The Artist [DVD]

Predating Thomas Edison’s own contributions when it comes to capturing motion on camera, the oldest surviving film in existence is 2.11 seconds long; entitled ‘𝑹𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒉𝒂𝒚 𝑮𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒏 𝑺𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒆’, it was directed by French inverter Louis Le Prince, and released in 1888. Fast forward approximately ten years later, the first commercialized screening for films as a medium debuted on December, 28th, 1895: it was hosted by brothers Louis and Auguste Lumière in Paris, and made use of an apparatus created by the duo called the Cinématographe to show approximately an hour worth of shorts depicting everyday French life for 10¢ a piece.Though difficult to empathize with for modern viewers, the earliest film containing synchronized visuals and sound was not released until 1927 (This being 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑱𝒂𝒛𝒛 𝑺𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓, by Alan Crosland), and subsequent developments have left many taking the period of silence that preceded it for granted.𝑶𝒖𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒐𝒍𝒅, 𝒊𝒏 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒘! 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕'𝒔 𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒆!The Artist is a 2011 French comedy-drama film in the style of a black-and-white silent film or part-talkie.The film was written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius, produced by Thomas Langmann and stars Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo.The story takes place in Hollywood, between 1927 and 1932, and focuses on the relationship between a rising young actress (Peppy Miller) and an older silent film star (George Valentin) as silent cinema falls out of fashion and is replaced by the "talkies".In lieu of sound effects and spoken dialogue, title cards containing supplementary narrative material were first incorporated in 1903, which were then paired with live music, a phonograph recording, or on the rare occasion live narration provided by hired talent. In 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕 there are only two separate times where the audience is exposed to diegetic sound; through a dream sequence and the finale. Valentin’s anxiety regarding asserting himself successfully through a conflicting transition is personified in a meaningful and self-reflective way. While not live, the score - namely, what is provided by The Brussels Philharmonic with conductor Ernst Van Tiel - works in unison to reinforce some variance in the emotions driving the melodrama: seamlessly facilitating the trawl between desolation and optimistic nuance.Director of photography Guillaume Schiffman has since revealed that 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕 was originally shot in color; almost ironically, the technology available today would have captured footage that was much too sharp, and the grainy aesthetic was achieved through a number of filters being applied afterwards. Shot at 22 frames per second, the finished products also appears to be slightly ‘sped up’ when compared to films made before 24 frames per second became the industry standard.By modern standards, the relationship between George and Peggy is only mildly suggestive. This isn’t to say the romance between them isn’t convincing, but it is indicative of censorship measures taken into consideration during the 1920s and serves secondarily as a pivotal scheme. As early as 1927 the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America has attempted regulating the content it is responsible for with earliest efforts being a published list of subject matter not allowed in films at all (like any amount of sexual perversion) and content that should be handled with care (like the of firearms).Most importantly prioritized are elements that were the difference between flourishing and floundering with the introduction of talking films. Expositional mystery aside, Valentin’s composition of fame and misfortune parallels accordingly with an actor who reached the peak of his career during the silent era by the name of John Gilbert. There is no one reason why Gilbert was unable to transition into talking films with ease, but the limitations imposed on silent films would set the stage for his demise. Firstly, and perhaps intuitively concluded, talking films exposed viewers to….well, talking. This resulted in some actors having voices audience members didn’t expect or anticipate, and in some cases led to occasions where certain features (like accents) were distracting or not in line with the setting of a particular story (hold that thought).Secondly, talking films necessitated reevaluating and changing the relationship between cast members seen on screen and whoever they might be working with, as directors (and associated parties) were free to shout instructions on set without posing too much of a risk to a production as a whole. As alluded to in 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕, Gilbert at one point found himself paired with a Greta Garbo: who, while not too much younger than Gilbert, took to talkies like a fish in water due in part to her glaring subtly, and successfully recruited Gilbert to play the leading man in 𝑸𝒖𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒂 after he had decided to retire. Despite all efforts, Gilbert began drinking heavenly to cope with the loss of his box office power, and this resulted in his death in 1936 from a heart attack when he was 38 years old.(#TLDR: The sort-of-kind-of-mentor-like-quality of the relationship between Valentin and Miller is grossly playful, respectfully optimistic, and I’m 100% here for it)As mentioned previously, cinematic experiences often find themselves easily jeopardized by the exposure to dialectic qualities that don’t quite fit the bill. Funny enough, a fair helping of silence is likely what contributed the most to Jean Dujardin earning an Academy Award for his portrayal of Valentin. Having worked with Hazanavicius previously as a suave superspy in his 𝑶𝑺𝑺 117 series, not much else explains them reuniting to make a film that is based in Hollywood and additionally makes no claim to broad or international applicability. As the time of filming Dujardin knew very little English outside of the productive bare-necessities, and because of this many of the lines 𝒗𝒊𝒆𝒘𝒆𝒅 coming out of his mouth are a mad mix of French, English, and self-proclaimed “gibberish”. That said, his commitment is efficaciously palpable, and encourages audience members to ditch their biases: a resourceful man, he is easily offered some amount of concern and empathy while he simultaneously keeps his distance. Lastly, Bérénice Bejo serves perfectly as a complimentary figure that micro-doses on pained sophistication, and this doesn’t come as much of a surprise given her marriage to Hazanavicius and the simple fact that the role of Peggy was quite literally written for her.(On that note, it took 5 months for Bejo and Dujardin to learn the tap dancing sequence they perform at the very end. Not bad at all considering it accounts for approximately two and a half minutes of runtime!)Given the significance of France as it concerns pioneering cinematic advancements, it begs the question of why 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕 is set in Hollywood and not somewhere else as its writer and leading cast are all French. Putting it simply, after World War II the French film industry specifically suffered a devastating blow because of a lack of feasible capital, and because of this films made the United States could more easily enter the European cinematic market. Much like France, the influence of silent films on the ones being enjoyed today goes unrecognized far too often, and as such makes 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕 a most thoughtful dedication to a mechanism that gets older and plateaus all at the same time. What a shame it is, I think, that the intended pleasure or appeasement obligates some risked descent into an obsoleted presence.In the end, change is inevitable.Talking about it should be too.

I sat down this evening to watch THE ARTIST on blu-ray. First there were five previews of other films, such as IRON LADY, with blaring soundtrack, which hurt my ears, but I left the volume on my usual setting. Finally the menu arrived, with a snappy bit of music. I selected PLAY, which is what I wanted to do in the first place, and then the film began. The opening credits were fuzzy, on purpose, to simulate how silent films look on VHS. Great! Blu-ray for this? Then I noticed that the soundtrack was set on a very low volume. Checking, yes, it's supposed to be a HD-Master 5.1 soundtrack, but what little sound there is seems to be coming out of the center speaker. There have been Dolby Digital 2.0 soundtracks for silent-film DVDs with much better quality sound. Then, just as I was hunkering down really to dislike this film, here comes the magnificent opening scene with the screening of the fictional RUSSIAN AFFAIR film in a movie theater with live orchestra, followed by the vaudeville routine with the dog. The hostility between the wife and the dog is something palpable. They don't want to share the same man! I did laugh. There then unfolds a series of scenes with really impressive cinematography--and silent films above all are nothing without the cinematographer. About half an hour into the movie is an incredible side-shot of a complex stairwell, with people coming and going, all as a backdrop for a meeting between the two principals. For that scene alone, the film deserves all the honors it can get, and takes a place in film history, IMHO. Yes, I'm still a bit cranky. Sound was introduced into movies in 1927, not in 1929 as the film portrays. The target audience for a film like this will surely know this, so why bend their universe? The HOLLYWOODLAND sign above the studios tell us that this is an alternative universe. Yet the script's conflation of four tragedies on October 25, 1929--financial, marital, professional and personal--seems like piling on. As you see, I try to talk myself into disliking this film. The trouble is, I don't convince myself. Otherwise, why would I be upset that the film was not widescreen, unless I really wanted to see more of it? I think it is a great film that was over-tampered with in post-production. But then, much more drastic things of the same kind happened to GREED, FOOLISH WIVES and MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, and yet each of them remains a masterpiece. This is a film I will have to see two or three times to know if it grows on me. At this point I think I might not want to do without it.AFTER SECOND VIEWING:Well, I found out after posting my review that the film had won five Oscars--"That's a horse on me!" (Tim Holt in MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS). Give me time--I may catch up with events! (Is this film about me?) Last night I put the blu-ray in to watch a second time. This time I skipped the previews, and that helped get into the film itself, but the menu music should have been turned down to match the volume on the film itself. For the menu music to spoil the opening mood is a frequent fault of DVD and blu-ray mastering. The soundtrack didn't seem so muted this time as before, but still--if the soundtrack won an Oscar, then it is nothing to be shy about. Bring it on! The opening titles were still too fuzzy, but the intertitles within the film itself were crisp and clear. The title character is a little bit of Rudolph Valentino (the name), Douglas Fairbanks (the swashbuckling sequence), Ramon Novarro (the silent star with a foreign accent), Maurice Chevalier (a French accent) and Fred Astaire (the dance routine--very well done). The female lead is closest, I think, to Clara Bow's in WINGS. During the late Twenties, films were featuring fallen women or liberated women, and even Clara Bow had a scene in WINGS where she impersonated a fallen women. But the female lead in THE ARTIST is a "good person" as the butler says. She avoids all their character flaws while combining the awestruck fan, the ambitious understudy, etc. She avoids every cliché and is always a real person at every stage of the film. Her one lapse is talking silly in an interview, but that is certainly an easy temptation to fall into. Even career politicians put their feet into their mouths often enough. I do not consider her having "toy boys" around her a character lapse, since she labels it herself. They are caricatures, but she is not.About the widescreen issue. There were experiments with widescreen in the late Twenties and early Thirties. One concluding reel of Abel Gance's NAPOLEON (1927) is split-screen, a triptych of images. BAT WHISPERS (1932) was released in both standard and Magnoscope versions. I tried streching THE ARTIST out to the width of my TV, and it worked well nearly all of the time. I felt that it enhanced the effect of the film, except when it chopped off people's foreheads or feet. I hate that sort of thing, so I won't try it again.So I am sorry that the award-winning soundtrack and award-winning cinematography are kept muted, but the film won the top awards anyway, so who am I to complain? Only two silent films have ever won the Best Film award--THE ARTIST and WINGS, both of them now on fine blu-rays (WINGS skipped DVD altogether and leapfrogged directly from laserdisc to blu-ray). Both films had recorded soundtracks so they weren't entirely soundless. For those of us who love silent film and have collected whatever fragments survive of the film heritage of that era, it is a great thing to see a year like 2012 in which a new silent film takes the top honors. I'm glad I found out before the year was over. I will try to pay better attention next year.Anyway, after the second viewing, I am sure there will be a third and a fourth and so on. THE ARTIST is an instant classic, and I most assuredly will not want to do without it.

The Artist isn't just a film, it's a cinematic experience. Oh yes, my first silent film and I enjoyed this immensely. The feel good factor, the classy production values and the close attention to the small details. It's got it all. Dujardin and Bejo were great at capturing that classic Hollywood feel, and Uggie was one talented dog! Silent acting is difficult, having to portray all your emotions physically just from the face and they did such a grand job. I loved the musical score, really elevated the experience and was fitting for each scene. I adored the fact that some scenes actually included sound effects, was just genius. My only gripe, is that the second third was slightly uneven in pacing. But I can safely say this film has opened my eyes to the world of silent movies.

I have just watched this film on rental and was so bowled over that I have now ordered a copy from Amazon. The film was recommended a while ago by my son and I have only just got around to watching it. The first 15 minutes were slightly underwhelming and I had the feeling that this was not going to be to my taste. I persevered as it had been spoken of so highly. I am so glad I did. As the film went on I forgot it was silent, was enchanted by the moving story and totally impressed by the brilliant acting. It made me smile in many places and on occasion I had a lump in my throat. Having recently been to the cinema to see both Django Unchained (brilliant!) and Les Miserables (overrated) I can honestly say that this film was as good as either of them. There are very few films I would watch more than once and this is one of them! If you are tired of the multi million pound blockbusters that become a tiresome stream of special effects with no story then watch this !

A very moving and original film, played brilliantly by all concerned, more especially the two lead actors, Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo, andaccompanied by amazingly original music by Ludovic Bource. Well done! I saw it for the first time on a flight back to the UK from the Far East last November (2016) and having lost my earphones in the dark, watched it without sound. On buying the DVD and watching the film again at home, I realise that there is no sound....except the music....until the very end of the film, when the talkies finally make their debut! If you haven't seen this film, you should, would be my recommendation, especially for those considering what gifts to give their beloved as a Valentine's present.

A unique piece of film making that creates a nostalgia for black and white cinema. After I had watched it I had a distinct yearning to watch more of the old black and white silent movies - although I doubt many of them could be as good as this one.Has a number of funny moments - the dog became a star for a while after the film, and also plays some games with the fact that the artist is a star of the silent movie era.It is about a star of the silent period of film making who has to confront the epoch changing event of the birth of the talkies. Although the main character has some desperate moments, it is primarily a comedy.

SPOILER ALERT I was expecting to have my socks blown off by this multi-award winning film. Verdict? Entertained but a bit disappointed. The film is very clever and certainly unique but worth all the awards? Hmm may be not.I found the middle section a bit over long and I didn't really understand the pivotal feature of the plot that silent movie stars couldn't adapt to the Brave New World of talkies. How come? Did he have a voice like Donald Duck? Sadly we shall never know.So an entertaining family-friendly movie but nothing too special. Five stars for the dog though ...