Tweet One cannot be.....

...a true fan of silent film if one has no real desire to see The Artist.
Discuss.

...a true fan of silent film if one has no real desire to see The Artist.
Discuss.

Nonsense, put any silent film title in that line and you see how silly it is.

One cannot be a true fan of silent film if one has no real desire to see THE PEACOCK FAN.

RICHARD M ROBERTS (hasn't seen either THE ARTIST or HUGO, mainly due to his refusal to go to modern movie theaters, will probably catch up with both on DVD one of these days, isn't losing sleep over not having seen either of them.)

Thank you.
It's an accusation that was levelled at me last night by someone who appears to be allergic to silent film, black & white movies and anything with subtitles.
His line of thinking ran " you're always saying how wonderful silent movies are. Well now "they've" made a new one and you're not even going to see it? How pretentious you are".
I didn't give him the satisfaction of a response.

RICHARD M ROBERTS (hasn't seen either THE ARTIST or HUGO, mainly due to his refusal to go to modern movie theaters, will probably catch up with both on DVD one of these days, isn't losing sleep over not having seen either of them.)

My feelings exactly.

The way I see it, if you want to see the film and your town has a decent theatre showing, go for it, otherwise I would agree that home viewing is not any better. I try to go to environments that support decent viewing, with a minimum of teenage type interruptions. The independent theaters tend to be like this.

But I wouldn't feel guilty if you don't see The Artist in person. That's just silly.

It's a good thing it's silent because the volume of the ads, trailers and "Welcome to Empire Theatres" intro were nearly deafening.

RICHARD M ROBERTS (hasn't seen either THE ARTIST or HUGO, mainly due to his refusal to go to modern movie theaters

What's not to love about ringing cells, brainless chatter, noises of mastication? I'll see these, maybe, when they appear on TCM.

Im with Rich. I'll get around to it. TA, is a silent movie about the end of silent movies, I thought that had been covered in Singing in the Rain, somewhat dimwittedly. Many of us have been viewing silent films for several decades, not just because this film came out. As events have shown us, many still don't want to watch a silent movie or even when they didn't know TA was a silent, they are not adventurous enough to give it a shot(quote: "give us our money back, it's a no talk film" ). It's a niche category of film viewing. Im not begging someone to love or watch silents, if they do they do, if they don't , then they have plenty of other choices.

I saw The Artist and liked it, but if I hadn't seen it my life would not be the poorer. It's a nicely made film but I'd rather see a nice 1930's Paramount program picture, maybe with Edward Everett Horton.

[silentfilm]

Boy, tough crowd.

Silent film fans refusing to see THE ARTIST for whatever reason are only cheating themselves of an opportunity to see a film they just might possibly love, in spite of themselves. I'll lose no sleep over their folly.

I absolutely want to see it but as a home theater experience.

I saw The Artist last week and it was a great experience. THe cinema was about half full and there was a strange silence in the cinema as the film was playing. The audience seemed totally absorbed and frozen. I couldn't even eat my cake as the rustling of the paper bag seemed to resonate throughout the cinema.

The only thing about the film i don't like is the title. Sounds too wanky and give the mistaken impression this film is highbrow and arty farty. I would have preferred a more appropriate title fitting the story of the film.

Hoping to not step on any toes, but I find it interesting and a bit disconcerting that "Silent Movies" seem to be discussed by many as being an entirely seperate breed from other films. Silents are certainly different from talkies, but then early talkies use different techniques and have a different atmosphere from black and white films from the 1940s or 50s, and they're in turn different from from color scope films of later eras.

Silents hold a unique fascination because many film techniques were still being discovered and developed and the time period in which they were made is even further removed from the present day (even if the "present day" was back in the 1980s when I started watching them).

To me, they're all just movies - some I find entertaining and some I don't. THE ARTIST sounds like it will appeal to me because the reviews indicate it has a good story, and because I enjoy movies about the movie business. But if it was a new silent western or melodramatic romance, I'd be much less interested.

Frankly, I'm not too keen on the idea of Hollywood cranking out a few silents in the 21st century hoping to cash in on the success of THE ARTIST. And I'm wondering if Hazanavicius would want to make another one. His OSS 117: CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES did a great job of recreating the look and feel of the 1960s spy craze, and I'm guessing that he'd like to find another type of film to mimic and have fun with.

I don't like high definition sound (surround).

Why realism for bombs and ultra loud sound??? I don't want to get hear loss .

Thank you.
It's an accusation that was levelled at me last night by someone who appears to be allergic to silent film, black & white movies and anything with subtitles.
His line of thinking ran " you're always saying how wonderful silent movies are. Well now "they've" made a new one and you're not even going to see it? How pretentious you are".
I didn't give him the satisfaction of a response.

Ah, No True Scotsman! It's a wonderfully-named logical fallacy and the person you were talking with seems to have been using a variation of it, based on your first post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

-HA

The only thing about the film i don't like is the title. Sounds too wanky and give the mistaken impression this film is highbrow and arty farty. I would have preferred a more appropriate title fitting the story of the film.

They should have called it TEARS OF LOVE.

Ah, No True Scotsman! It's a wonderfully-named logical fallacy and the person you were talking with seems to have been using a variation of it, based on your first post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

-HA

I've been enjoying this thread as I am a new fan of silent film of about 2 years duration. So, since I've seen The Artist twice, does that make me a double plus good true silent fan? After all, when does one become "true silent movie fan"? I've never owned a 16mm from Blachhawk, or a laser disk or an silent film on VHS taped from a TV showing.

Because of where I live I haven't been able to see a silent movie (other than The Artist) in theatre with a live audience (sob) and have never been to one of the silent and classic movie conventions or festivals, and because of the recession, don't have any plans to go to any this year. I also don't watch TV so don't see TCM either.

I'm currently trying to figure out how to afford a TV upgrade and a blu ray player purchase so I can watch the wonderful silent films coming out on blu ray. Will I be a true silent fan when I've purchased Wings or The General on blu ray?

Good grief! This "No True Scotsman" stuff is pretty tough!

[silentfilm]

Maybe we should change this thread to One cannot be a true fan of films (new or old) and not watch a film in a movie theater occasionally.

That would be an interesting discussion. I certainly think that you can't fully experience good silent comedy without some form of an audience. Something that might earn a chuckle at home alone becomes uncontrollable laughter as you are swept along with the audience. But only if you have a good audience. Thus enters the discussion....

The only thing about the film i don't like is the title. Sounds too wanky and give the mistaken impression this film is highbrow and arty farty. I would have preferred a more appropriate title fitting the story of the film.

They should have called it TEARS OF LOVE.

I was thinking of like YOU CAN NEVER MAKE ME TALK or I NEVER HEARD IT COMING.

The only thing about the film i don't like is the title. Sounds too wanky and give the mistaken impression this film is highbrow and arty farty. I would have preferred a more appropriate title fitting the story of the film.

They should have called it TEARS OF LOVE.

I was thinking of like YOU CAN NEVER MAKE ME TALK or I NEVER HEARD IT COMING.

How about RESCUED BY UGGIE?

They should have called it TEARS OF LOVE.[/quote]
I was thinking of like YOU CAN NEVER MAKE ME TALK or I NEVER HEARD IT COMING.[/quote]
How about RESCUED BY UGGIE?[/quote]

Yes or even UGGIE AND ME. I'm sure a title like THE ARTIST would be a significant turn off for a lot of people.

AUDIO KILLED THE CINEMA STAR

Good idea for a pop song too.

In line with Valentin's pictures how about "A Hollywoodland Affair"

I know the secret handshake. Unfortunately, no one else does.

Bob

[Christopher Jacobs]

Some other title alternates in lieu of or as "kicker" subtitles of THE ARTIST...

THE DANCING CAVALIER (oh, wait...)
SINKING IN THE RAIN
NITRATE FURY
CRASH AND BURN
PEPPY & GEORGE IN HOLLYWOOD
PEPPY & THE PUPPY SAVE EVERYTHING
HOW MUCH IS THAT DOGGIE?
EVERYBODY'S TALKIN' (another good idea for a pop song!)
SILENCE PLEASE!
VALENTIN'S DAY
A HOLLYWOOD AFFAIR
SCREENED OUT

The title is in reference to one of the onscreen newspaper stories in which George indignantly refers to himself as an artist, so I think it works. Although, THE ACTOR would have been a great title.

I read an interview with Michel H. (I'm not even going to attempt to spell his last name) and during production the film was called "The Beauty Spot". Those who have seen the movie will recall the scene where Peppy receives her beauty spot, and later the theater marquee proclaiming her film of the same title. Michel was not exactly clear why the title was changed, and did not seem terribly concerned that it was.

How about RESCUED BY UGGIE?

Ha ha. I'm going to steal this one.