The Artist

The Artist is certainly not nearly as bad as my single star would suggest, but it is also not nearly as good as the enthusiastic comments and five-star ratings from others would imply. I will completely leave aside the fact that it has numerous Oscar nominations and a real chance of winning overall because the bestowal of Oscars has never represented and does not represent a stamp of quality in the history of cinema. The Oscars simply represent the calculation of the film academy, which succumbs to certain trends, moods, and clever advertising by distributors, just like the audience itself. I will say it like this: The Artist is a typical midcult, as defined by Umberto Eco in his book of essays dedicated to culture. This means a skillfully made film that pretends to be avant-garde and cleverly plays with the snobbery of those film viewers who scorn ordinary consumer production and present themselves as admirers of artful productions. It is a film that does not burden the brain, does not hide within itself any ideas or artistic risk, and relies on the certainties and professionalism of filmmaking. Of course, it is not original either; this has been seen several times before, and I would say in a less pleasing but more emotionally convincing execution. The Artist is unlucky because I saw it in a movie theater that I rarely visit and I am overly picky. If I saw it on TV, I would have turned it off after 20 minutes and not reviewed it. Under these circumstances, it made me furious, especially since I had company with me and couldn't leave the movie theater. For me, this film is simply too pleasing and superficial; emotionally, I completely missed the point and I could engage with its game. It reminds me of the huge soap bubbles that my children created at the water park. They look impressive, but they burst immediately and nothing remains of them. In two years, when the current Oscar fascination fades away and the effect of the smart marketing campaign of the production company wears off, I don't think anyone will even mention The Artist. But there are a few positives. Bérénice Bejo is truly lovely, and the stylization of the late 1920s, although it has little in common with the reality of the events in film production at that time, has its charm. Also, if it were edited into a stylish 30-minute slapstick, it would evoke completely different feelings in me. Overall impression: 25%. (25/02/2012)

The pure charm of film escapism. A film about a time when celluloid burned, which burns itself and yet miraculously does not burn itself with too much reverence and foresight into the past. The work with a soundtrack and a silent film is a famous directorial move, not only because it cleverly brings to the fore what would never have stood out in a spoken film, but also because it is almost ingenious in its simplicity. A silent film that did not elevate its silence to a dubious fetish (let's love how beautiful it was, we will not see that anymore today), but the most significant narrative component (the film is magical in itself, not because it reminds us of something). Hazanavicius did work that I applaud. If any critics wrote of The Descendants as a worked gem, they mistook the film. This is a feel good gem from which my jaw dropped. (21/01/2012)

Perhaps, with its trivial plot, it relies too much on the nostalgic mood of the target audience and on its own formal uniqueness in the flood of Hollywood mainstream, but The Artist is such a beautiful piece of filmmaking. It isn’t thought-provoking or groundbreaking, but wonderfully fresh, witty and authentic, nicely removed from the postmodern plagiarist guise. Emotionally mature, emotionally gripping. 80% (11/11/2015)

Who would have thought that a silent film can astonish me even at a time when talkies are the norm and we’re seeing the rise of 3D movies? In fact, it is an absolutely beautiful throwback and homage to the film of the past. And this is what the very imaginative story of this movie is based on. Well, I have to admit that although Jean Dujardin seemed a bit crazy to me in his earlier films, here he showed that he’s a master of his craft even without sound. Perhaps I will never forget the scene where he appears at the ball, frowns and looks for something. There are so many emotions in that face that it can’t even be described. At that moment you’ll just fully understand what that means. And you’ll find out you can do without any lines or sound without a problem. The same goes for the final scene. I couldn’t imagine a more beautiful dance number. And shot in one go? Oh my God, is someone still filming such scenes these days? Hats off, for such a film experience does not occur every day. And that’s probably a good thing; thanks to this, this film gains a lot of uniqueness, which it will never lose. (20/12/2013)

The transition from the silent to the sound era was a major turning point in the world of cinema, and for many actors and directors who didn't want to adapt (or couldn't), it meant the end of a stellar career. This film nicely shows the tense situation of the late 1930s and very credibly and elegantly portrays the atmosphere and conditions in the film world at the time. As for the actors, I was satisfied, even if there's not much to say, it's all accompanied by apt and funny gestures. And the little dog was really cute. The music was a great second to the picture, as was the very sparse (but purposeful) use of sound. In short, a film that is a quality piece on all its levels, which is interesting mainly for its conception and technical execution. (05/04/2012)