Artistry And The Artist
With The Artist apparently the favorite to take the Best Picture Oscar, The New Yorker has a timely piece on silent acting. David Denby, whom I've taken to task for dragging politics into his reviews, sticks to the art form here.
The Artist is charming and enjoyable, but it's not as powerful as the best silent drama. Here's how Denby puts it:
[....] “The Artist,” a likable spoof, doesn’t acknowledge that world of heroic ambition and madness—it’s bland, sexless, and too simple. For all its genuine charm, it left me restless and dissatisfied, dreaming of those wilder and grander movies.
It's not that The Artist is trying to be an old-style silent drama, but that's part of the problem. It's going for something pretty basic, and, at its best, that's what it achieves. The main thing it has going for it is the central stunt of not using sound--if a similar film were served up in the 20s, it would have seemed rather bland.
Denby notes, and I agree, that Martin Scorsese--using color, widescreen, CGI and sound--captures the magic and artistry of the silent era far better in Hugo. If the Oscar really wants to honor a film that honors film, this is the one.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:02 AM
2 Comments:
I just saw "The Artist" this weekend. It was gone from the megaplexes so I saw it in one of the few remaining old community theaters in town- which, I think, added to the ambiance. It was slight but I liked it fine.
Two questions
- the tone of the black and white seemed to change throughout the film- from darker to sepia toned to yellowish. Was that a function of the old theater's projection equipment or was that an added feature to the film?
- I have a hard time enjoying old silents other than as cultural artifacts- just I assume because I am not used to the differences in feel and never took the time to acclimate to it. However, The Artist was not like old silents I have seen in that the movie was relatively smooth. In the scene where George (Mentally I think of him as Georges) Valentin is watching his old flics, the movie there projected was jumpy and herky-jerky and the characters moved too fast which is like the old silents I remember seeing (and possibly kept me from connecting with)- that clearly was not like the rest of the action portrayed in The Artist.
-Spoiler (I Guess) Alert- I really want to see "Tears of Love"- any film where at the end the hero tells the heroine "I never loved you." and then sinks beneath the quick sand is the king overwrought gut-wrenching drama that Denby seems to be talking about.
I didn't notice the tone change, but perhaps that was due to my theatre's projection. If it did, it would make sense, since old silent films would regularly change their tint for different scenes.
The Artist, like any film today, is 24 frames per second, so appears "smooth." Before sound came in, however, fps was variable, but generally less than 24 fps. When they were projected years later, they did appear jerky. I'd think today, better prints, not to mention video transfer, has helped solve that problem in many cases.
Post a Comment
<< Home