THE FAILURE OF THE ARTIST

I've kept my mouth shut about it, but I've finally decide to post my opinion on one of last year's worst movies, and certainly the most over-rated.  And this time, I am absolutely serious.  Not like my previous column filled with irony and sarcasm.  

Blame Reddit for triggering this attack.

Back in February, The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences—like so many other film organizations before it—chose to award THE ARTIST with its biggest honor: Best Picture.

What a travesty.

This isn’t the first time the Academy members have bestowed such a prestigious award on such an undeserving film, but I am shocked—SHOCKED—at the rave reviews the film has won from critics around the world.  Rotten Tomatoes gave THE ARTIST a 97% rating, and most of the top critics on the site loved it.  Seriously, I have to wonder if Harvey Weinstein passed out Ecstasy before all the preview screenings because this movie was, as Charles Barkley might say, turrible.

I was looking forward to this film as much as the next pretentious art house movie-goer in a major metropolitan area; but as someone who is a fan of silent films I found THE ARTIST to have failed in its attempts rekindle the magic of that wonderful era. 

Why?  Well, I hope you have your coffee ready because this is going to be a long and brutal column...

Let’s start with the fact that IT COPIED SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN!!!

Sure, a lot of films are influenced by, and pay homage to, films in the past.  I quite enjoy it when they do.  It sometimes adds another level to the experience, and creates subtext to elevate the thematic issues being explored.  It can also be self-indulgent and, because I am a pretentious art house movie-goer in a major metropolitan area, I respond to that.

But don’t copy whole sequences and beats and hope I don’t notice—because I did!

I want...

THE ARTIST starts with another successful premiere of silent superstar George Valentin’s (Jean Dujardin) latest film.  Afterwards he hams it up on stage and delights the crowd, much to the chagrin of his costar who stands silently on the wings of the stage under the watchful eye of the studio head.

...to say something

SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN—ditto.  Silent superstar Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) delights the crowd with thank yous after another successful premiere, while his costar is made to be quiet by the studio head.

Then it continues...

In both movies, the premiere is followed by the meet cute with a young ingénue.  Sparks fly.

But I was here first!

I know where this is going...

The young ingénue makes her way into the movie business and finds herself face to face with both the hero and the studio head in a sound stage.  Of course, Don, er, George, is completely enamored with her and must convince the studio head that she be kept on.

I've read this script before...

This keeps up for about the first half of THE ARTIST, following the structure of SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN so closely it might as well be a remake.  The hero is a well-loved silent movie actor who comes face-to-face with the changing movie business as it transitions to sound.  But he’s reluctant to embrace the new technology and his latest movie ends up becoming a bomb.  The only difference is THE ARTIST chose not to include any of the elements that made SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN such a delightful film—singing, dancing, comedy, charisma, and general good moviemaking. 

But let’s take a step back and try to ignore this blatant plagiarism.  Let’s forgive THE ARTIST’s inability to craft an original story (because it also steals from A STAR IS BORN). 

I know this is a silent film, but...

Let’s discuss THE ARTIST on the merits of it being a silent film—where it fails absolutely.  If one decides to make a silent movie one must endeavor to make a cinematic film which tells its story visually.  THE ARTIST did not do that.  So often it relied on dialogue to tell its story.  This isn’t even acceptable in modern movies that benefit from the technology of sound!

Shouldn't we be doing something visually?

Let's sit for this scene.

This convention in filmmaking is called “talking heads.”  It is the most uncinematic way to tell a story, to have two characters (usually) sitting across from one another chatting away.  You don’t do this.  This is film school 101.  Unless you’re Aaron Sorkin, you don’t write talking heads at the table. 

I have some exposition for you, and it's not good.

And yet, this happens over, and over, and over again in THE ARTIST—a silent film!  So let me get this straight, the man who won numerous Best Director Awards couldn’t come up with any other way to tell his story than to have characters sitting across from each other and staring at each other and providing exposition.  A film that promised to rely on the film techniques of the past still resorted to the most frowned upon convention in today's cinema?

AND IT WON BEST PICTURE FOR IT!?!

What the hell is wrong with the Academy!?!  What the hell is wrong with critics!?!

Keep talking.

And why would the director create a scene, IN A SILENT FILM, that features a radio interview!?!  At a dinner table!!!  Do you not recognize the absurdity of this?  One could not have conceived a less creative scene for a silent film if one tried.  There is absolutely nothing visual about this scene.  Even if you have George in the background, it’s still revealing information through dialogue! 

In this scene I'll sit,
but I'll also smoke, drink and read.
Acting!

This is not good filmmaking!  Whenever I get into a debate about THE ARTIST (and every time I do, I die a little inside) I always get the same response from people.  "I thought it was charming."  "It was fun." "I liked the dog."  Really, that's the defense?  The dog was cute?  Never mind it was a silent film that featured more shots of actors sitting than MY DINNER WITH ANDRE!  Never mind the film took a tonal detour from the charm of the first act into a humorless and joyless second act that featured more missteps than GIGLI (oh yeah, I went there).  Never mind the carbon copy plot...

YOU LIKED THE DOG?  

Then people wonder why I want to beat them with a boom mic.

Look, if you want to watch good silent films, there are so many others out there made by filmmakers who actually understand how to tell a story visually.  You can start with the classic silent comedians: Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd.  And it's not just comedy-- there is a wide range of great films in various genres.  The scale and scope of METROPOLIS (dir: Fritz Lang) still influences movies today.  SUNRISE (dir: F.W. Murnau) is a powerful romantic drama.  Horror films like THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (dir: Robert Wiene) and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (dir: Rupert Julian) can still surprise audiences.

Hell, you can even watch WALL-E, a far superior film to THE ARTIST in every aspect.  And it actually told its story visually!

I admire what THE ARTIST wanted to do, but it didn’t do it.  It dragged throughout the majority of the film because it told a stale, formulaic story… and it did it poorly.

But…(sigh)… I guess this is what Hollywood and audiences across the world like to do:

Reward mediocrity.