Filed under: Film Reviews | Tags: 2011, berenice bejo, cinematography, hollywoodland, jean dujardin, john goodman, michael hazanavicius, movies, oscars, pleasurable experience, silent films, the artist
It’s a challenge trying to come up with objective thoughts on a film that has more buzz than a bee-hive. As I sat in the theater watching Michael Hazanavicius’ Oscar Nominated movie, “The Artist,” I kept struggling with how I felt towards it. “Is this really Oscar worthy?” “Is Jean Dujardin’s performance better than Clooney’s?” “Hmm… the girl playing Peppy Miller is a babe…” By the film’s end I collected that I had a pleasurable experience; I enjoyed my stay with “The Artist” and was glad I had seen it. But as the rest of my night went on and the imagery got to brew a little more and I got to contemplate the film’s message a little deeper, I started to see just how magnificent a film it really is. “The Artist” is a rare piece of cinema that harkens an era gone by and attempts to sit with the greats like “Casablanca” and “Gone With the Wind.” It’s magical, it’s daring, and it never skips a beat. Marrying today’s storytelling standards and editing prowess with yesteryear’s dramaticism and glamor, “The Artist” is at the top of so many lists this year with good reason.
Enter George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), “The Artist’s” protagonist. He’s debonair, wildly successful, and wonderfully personable. He’s a man’s man in Hollywoodland and when he accidentally runs into Miss Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), an star on the rise, his acting career will never be the same. Essentially “The Artist” is a love story wrapped in a character piece. George Valentine spirals downward from grace as silent films become talkies and he refuses to make the move, but amidst the chaos, Peppy never stops admiring Valentin and what ensues is a sincere portrait of attraction and affection.
The best way to sum up “The Artist’s” wide appeal is to address it’s charm. “The Artist” is a charming movie through and through. It’s never offensive, everyone wears a smile, the orchestra is dazzling, and the set pieces are magnificent. Regardless of the film being black and white, you haven’t seen a movie look this way in years; decades even. I was taken aback by the attention to detail in every shot and definitely lost myself in the cinematography. It truly is spectacularly well-made. The only way to not know it’s from the 30s or 40s is because the film quality is top-notch and the musical score doesn’t sound like a grainy mess. In fact, that’s the show-stealer right there: the orchestra.
“The Artist” is a silent film. So of course there’s a score going on pretty much throughout the entire film. And please allow me to tell you how wonderful it is… In today’s film culture, soundtracks don’t always get the praise they should. Most movie’s have fairly cookie-cutter music done by a composer who has a formula for every kind of emotion the director wants to elicit. In “The Artist” I found myself swept away endlessly by Ludovic Bource’s composing. It’s undeniably inventive and pushes the movie along perfectly. I also really enjoyed the recording aesthetics. There were multiple scenes where the right amount of ambiance could be heard on a horn or a drum kit and it gave the feeling like you could look over your seat and see a dimly lit orchestra pit following the movie. Truly spectacular! On the discussion of sound still, I have to make quick mention on the use of dialogue within the film. Despite there being no sound, there are screens of dialogue that pop up at crucial moments, and this is something I feel the movie did expertly. The use of dialogue is so scarce, but they pop up at all the right moments, giving certain scenes the perfect accent, allowing them to carry a weight most films with spoken word could never achieve. Again: truly spectacular!
As for the performances, they’re all spot-on. It takes a certain grace to “smile with your eyes” and everyone involved does just that. It’s evident that those on screen are passionate about the film they’re trying to make and there’s an air of charisma that can’t be ignored. What we see isn’t the work of actors and actresses trying to win an Oscar, but it’s more so the manifestation of sincere love for a project they’re a part of, a message they want to send. The vivacity of the cast is contagious and when looking back on “The Artist,” all I see is a good time.
I’m still struggling with where I sit. My thoughts going into this review said 4 stars (Really liked it)… but now that I’ve dissected it, part of me wants to award it 5 stars (Loved it). It’s absolutely masterful filmmaking that comes from a place of genuine honesty; something that resonates deeply with me. But I can’t help but feel there’s an X-factor missing. Almost like I didn’t get reeled in to the story enough; almost like there needed to be one more scene that got me sucked into Valentin’s life or something that put me in the middle of his and Miller’s love. I supremely enjoyed my experience with “The Artist,” but did I care about what really happened in the end? Will I contemplate the story much longer than this review?
One thing is for certain, “The Artist” is a fantastic moviegoing experience. As I opened this review with, it’s a rare piece of cinema and needs to be enjoyed. Catch it on the big screen asap if you can– that is the whole point of the movie (you’ll even notice it’s presented in full screen– nice touch!); but if you have to wait for its DVD release, make sure to see it on Blu-ray instead. Just short of being perfect, “The Artist” is a top-contender for 2011 and I may even have to see this one again.
Final Say: 4 stars. (Please check side column for rating scale)
Like this:
3 Comments so far
Leave a comment
I Really want to se this film! Let´s hope it come to Sweden soon!
Comment by youaintheardnothingyet January 27, 2012 @ 11:19 amThis was a very well-made film and had its moments where it captures the whole spirit and essence of the silent film era but it’s not that life-changing experience that everybody says it is. Still, a good flick though and I do think it does still deserve the Best Picture Oscar just because I don’t think The Descendants would be a very good winner that will last for the ages. Good review Stephen.
Comment by CMrok93 January 27, 2012 @ 11:41 am@Cmrok93– thanks for the comment! I concur entirely; it’s not life-changing, but as a friend told me earlier today, “it made me smile.” I also agree it should win Best Picture just for how well-made it is– great acting, great soundtrack, great directing, cinematography, set design, and the concept alone is worth commending. While I did adore The Descendants and think Midnight In Paris is easily my favorite movie of the year, all politics considered, The Artist should take it home.
Comment by Stephen January 27, 2012 @ 1:41 pm