Words Do Not Escape Me Regarding "The Artist"

Against all odds, I loved “The Artist.” I am not a big fan of silent films, so I thought a film that recreated a silent film would not appeal to me. In fact, my assumption was incorrect. “The Artist,” directed by Michel Hazanavicius, does not just simply recreate a silent film, rather it tells the story of a silent film director in the style of a 1920’s silent film. It is about one director handling the transition of fame in silent films to being washed out in Hollywood by the advent of talkies. The fact that “The Artist” is in black and white did not bother me. Some of the greatest films in history are in black and white: “Eraserhead,” “ Anatomy of a Murder,” “Psycho,” “ Citizen Kane,” the greatness of the Marx Brothers films, “ Young Frankenstein.” Black and white does not turn me off from seeing a particular film. “The Artist” tells the story of George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), a film director and actor in 1920’s Hollywood. George experiences success in silent films. As the film opens in 1927, we see a packed theater enjoying one of his films, complete with the live orchestra that would provide music to accompany silent films. George is established as very successful and popular. As just a few years pass by over the course of the film, George is made bluntly aware by film producer, Al Zimmer (John Goodman), that he has fallen out of favor with the introduction of talkies. As was the case with some silent film stars, when talkies began being made, some silent film actors were no longer in favor, usually because they did not have particularly good voices. I would have been a great silent film star, however, my voice would have shut down theaters around the world.
At the same time that George is at the apex of his success in 1927, beautiful young actress Peppy Miller (Argentinian actress Berenice Bejo), comes to “Hollywoodland,” seeking fame in the movies. She impresses a casting director and finds herself a role as a dancer in a film. At that point in the film, she meets George. Peppy and George hit it off and have an undefined relationship. The film does not go out of it’s way to define what their relationship consists of, but we can speculate. What happens to Peppy and George is what the remainder of the film explores. You will have to see it to learn more.
The Artist does a superlative job of conveying it’s story with no dialogue other than the occasional dialogue card that is shown, those cards that will pop up in silent films that tell you what the characters are saying. There are not many of these in the film because the actors do such a great job of conveying emotion and moving plot along without any words, just facial expressions and actions. It is fantastic!
An additional treat in “The Artist” is the performance of the canine thespian in the film. George Valentin has a dog that goes with him everywhere. The way that the dog responds to the action in the film is flawless. The name of the dog actor, according to the credits, is Uggie. Uggie is a very smart addition to the film by the filmmakers. Uggie adds an additional bit of depth to the character of George Valentin. I liked George even more because of his devotion to his dog and the fact that he took his dog everywhere he went.
My only qualm with “The Artist” is the introduction of ‘s George’s wife as the object of his negligence. His character did not necessarily have to be married for any of the plot developments to occur. Her character was superfluous and just left us feeling a bit of dislike for Jean for neglecting her for no apparent reason that is introduced in the script. Of course, one may infer through either personal experience or from other films the reasons for the gulf between them, however, it would have been better just to leave her character out of the film, altogether. It would have been better just to leaver her character out of the film.
The success of and the reason for my excitement about the “The Artist” lies in the fact that, as mentioned previously, it flawlessly tells the story of the two lead characters with very few words, just actions and music. As well, the score in the film is great, especially in some of the key emotional scenes. The film does not try to convince us that the 1920’s were an especially special era either. Though some may feel that it was, I was not interested in a visual exploration of the greatness of the time or for the film to attempt to convince me that it was a magical time. My fears that “The Artist” would be such an exploration were alleviated quite quickly and I realized that it was about George and Peppy, not an excuse to make a modern silent movie lookalike. At the same time, for fans of silent films and fans of the 1920’s, I think “The Artist” adds the additional boon of representing the era in a realistic manner, the same way a film like “Grindhouse” was a lot of fun for me as a fan of 1970’s grindhouse films.
As a result of seeing “The Artist,” I am now interested in seeing Hazanavicius’ two spy film spoofs which he made prior to this, “OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies” (2006) and “OSS 117: Lost in Rio” (2009). Both films star Jean Dujardin and the first of these films also stars Berenice Bejo, Hazanavicius’ wife. After I have finishing writing this, I may see if Netflix has these two films. If you would like find out the results of my search, please send a self-addressed stamped envelope to: Epistemology Tonight, c/o Pockenstenton Labs, P. O. Box 1701, Zzyzx, CA 91225.
In conclusion, I submit that “The Artist” is my second favorite film of 2011, behind Alexander Payne’s, “The Descendants.” “The Descendants” is a more emotionally raw film and it’s ability to deftly mix very emotional drama with comedy is flawless. “The Artist” is almost right up there in it’s ability to mix drama and comedy, however, the immediacy of the actions in “The Descendants” captured my favor more. I, obviously, highly recommend “The Artist” to anybody. It paints it’s story on a canvas upon which any artist would be proud.