The Artist (2011) ****/5: Good film but clearly exploits nostalgia.

The Artist is a good film but there are numerous weaknesses that are largely external, which will eventually compromise its integrity as a distinct work of art. Firstly, it is amazingly ordinary and regressive and this can be reflective of decline or an exploitation of nostalgia without a specific thrust which would inculcate or reinforce why that transition was made and why there is no going back. I say ‘amazingly’ because the medium of silent film used here seems like a welcome break from the noise associated with dolby stereo however this is not the future and the film certainly highlights why silent films will not resonate with the majority of modern day audiences. There was a reason why sound drubbed the silent format and it is not made so clear here definitively and only in bits and pieces. Secondly, it is without a doubt influenced by Singin’ in the Rain (1952), with no clear distinction apart from its texture. It therefore suffers from one essential dilemma: it has been unable to subsume its influences and therefore shine as distinctive by offering a suitable twist on the perspectives associated with the transition from the silent era to that of sound. What I am saying therefore is that this film only enhances the reputation of Singin’ in the Rain without creating its own abstract format which would render it distinctive. Thirdly, the use of the silent medium will only make some audience members see this as a gimmick as opposed to a serious new innovation of the medium. The film does not foster a sense of innovation which is what people are looking for. Hugo (2011) is a better film because thematically it is dealing with the essence of creation and how this is manifest throughout later generations. This abstract is imminently identifiable. The use of the silent film might be a welcome break for some but at a time when people are clamouring for innovation this is the last thing that is needed: a return to the silent medium. It is regressive and it will be absorbed within the silent film canon. One critic accurately said it and here I paraphrase: At three o clock in the morning and the artist is playing what will most modern viewers do…that’s right change the station. It will be seen as another silent film. Its abstract would not have entered into the consciousness of most filmgoers. It contributes nothing substantial from this point and I am inclined to believe because films like this will underscore the reasoning that says film as an art form is losing its vitality when filmmakers feel it incumbent upon themselves to return to the silent medium.

It is still a good film with the evocation of the period of the 1920’s. This is done through the use of black and white and the silent medium where the characters are determined by their actions and the impressions that these physical actions make on the audience. As Ebert and others have pointed out the face  and smile of Jean Dujardin who plays George Valentin  seem to be a stand out and help to pull the audience into the story.    The story is well connected and all the elements form a cohesive whole. It is predictable however and I was hardly moved by the experience but it has all the elements of a well told story as opposed to a memorable one. The story is too predictable and hardly enterprising and daring apart from the moments where sound is actually present and shatters the façade of  the silent medium. Those were the best moments in the film for the intrusion of sound suggests the mirage of the silent medium as a standard form of expression being shattered. These moments could have been developed some more and some of the dramatic moments would have had a more effective impact.

The story is banal and is clearly influenced by Singin’ in the Rain. It is about a silent movie star whose career takes a nosedive when audio becomes a part of the film medium. While on top he encounters an aspiring performer Peppy miller (Berenice Bejo) whom he helps on the way up by giving her  added advantage by taking a pencil and creating a beauty mark right above her upper lip and convincing the studio head, Al Zimmer (John Goodman), to keep her on following a mild altercation. They clearly have a romantic connection early on and as his career takes a nose dive and she is on the rise their paths intercross guided by the hands of fate until they are reunited. It is not serendipity for the female aggressively pursues him and therefore the outcome seems predictable. Singin’ in the Rain had more layers and is therefore the superior film whereas The Artist is merely superficial but pleasing to the eye for those audiences not familiar with silent film. It is clear however that this film represents  stagnation in the film industry and seems to suggest that the art of  film is on the decline unless people start making innovations instead of using retrograde formats that have no hope of returning to make a point. People are praising this film for the wrong reasons and this confirms my fears that instead of movie events for the ages films such as this are coming through that cater to the purists; and this is what causes the decline of most art forms as they recede into their enclaves as the new modes of expression take hold.  Question: when the auteurs of the past were seeking to advance the artistic possibilities of film did they once revert to the silent medium in their quest to innovate? This film is clearly elitist. The critics have done their job by inflating the film with excessive adulation without assessing whether or not it meets the criterion which would justify such praise.

What’s good about this film?

The best moments of this film are not the evocation of the distant 1920’s with black and white, the use of silent film techniques or Dujardin’s smile. The best moments come when sound actually shatters the silent mirage. These moments in the film are the artistic possibilities that the film should have developed some more in order to become its own abstract within filmdom. These moments may seem implausible from a practical perspective but as an abstraction dealing with the relationship between what is silent as opposed to what is noise or sound they are significant. These moments are not limited solely to the moments of actual sound. For instance when Valentin first meets Peppy there is a moment of silence and it is clear that an impression is made for from the outset the film had us embracing this medium and there is the monotonous music and the quick movements of the actors however when Valentin meets Peppy for the first time it all stops and this could be used in any format of film whether silent or talkie. She accidentally crashes into him, the great silent star at the peak of his powers, and stuns everyone. He and the crowd look with consternation and there is a moment of uneasiness but he warms to her and it is a sign that the essence of this monomaniacal star has been tainted with something pleasant. There are many moments like this such as when the studio head is stared upon as the crew await his decision about the girl who he initially considers disruptive on set.  As a film about essence therefore it works. This sort of minimalist filmmaking resists the flamboyance of making these characters anything more than abstracts.  There is the actor, the studio head, the girl he loves, the faithful chauffeur and the dog. When we actually hear sound Valentin has come to the realization that talkies are here to stay. We see cracks in the façade for the first time and these moments are poignant however there were times later on in the film where they could have been utilized more effectively so as to suggest that a transition is taking place. This would have made the film more effective as a distillation of the true impact of sound on our own personal reveries. It is only utilized effectively once in the middle and towards the end obviously. What is the essence of sound? Can we live in a world of silence? To what extent is silence a reflection of our own sanctity of spirit?  These elements were not addressed sufficiently. We will always seek moments of silence to try and gather our thoughts and reflect on past occurrences or what is to come etc. Some people feel more comfortable in noise since for them what could be more silent i.e. it is in the noise we find our moments of silence by withdrawing from the noise. This film needn’t have been strictly silent it could have shown us more of a contrast between noise and silence not just as it relates to film. This was done before and better in Singin’ in the Rain. Why not use the medium to explore other issues? or Why not highlight the possibilities of utilizing the medium as opposed to doing a retread?

I liked the use of shadow in this film and other such images that emphasized Valentin’s decline.  I suppose it is a Jungian archetype. It could be considered a bit excessive however.

The film obviously evokes the period of the 1920’s well through the use of black and white and the art direction. The use of the black and white along with the silent medium allows for both French and American nationalities to be featured without any hiccups. It does not distract from the premise should these persons be forced to speak on a consistent basis. This is unfortunate however for there are many issues that are not addressed and so the film comes across as superficial and gimmicky.

What’s bad about this film?

I disliked the story but I will not go into that right now. It is enough to say that it is banal and is clearly influenced by Singin’ in the Rain; there are also moments from Citizen Kane (1941) where Valentin and his wife are at the table subtly expressing their dislike while increasing the sense of estrangement between them as Valentin’s career plummets into ignominy.  The story was too predictable and this is always a sore point for me since I am always on the search for the next innovation in the film industry. I was encouraged to watch this because of the inflated praise of the critics and the numerous awards being handed out for this film. This is all unwarranted and only reinforces the subjective elitist views that are suffocating the film industry. The banality of the story is only reinforced by the superficial presentation and the inadequate development of the film’s motifs. Those who have not seen Singin’ in the Rain should also be able to predict the outcome of this film for the story is hardly resonant and you would have seen it in some shape or form before. It is typical romantic drivel with only the guise of the silent medium. The story does arrive logically at its conclusion however and it should satisfy the optimists as it does not take the route of Sunset Boulevard (1950). The superficial elements abound particularly the transition from the silent medium to the one of talkies. Singin’ in the Rain explored this sufficiently and this is why it is a masterwork for it explored all the ramifications associated with the transition which was one of the most epoch making in film history.  Singin’ in the Rain had its banal moments but it was not dominated by it; the framework of the film was about the transition and so all the other elements were subservient to this element. They were not allowed to supersede it. In this film there is no sense of a transition and no revelations that would have made the transition seem definitive. There is no proper discussion of the medium and when the issue arises it is brushed aside when they say ‘this is the future’ or ‘this (the talkie) is only a fad’ or ‘he (valentin) is finished’. This is stating the obvious ; this is utter banality and triteness.  This all exposes the limitations of the silent medium and the production team seem to be content with these limitations and never once is there a suggestion that this medium is dead and buried or that it is or was considered imperfect which is why the transition was necessary. The solutions made in this film in response to Valentin’s crisis are not original. Instead of him embracing his decline he is allowed a lifeline although we are not sure what it is. There is a dance near the end and yet there is no sense of how the idea was arrived at. Singin’ in the Rain did this expertly when it highlighted how the musical would be a likely option for those silent stars that had the will to rebound. This film makes the cardinal mistake of having the romance supersede the necessary elements that require development. This is what lands it in a quagmire for the story is so linear that it never once suggests that there is the possibility that the imagination will be stretched. The film offers nothing new apart from the moments where actual sound is introduced.

 The incessant monotone music is a drag and can be stultifying if you are not well rested. I am annoyed that the producers strove to recreate the silent medium without reinventing it.

This film also highlights that the film industry is in some sort of relative decline. The values that made film great are being strangled in order to preserve some stagnant order of decay. How does the industry expect a film such as this to infuse new blood into the cinema? The silent era makes a return because it was supposed to be dead and buried similar to Chicago (2002) which seemed to revive the musical however the failures of its successors at the box office seemed to be simultaneously driving the nails in the coffin of that genre. People still have to be referring to the past but only with the sense of reinvention not reintroduction. The Artist seems to be taking advantage of this nostalgia with the possibility that it will win the academy award over better films that are striving to reinvent the medium through technology. Film and technology go hand in hand and so if the film industry fails to take advantage of the technology at its disposal it will crumble and decline into a state of warped ideals about human tragedy;  an aging, defeatist philosophy that failed to breathe life back into the decadence of Rome. It will be a shame if other filmmakers start to recreate the silent medium and be forced to absolve themselves of shame when those films crash at the box office. Chicago was good but ordinary. It was popular because it had its own distinctive story that cleverly balanced the superficial and the sublime. It did not hurt that it was based off a Broadway musical. It did not reinvent the musical however but merely reintroduced it in a big way with the hope that people had become so unfamiliar that it would be taken as something new. Even animated films are forced to concede the end of the musical in its own way in film. It was constrained by its genre and failed to supersede it and eventually ran its course with the undeserved academy award. The critics and the promoters and award givers are creating a storm about The Artist much like Chicago. They inflate it with praise and awards thereby creating a compulsion on others to see it and in their own way convince them of this marvel. Then people will talk about it especially the younger filmgoers who are not aware of the genre; they too will spread the love and the popularity will see the film win the academy award yet be forgotten as greater films that are innovative actually reinvent how people see film.

What most concerns me is the film industry as a whole for when there was the break from the silent era and filmmakers were constantly innovating the art how come they never reverted to the silent format? They never looked back as they strove to enhance the viewing experience with fresh stories. If they did look back it was to highlight that there was a definitive break from that medium and those that cling to it are delusional. Film was constantly evolving as it corresponded to each era in which it found itself. When a film such as The Artist can be trumpeted as the next big thing it is clear that a sense of innovation is being lost. Hugo is a better film because although it discusses the birth of the cinema it is also speaking of the essence of creation and how it is manifest through the next generation. Creation takes on new forms by breathing life into the old yet acknowledging that what is old now remains an abstract or objective premise. This film failed to enhance the possibilities of the silent medium in today’s world. They could have chosen a more original subject which could have effectively discussed and simultaneously critiqued the medium of sound vs. silence.

 Whether this film wins the academy award or not is beside the point for it is becoming clearer that the more films like this win the top award the less effective the film industry becomes as a pioneer in the arts. It is now not becoming so important if a film wins or does not win the academy award because they are clearly neglecting the innovators who are actually trying to preserve the age in which we live. If you want to secure an academy award do a silent film like The Artist and win the approval of the critics and the globes and the academy otherwise known as the age old establishment and preserver of the film medium. There is nothing wrong with preservation but thought must still be given to the future and the here and now.