Tweet The Artist (2011) a contemporary silent

I have finally seen THE ARTIST. Some thoughts:
I was uncertain whether I liked the idea of a classic silent being made today. The film totally vindicated that decision for me. It is an unadulterated delight. It is neither a pastiche, nor a parody nor a sentimental hommage. It is a charming and entertaining film in its own right that certainly references film history, but never in an obtrusive way. Strangely, my favourite nod was the fact that the Astaire/Rogers routine at the end was practically uncut. It must have been very difficult to replicate the originals this way.
While everybody is going bonkers over Uggie the dog I thought Jean Dujardin made the film. He may be a stand-in for Fairbanks here, but he is so much more than that. His acting is subtle and effective and he exudes enough charisma to carry several films.
Most of all the film is a much-needed reminder to the world at large that you do not need aliens, orks, zombies or serial killers to have a good night out at the cinema. It demonstrates how much you can make of a simple story if you do your job well. That it is in black and white and a silent is a pointer towards the great tradition of narrative cinema here, nothing more.

Something that struck me as a little macabre, however, was that the protagonist's attempt to end it all bore a striking resemblance to F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre's actual suicide. Coincidence or yet another nod? I hope it was the former.

I had forgotten about how F. had died, but I believe that was probably coincidence, I would definitely hope the director wouldn't know who he was. I agree with you 100% Arndt, Dujardin was wonderful, so subtle yet so expressive at the same time. Charming but also emotional. He makes you really care what happens to George.

[silentfilm]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/2012-oscar-nominations-coming-tuesday-the-artist-hollywood-big-award-show-entertainment-15417386

ABC News had a story about The Artist and silent films tonight.

I've tried to keep away from EVERYTHING regarding the film, particularly this thread, but I couldn't get away from some glowing reviews of it from my friends. So after reading this thread and some of the negative words being exchanged, I've decided to keep my opinions to myself here.

Now, that being said, and this is the only time you'll here me say this, try to go see this digitally. I saw it in 35mm and felt the presentation was compromised somewhat by poor timing on color stock. B&W on color stock isn't impossible, and has actually been done several times in the last ten years to great effect. Unfortunately, we're now in an era in which the labwork done today is at its worst, and this print woefully reflected that. One reel of the film I viewed was downright sepia-toned. For you tech geeks, it's a 1.33 pillarboxed in a 1.85 frame. I do wonder if there are any special-venue prints that are full-aperture.

[Christopher Jacobs]

The male lead of THE ARTIST showed up as a guest the other night on the Jimmy Fallon Show, of all things, talking about the film and showing a clip. Fallon and the studio audience both seemed just as interested as if it were the usual latest Hollywood release. (Or maybe it was just me, amazed at how mainstream this movie is becoming, even though it still is in a very limited release and I haven't been able to see it yet!)

[Christopher Jacobs]

... this is the only time you'll here me say this, try to go see this digitally. I saw it in 35mm and felt the presentation was compromised somewhat by poor timing on color stock. B&W on color stock isn't impossible, and has actually been done several times in the last ten years to great effect. Unfortunately, we're now in an era in which the labwork done today is at its worst, and this print woefully reflected that. One reel of the film I viewed was downright sepia-toned. For you tech geeks, it's a 1.33 pillarboxed in a 1.85 frame. I do wonder if there are any special-venue prints that are full-aperture.

Seems odd they wouldn't print it on B&W stock, unless there are come color effects somewhere. When I ran SCHINDLER'S LIST (admittedly almost 20 years ago now!) we first got a B&W print with the color shots spliced in, and it looked gorgeous. Later we got a print that was entirely on color stock and it looked softer, a bit dupier, like it was an extra generation or two away. The CASABLANCA revival in the late 80s, was on B&W stock and looked fine. However, a 35mm B&W print of CITIZEN KANE that I ran in the 90s looked dupier than the 16mm originals I'd seen. I can't remember whether THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE or GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK were on B&W or color stock, but they sure looked like great classic black-and-white film on the big screen, as did SIN CITY, which was shot digitially but I saw projected on 35mm color film stock (due to its color effects). I wonder if certain major directors have the clout to approve the final lab work, whereas others have to live with what they get.

I wonder also, hypothetically, whether studios are encouraging sloppy lab work to promote how much better the digital versions look (and help convince theatres to invest in digital projection systems as quickly as possible), since proper 35mm lab work projected properly would clearly demonstrate how superior 35mm film is to the typical 2K digital cinema setups. Or maybe the labs figure they've only got another year or two to remain in business so they just don't care anymore.

THE ARTIST won the Producers Guild of America's top prize for Best Film on Saturday. Producer Thomas Langmann said that making the film was "writing a love letter to American cinema."
http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/hammond ... tensifies/

Hey Jack,

After reading your post, I asked the owner of my local ..... how shall I put it? - uniplex? if they would be showing THE ARTIST digitally when they eventually get it. This theater has been in existence since 1925, and is the only stand alone movie theater that I know of on the Jersey Shore. He told me, no, that they only have 35mm projection.

I've seen THE ARTIST at my Loew's Multiplex, and was looking forward to seeing it again in a 1925 movie theater. I'm still going. Perhaps, for a truer B&W experience, I'll sit way down in front, and once the screen lights up, I'll surreptitiously slip on my polarized ray bans.




"Ain't there one damn song that can make me break down and cry?"

I had a similar experience in viewing the film—it was being shown at a neighborhood house from 1918 that has been turned into an art cinema. So in some respects, it was very fitting and I appreciated the experience all together.

That being said, my caveat isn't so much a warning to people not to support film, but only to highlight what is basically happening to it at this point.

I'll be seeing it at the Cremorne Orpheum, a beautifully restored 1935 cinema, complete with a Wurlitzer organ which pops up from the floor and lights up like a Christmas tree (I would probably live there if I could). Season starts 2 February!

I saw it tonight, it was actually a free screening I managed to find out about on Facebook, though I had been planning to see it anyway in the theater soon (and I have not seen a first run movie in a theater since The Man Who Wasn't There, about a decade ago). Anyway, I loved the film, it is just so wonderful to see a film using genuine silent, black and white storytelling techniques (not to mention a standard ratio screen) and succeed in connecting with modern, non-silent film geeky people. I had someone in my office who is not a silent movie buff at all say to me when I mentioned I was going to the film tonight that she had seen the film, and saw that silent film was an entirely different thing than talkie movies.

Sure, of course, this is not the best silent film ever made, how could it be? No one has made a genuine silent movie in 75 years or so. But it is a real silent movie, done in the real style. I just think that is a wonderful thing, and any recognition and popularity this film achieves can only be a good thing!

And yes, I plan on seeing Hugo, in 3D, as my second theatrical screening in ten years.

If you want to download the Artist screenplay it is available online. All 44 pages!

http://twcguilds.com/assets/screenplay/the-artist.pdf


CBS compiled a number of screenplays on their web site:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-5 ... ontenders/

Some films aren't available though including Tree of Life, Hugo, and Midnight in Paris to name a few. Still, its interesting seeing what the Artist screenplay looked like and I wonder if the format is similar to the scripts from the actual silent era. Does anyone know? Cheers!

Yes, it is in the style of silent scripts. Scripts for silent movies are as diverse as the music that accompanied them. Some are just bare bones outlines, others explain everything like this, and others are just like the scripts today, with the dialogue written in though we never hear it spoken.

Actually the word screenplay did not come into fashion
until well in the sound era. They were called scenarios.
Most directors just needed an outline and completed
the rest. Not even the Bible could escape "interpretations"
done by directors given such a free hand with the story.

"The Artist" opens today in Australia.

There have been the usual couple of negative reviews from those critics who watch pictures but don't appreciate them - but I did enjoy this paragraph from a critic who obviously liked the picture:-


Even those who have never encountered silent films before or who have fled from them in the misguided belief that museum fodder such as this isn't worth their while are likely to find themselves dancing their way out of the cinema as the closing credits roll for The Artist.

(Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/ ... z1lBmjDdDX)

I hope to get down to Melbourne next week to see it for myself next Wednesday at a nice Art Deco cinema in the 'burbs.

The Artist was shot in color film stock and converted to B&W.

I'm curious to see some making off documentary that show some color shots and the conversion to monochrome.

Well, they could had emulate a fair 2 color technicolor shots, since 2 color system was use in many films for a couple scenes only, during the 20's.
Hope a next modern silent film try to use such idea.

I can see the follow-up: an actor refuses to leave black and white films for Technicolor.

I supose you are making fun.

This cold happen with transition to sound. But for a transition or color...

But I heard Caludette Colbert did not like how she looked in color films. Make-up for B&W during 20's and 30's was almost a plaster sometimes, with increadible potention to hide dffects, wrinkles and enhance beaty.

I can see the follow-up: an actor refuses to leave black and white films for Technicolor.

Well, I saw it last night and was very impressed. Well made, by someone who obviously loves and knows silents. The use of silent film as a metaphor for the main character's dilemma is an extremely clever idea, and it puts it beyond mere pastiche, which it could easily have been and still been a well-realised, enjoyable film. The audience reception was great, and it's getting quite heavy publicity in Australia. If it wins the Oscar, it's well deserved, in my opinion.

This is probably for a different thread, but it made me aware of why I was disappointed with 'Hugo'. I came away thinking the film felt a little like the silver automaton - all shiny cogs, cleverness, and manufactured magic. I could find plenty of moments when Scorcese wanted me to say "Boy! That Scorcese, what a clever guy, he sure knows his film history!" but I couldn't find the heart.

One last thing for the nerds. Did you see the mocked-up magazine advertisement, the one that shows that Peppi has been signed to Kinegraph? I spotted Anita Page amongst her fellow 'fresh faces'. Did anyone recognise anybody else?

Yes, Anita Page is in the center and Irene Rich is below her to the right. I believe that two of the large portraits on the wall are Billie Burke and possibly Ethel Barrymore. I will see it again next week, and hopefully can catch more of the photos in the office. When I saw it the second time, I picked up more little details like the titles on the marquees, license plates, and script titles.

Brooksie, I felt the same way about Hugo. It's two different films trying to come together: melodrama and film history, and can't quite decide what it is. It's busy and filled with shiny things, but still looking for the key to work it, like the automaton.

... this is the only time you'll here me say this, try to go see this digitally. I saw it in 35mm and felt the presentation was compromised somewhat by poor timing on color stock. B&W on color stock isn't impossible, and has actually been done several times in the last ten years to great effect. Unfortunately, we're now in an era in which the labwork done today is at its worst, and this print woefully reflected that. One reel of the film I viewed was downright sepia-toned. For you tech geeks, it's a 1.33 pillarboxed in a 1.85 frame. I do wonder if there are any special-venue prints that are full-aperture.

Seems odd they wouldn't print it on B&W stock, unless there are come color effects somewhere. When I ran SCHINDLER'S LIST (admittedly almost 20 years ago now!) we first got a B&W print with the color shots spliced in, and it looked gorgeous. Later we got a print that was entirely on color stock and it looked softer, a bit dupier, like it was an extra generation or two away. The CASABLANCA revival in the late 80s, was on B&W stock and looked fine. However, a 35mm B&W print of CITIZEN KANE that I ran in the 90s looked dupier than the 16mm originals I'd seen. I can't remember whether THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE or GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK were on B&W or color stock, but they sure looked like great classic black-and-white film on the big screen, as did SIN CITY, which was shot digitially but I saw projected on 35mm color film stock (due to its color effects). I wonder if certain major directors have the clout to approve the final lab work, whereas others have to live with what they get.

I wonder also, hypothetically, whether studios are encouraging sloppy lab work to promote how much better the digital versions look (and help convince theatres to invest in digital projection systems as quickly as possible), since proper 35mm lab work projected properly would clearly demonstrate how superior 35mm film is to the typical 2K digital cinema setups. Or maybe the labs figure they've only got another year or two to remain in business so they just don't care anymore.

I may have mentioned this on another thread, but B&W stock is considered "specialty" work today and is prohibitively expensive for large print orders. When we did THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA in 2004, DeLuxe B&W release-print stock was literally more than five times as expensive as color stock. We had no choice. Of course, since LSoC was supposed to be a cheap-ass indie, the color shifts added to the experience, but it's definitely a drag for THE ARTIST (I've seen it both ways now.)

Mike S.

[Christopher Jacobs]

I may have mentioned this on another thread, but B&W stock is considered "specialty" work today and is prohibitively expensive for large print orders. When we did THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA in 2004, DeLuxe B&W release-print stock was literally more than five times as expensive as color stock. We had no choice. Of course, since LSoC was supposed to be a cheap-ass indie, the color shifts added to the experience, but it's definitely a drag for THE ARTIST (I've seen it both ways now.)

Mike S.

That's a pretty quick pricing shift, as in 1998-99 when I worked on an indie film shot in 35mm, the producer said it was substantially cheaper for them to shoot in black and white (I think they used either Plus-X or Tri-X or both). Of course they only had two or three prints made when it was done, and prints are always much more expensive in runs of anything less than about a hundred or more, often double what they cost per print in typical wide-release runs of 1000 or 2000+ prints. That also is likely changing rapidly as the wide releases start to have a larger percentage of digital copies on hard drives compared to the 35mm film prints.

Finally got to see "The Artist" today -- what a great movie, and what an ambitious and audacious undertaking!

Although it is based upon the silent-to-talkies situation, it is really a timeless story of people made obsolete by technology. I'm thinking of all the employees made obsolete by steam engines, electric motors and computers, all the music stores made obsolete by MP3 players, all the film labs (and Kodak) made obsolete by digital cameras, and so forth.

But it's also a story of resourcefulness and re-invention, and so struck a universal chord. Hopefully the Oscar folks will take notice. Kudos to the Weinsteins for picking this one up and rolling with it.

BTW, I had to endure about ten minutes of annoying commercials, four lousy (and loud) "Coming Attractions" previews, a watery Pepsi and a small bag of cold popcorn that cost me $5; at least the picture was in focus and in frame. Going to the movies ain't what it used to be, folks! But the movie was definitely worth it. SETH

Hey, wrong board, silly!

EDIT: Thread merged by crackerjack moderators.

The Artist is now playing in two theaters in Reno! Nice.

Hugo is playing in several, including the discount one, and in Carson City. Guess Hugo's hit the big time now.

Cheers,
Maureen

I've tried to keep away from EVERYTHING regarding the film, particularly this thread, but I couldn't get away from some glowing reviews of it from my friends. So after reading this thread and some of the negative words being exchanged, I've decided to keep my opinions to myself here.

I think that statement might give me the general gist of your overall opinion, but I hope I'm wrong, and that's all I'll say.

Actually, I was referring to the vitriol flying in both directions, rather inferring my thoughts in my own statement.

Here's an article from the LA Times, stating that the director originally thought of making a black and white film influenced by German Expressionism, focusing on the rise of the sound era along with the Nazis' ascent, with Valentine committing suicide at the end:
http://theenvelope.latimes.com/news/la- ... 3573.story

I saw it last week... it's just OK. The story is too cliched and full of common places. They even use a classic melody from Argentina in the soundtrack: Estancia by Alberto Ginastera.

Either if it wins an Philip or not, I really don't care.