Tweet The Artist (2011) a contemporary silent

The costumes were authentic to the period, as most were authentic period dresses, or made from vintage patterns, as per this interview with the costume designer, Mark Bridges. In another article, he states that his grandmother often took him to see silents at the Silent Movie Theatre,
http://clothesonfilm.com/the-artist-int ... ges/23329/

They also spent three months learning the tap dance, as neither had danced before. Therefore, the film had to be shot in sequence so that they were prepared.

An interview with the costume designer explaining how he went about designing costumes for the film.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/06 ... s-20111106

They also spent three months learning the tap dance, as neither had danced before. Therefore, the film had to be shot in sequence so that they were prepared.

I may have come across wrong here again -- I thought the tap dance scene was very good, considering that we had two non-dancing actors who were playing characters who (in the story) did performance-quality dancing for a living. And it was mostly one long take, which was also very impressive. But, still, for a character who is supposed to be taking on a Fred Astaire-like role -- let's just say, it should have been breath-taking, while it was merely very, very competent. And if they'd had a huge budget, and done clever tricks with dance-doubles and rapid cuts and maybe even CGI, or if they'd originally hired the actors based on their ability to dance at the end of the film regardless of their acting ability (certain movie musicals come to mind), maybe that scene could have been breath-taking. But I was pleased that it was the actors doing their own "stunts," and I appreciated it very much for what it was.

And I thought some of the dresses looked too shiny for a 1920s film (and there are some pretty amazing shiny dresses in L'Argent and similar films). Not a biggie, and may have as much to do with film stocks and lighting as with the dress material themselves.

Maybe I'll leave this thread before I get myself in more trouble...

They couldn't have used doubles if they were going to stay authentic to shooting styles of the twenties, it had to be one long take, which they accomplished very well.

I thought the costumes were pretty good as far as detail, but they were often wearing the wrong underwear and showing too much leg. The body types of the actresses were all wrong, though, too tall and skinny (who is that thin and tall in silents, Constance Talmadge and Flora Finch?). The hair and makeup were too laquered and there wasn't any change in makeup style between the 20s and 30s parts. But, hey, it's a movie and i never expect 100% accuracy to period detail, particularly in women's makeup. It was a nice, old-fashioned movie, and my husband and i enjoyed it tremendously. We also did not recognize the Vertigo music so had no problem with it.

greta

I thought the costumes were pretty good as far as detail, but they were often wearing the wrong underwear and showing too much leg. The body types of the actresses were all wrong, though, too tall and skinny (who is that thin and tall in silents, Constance Talmadge and Flora Finch?). The hair and makeup were too laquered and there wasn't any change in makeup style between the 20s and 30s parts.
greta

Does anyone who reads this message board actually like movies at all?

I do!

I agree, there are some pretty microscopic nits being picked here. Someone show me a period film that is absolutely 100% perfectly authentic in every detail. As for crying rape over an obvious homage to Bernie and Hitch, old Novak needs her head examined.

I thought the costumes were pretty good as far as detail, but they were often wearing the wrong underwear and showing too much leg. The body types of the actresses were all wrong, though, too tall and skinny (who is that thin and tall in silents, Constance Talmadge and Flora Finch?). The hair and makeup were too laquered and there wasn't any change in makeup style between the 20s and 30s parts.
greta

Does anyone who reads this message board actually like movies at all?

Why did you edit out the part where Greta said she liked the movie?

I never said I hated "The Artist". I said it is mediocre...and I think it is. Parts of it I enjoyed (once again, I loved Uggie), but I did not respond to its emotional core, and that is a deal-breaker. It would have been more interesting if Valentin had struggled with the new medium rather than being saved by a fluke which, frankly, could have occurred half-way through the film. They knew he could dance all along. Then we could have had a blossoming romance, rather than having to wonder if she really liked him or was just grateful.

WARNING, SPOILERS
She did like him. Perhaps in the beginning, you could say she had a crush on him, but that did develop as the movie progressed. She went to see his movie the night it premiered, and later went to tell him how great he was. Except her boyfriend kind of ruined that. She was there to help him after he almost burned to a crisp in his house. She gave the director an ultimatum so that George could be given another chance.

There's a lot more instances, but I can't remember them all. I will say though that by the end of the movie, you could tell that she just didn't like him a great deal, but she cared about him an awful lot. She may have even loved him just a bit.

I thought the costumes were pretty good as far as detail, but they were often wearing the wrong underwear and showing too much leg. The body types of the actresses were all wrong, though, too tall and skinny (who is that thin and tall in silents, Constance Talmadge and Flora Finch?). The hair and makeup were too laquered and there wasn't any change in makeup style between the 20s and 30s parts.
greta

Does anyone who reads this message board actually like movies at all?

Why did you edit out the part where Greta said she liked the movie?

Because she pissed allover the movie for not being "authentic" then said she liked it? What's up with that?? Wrong underwear??? REALLY?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Let go people, it's not 1929 anymore.

I think Greta's call is a fair one. It struck me too when I saw the posters. The fact of the matter is that the girl playing Pepi would have been considered quite odd looking in the 1920s. There are countless articles from that time that give us the 'perfect' vital measurements of beauty pageant winners, all of whom would be considered to be on the short and plump side today.

I'm sure she does a great job in the role (right now as I type I'm missing the Australian premiere - $35 smackers was too much to cough up), but if the use of the music from 'Vertigo' can take you out of the picture, so too can someone you just wouldn't have seen in a picture in 1928.

I think Greta's call is a fair one. It struck me too when I saw the posters. The fact of the matter is that the girl playing Pepi would have been considered quite odd looking in the 1920s. There are countless articles from that time that give us the 'perfect' vital measurements of beauty pageant winners, all of whom would be considered to be on the short and plump side today.

I'm sure she does a great job in the role (right now as I type I'm missing the Australian premiere - $35 smackers was too much to cough up), but if the use of the music from 'Vertigo' can take you out of the picture, so too can someone you just wouldn't have seen in a picture in 1928.

I'm not an expert on women's underwear of any vintage, so I'll bow to Greta's expertise on that; but Peppy not looking 1928 is kind of the point of her role in the film; she looks like 1932, (so does the cinematography IMO) and she is/will be the immediate future of Hollywood....figure-wise she isn't far away from the way Bette Davis will look early in her career, Kay Francis or many others; not everyone looked like Joan Blondell. If she looked like 1928 at the beginning of the film then she wouldn't have been in the extras line....

Why did you edit out the part where Greta said she liked the movie?

Because she pissed allover the movie for not being "authentic" then said she liked it? What's up with that?? Wrong underwear??? REALLY?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Let go people, it's not 1929 anymore.

Ya know, she didn't "piss all over" the movie. She said that the costumes, hair, and make up were not authentic, they were modern representations of 20s and 30s fashions. I noticed it myself, Greta would be certain to notice it, as she sews period costumes. Yes, yes, we know that costume design, make-up, and set design in a film are not as critical as are those burning issues of film speed in silent comedy, or the disastrous use of a March 1926 pop hit to accompany events taking place in February of 1926. I don't know why filmmakers spend millions of dollars worrying about such folderol. But please, humor us when we discuss these trivialities. As we humor you.

Well, I didn't recognize the Vertigo music - no surprise, since I'm not a Hitchcock fan - and the costuming / makeup details didn't strike me, either, other than I adored them and wish people still dressed like that.

In other news, here's an article (The Film In Context) exploring the elements that make up The Artist:

http://hopelies.com/2012/01/08/the-artist-addendum-the-film-in-context

So no one has posted yet that The Artist won Best Picture at the Critic's Choice Awards? Also best director, and get this, best costume design (!), and best score (!).

http://www.eonline.com/news/critics_choice_awards_artist_speaks/286116

John

And Uggie received a special award at Cannes: the Palm D'og.

David S

Finally! THE ARTIST opens at the Esquire (our neighborhood art-house multiplex) this weekend! I'll have to take in a matinee on Saturday . . .

Here's an interview with the director explaining why he created the film, why he shot it as he did, and what it's all about.
http://thescorecardreview.com/articles/ ... cius/26697

Pete Hammond of Deadline.com writes about what last night's wins at the Broadcast Critics' Awards could mean for the Oscars.
http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/hammond ... ore-214076

And Uggie received a special award at Cannes: the Palm D'og.

David S

He certainly deserves a Pawscer.

I've been following the discussion in this thread from the beginning with much interest and had the chance to watch this in the theater recently.

I would have to say this movie is, at best, above average. It has a lot of charming moments (some swiped from other movies, but I'm okay with that as long as it's well integrated into the film), but I think so much of the hype surrounding the movie is because it's a movie with a novel concept that's competently done, not because the movie itself is that great.

I'd agree with some of the others who posted in this thread comparing it negatively to movies like Singin' in the Rain. But the problem isn't that this movie is using an idea that's already been done before. There are lots of instances where I like different movies using the same concept (like Yojimbo vs Fist Full of Dollars). The problem is that this movie does not execute the idea very well. There are so many elements in this movie that are ambiguous or poorly thought out in an uninentional, unpleasant way that really detract from the movie. For instance, let's start with the title. Why is George Valentin "the artist"? It looks like from the glimpses we see that he's just making your run of the mill adventure romances, even in the instance of his last, doomed, silent film. It's clear to me that his choice to make silent films is because he was uncomfortable talking on film, and was not artistically motivated as in the instance of Chaplin making City Lights. So what makes him an artist? I think the choice of the title works from the unfortunate assumption that some people have today that silent movies are "arty" when they really were just the norm back in the day. And if George was "the artist" for going independent and continuing to make silent films, doesn't that mean in the end he sells out on his artistic conviction by doing a talkie with a studio? Or perhaps the movie is suggesting that magically, through Peppy's intercession, George is able to make artistic movies even in the talkie era? Why wouldn't he have been able to before? It's doesn't look like the dancing movie George makes in the end is much of a concession to any particular sort of artistic sensiblity, it would just have been typical of the musics popular in the early talkies era.

And the characters were really thin to the point of caricature. What kind of man was George? We don't know anything about him other than that he doesn't want to talk. Was he a nice guy? Did he care about the artistic value of his movies? To use an example readily at hand, we know precisely what kind of guy Don from Singin in the Rain was. Where there was an ambiguity between whether Don was a guy with a good heart or a cynical cad, the ambiguity was deliberate and was indeed the heart of the film. In the case of this movie, any ambiguity in George's characterization just seems like blanks that didn't get filled out. What was George's wife like? As soon as I saw the character of the wife appear, I knew she was going to leave him at one point in the movie, and that's more or less her entire function, a minor plot point to illustrate a bigger point. What kind of person is Peppy? Was she shallow and flighty, or ernest and deep? She changes from scene to scene, altering her personality as the plot demands, and there was never a sense to me that she was a whole person. George and Peppy seem more like actors trying their best to ape certain silent era actors in the service of the plot than actual people, though I have to say George is much more convincing in his role. And like others have pointed out, the actress playing Peppy really does not have the look of the period. Of course it can just as easily be said that Cyd Charisse did not look even remotely slient era in Singin in the Rain, but Singin in the Rain, for all its anachronisms, was very internaly consistent. Whereas I think the problem with The Artistic is, ironcially, how hard it tries to be period correct. I think this movie is so obsessed with getting the look right in so many instances that it sends this movie straight into the uncanny valley where the slightest deviation from historical accuracy really stands out. This movie is more or less a perfect illustration of the impossibility of going back in time.

But the dog? Man, I love that dog. Best actor awards for the dog, please.

Ultimately this movies seems like it's all concept, and the director was so wrapped up in the concept and trying to get it as period correct as possible that the subtleties of what makes a movie great, rather than merely good, got lost in the process. LIke someone else mentioned, this movie is more of less of the quality of a typical program picture in the silent era. Enjoyable enough, but not that special.

As for whether this film will get people interested in silent film, I have only a sample of one, but it seems to be working! I went to watch the movie with someone who does not share my interest in silent film and is generally very put off by it. He likes a few silent movies, generally the more atypical ones like Sunrise, Berlin: Symphony of the City, and Joan of Arc and he's a Buster Keaton fan, but in general just has the idea that silent films are unwatchable. At least for him, anyway.

I did a lot of cajoling in order to get him to watch The Artist with me in the theater, and he came away really enchanted about it and really fascinated by silent films. He asked me more questions about silent films the night we watched The Artist than he ever did in literally years, and now he's interested in watching more.

I think The Artist plays better with people who have not watched a lot of silents compared to people who watch silents all the time, which would explain the mixed reaction to the movie from folks here. I think it's because talkies impose their own rhythm and style to the film that generations of people are now accustomed to, and hard as The Artist tries to be a "real" silent movie, it ultimately can't escape the subtle influences of being made generations after silents have died out. So intentionally, or not, The Artist is a silent film tailored to talkie sensibilities. That and people who have never watched silents tend to have terrible misconceptions about them and are more easily bowled over by the simple fact that an entertaining, pleasant movie can be made without talking.

Very interesting. I'm very curious how it compares to other neo-silents like Dr. Plonk, Juha, The Call of Cthulhu or La antena. None of those I have seen actually tried to make a perfect copy of a genuine silent film. Dr. Plonk probably comes closest. Instead, these films try to be a unique type of film, something I do appreciate a lot.
I wonder if the 'uncanny valley' is really that much of an annoyance in The Artist. I will try to enjoy it as I would enjoy any other neo-silent.

I actually took my brother to a showing of Metropolis last year. He's 19 years old and it was his first silent. He really liked it a lot, despite the terrible score they played at the venue. I will take him to watch The Artist.

Why did you edit out the part where Greta said she liked the movie?

Because she pissed allover the movie for not being "authentic" then said she liked it? What's up with that?? Wrong underwear??? REALLY?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Let go people, it's not 1929 anymore.

Ya know, she didn't "piss all over" the movie. She said that the costumes, hair, and make up were not authentic, they were modern representations of 20s and 30s fashions. I noticed it myself, Greta would be certain to notice it, as she sews period costumes. Yes, yes, we know that costume design, make-up, and set design in a film are not as critical as are those burning issues of film speed in silent comedy, or the disastrous use of a March 1926 pop hit to accompany events taking place in February of 1926. I don't know why filmmakers spend millions of dollars worrying about such folderol. But please, humor us when we discuss these trivialities. As we humor you.

No.

I really enjoyed The Artist very much. I think it's quite well made, easy to watch, funny. I think it's what I expected. Beautiful score,too.

Let go people, it's not 1929 anymore.

That's it! I'm outta here.

A friend and i were just discussing whether the Bradbury Building had appeared in any silent films. John didn't mention it so i was assuming it wasn't in any of the Chaplin-Keaton-Lloyd films. I haven't noticed it in any, but then i usually don't think to look for that sort of thing.

greta

The outside might have been, but externally it's not a very prepossessing building. It's the interior that is so glorious, and usually such a surprise to people who are misled by the exterior. I think it would have been full up with businesses during the silent era.

[/quote]

It wasn't easy to shoot interiors during the silent era- would have required a lot of very hot lights. The studios would have built a copy- but made it bigger of course.

I saw it today, and went into some detail on Facebook. Suffice it to say here that I liked it very much but didn't love it. I was swept away by the visual beauty and some superb details, but the story as a whole didn't touch me.

Great cast though- a lot of the bit part actors were just the right "types" such as Joel Murray's somewhat dense policeman.

THE ARTIST won Best Score just a little while ago at the Golden Globes.