Post-Grad

January 23, 2012

Random Movie Review: The Artist

I read the first review of The Artist about seven months ago. And in that span of time, while I waited to finally get my chance to see the film, critical opinion flew back and forth. I first remember a general upsurge of positive will and good natured excitement over such a unique movie. Then, came the backlash. A vocal contingent, loudly lauded the movie as nothing more than light fare, undeserved of so much praise. Finally, in the past few weeks, it seemed like a greater number came out to defend the movie against detractors, putting it on top ten lists and justifying the awards the film had begun to win. With all of this back and forth, I eagerly went to see the movie, wondering where I would settle, and how I could join the conversation by writing this review that so few will ever read.

To those that have never heard of this movie, and want me to explain myself, The Artist is an interesting movie in its own right. It tells the story of a silent movie star in the late 1920’s as filmmaking technology evolves to the point of including sound. The birth of ‘talkies’ spells the death of his career, and the film follows his downturn into despair as a plucky young starlet tries to save his soul. The film follows this narrative in the style of a traditional silent movie. It features a score, but all dialogue and sound effects are displayed as title cards.

So, this movie definitely knew what it wanted to be. Making no bones, it knew it wanted to charm and delight audiences with every sticky sweet bit of honey it could pour on the screen. It had a presence of mind and a singular purpose to tell a story in this way. Which, in my opinion, proved a good thing and a bad thing.

Look: it did charm me. I will say that. It made a real effort to embody the late twenties and early thirties spirit with a firm amount of tongue in cheek, which I couldn’t help but appreciate. There were many clever jokes and a few memorable lines that will make me laugh for a long time to come. I found the main performances pretty delightful. The main character, played by John Dujardin, found a way to work his face so well in the silent milieu. And such a magnanimous smile. Wry and dashing, he had more teeth than anyone I’ve ever seen.

The story interested me. As I have pretentiously taken film history classes, I was aware of the divide that struck many actors when Hollywood introduced sound to its productions. If played correctly, the filmmakers could make much of this interesting time. And, more or less, they did. You would never call this plot deep, though I felt it captured much of the time period. And, at the very end, it reveals something that did change the nature of the film and how I viewed it. The change was welcome, though I can’t quite decide whether I wish they made more of it or its subtlety held strength. Regardless, I found myself middling on this movie until the reveal, which tipped me into enjoying it.

I hear you out there, as the record scratched on that last sentence. “Why were you so middling, when you clearly enjoyed much of it?” A fair question.

A word has circulated describing this movie, and I have to mostly agree. ‘Slight’, some call it. As in, fluffly, light, not much there. And, for the most part, this is true. There are no major themes explored, lessons to learn, or truths defined. As I said in the beginning, this film knew what it wanted to be. Still, it wants to engage through its brevity and have you whimsically enjoy the spectacle. And it worked up to a point. Then, an itchy feeling crept up in the opening minutes and I turned to the friend who went with me to the theater, “This movie is just going to be people making funny faces at the camera and dog tricks, isn’t it?”

That dog.

I did not like that dog.

Stop shouting at the screen and let me say my bit.

First, all of the goodwill earned through the easy charm of the character was almost lost with the dog reactions and tricks. In my hateful eyes, that is a lazy way to win audiences over. More than lazy. A director that chooses to use the convenience of a dog to express the limited emotional range of a silent film doesn’t expect much from their audience. Now, on some levels, I get it. This movie tried to adopt classic devices. I enjoyed the physical comedy, the dancing, and the jokes that made advantage of the medium. I actually thought the movie deserved more of all three. But the base reliance for a dog to lighten the mood crosses a line between charm and pandering. They might as well have dressed a monkey in a bow tie, or put a mortarboard on a baby.

Second, the dog was completely unnecessary and the filmmakers never tried to fold it into the plot. In planning this review, I remembered my #6 movie of last year: Beginners. It also features a Jack Russell terrier. He is also cute and follows the main character around. However in that movie, he represents the loss of Ewan Mcgregor’s father, held and hugged as that which cannot be let go. It is a source of comic relief yes, but also a touchstone to the grief that softly surrounds the film.

In The Artist, they never define the dog’s place, its relationship to anyone, or why it would get so much screen time. So I felt like they were trying to pull some cute string in me very hard. And I don’t like my strings so deliberately pulled.

That said, people love that dog. I heard about it with the first review I read to the last. The dog went to the golden globes. The elderly that filled my theater simply COULD NOT stop talking about it after the movie ended. The magic worked on them, slight or not, they enjoyed the bare aspects and light plot. Which I understand. To say again, I ultimately enjoyed this movie. The final weight given to the plot, the cavalier embrace of the silent era, new takes on the style, and a shy, smiling sense of what it wanted to show, eventually led me to forgive the brazen cuteness that had me often rolling my eyes. 

   ♥ 5 notes  /  Link to this post

Notes

  1. posteriori posted this