Day 80: If Only He Would Speak!

THE ARTIST (2011)
Directed by Michel Hazanavicius
Starring: Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell, Penelope Ann Miller, Joel Murray, Malcolm McDowell, Bill Fagerbakke

It would be easy to write off a (mostly) silent film made in 2011 as being nothing but a novelty, as if it were akin to Mel Brooks' 1976 silent movie called...well, Silent Movie.  But The Artist is no spoof.  This film is nothing less than a tribute to Hollywood's Golden Age.

George Valentin (Dujardin) is the biggest thing in Hollywoodland in 1927.  One day, at the premiere of his latest swashbuckling adventure, he bumps into a young lady (and wannabe actress) named Peppy Miller (Bejo).  George hams it up for the camera, giving Peppy an innocent peck on the cheek.  Of course, this makes all the gossip rags, and everyone thinks something fishy's going on - especially his wife, Doris (Miller).  George uses his winning personality and big toothy grin to smooth things over.  But as George hits the set first thing Monday morning, he discovers that the extra he dances with in the film is none other than Peppy.  George, obviously smitten, but still married, gives Peppy a few pointers and sends her on her way.  Around that same time, his bosses introduce him to what they believe is the Next Big Thing: talking pictures.  George thinks it's a novelty, but the studio brass think otherwise, and stop production on all silent films (including George's current production) and work only in sound.  George is outraged and vows to complete the film himself as star, director, producer and writer.  Unfortunately, the film tanks.  George is broke, his wife divorces him and he moves into a tiny apartment with his faithful chauffeur Clifton (Cromwell).  Meanwhile, Peppy Miller is almost as big as talking pictures themselves.  As George's star fades, Peppy's does nothing but rise.

The advent of talking pictures - and the struggle of stars and studios alike to adapt to this new technology - is not a new subject.  One of the most successful, of course, was Singin' in the Rain.  But unlike that film, this one comes out at a time when the film industry is adjusting to the supposed death of physical film and the advent of digital film-making.  There are several big-name holdouts who still cling to film (Spielberg, Scorsese, Tarantino), but the world is changing around them.  Just recently, we may have experienced the final nail in the celluloid coffin with the bankruptcy of Kodak.  Pretty soon, it's all going to be digital.

Was this film a sort of response to that?  It sure seems like it, especially considering the manner in which the film was not only shot, but presented.  First of all, it was shot on film, in the traditional 1.33:1 "Academy" aspect ratio - in other words, no widescreen.  No zooms were used, as the technology didn't exist in 1927.  The film was shot at 22 frames per second, so it would achieve that "sped up" look of a hand-cranked camera when sped up to the normal 24 frames per second.  The film's soundtrack was played in mono (not stereo) from one speaker in the middle of the theater.  All of this is may seem like boring technical babble, but it's not.  The final result is the feel of watching an old silent movie in the 1920's.  The only thing missing was the orchestra.  And the hundreds upon hundreds of smokers.  Maybe it's good that some things have changed.

All of this adds up to a great experience, to be sure.  But as we learned from Avatar, that's only part of the equation.  Without great performances and an endearing story, none of that technical stuff really matters.  Thankfully, the story is very well told and the performances are amazing.  It's certainly entertaining to see modern film actors - who have all be taught how to underplay their roles - suddenly gesticulating wildly and playing everything as big as possible, so as to be understood within the limitations of silent cinema. 

And, to be honest, the film isn't entirely silent.  There are a couple of key scenes in which sound plays a key role, but for the most part, you will be expected to pay attention to what's going on in front of you and - *gasp* - read a few inter-titles from time to time.  That's a big thing to ask of the ADD generation.  When I went to the cinema to watch the film, I was one of four people in a theater that sat 250.  My spirits, which were lifted by an amazingly entertaining film with one of the best "Hollywood Endings" ever, suddenly fell when I noticed the 246 empty seats; and they sank even more when I realized that those other 246 people were probably having their senses assaulted a couple rooms over at The Phantom Menace: 3D, a movie that sucked the first time it came out in 2D.  Now, I'm not trying to sound like a snob here, but I constantly hear people complain that movies these days are terrible.  Really?  Maybe we're just not looking in the right places.  Maybe it's time for us to notice film-makers who are going off the beaten path and trying something new.  And The Artist is a wonderful place to start.