Anyone else hate "The Artist"?

Anyone else hate "The Artist"?

Bridget
Bridget

January 25th, 2012, 12:08 am #1

I cringed throughout the entire movie. I wanted to walk out. Why all the oscar nominations? I don't understand. No Bix, not even close.
Reply
Share

Laura Demilio
Laura Demilio

January 25th, 2012, 2:11 pm #2

Everyone going to see it will gush about what a "cute movie" it is, and critics will slobber about it because it's supposed to be "in" to do so, but it's always like the fairy tale The Emperor's New Clothes -- people banding together to nod and remark how great the current trendy movie or book is, when it isn't at all, but most people are afraid to say they didn't like it.

My friends are pushing at me to go see it "It's just your thing, Laura, the 1920's" but I had a funny feeling about a major film beng so commercially produced and promoted -- every once in awhile they "get it right", but usually they fall far short, with inacuracies and anachoranisms.

If you say it's bad, Bridget, I believe you utterly, so I won't bother.
Reply
Share

David Logue
David Logue

January 25th, 2012, 2:32 pm #3

I cringed throughout the entire movie. I wanted to walk out. Why all the oscar nominations? I don't understand. No Bix, not even close.
I absolutely loved this film. I thought it was the best new release I've seen in ages.

I admit that I was skeptical when I noticed in the previews that they were using Benny Goodman's "Sing, Sing, Sing" for a film that took place in the late 1920s. However, a few minutes into the film, I realized that this movie was going to be something special.

I thought, for the most part, the director did a brilliant job of recreating Hollywood and a silent film of the late 1920s. The lighting, the aspect ratio, the film speed, the art direction all looked like a silent MGM feature, circa 1928. Jean Dujardin also should be commended for his silent film acting abilities. It was understated and very true to the period.

Yes, the one place where the film may have fallen short was the music, something that is crucial to a silent film. I was a little confused as to why the director chose to use bits of Bernard Hermann's "Vertigo" score and some of the other music that was used was anachronistic (although they didn't use "Sing, Sing, Sing"). But the music, overall, still worked.

While I am usually a stickler for such oversights in period music, I have to say that the films merits overshadow its faults.

As a fan of "Boardwalk Empire", I also cringe when I hear that horrible contemporary theme song. But I still enjoy the show--even though I think that the violence/sex quotient is a little over the top. But hey, that's HBO.

Any film that will introduce a new audience to the joy of silent films deserves some accolades. And it's a great film for the family--if you can manage to get your kids interested in seeing a film that has no talking. Plus, my wife who HATES silent movies loved it. So there.
Reply
Share

vince giordano
vince giordano

January 25th, 2012, 2:56 pm #4

I was happy they played Imagination [Fud Livingston] by Red Nichols' band in the film
Reply
Share

David Logue
David Logue

January 25th, 2012, 4:44 pm #5

That was a pleasant surprise!

Vince, it's a pity the director didn't consult with you for the rest of the music!
Reply
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 25th, 2012, 9:06 pm #6

Reply
Like
Share

Bridget
Bridget

January 26th, 2012, 1:25 am #7

Everyone going to see it will gush about what a "cute movie" it is, and critics will slobber about it because it's supposed to be "in" to do so, but it's always like the fairy tale The Emperor's New Clothes -- people banding together to nod and remark how great the current trendy movie or book is, when it isn't at all, but most people are afraid to say they didn't like it.

My friends are pushing at me to go see it "It's just your thing, Laura, the 1920's" but I had a funny feeling about a major film beng so commercially produced and promoted -- every once in awhile they "get it right", but usually they fall far short, with inacuracies and anachoranisms.

If you say it's bad, Bridget, I believe you utterly, so I won't bother.
I too was wary and so consulted a film critic friend who recommended it. I went. I must say that my criticism is of the historical inaccuracies and of the overall feel the film conveys. The cute factor is definitely nauseating and I felt the entire film a caricature of all things I hold dear. The soundtrack is entirely schizophrenic. There may have been only one period song included. (I couldn't stand waiting for the credits to roll to confirm). Vince should definitely have been consulted. Records spin at what looks like 33.
The costuming too was unbelievably bad. White opera gloves (considered old fashioned in the 20s) of every length fill the opening scenes.
Extras are shod in standard Capezio character shoes. The lead actress is either under or over dressed. It's as if the director thought that since the film is black and white that no one can actually see details such as texture, or anything of interest at all.
The crowd dance scene is pathetic. It's as if the 'director' grabbed the first 10 people on the street and commanded "dance!". No effort whatsoever was made to convey one of the most popular pastimes of the day. The tap scenes were not much better. Rehearsed, but, these people are not dancers, why bother trying to re-do Fred and Ginger- who were not silent at all.
I'm just getting started, blah blah, blah. I value the opinion of Bix forumites so am glad to get any input. Only you guys get it!
Bridget
Reply
Share

Barb Wascher
Barb Wascher

January 27th, 2012, 12:49 am #8

Reply
Share

Glenda Childress
Glenda Childress

February 1st, 2012, 1:44 pm #9

Barb, your imagery is, as always, as <em>cool</em> and refreshing as a mountain stream!
Reply
Share