There’s a clear difference between a recommended film, and something which gets shoved down your throat by awards ceremonies; and quite often when a film comes along which receives a lot of hype, wins Academy Awards, and has praise showered all over it, the average filmgoer couldn’t give a toss about it; The Artist was this year’s supreme winner, with it’s unique black and white, silent movie techniques netting it more than a few awards, but now that the silly awards season has been and gone, is it that entertaining for the average filmgoer, as opposed to it’s more artsy audience?
The Artist takes us back to the end of the 1920’s during the time of the silent movie era of film. Hollywoodland silent megastar George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) bumps into young “pursuing her dream” Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) and guides her through the start of a blooming career, though unfortunately Valentin’s stubbornness over the new technology of “talking” movies and his un-willingness to evolve with the times ruins him. What follows is Valentin’s drop into financial implosion, depression, and violence, before his former apprentice comes back to save him and guide him into the future.
I’m really unsure about the acting in this film; Dujardin does put in a great shift as Valentin and, yes, he does posses great body language and charisma to drive the character along without the need for words (which obviously this film needs; being a silent movie), but consider this – he’s just acting normally; he’s still speaking normally, they’re just not recording, or have edited out, the audio; so it’s easy to argue that he’s not not-speaking – he’s talking normally, and any half decent actor is going to do that anyway, and perform the same actions he does. It’s not exactly award winning; would the Oscar committee give Tom Cruise the trophy if he did the same role? Probably not. Bejo as Miller is serviceable; she can dance well enough, but she’s not particularly pretty enough to be showcased as the amazingly beautiful, muse-like, creature to drive Valentin along.
French influence does drip through, and in his first “English language” flick, director Michel Hazanavicius crafts something which traditional french cinemagoers would probably love, but whilst he’s trying to shape The Artist into something that charms you into loving it, he instead chucks his film all over the shop; it’s heart beats all over the place; coming across as pretentious and demanding you like it regardless. Filmgoers may have experienced this before with french cinema (with Rubber) and it doesn’t make engaging movies. The plot is too basic; it’s very simple and predictable, and while that suits the old-style feel-good viewing it’s going for, it doesn’t really transfer to a modern audience particularly well. Also the whole ‘revelation’ that Valentin is French (in his only speaking line at the end of the film) doesn’t seem to mean anything; it just seems a typical artsy, french, hipster, joke.
Hazanavicius gets the feel and mood of the time spot on; the “history of Hollywood”, seeing little easter eggs like the “Hollywoodland” sign, and the silent film with the silent film performance at the start were all enjoyable, but ask yourself… is it essential to use the film techniques of the time (i.e. silent movies) to explore the evolution of film technology as part of the plot? and if not, why go back to it? It feels like it’s just been done to do something different, and stand out, which reflects the artificIal hype The Artist has received from doing such a stunt, and the entire time you watch the film that’s the impression you’ll get; The Artist is only really getting these nods and awards because it’s doing something different, which just isn’t a good enough reason for it to have won the amount it has.
The dream scene (where Valentin wakes up in his dressing room and realises his formerly silent world accompanied only by music has been turned upside down; leaving him residing in a world where he can’t speak or make noises, but everything else, such as tipping over perfume bottles on his table, and people laughing outside his trailer, does) was enjoyable, and it’s a disappointment it’s only a couple minutes long. If this was expanded for a good 10 minute spell, it would set up Valentin as a more sympathetic character rather than the “stuff happens, feel sorry” job we get through the film. Though at least there’s no music during this segment; unlike the rest of The Artist, where the exploding orchestral soundtrack destroys your ears for the entire runtime, as even though it keeps the style of the old black and white films (with an orchestra playing constantly during a silent film) it just distracts from the mood it’s trying to create.
Originality in film is definitely a good thing, and yes the concept of The Artist seems to fit the bill, but it’s really just retreading old ground and reusing old film techniques which, let’s face it, don’t really compare the style of film today; mainly because this is the film equivalent of a caveman with a club taking on cinemagoers with space lasers. It was a marvellous introduction to film… at the time, but that time has gone and this niche project should have stayed that – niche.
The people who vote for things like the Oscars aren’t in my good books in the first place (they’re the same people that snubbed Martin Scorcese for best director with Goodfellas, only to make it up to him further down the line with a lesser work like The Departed), and I hate the idea of rewarding artsy trash that the majority of people could not be arsed with, but I still didn’t really want to have a go at The Artist itself; since whilst it wasn’t my thing I can see why people would like it, and even though I didn’t enjoy it, I did find parts interesting; however, it’s clear that slapping a few awards on something is going to encourage people to see it (“oh people are telling me it’s good so I must see it”), and it’s precisely because it’s been given so much acclaim, that it’s landed itself on a higher pedestal to test itself to reviewers and the general public alike. It tries to get away with the charm that has appealed to most people and reviewers… but that doesn’t wash here; I’ve seen through you Artist – your sneery glare doesn’t tempt me, nor my review score; The Artist is nothing but Overhyped crap. Did not enjoy at all.
Picture:
Standard DVD quality. Whilst it was a cinematography choice, the slightly grainy picture does fit the old black and white quality films of the time. Do not adjust your set.
Audio:
If you can accept the ear shattering orchestra battering you for 100 minutes, you’ll at least enjoy it in great quality.
Extras:
None whatsoever, unless you still find the “magic” of scene selection up your street. It’s a massive up yours from the film studios, to realise a multi award winning film like this as is, with no real extras, when we all know they’ll probably release a super edition in six months to a year, with all the bells and whistles, when this edition is used to cash in on it’s success. Hell, it’ll probably be out next award ceremony time – I can hear the cries now – “come see last year’s winner, it was good!” And I will gladly reply, “fuck off.”
The Bottom Line:
An unenjoyable, polished up mound of a turd. For all the awards it’s received, it’s probably the least deserving Oscar Best Picture movie I’ve ever watched. I’m not doing this to be different, I genuinely did not find any soul or enjoyment from The Artist whatsoever, and the failure to include any extras for home viewers is a massive pisstake. As a DVD package, it’s not even worth a rental. Do not buy this product.. Avoid and invest in something which will entertain you.
