
Jim, I must say that I agree that the film’s “sensibilities” are modern and not at all attuned with those of the silent era. But it’s this hybrid of temperament and form that have somehow made the film such an astounding entertainment.
+++This is a cast brimming with sensual mastery in various states of disarray, not, therefore, so unlike that of The Young Girls of Rochefort.+++
I would think this is the crucial connection to Demy’s film that makes the overall argument a convincing one. I found the central appeal of The Artist to be sensual. Sam also seems to have hit on that level of appreciation/interpretation. This is an amazing treatment of the film.
Thanks, Frank.
With your astute approach to a silvery screen brimming with sensual resources, you’ve raised what I consider to be the heartland of the discoveries coming our way from The Artist. There is so much pop to this seemingly effortless, redundant and modest film.
Astute writing as always Jim. I haven’t seen this yet. It’s not coming to Kalamazoo anytime soon I can assure you. What does everyone think of using the Bernard Herrman score from Vertigo? Is this a bastardization or some kind of homage or what?
Not a big deal considering the whole film is a bastardization of cinematic elements more significant and meaningful…
Jon–
The score for THE ARTIST has officially passed Dario Marianelli’s work in JANE EYRE as my favorite for this year. The piece for the Herrmann is skillfully and magnificently incorporated into one of the film’s most harrowing later sequences. I have been falling in love with the film more and more, and the word ‘basterdization’ is alien to the essence of this exhilarating masterpiece.
Jon, this is absolutely, 100% certain your cup of tea. But that contention is a no-brainer.
Ludovic Bource’s score CD is a must-buy.
Haha! I like how I’ve built myself a reputation here and how you ascertain that this is my cup of tea. It’s like you know me!
I only wish that I will have the opportunity soon to find out. I think the real question I have, is there some kind of acknowledgement of the source material of Herrman’s score? Is it in the credits? Does it need to be? Should it be?
Jon–
Bource’s score is part original and part borrowed. It is indeed acknowledged in the credits. The use of the Herrmann was extraordinarily effective, but as I’m sure you’ll find out for yourself there are some beautiful passages that defy description here. Yes, I do feel as if I’ve met you in person (I hope to one day) and know the kind of films that will move you. To be fair, Pat Perry and Marilyn Ferdinand were two other bloggers who said they liked THE ARTIST moderately, but felt it was overrated. So it is NOT just Maurizio.
Sam yes I know Marilyn and Pat are not so in love with the film and they are both fans of silent films as I know most of us are. I normally have major issues with “homage” films if we want to call them that, unless there’s something meaningful behind it. I will have to determine for myself of course. Some of these same arguments were thrown at Drive being too homage-derivative. I felt like the combined elements in that film did something rather unique and there made it more than worthy of my adoration.
I think David Schleicher also dislikes the film as well.
Yep, Maurizio, David wasn’t a fan either.
Thanks, Jon.
It is frustrating, but not surprising, that distribution of The Artist has not been robust. If it should win the Academy Award, things would change in that regard.
The Vertigo theme speaks, I think, to Peppy’s more consistent approach to her (kindly duped) Scotty, in a social stream of distemper. And it also anticipates Valentine’s getting a big break where Jimmy Stewart comes up empty.
If it wins the Academy Award it will surely get a second release of sorts. It’s still rather a tough sell I would think for the general public to go watch this film. Not I of course, but people like my Dad would never go see this in a million years.
Jon: To the extent Peppy is trying to transform a deglamourized actor back into the charismatic star persona he played in the past, Artist definitely becomes a charmingly bastardized homage to Vertigo and the music is absolutely apropos. Let Novak rage.
I’d say the reason why the film has stayed with you Sam is that it’s primarily a “feel-good” piece. The fact that it’s a homage to the silent era is icing on the cake. I enjoyed re-living it through Jim Clark’s marvelously detailed writing.
Thanks, Frederick.
There are so many details here that stay with you. I particularly loved Peppy’s roller coaster, during the radio interview, taking her from being on top of the world to realizing she has done something terribly small.
To think this film is the heavy favorite for BEST PICTURE come award season when a film like THE TREE OF LIFE was clearly and far and away better, transporting, an experience, is a shame….
I liked this film, but to call it the best film of the year is like saying THE FUGITIVE should have beat out SCHINDLER’S LIST for the Oscar in 1993.
Your echoing my main objection Dennis. The bigger problem with The Artist is not that the film is enjoyed by moviegoers, but that it’s being proclaimed as the best film of the year. Its like we are in some bizzaro world where Buck Privates is heralded ahead of Citizen Kane or the example you mention above. What strange times we live in…
Yes, and the thrill to avid film-goers that always use the term “they don’t make pictures like that anymore” is also adding to this films momentum in grabbing the big prizes at the end of the year. Again, this is a very enjoyable and well made film, but to seriously consider it on the level of films like THE TREE OF LIFE, MYSTERIES OF LISBON or MELANCHOLIA (sorry, I know you’re not a fan of this one, but I think you get my point), that are going beyond the norm to show themselves as cinematic experiences, is a little over-doing it.
I will praise THE ARTIST beyond it being a very good gimmick film if I thought it was inspiring people, particularly young people, to go back and investigate classics from the silent era. However, as witnessed the night I screened it, most of the audience members were made up of older people that probably remember silent films from their youths or were fans of the era prior to the creation of this film. I fell THE ARTIST is proficient in so many ways. It’s recreation of the period that was spoofed (aka: Hollywood of the silent era as created by Hollywood of the silent era), the pops and whistles that go along with a film when you think about silent movies; some very good editing, performances and music. But, for the most part, the film is a pretty obvious story about love and exceptance conquering all done in the guise of a silent film. Yes, this is pure entertainment. I admire it for being brave enough to go with just that endeavor. However, once the gimmick of it being silent is accepted, the film itself shows how simple minded most of us want films to be (most of us meaning those that go to the movies for little more than quick and satisfying entertainment). On the other hand, you have a film like HUGO (I know your not a big fan but please just follow me here) that tells a very interesting and mysterious story, totally entertaining and slowly but surely weaves a film history lesson into the fabric of the plot and visual dichotomy of the film without you even realizing it happening until your totally consumed by the film.
I see a great film like HUGO inspiring people to seek out the history and films of Melies more than those who see the ARTIST and then run off to the local blockbuster to find examples of the silent form (I keep seeing a pimple-faced kid behind the cash out counter, twizzler hanging out of his mouth, eyeing the high school skirts that walk by and looking blank at a customer like me while he says “Chaplin who?”).
THE ARTIST is a very good film. I would never take that away from it and I have said so to many, including Sam who I saw it with. But, I hjave to be honest that I remembered very little of it the next day to make a massive impression on me and am totally shocked by the viewers that call it “astounding”, “original” and “a masterpiece”. If you want those superlatives in silent movies then I suggest they go out and rent/buy DVD’s like THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, SUNRISE, , BROKEN BLOSSOMS or (the film I feel that has most influenced THE ARTIST), the very great CITY LIGHTS by Charlie Chaplin…
Hugo is certainly superior. I actually rated it **** stars and enjoyed it mostly. Not Marty at his absolute best, but still a very good “family film”.
Not strange at all Maurizio. What IS strange considering the universal adoration is that YOU don’t like the film, and are saying everyone is wrong and the situation is bizarre. What I find BIZARRE if you will, is YOUR reaction, which is an exception to the rule.
THE ARTIST is absolutely one of the best films of 2011 and deserves every last bit of the spectacular reception it has been getting in all quarters.
I didn’t like MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, but I took the position from the start that it was an aberation in my own taste. This was far more sensible than attempting to question such a resounding concensus.
Dennis, if it were JUST the Oscars who were given their top prize to THE ARTIST it would be one thing, but we are talking here of an overwhelming majority of the critical establishment, groups in New York, Boston, Washington, London, BAFTA’s, Globes, Critics’ Choice Awards, Cannes, and on and on and on. I have lost track of the numbers. it’s one of the most overwhelming displays of universal love ever showered on a single film. THE ARTIST is being seen as the year’s best film, and while it didn’t fall exactly in that position on my own Top Ten (numbers in the top ten change everyday anyway) I am smiling at the deserved love it has been getting.
But I am finished busting your balls. You don’t deserve this kind of bullying, and I promise to end my scorched earth approach. My apologies. You are such a revered friend that I do feel awkward engaging in this kind of rhetorical combat. And two days in a row now with WAR HORSE yesterday.
The stage rests. For a long time! Ha!
To Dennis and Maurizio,
Since I haven’t seen this, and you both have and don’t particularly like the film, what’s your opinion on why the film exists as a silent film? What exactly is the purpose of it being a silent film? What is the raison d’etre?
Its a gimmick Jon. Silent films are basically superfluous to the plot. There is no larger purpose but to tell a cliched rise and fall and rise romantic comedy. And before I get lambasted for being a dour cynical blowhard, something like Ed Wood is much more connected to the actual filmmaking period it resides in, while retaining the same kind of effervescent breezy charm.
I’m not critical of the fact that it aims to place us in a more lightweight silent film milieu as opposed to say Greed or Napoleon, but that the period is just a superficial launching pad for a typical and tired love story. Hugo is far more about actual silent films than The Artist in reality…
Maurizio, aha this is good stuff from you. The fact you say that a non-silent film (Hugo) says more about silent films than the silent film (The Artist) is fascinating. One can certainly agree that making a silent film, as a rather mainstream release, in this day and age is certainly going to draw a lot of attention to itself one way or another and leave itself directly open to critical bastardization if it doesn’t have a very sound foundation. Again I haven’t seen this but still want to engage on the philosophy here. I’m hoping Sam or someone else chimes in with their opinion on why it’s a silent film.
I think the answer to your question, JON, is above in my last comment. I DON’T hate THE ARTIST, I like it for so many reasons. However, as good as it is, it’s silly to put it in the leaque with the great visionary films that were popping their heads up this year. I agree, 100%, with Maurizio that it being silent is a gimmick that draws the unexpected into it and most of the people that “ewwwww and ahhh” over it probably haven’t seen too many silents or are fans of the form that really never looked past that era.
THE ARTIST is wonderful, well made entertainment. But, really not much more than that in the end I’m afraid. That this film sems to be lansliding into an Oscar for BEST PICTURE only proves the intelligentsia that hand out these trophies are either intimidated by or don’t understand something far more reaching and thoughtful like THE TREE OF LIFE.
Take a look back at 1968 to bear out my theory. OLIVER!, while being a very good musical won the Oscar for BEST PICTURE and Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, widely regarded as one of the films that revolutionized the medium, wasn’t even nominated.
Dennis and Maurizio, I think you both probably fall into somewhat similar camps here, claiming the film is lightweight without substance. What baffles me, and this goes for people like Ebert, is that there are critics who have in fact become so giddy about people going to see a silent film, like it’s a treat, that it becomes their angle for praise and reflection. This seems to me a rather strange angle to take for such “knowledgable people”. This is just an observation, but I don’t feel like he’s the only one doing this.
dennis, as you know, I have the damnedest time coming to any kind of coherence about awards. There are so many great efforts this year—I think A Dangerous Method (which surely hasn’t a chance of getting so much as a nomination) is almost unbelievably rich, meriting frequent viewings and extensive reflection. Let’s hope some of those efferts get some exposure.
Bump. I’ve seen the Cronenberg three times coming away more and more moved each time.
The Cronenberg film is great. I absolutely agree with both of you.
Dennis, apparently the Oscar voters are going in here with like 85% of the critics’ groups behind them (groups in the US and in Europe) I thought THE TREE OF LIFE was the year’s best film too, but there are several others this year they were great, THE ARTIST being one of them.
THE FUGITIVE over SCHINDLER’S LIST analogy is not only an insult but it’s so far from the truth that teh radar isn’t even picking it up.
THE ARTIST is basically just as deserving of the top prize as THE TREE OF LIFE.
If you don’t believe me then ask all the critics. Apparently most em liked THE ARTIST better.
But heck, what would they know now?
“But heck, what would they know now?”
The acid flashbacks they are now experiencing from the halcyon 60′s period is leaving them temporarily insane and unable to make rational choices anymore… thats my explanation at least.
But, that’s the whole ball of wax for me here Sam…
I admire your enthusiasm for THE ARTIST and really wish I could feel the same (I don’t like walking out of a film thinking I missed something or wasted two hours of my day-I wish every film I went to see left me smiling or elated), but I don’t and I really tried. That said, I’ve made it a point to make clear that I did admire the film in so many ways.
But, where you and I differ is the in the level of enthusiasm we have for certain films. You seem to think that THE TREE OF LIFE is just a hair better than THE ARTIST and that really there is no major difference in your love from one to the other. I, on the other hand, (using your greatest tag line) see THE TREE OF LIFE as a “staggering masterpiece” of images and sounds that moves from being just a movie to a cinematic experience not so far removed from Stanley’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. There have been plenty of years where the postions you and I take are reversed. But, this year, and with what I have seen, I cannot jump on the bandwagon and name THE ARTIST the best of the year.
I think this was a pretty fair and well thought out response.
The acid flashbacks they are now experiencing from the halcyon 60′s period is leaving them temporarily insane and unable to make rational choices anymore… thats my explanation at least.
hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! Love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim, you prove The Artist to be a rohrschach blot of cinema. I think some people are going to enjoy it more than others because they can see so much of movie history in it, while others will simply shrug. Hazanavicius is playing with archetypes — you can just as well read Douglas Fairbanks Sr or even (as the name dares us) Valentino into the hero as you can Gene Kelly, the film being part a clef, part what-if. I enjoyed the sheer conceit of making a film about the transition from silents to sound from the perspective of silent film, though the film itself re-enacts the transition and ends up less of a vindication of silent as a viable genre than it might have been. As for its standing among the films of 2011, it’s certainly not profound and doesn’t even aspire to be, but I’m not sure whether profound intentions are the decisive criterion. I found it one of the year’s most enjoyable films, but I can understand perfectly if it leaves some people cold. Appreciating Artist may be a matter of temperament, but not the “right” temperament. Maybe a best film is one that comes closest to making indifference impossible — its greatness measurable by its haters as well as its admirers — but what film is that?
“Maybe a best film is one that comes closest to making indifference impossible — its greatness measurable by its haters as well as its admirers — but what film is that?”
Haha! Judging by this criteria I think War Horse would be very near the top, or perhaps Drive, or perhaps Melancholia. At least based on this site.
As always Samuel you bring up the two sides of the argument better than ayone, and I know you are a fan of the film. I realized your comment is directed at Jim, as it should be, but just wanted to say I was nooding my head while reading this great comment from you. Jim will be here I’m sure, as well.
Thanks, Samuel, for bringing to the forefront here the question of variable interest in the history of silents giving way to talkies, which is to say, a moment of deliberate tempering of body language. I think that in addition to offering a bouncy entertainment, the film’s kinetic architecture and performance design offer something more. Its point would not be theoretical profundity, but cinematic provocativeness. As an entertainment profit center in an extremely volatile era, a film like The Artist would not be concerned about “rightness” of temperament, but rather would count upon some part of the audience being capable of the surprises it has in store.
In 2010 we didn’t have the critics/Globes/Oscars/Cannes uniformity that we have this year with The Artist.
I recall it was The Social Network with all the critics’ groups, and The King’s Speech with the Oscars and the British Academy Awards (and maybe Globes, I’m not sure)
Correct Peter. It is exceedingly rare to have the critics and the Oscar line-up. This year it seems to be they are but there are many other groups joining in the celebration.
Bravo James this article was written very well you chose moving words to describe the motion picture but I thought Artistry needed to have more words, and more sounds. The dog gave such a great performance and then there were times when you wanted to hear him bark and you couldn’t. It’s not fair to the dog because people have things they can do, they can control the way their eyes move, they can smile, they can frown, so they can do a lot of things. What can a dog do aside from barking? So they should have shown the dog more attention and allowed you to hear the barking. And then in the scenes where there should have been talking there should have been more talking. But you have a great amount of enthusiasm for this movie and I think this article is one of the best things I have ever read on Under the Dark but I didn’t like the movie as much as you did. I did like the movie, but it reminded me of old movies, and I like old movies as much as the next guy, but in the present I like to see movies that remind me of the present or the future. Did you see On Time with Jason Timberland? That was a movie about the future where people didn’t use money anymore and I thought it was very good. Peace and Blessings
Thanks for your kind assessment, Jack. And thanks also for raising the very interesting issue of how much sound this picture should have presented. I think it was set up to insert a fresh dimension into a perennial challenge for so many recent films, namely, how to impress upon the viewer that there are factors of bodily motion (strangely enough, including the sounds we make) urgently needing close attention. (Wong Kar Wai, I believe, uses silky and searing pop music from the past to insinuate the same matter; the recent documentary, Pina, uses 3-D to get into the nitty gritty of modern dancing; and A Dangerous Method rolls out a skein of sadomasochism to impress upon us that things can go badly wrong in pursuit of that elusive prize.)
You pose a fascinating possibility here, in having Uggy going on at full blast (perhaps with obviously canned barking) while everyone else is silently struggling with how to put one’s best foot forward.
Please keep writing, Jack. Your perspective is very helpful.
Jim, is ‘The Artist’ just a checklist of hommages, or can the film stand on its own even if you don’t get all the ‘in’ references? I haven’t seen it yet.
Good question, mark.
The silvery intensity of the optics here, in hand with the performances of the two principals, convey a sense of sensual verve entwined with sensual anemia. That would provide a very satisfactory slice of what the movie has to offer.
There are two historical story lines, namely, those of Singin’ in the Rain and Sunset Boulevard, that would be quite obvious to many of those viewers willing to sit through a silent, black and white experience. They would supplement the crisis of risking the new and unknown, giving it a more general weight, and, by comparison, measuring the viability of the accomplishments of Peppy and Valentin.
The other factors—Young Girls, Mulholland Drive et al—work in the same way.
The Artist is about rigorous snares and delightful boosts lurking in the flow of history, so it does induce us to take a closer look at that reservoir.
This was the year of my return to the festival which turned me into a film junkie a long long time ago. You can say I fell off the wagon again this year… I was first introduced to the festival in 2002 and have been hooked since. ‘Opening Nights’ screens a plethora and varying types of films, from the biggest premieres of the year, to retrospectives of great directors and film movements, to films one will probably never get the chance to see again on the big screen. All in all, a film buff’s oasis in the midst of the blues every September gives you. So, you must imagine my disappointment when, for the last four years, the ‘antidote’ to September’s blues was not running from film theater to film theater but studying abroad. Being a graduate and feeling quite as lost as Ben Braddock, this year I, at least, went back to watching 25 films in two weeks and loving the process as always.
I have to say the highlights of the festival are completely subjective, since I am always careful to choose the films I am most likely to enjoy. This festival, to me, is never about being educated, even though I often am in the process of it. However, every time I choose what is safest to watch-at least according to my personal taste. And it’s gotten me so far.
‘The Artist’ would have to be the film of this festival to me (yes, the revelation at the Cannes’ festival as well, but who ever gets to watch that one?). A black and white silent movie isn’t exactly what companies produce in 2011. As retro, exotic, risqué or boring an idea it may sound to some, the film was extremely refreshing, as it was up to the actors’ facial expressions and the music to do all the work. Usually, I tend to enjoy the more ‘cerebral’ type of comedy, one based on witty dialogue and word plays. This was definitely absent here, as good timing in delivering lines is replaced by the more emotive dimension of acting and music. And the impact is great. The film starts off as a silent revisiting of ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ (did anybody else thought the leading man — Palme D’Or winner btw, looked a lot like Gene Kelly?) as it tells the story of a silent film star finding it hard to transition successfully to a career in the talkies. And, of course, there is the girl who is talented, spunky and cute whom the protagonist helps with her career. However, the film soon adopts a more dramatic tone, as one sees the heart ache involved in realizing you are not compatible with current situations, getting to reminiscing more and more the old times when things were easier and he was famous and, slowly, loses his mind.
It is obvious that the film serves the same purpose of reminding us a time when things were simpler as well. It is definitely a nostalgic approach to cinema but, somehow, it works, especially at a time when Europe seem to re-evaluate, or wishes it has valued more, the past years. And, by the end, when you realize that if this was a talkie, it would have never worked, or been made in the first place, since the actors wouldn’t have been believable as Hollywood film stars with their French accents. So, it might not be nostalgia for a simpler time, just a call for filmmaking whose creativity is not bound by language barriers-and all the other restrictions that come with it.
Georgia, it was great to hear of your enthusiasm for The Artist in its offbeat powers. I was particularly enlightened by your reflection upon how the personal/historical crisis of moving ahead pertains to Europe, how its storehouse of spiritual treasures stands as a resource as yet ineffectively deployed.
Yesterday, the London Film Critics Circle showered yet another major accolade on THE ARTIST naming the film Best Picture of the Year. Hazanavicius and Dejardin also triumphed fro Director anmd Actor. The London Critics are composed of 120 voting members.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jan/20/the-artist-oscars-london-film-critics?newsfeed=true