Comments on: The Artist: Making Silents Safe Again

By: Donald M. Scott

Donald M. Scott — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:36:57 +0000

Well, it did win the academy award (s) and Yes, I do agree with the first commenter. This was not intended to be Intolerance or Napoleon or Sunrise or The General, but to be a movie about how movies were in an earlier era and how much fun they could be. It is like a light white wine or a champagne, not single malt scotch. And that is part of its strength — it IS what most silent films WERE. And that’s his point. But along the way, he hangs on the wall some of the finest homages to silent film I’ve ever seen — and I have family connections to it (Mother was an asst editor for DeMille) and I taught film as art. I’m also now the Caretaker at the Walking Box Ranch, Clara Bow and Rex Bell’s place, and can say that most of their very popular films were about as light or lighter than this one. Personally, I think we will see more silent films, or more substantially silent films (like 2001 and Wall-E), because the interest in them goes beyond The Artist – Hugo is another paean to silents. And, quite honestly, a large number of film goers are sick of car crashes, explosions, unnecessary roughness of language or behavior and would like to more films that can be believed. Everything that is in The Artist could have and indeed did happen. Not so with Die Hard or Iron Man. We’ve had a plethora of LOW-brow loud and meaningless movies for decades, so if we have a few middle brow believable films that will be all to the good.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:46:22 +0000

Your magazine squib intimated that the above article was going to be about great directors and their techniques. What we got was a critique of a new movie.

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:13:43 +0000

I’d contend that you ignore an important aspect of what Hazanavicius has done in this movie that makes it a lot better than “but-not-the-equal-of-the-films-it-imitates.” Yes, it’s “middle-brow,” but he brings a decidedly 21st century “meta” sensibility to the movie in how focusing the audience’s attention on the meaning and value of sound (including silence and music) in movies. I’ve never seen a movie that takes sound more seriously or does a better job of showing how and why sound is important in movies than The Artist. That it uses a “middle-brow” entertainment to do this only gives it both a broader appeal and a broader territory in which it can claim to be vital. I don’t imagine it’s titled “The Artist” for cute’s sake; Hazanavicius uses this “middle-brow” entertainment to show the various aspects of artistry – visual, aural, and personal – that go into making movies (silent AND sound) brilliantly.