ratkins wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, so please forgive me if this is territory already covered. I saw The Artist last night finally and listening to the audience as they walked out of the theater made me feel like a kid whose long time favorite band just had a hit single and now everybody loves them. I thought the movie was good, very good in fact, but after all the hype I was expecting something more than just a typical 1920's film. Hearing everyone say how refreshing the movie was made me feel very indignant and I had to stop myself from asking people what other silent films they had seen. Did anyone else feel the same way or am I just a jerk?
BankofAmericasSweetheart wrote:No you aren't the only one who feels this way Ron. I myself and a few others have expressed some let-down from the whole experience and I have said my opinion more than a few times. I think whenever someone says something negative about the film, there's always several people who start defending the film as if we're wrong for feeling that way about the movie.
WaverBoy wrote:SilentEchoes57 wrote:So no one has posted yet that The Artist won Best Picture at the Critic's Choice Awards? Also best director, and get this, best costume design...
Costume design? But they were wearing incorrect underwear!!!
WaverBoy wrote:As long as you've learned how incorrect projection speeds can ruin silent comedies, we're good.
WaverBoy wrote:By the by, if Fred would like to post some historical photographic examples of correct period underwear, I'm sure that would be very helpful in the education of us undergarment Luddites...
Talmadge wrote:Thought I'd weigh in since my wife (also a silent film fan) and I saw The Artist today.
We both enjoyed it, but not as much as we would have liked.
It was enjoyable; a lot of funny and clever moments. I loved the dog, James Cromwell and the B&W cinematography.
The music seemed really lacking to me (especially after having recently seen Hugo twice - the score in that film is superlative). The Artist score seemed to lack a strong melodic theme and in many places seemed stitched together like a TCM silent screening using "library" music at hand. I about fell out of my seat when the Bernard Herrmann music came on; the scene was ruined for me because the music, possibly Herrmann's greatest score, is too closely linked to Vertigo. Using the music in The Artist seemed tacky and took me out of the story.
I think the movie could have benefited from a closer study of A Star is Born (Garland) and Borzage movies like Seventh Heaven. In those movies, the pace was leisurely and the films took the time to really tell the story and get to know the characters. In The Artist, the film had hardly started when the protagonist began his downhill climb. Also, I found it hard to believe that an actor so full of life and confidence wouldn't want to at least try the sound process and I found his loser state a little hard to believe.
I do hope the film instills in viewers who would otherwise never see a silent film the idea that maybe silent films aren't like taking medicine after all. The Artist was obviously made with a lot of love for films of the '20s and '30s. Again, I enjoyed it, but probably not as much as seeing the real thing.
missdupont wrote:Wasn't Fairbanks also someone who was confident and positive who didn't want to move out of silents as well, literally being dragged into sound?
FrankFay wrote:missdupont wrote:Wasn't Fairbanks also someone who was confident and positive who didn't want to move out of silents as well, literally being dragged into sound?
I think part of it was that the technology of early talkies was not going to make him look dashing and effortless. Another part of it was that he was aging and his health was going- he wasn't going to be able to do the stunts his audience wanted for much longer. He'd been on stage for years so there was no problem with him talking.
Zool wrote:Just offering up a different perspective here...
I learned some years ago to not build up expectations about a movie. I don't go into the theater with the frame of mind that "I expect this, and this, and that, and I expect to have those expectations met." It saves me potential disappointments, and I'm able to enjoy the movie for what it is. Unless it's garbage.
I did see The Artist, and as with any movie, I didn't come home and begin comparing/contrasting it to other movies to see where it fell short. Nor did I pick apart little minute details that didn't seem to have an impact on the ACTUAL PLOT one way or the other in my opinion. I could do that, but that wouldn't be any fun for me.
I liked The Artist very much. I found some of the scenes to be somewhat moving. Particularly the last 10 minutes of the film. I thought the film was very well done. It was like a breath of fresh air to me in terms of what modern cinema is currently made up of... And I'm not new to silent cinema in the least.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests