Tweet Would The Artist Have Won the '27 Oscars?

Ever read Danny Peary's Alternative Oscars? It's all about one man's subjective opinion against Oscar's subjective opinion. And it is fun as get out to read even when you vehemently disagree with him.

I might know something about something like that.

OK that looks like a book I would devour from cover to cover. Copy ordered from Amazon already.

[Christopher Jacobs]

Ever read Danny Peary's Alternative Oscars? It's all about one man's subjective opinion against Oscar's subjective opinion. And it is fun as get out to read even when you vehemently disagree with him.

I might know something about something like that.

OK that looks like a book I would devour from cover to cover. Copy ordered from Amazon already.

Now why did we not know about this book before? (I suppose I probably saw it years ago and never made the connection.) It's been over 15 years now, though -- any chance for an updated edition soon? (This Christmas would be fine, not to put any pressure on.)

On the film itself, I did thoroughly enjoy it, but don't really see it as best of the year. I thought Hugo was a terrific film, and of the two "silent era" echoes currently at the multiplexes, much more worthy of the praise that has been heaped on The Artist, enjoyable as it is.

I have not seen Hugo so I can't comment on the movie. But I have seen previews so I think I can comment on the concept. The trouble I have with Scorsese and his take on classic/silent film in general is that he sees silents as an evolutionary link leading to bigger and better things in the future. Hence, Hugo is replete with 3D and Computer generated effects. Scorsese has even been extolling the possibilities of such future technical innovations as holographic images. Like a true graduate of film school he sees silents as a stepping stone, not as intrinsically valuable in themselves.

The Artist, on the other hand, has the audacity to tell us the thing itself is worthwhile, that when movies moved to sound and color and widescreen and CGI and 3-D, they lost something valuable (as Hitchcock himself believed) - the simple camera poetry of a long take, the luminous quality of B&W cinematography, the stylization of real props, pantomime, the expressiveness of faces. So, for recognizing it's the real thing that counts, not just its influence, I'll take Hazanavicius' concept over Scorsese's anytime, because I want to watch silent movies to enjoy them, not to learn about where they fit on cinema's evolutionary plain.

Of course The Artist would never have won a 1927 award, but I do believe 1927 audiences may have left the theater smiling after seeing it. I don't think they would have sat through Hugo at all.

[Mike Gebert]

I have not seen Hugo so I can't comment on the movie. But I have seen previews so I think I can comment on the concept. The trouble I have with Scorsese and his take on classic/silent film in general is that he sees silents as an evolutionary link leading to bigger and better things in the future. Hence, Hugo is replete with 3D and Computer generated effects.

I gotta say, if you had seen Hugo, you'd see that his affection for the magic of effects created with cardboard and paint is not only genuine, but pretty much the point of the movie.

That he uses different effects to do so is a reflection of his time as Melies' effects are of his, but whatever "replete with 3D and Computer generated effects" means exactly, it's not that in the same way that a Transformers 3D, say, is. It's clearly a tribute to the storyteller's art of putting what isn't real in a movie (by whatever means are available to you), not to bombarding us with sensation.

Like a true graduate of film school he sees silents as a stepping stone, not as intrinsically valuable in themselves.

I'm looking at my copy of Martin Scorsese's Personal Journey Through American Movies, and there are chapters devoted to Griffith, De Mille, Murnau's Sunrise, Borzage's Seventh Heaven, Broken Blossoms, and von Stroheim's The Wedding March. I'd say he considers silent films to be pretty valuable.

Coppola went to film school too, and he personally promoted the theatrical release of Gance's Napoleon in North America that played in commercial theatres and rep houses.

And as we've seen in another thread, film school grad George Lucas is turning Star Wars into a silent film.

I have not seen Hugo so I can't comment on the movie. But I have seen previews so I think I can comment on the concept. The trouble I have with Scorsese and his take on classic/silent film in general is that he sees silents as an evolutionary link leading to bigger and better things in the future. Hence, Hugo is replete with 3D and Computer generated effects.

I gotta say, if you had seen Hugo, you'd see that his affection for the magic of effects created with cardboard and paint is not only genuine, but pretty much the point of the movie.

That he uses different effects to do so is a reflection of his time as Melies' effects are of his, but whatever "replete with 3D and Computer generated effects" means exactly, it's not that in the same way that a Transformers 3D, say, is. It's clearly a tribute to the storyteller's art of putting what isn't real in a movie (by whatever means are available to you), not to bombarding us with sensation.

And it's not like silent films and CGI and 3D are are there is to the film, there are a couple of stories going on there that some people might even relate better to than the silent film stuff we're so thrilled by. My husband asked me the other day "what was the name of the movie we just saw about a boy who was looking for something to connect him with his dead father?" He loved the film, but it's that part that moved him and that stayed with him. I don't think he noticed it was in 3D.

greta

That he uses different effects to do so is a reflection of his time as Melies' effects are of his, but whatever "replete with 3D and Computer generated effects" means exactly, it's not that in the same way that a Transformers 3D, say, is. It's clearly a tribute to the storyteller's art of putting what isn't real in a movie (by whatever means are available to you), not to bombarding us with sensation.

You are right, I should see Hugo before elaborating on its fancied short-comings. But my criticism is not aimed at technological innovation. I don't want movies to go back to being all silent and B&W. But I do wish the best of current filmmakers had the instincts of a Hitchcock, whose restraint in the use of dialog is legendary, or even a Murnau (who didn't believe sound was a bad thing, just premature). My criticism is aimed at what we have lost because we have rushed to embrace technology at the expense of limitations that forced filmmakers to make creative choices. Just because we can make the impossible seem real doesn't mean we should.

And I don't mean to single out only Scorsese, but others from the film school generation as well. When I see James Cameron stealing (not too strong a term) creative bits from Roy Ward Baker's A Night to Remember to provide background for the CGI extravaganza and cliched love story of Titanic, I am just as upset as when I hear Scorsese praised for his use of "film vocabulary" in Shutter Island when what he really did was steal the techniques of Val Lewton horror films - techniques Lewton used, I might add, because of miniscule budgets. And Brian De Palma I don't even want to think about.

And Brian De Palma I don't even want to think about.

I'll admit to enjoying a number of De Palma films, but sometimes he reminds me of the visual equivalent of that quote about Wagner (maybe by Shaw?): "His music is better than it sounds."

[Christopher Jacobs]

And Brian De Palma I don't even want to think about.

I'll admit to enjoying a number of De Palma films, but sometimes he reminds me of the visual equivalent of that quote about Wagner (maybe by Shaw?): "His music is better than it sounds."

And speaking of De Palma and lifting from VERTIGO, has anybody seen OBSESSION lately? (And that was actually scored by Herrmann himself!)

THE ARTIST actually did open in one of our theatres today, a week ahead of schedule, and I rushed out to the first matinee. In short, I loved it, while recognizing how heavily (and intentionally) it borrows from numerous other films, which in this case becomes a part of its charm for film buffs and may perhaps incite modern movie-goers to linger on TCM sometime while they're channel-surfing instead of immediatly switching away from a black-and-white image. I barely even noticed the music from VERTIGO until it had been going on for a while, as it fits extremely well when it begins and later seems to play slightly against the picture as it gets into the more familiar themes, but by that time the music shifts back to the newly composed score. There were a couple of spots where it sounded vaguely reminiscent of certain Zamecnick cues, and I was really hoping to hear some intact Zamecnick movie mood music -- that would really have been a fun homage and way above the heads of the modern filmgoer!

THE ARTIST may not be the "Best" of all the films made this year, but it easily ranks in the top two or three of the nine nominees. What makes it stand out so much from everything else released over the past few years (or decades) is how *satisfying* a film it is by the time it's over. It's entertaining, sometimes a bit cheesy and heavy-handed, sometimes a bit overdramatic, but always sincere and always playing expertly to an audience, ending with a reassuring one-two punch that celebrates Hollywood, the movies, love stories, and personal triumph over adversity. There are also a number of scenes that work on multiple levels and some interesting subtext going on that will reward multiple viewings. But it's the film's heartfelt feel-good sincerity combined with an affectionate poking fun at the Hollywood system, which may alone win it the Best Picture Oscar, and I really hope it wins a majority of its ten nominations. (Yes, there should have been a special category for the dog!)

Incidentally our theatre was running a 35mm print, previously-run but in extremely good condition, and yes the labs weren't able to match the color balances for a consistent black-and-white look from reel to reel, so one reel had a slight brownish cast, another a slight bluish cast, a couple with a slight greenish cast, and a couple that looked like perfect black and white. However, seeing this in a theatre (especially noticing the round changeover cues in the upper right corner before each reel change), brought back memories of seeing black-and-white films projected with carbon-arc projectors whose color balance always changed slightly with every reel change, so rather than distracting from the viewing experience it actually added to it (as did the used print's inevitable increase of dirt and light scratches just before and after each reel change)!

I'm hoping that the Blu-ray due in two months includes the movies-within-movies as bonuses. I'd love to see the rest of A RUSSIAN AFFAIR, A GERMAN AFFAIR, and TEARS OF LOVE.

Glad to see another newly-minted fan!

I gotta say that John Goodman deserves some serious kudos; I thought he was just perfect as the studio boss, but I don't seem to have read much praise of his performance. John, you're one helluva character actor, sound or silent.

Ultimately, I think the answer to that question is the same as "Will WINGS win the 2012 Oscars?"

[Christopher Jacobs]

Ultimately, I think the answer to that question is the same as "Will WINGS win the 2012 Oscars?"

Well, with the audience and critical response to the limited theatrical reissue of WINGS last year, I'm wondering if it somehow managed to be the tenth nominee in the expanded Best Picture category until somebody realized it wouldn't really qualify since it already won! Maybe that's why there are only nine new films in the Best Picture category after last year's much-publicized expansion from five to ten titles. I'm very much tempted to sit down and watch the new WINGS Blu-ray all the way through the night after this year's Academy Awards.

I'm hoping that the Blu-ray due in two months includes the movies-within-movies as bonuses. I'd love to see the rest of A RUSSIAN AFFAIR, A GERMAN AFFAIR, and TEARS OF LOVE.

What, no love for BEAUTY SPOT?

Thanks for your review. How many other folks were in the theater?

[Christopher Jacobs]

I'm hoping that the Blu-ray due in two months includes the movies-within-movies as bonuses. I'd love to see the rest of A RUSSIAN AFFAIR, A GERMAN AFFAIR, and TEARS OF LOVE.

What, no love for BEAUTY SPOT?

Thanks for your review. How many other folks were in the theater?

I forgot about BEAUTY SPOT, but that's a talkie, anyway (though it still would be nice to see some big chunks from it).

The showing I attended yesterday was the first matinee of the day (12:40 pm) on the film's opening day in town, and there were only about ten of us in the audience. I think there was a youngish couple (late 20s, early 30s) and a bunch of older folks (60s, 70s, 80s), who all sat back quite a ways from the screen, besides middle-aged me (50s) in the front row center (the relative equavalent distance to screen-size ratio as the second row in my basement home theatre). I hope the weekend does good business and they keep holding it over for several more weeks past the Oscars (probably more likely if it wins big). I'll be sure to tell my film students they can get extra credit if they attend and write up a one-page reaction.

The showing I attended yesterday was the first matinee of the day (12:40 pm) on the film's opening day in town, and there were only about ten of us in the audience...... I hope the weekend does good business and they keep holding it over for several more weeks past the Oscars (probably more likely if it wins big). I'll be sure to tell my film students they can get extra credit if they attend and write up a one-page reaction.

There was a similar small crowd the first time I saw it; opening day, 3rd showing of the day. On the 2nd viewing the theater was just over half full, mostly older folks. This was the first showing on a Sunday morning and I had expected a smaller crowd, so was surprised. There were some early 20 somethings behind me and I heard that the young woman in that group didn't care for it as it had no dialogue. At least she watched it tho.

I hope lots of your students take you up on your extra credit offer as it would interesting to have their views.

Ever read Danny Peary's Alternative Oscars? It's all about one man's subjective opinion against Oscar's subjective opinion. And it is fun as get out to read even when you vehemently disagree with him.

I might know something about something like that.

OK this is a completely great book. Absolutely love it.

I gotta say, if you had seen Hugo, you'd see that his affection for the magic of effects created with cardboard and paint is not only genuine, but pretty much the point of the movie.

That he uses different effects to do so is a reflection of his time as Melies' effects are of his, but whatever "replete with 3D and Computer generated effects" means exactly, it's not that in the same way that a Transformers 3D, say, is. It's clearly a tribute to the storyteller's art of putting what isn't real in a movie (by whatever means are available to you), not to bombarding us with sensation.

I saw Hugo on Oscar night and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it, not being a fan of CGI or 3D. The ads do lead you to believe it's a "high concept" thrill ride. But I am still glad The Artist took top prize. Sorsese's film is an appreciation by an passionate admirer of the past - an antiquarian. It's in that role that I enjoy him most. I loved his Personal Journey through film that aired on TCM more than a decade ago. Like many from the film school he's a good historian and film analyst. But Hazanavicius is an enthusiastic fan, enthusiastic enough to have immersed himself in the form itself and to tell us that film is missing something that can't be cured by CGI or 3D or holographs (Heaven forbid). How much control does any filmmaker today - director or cinematographer either - have over films that go out under his or her name, and how much is the result of independent teams of technical effects wizards? With all the criticism of The Artist for using Hermann's score for Vertigo, I haven't read much about Scorsese's own Hitchcock moments, as when Isabelle falls and and we see from below the soles of the trampling crowd's shoes just as we see the pacing soles of the the suspected Avenger in Hitchcock's The Lodger, or when we look down through the stairwell of the a clock tower that reminds us more than a little of the bell tower in Vertigo. And of course their is the cameo by the director.

Nevertheless, I did appreciate Hugo, but in a different way than I appreciated The Artist. Seeing Hugo made me want to go home pull out my copy of Brownlow and Gill's Cinema Europe. Watching The Artist made me want to go home and pull out any movie starring Doug Fairbanks.

Kim Novak got a rather Norma-Desmondish fit:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/m ... rtist.html

No way L.B. Meyer would have allowed The Artist to win in '27. I really enjoyed The Artist and feel that standing next to most movies that came out in 2011 it was different and refreshing, but it's really just an average film when compared with movies released in 1927. The majority of the public and Academy member are not silent film aficionados and do not realize that movies released in 1927 didn't look like Birth of a Nation.

Is it a "classic" film though? Will it stand the test of time. Hindsight is a weird thing. Most people are amazed that Ragging Bull didn't win in 1980 but the fact is that Ordinary People really touched the Academy that year. It's all about votes. I think Hugo was a more forward looking film using new techniques and pushing what a "classic" film can look like, and was awarded so, but The Artist hit people differently. Having Harvey pushing it didn't hurt either, the guy knows how to campaign. In 20 years will people look back and think that Hugo should have won? Hard to tell. In the end we're the real winners because for the first time the two films with the most nominations focused on our beloved film history.

Ron

I finally watched The Artist...

Well, it's a good movie, inovative approuch in some way, and very nice finale introducing some talk and keeping the silent feeling (speed of moviments). Good performances.

But iut's nota masterpiece.
Well... we don't see anything close toa masterpice from many and many years.


I think it have some modern things in excess, like the too fluid camera moviment, likea actual film, and too modern lens and depth efects, again likea modern film.
I'm not saying it should use the camera, camera stands,and lens of the 20''s but at least not like a modern.
The nitrate contrast feeling, like in some shot of the restored Metropils, wouldalso be welcome. The constrast in TheArtist wasa bit murk.

More dancing numbers and development of the female character and her interaction with the main character would also be welcome.
The make-up for the film itself and for theactoracting in the film portraid in the film, look the same. I supose they could madea bit heavier make-up for the character performingasactor.

There are funny pretty moments. I like when the female character, despite of behaveasa silentactressacting, describe the body gestual language of silentsas dated.


The crazy nerd critic review:

-It should have more grain
-Some flicker... just a tiny little bit
-The lighting sparkles during torture, scene in the beginning of the movie, looks like digital work and not like optical effects from 20's.
-The nitrate film, in the scene of the fire in the character's home, looks too slow, not like real nitrate.
-Some 2 color technicolor scene, like they in B&W watching a test reel, only the screen in 2 color technicolor, would be memorable.


Anyway it's a very good enjoyment, a good workable to help people understand why silent films was very famous and important.
Congratulations to the creative people evolved in this film. !!!



Hey, I would like to see some production photographes, in color, for The Artist.

Oh, I think you can EASILY argue 1941 there....

I wouldn't. I would vote for GREEN over KANE any day of the week.

And Grand Hotel over City Lights? That's an early example of an Oscar trend -- the big star-stuffed mega production getting noticed while the smaller production gets overlooked.

GRAND HOTEL, like the MGM awards for BROADWAY MELODY OF 1929 and AN AMERICAN IN PARIS, won the award because they tried something different that came off really really well. And GRAND HOTEL did start a very big trend of the all-star film, something that continues to this day.

As another thread would indicate, while the ending of CITY LIGHTS is emotionally devestating (in a good way) to many viewers (including me) it may not be as good a film as Chaplin's earlier features, let alone the high point of his shorts period.

Oh, and GWTW is not debatable either. Even for 1939. With the possible exception of CASABLANCA, it is the best sound film of the studio era.