When the news came out that a silent black and white film had just been made in France, rocked Cannes and seriously was coming to America I redefined the word 'squee'. I have no shame in telling you that I literally, LITERALLY, jumped up and down screaming like I'd won the lottery.
The night after I reserved a ticket for me and my silent loving boyfriend, I noticed during The Daily Show and Colbert Report that a brand new spanking commercial was running for The Artist. Silent was not used. No hard sell needed. It was as if for any normal movie. AND it would be in theatres nationwide by the end of January 2012. I was tickled.
After arriving at the Arclight I got a feeling of great soul stinging anticipation I have only felt once before in my life: when I sat waiting after the shorts to watch my first
Mary Pickford movie, already a huge fan just from what I knew of her life and her business dealings.
Mary didn't let me down....The Artist did. It was like an arrow to the heart. It was frustrating that this film could have been if you will, a fucking masterpiece, but the director got in the way of himself. “Why the hell would they make a musical in 1933 and consider that a good career move?” “I can see her FRECKLES! And her hair is so messed up, they would never have allowed that!” “This music is...atrocious.” “WTF is this silence about?”
MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT AND DON'T WANT TO KNOW, DON'T READ SRSLY!
Before I went everyone raved. EVERYONE still raves. But I remember reading an article invoking Rudy's name (after all the main character is named George Valentin) and asking why George couldn't make it in the talkies as according to the author, his voice seemed fine?
I was so excited for this film because it had done something that has only been done once before (1970s with the aptly named Silent Film): it brought silents back into the mainstream for a moment and made people acknowledge they existed...and that they just might be worth watching for entertainment value. I hated this film because instead of doing that (or in spite) it mussed up the worst conceptions of silent films (literal silence, cheesiness, mellerdrama, bad music) while leaving many things poorly understated to the point that someone not in the know had no fucking clue why this was (George's failure in talkies.)
The scoring was beyond atrocious. Its like the director consulted the idiots who make bad scores (and there are many) and decided it was the way to go. He would have been wiser to request the tapes of
Bob Mitchell playing or even consult Kevin Brownlow (if he did I'm not aware of it) and do something apt. Even when I wasn't a big fan of older popular music (it grows on you I assure you, ask my Itunes) I would ALWAYS end up tapping my foot to Bob's scores. The only person who got me there since then: Brownlow's Photoplay Productions restoration of
Four Horsemen.
Since I am more aware of 20s music now it was just an assault on the ears...it didn't match at all and in fact it distracted. It reminded me just how important music is...literally its like 60% of making a silent film not only tolerable but enjoyable (even the best masterpiece silent is a work of patience when viewed ONLY in silence, as it was never meant to be. Like watching a TV show or modern talkie on mute.) During the years I went to the Silent Movie Theatre they ran
Pandora's Box with Louise Brooks twice and the Orpheum ran it once. The first time I seen it Bob played and it moved me so deeply that 7 months later the minute I seen Xmas decorations I thought of the night Lulu is murdered. It was STUNNING.
The second time at the Orpheum, about 3 months after the first, Bob Mitchell was scheduled to play but he was too sick, so another fellow who's name escapes me, took his place and he was well trained...it was again mind blowing. Sadly Bob died soon after. So the third time back at the Silent Movie Theatre, some experimental modern band was playing.
This was a highly billed endeavor and while I was weary I was hopeful. It.was.a.hot.mess. Just horrible. I wasn't the only one who thought so, every comment on the way out was about it. It was so bad I found myself daydreaming half way through. It RUINED a film I considered (and still do) a masterpiece.
The Artist is most offensive in this way in regards to the dance scenes, which are key. When Pepe meets George at the studio (he, unaware she has been hired as an extra) he spots her legs behind a screen practicing a tap dance, which he imitates and a little Fred and Ginger thing is done until the screen is removed and all is revealed. He's enchanted and insists she be cast in a lead role, which makes her a star. At the end of the film after he's tried killing himself twice (well the first may have been a psychotic accident...but he seemed wont to die at that point) she insists he join her in a movie as a co-star. He insists no one wants him. She says she has an idea and the film ends with the duo filming a tap dance number. This leads up to the big voice reveal and an implied comeback for George.
The music had no baring on the dance what so ever, and considering I had been watching nothing but musicals for 2 months before this it somehow seemed even more offensive. Even odder the tapping sounded wrong...as if they didn't record it right. My guess is that she only had half the taps that they used to (one instead of two)...otherwise I have no clue where they went wrong. The tapping was almost muted, which defeats the purpose of a tap dance. But then the tapping is supposed to be part of a peppy rhythm, which was missing so maybe that was the point.
The silent vignettes were not only jarring, but stupid. Much like the metaphors and several other parts of the film the director seemed to start with a good idea (being silent for a moment at the start to adjust the audience) and then beat it over the head with its own arm. The silence during the falling in love scenes...just...horrible. And whats even worse was not only were they ill timed, but they went on WAY too long...every single one. I've heard silence in some scores, but usually apt to the plot and not 2 minutes long. These vignettes were neither.
After butchering the music, tapping and silence the director couldn't leave sound out. After watching a sound test he considered hilariously bad, George has a nightmare in which he's in his dressing room and literally everything but him makes a sound: the dog barking, the phone, the mirror, his shoes, everything. I turned to my boyfriend and said 'This is fucking brilliant.' Then he slit its wrist: George goes outside well over 3 minutes into it, sees a girl laughing as she walks. That's...kinda stupid. Then she multiplies until she's like 20 girls laughing and he wakes up.
Much like every other blundered metaphor I think the director was trying to imply this was a dream and it was the climax of his nightmare. Instead he kept beating a dead horse. If the sequence had added with George either inside or as he walked out on his steps unable to scream it would have worked. Instead he had to overdo it.
It seems the director and the backers of this film tried their damndest to get it right...and they didn't. They used great old locations, and good costumes...but blundered the make up, hair and most horrifically the lead actress. Classic (talkies and silents) black and white films redefined reality. Even when Lillian Gish was a beaten pulp of a waif she still had flawless skin...not a line to be found. Every silent with some chase or lovemaking or hair pulling (literally) scenario would never muss a woman's hair beyond perfectly coiffed. Mostly I believe that's because the wigs and/or products were extremely strong...they might move but retain most of the form. You rarely seen a frizzed out waved bob no matter how stressed the real bonafide hair was. In fact I believe Peppy was supposed to be a mix of
Clara Bow, Marion Davies and Jean Harlow. Jean and Clara both were worked so much (Clara's hair was dyed constantly all week between blonde and red) their hair literally started falling out (Jean eventually needed a wig to recover.) Yet show me a film their hair is frizzed out in the close ups and I will give you a cookie. Ain't gonna find it.
I don't blame the actress for these failings. And in fact if the frizz had been controlled the hair team did good style wise. But the makeup artist was atrocious, if they win any sort of an award it is a pox on every make up artist before 1950.
It took me out of the realism of 'hey this is a 20s movie see!' Which seems to be what they were going for. Much like heavy parts of the music being made up of pieces from 1936 or later, the make up seemed to be strongly leaning towards a modern look (oddly not even a modern film look, just whatever Cover Girl bullshit Kardashian fans are wearing these days.) There was a line on Peppy's face near her nose on the left side of the screen that constantly showed (I wondered if its a scar but perhaps its just a wrinkle or the way her face naturally goes). The silents and early talkies would have never allowed that. Even worse was the fact you could easily see her freckles. Marion Davies, who seemed to me to be the main inspiration of the character (if not intentionally than unintentionally) was heavily freckled. Mark Wanamaker is a huge collector and researcher of hers. When I trained to be a docent at her beach house he told of her freckles and how she had gone to great lengths to not even allow private photos of her without her makeup on. He laughed, “But I managed to find ONE.” Marion would have died on site if she had been on screen with freckles through the whole ordeal.
I would like to clarify I am not insulting freckles, wrinkles or frizzed hair as a whole...just that for a movie saying it is of this time period, it is jarringly wrong as it just was not done then. My boyfriend later mentioned the worst offender of all, which when he said it I immediately shouted YES: Peppy's lips were ALWAYS bare.
My boyfriend is a casual silent fan, he's mainly watched whatever I conjoled him into and its been very heavy on Chaplin films. But even HE caught that. To hammer home the point as we discussed it we were sitting in my living room where a big portrait of Mary Pickford in little girl get up hangs. Our Mary had colored lips. EVERYONE DID. You did not star in a film in the 20s and NOT have dark colored lips. For a Peppy type she should have been legally required to have a Clara Bow lip. AND SHE DIDN'T.
As if blundering it more, my boyfriend pointed out on the poster of 'Beauty Mark' (Peppy's Platinum Blonde apparently) this was fixed...but at no other time were her lips darkened. All the more annoying when I realized on the poster and the illustrated fake magazines I thought she did finally look accurate...that's why!
If I may dig one more nail in, the actress was all wrong for the part. Too thin, even for thin, very tall looking. And I noticed she was like the definition of French, which even Renee Adoree couldn't accentuate in America without a bow lip: small breasts, heart shaped booty and dark hair. Clara was a famous red head and Jean Harlow had a brownette phase (to save her hair) but the whole movie all I could think was 'to make her work, she should have been blonde.' I almost bet this is a Joan Crawford abominable reference. I still don't know why people say she stole Our Modern Maidens, Anita Page ruled that shit.
The actress' face just was never going to do. She did not have the 20s look. She looked the definition of modern, which I spent a long time trying to define but it was hard. I think its because she had such a narrow chin and a heart shaped face. Her cheeks were too tiny. She's pretty and even more so out of costume...but I can't imagine if this were 1927 they would have lost their shit over her like they did. As I lamented to my boyfriend the actress with the Brooks bob to her right during the audition scene look more accurate...whoever that woman was she had THE face.
Something was just off with the performance of Peppy. But the more I thought about it the more I'm certain it wasn't so much the acting as the directing. Maybe its a little of both (WHY was Bérénice Bejo cast? Oh maybe she's married to Michel Hazanavicius...the director.) It seems as if Hazanavicius can't direct women (for the record I haven't seen any of his other movies, this is solely based on The Artist.) The first actress, playing George's spiteful co-star looked kind of right...but if her hair isn't a wig I'll eat my hat. Blonde...but horribly fake. Judging by the do and the 'funny' sound test I believe she's a pot shot at Mae Murray, and inaccurately so.
George's wife isn't much of anything, though she SHOULD be funny its not much of anything. Why does she hate him so? Doesn't seem clear...just like 'oh she does, ball busting bitch.' The hate seems to pre-date Peppy and if not then it was hamfistedly implied. Other than her, Peppy and the co-star I don't think there's many women to speak of...all duds and distracting or forgettable.
I wanted to like Peppy, but in the silent parts she was just annoying and I'm not quite sure why. Both my boyfriend and I agreed she became much more tolerable when she was a talkie star. I wanted to like the bit where she's giving a pandering radio interview slamming silents only for George to hear and put her in her place. But much like everything else it was beaten over the head, it should have went somewhere but really didn't other than to be a reference point.
Despite all to be said above, and why I give Hazanavicius ANY credit in doing good, I thoroughly enjoyed George who was played by Jean Dujardin. He LOOKED the part, a perfect Doug with miniscule
Rudolph Valentino and John Gilbert references. This part actually fascinates me as Peppy is so dull and obnoxious who cares where her inspiration came from, she butchered it (the three actresses I named are all actresses I greatly enjoy.) With George its an interesting view of where Hazanavicius got his inspiration, which kind of makes me think along with Clifford and Zimmer he's a 'guys director'.
George looks and acts exactly like Doug: constant laughing, swashbuckling, swaggering and star of adventure films with the obvious plot (lots of fighting and guy stuff happens then he quickly saves the girl.) Hazanavicius even inserted clips of Doug in with Jean for the Black Gaucho, something George is watching as he drinks and mourns the loss of his career and life. The melding is seamless and this is why I hate Hazanavicius so: he COULD have done more brilliant stuff like this (not exactly like this but mind blowing type of things all the same) but he botched it at almost every turn.
George's last silent looks exactly like the Three Musketeers which was what Doug's last silent was (The Iron Mask.) George is personable and an attention whore, much like Doug. He's also deeply crushed when the public looses interest, very much like Doug (Doug Jr said that while walking with his father in New York in the mid 30s someone called out 'Hey Doug!' and Doug Sr was tickled, “See! They still remember me!” even though it had only been a few years since his final film.) He lived in what is in reality one of Mary Pickford's houses, from when she was having her affair with Doug. His wife kind of looks like Mary and I kept wondering if that was the inspiration, but she was so off I decided if it was it was better not said. She also leaves him when he becomes a loser of an alcoholic mess, similar to Mary (though Mary's reasons where more so the rampant cheating.)
In fact the drinking intrigued me the most of all, because Doug's absentee father was an alcoholic and his mother made him swear to never take a drink....so for his career he did not (much to the chagrin of his alcoholic boyfriends and family in law)...until things went to hell with silents and Mary. Then he became a borderline heavy drinker.
However one reviewer only vaguely familiar with silents believed the relationship of Peppy and George was supposed to mirror Garbo and Gilbert: Greta Garbo went on to great talking roles and John Gilbert drank himself to death. I think its clearly there, but almost a ghost of a thing...I see next to nothing of Garbo in Peppy other than the constant attempts to protect George. But George in his depression seems more like John than Doug. And unless I missed something no one had to give Garbo a hand up (she arrived as a promised sensation....John had been doing movies for quite awhile and just very shortly before she came did he make a big splash with Valentino's strike and The Big Parade...co-starring Karl Dane.)
Sadly he almost reminds me the most of
Karl, which I kind of doubt Hazanavicius intended (cuz seriously so few people know of poor Karl.) The fall from famous and a married home owner with lots of money and such to poor drunk who lives in a hovel of an apartment and turns his only boyfriend away in a depression then attempts to kill himself is pretty much word for word Karl (Karl's fall was similar only more detailed, and in the end he was a heavy drinker in a sad hovel with only a little money and one boyfriend. He turned her away and killed himself.)
While Jean was fantastic as George, again the director let the 'brilliant' level slip. I blame this most on what I call 'ham fisted metaphors'. I rarely find films (even FRENCH FILMS which I do enjoy) too pretentious but this one got up its own ass several times. My boyfriend and I agreed the reference term for this is 'The Lonely Star'...spotted on the marquee as George leaves his estate auction and almost walks into traffic. The liquor on the mirrored table, the ass grabbing coat, its like one ham fist for every 20 minutes of film.
The only 'brilliant' bits that stand out to me are Clifton (played by James Cromwell) and Uggie. Perhaps Cromwell got it so right as his parents John Cromwell and Kay Johnson were late silent/early talkie stars...literally playing in important films during the years The Artist is to take place. He nailed it.
Cromwell may have stole the cameras, but Uggie stole the scenery, crew and kitchen sink. That dog is fucking fantastic. Before seeing The Artist I wondered if the campaign to get him an Oscar was just because well...he's preciously adorable. After seeing the film he no kidding, deserves it. Didn't think a dog couldn't be qualified as a fantastic actor but seriously...he is. When the dog even outdoes a sexy french man well...seriously. If they seriously make a non offensive Fatty Arbuckle movie in the next few years (rumor has it HBO is doing it) Uggie needs to be Luke. I don't give a shit if he's the wrong breed, he EARNED that role.
Two things really irritated me about this film to the point that much like the 92 Chaplin film I might have trouble recommending it to others (that film was fantastic...except for its portrayals of Mary Pickford and Mabel Normand. Charlie may not have minded, but it bugs me to my core): the lack of intertitles and the lack of information that perpetuates the
talkie myth.
The talkie myth is just...a fucking nightmare I debunked almost 4 years ago but it still hangs around, even by 'film buffs', and people who should know how to do their job like journalists, commentators, directors and historians. Literally no star lost their job for a bad accent or funny voice. Of all the stars Raymond Griffith was the only one to have a serious voice deformity (his vocal chords were either injured by an illness as a child or in the war, no one is sure or clear on it) as he could only speak in essentially a whisper. Guess what: even HE made some successful talkies (the voice thing was explained away as a cold or some other character ailment)!!! As the main point of my talkie article points out: okay if voices and accents were detrimental, explain Greta Garbo.
We only hear two words of George's voice. Wikipedia aggravatingly characterizes this as quote,
“In the final shot, the sound finally comes in as the film starts rolling. Afterwards, Zimmer calls "Cut! Perfect. Beautiful. Could you give me one more?" Valentin, in his first audible line, replies "With pleasure" in a clearly French accent, revealing the reason he refused to speak on camera.”
I did think his accent was a little heavy, though I could understand him my boyfriend couldn't. BUT I don't even believe this is a fault of Hazanavicius...George's failure is explained away as 'oh talkies are a thing now and you're an old star, no one gives a shit how you talk. They want new faces.' This is actually kind of right (along with curbing temperamental and/or expensive stars and the fact most silent stars were nearing there 30s and 40s by this time). But Hazanavicius didn't elaborate and that almost cruelly leaves the door open for people to say shit like Wikipedia did. I don't believe this was intentional. Hazanavicius is a silent film buff, and he clearly knows well enough even though he didn't execute it perfectly. I think much like I probably would, he figured that was good enough and didn't leave bad voices that door open. But it wasn't detailed enough to debunk a long standing myth ala Rudy and the imaginary art deco dildo. Film buffs are sick to death of hearing it, but trust me there's a lot of people who don't know that talkies didn't bring on the end of these supposed funny accented stars. Even my boyfriend's film teacher repeated it not 6 months ago!!!
Obviously George was going to have a French accent, he's a pure French actor from France in a French production. The fact it wasn't in French is pretty much more than we should ask for. But okay let's take this at face value: George Valetin was a silent star in America of apparently French origin, and thus he maintained his accent and everything happened as it did in the movie. That STILL does not imply to me that he failed because of an accent or the tone of his voice (or both). America was big on France back then, a fascination that has never really faded but was particular strong at the time (France was the Mexico of the 20s because the War made their money nearly worthless, so the creative types low on money flocked there in droves and revitalized it.) George's failure as a talkie star seems to me to highly mirror Doug's more than anyone else's (dashes of Karl and John but not really...very minimal.)
Doug put some talking into The Iron Mask, but he held out on talkies until 1929 when he did Taming of the Shrew with Mary...and it opened literally a week or so before the stock market crash. Obviously it failed despite the fact they were still the King and Queen of film and Mary's first talkie right before this was very successful (as well as Doug's final silent.) It was literally their first flop individually, which was not only shocking but devastating as they had always thought teaming together would have been a hell of a thing (think if Brangelina if they did Mr. and Mrs. Smith NOW instead of when they decided to break up some marriages and get together.) Doug also lost a bit (not everything but a hefty sum) in the crash, much as its implied with George (he fully funded his last film.)
Doug made a handful of films after this mostly because he did have the money to do so, and they all flopped royally (each one harder than the last.) In fact the musical idea really through me as Doug's attempt at a musical flopped harder than Kiki (Reaching for the Moon, mostly because they decided musicals were a fad so cut out all but one song leaving a plotless movie with no bang.) In fact now I wonder if its a cruel joke...we're led to believe George has a happy end but if this follows Doug's trajectory the musical will flop hard while the formerly silent now talking woman stays a star (Bebe Daniels/Pepe) and the man makes a few half assed attempts before dying of various ailments by the end of the decade.
Doug's voice was fine, very regal...my boyfriend fell in love with him watching ONLY Taming of the Shrew. I imagine the same would be of George. Both were at the height of their success when talkies came, both made a film on their own (but Doug has been doing that for years and unlike George he was eager to give talking and color a try), both key films came out right as the stock market crashed and the US went into a long depression, both films flopped because who the hell wants to see a movie right now?, and both men took it very personally. Then cruelly both men made a musical with a silent leading lady successful in talkies...and Doug flopped...we're left believing George did not but we do not know. Either way the talkie myth was not the cause of it.
If Greta Garbo does nothing for you, then consider the obvious that any Frenchman should know: Maurice Chevalier. He tried silents in France and the response was lukewarm despite his success as a singer. He only really started venturing into American films when talkies arrived. From 1928 to 1934 his films were widely popular...which you may also recognize as a chunk of the period George's failure takes place during. Frankly when I remembered this it makes any French talking argument beyond ridiculous.
Onto my other pet peeve...within the first 10 minutes I knew the intertitles would ruin it. There were certain directors (Griffith was one of them) who felt intertitles were good for only very minimal descriptions, like 'oh here we are 20 years later in New York.' Hazanavicius must have taken this to heart because there couldn't have been more than 15 intertitles in the whole 100 minutes (while I didn't count I'm sitting here sincerely wondering if that's too generous.) There were moments that I, someone who has watched probably well over 200 silent films, wondered what the hell was going on. In fact between that, the metaphors and the lack of one constant directorial voice is mostly why this film never reached masterpiece status. It threw the pacing off BADLY. In fact the few times there was a few intertitles together it felt much more entertaining.
Now I've been almost cruel to Michael Hazanavicius and I actually, despite it all, don't want to be. I don't know very much about him or what went on to make this film. Just bits and pieces and they tell me very little about everything I have written, which is why I wish I could sit him down and pick his brain about it. Because it might explain some things.
This man has a love of films, classic, silent and modern. He's been a director for years and (apparently) eagerly waited almost a decade for a chance to make a modern silent film. He formed the idea, he wrote the script, he co-edited it...I mean he literally went balls to the wall hands on with this film. He lived out not only my own but every film buff's dream...to make an homage to something he loved. Though I don't know much about him, from what I have read and watching the film its VERY obvious his heart is every where in this film...he truly loves silent films and did his damndest to honor them.
And look at him! I kind of doubt he really believed it would not only leave France and Europe but go to America...but not only did he do THAT but he got it a WIDE RELEASE...I mean holy hell next week people will be able to see it even in the most podunk of towns! That is HUGE. When I heard of this film I didn't dare dream that. Even when I finally got to see it I was still startled by the commercial and that news. He did good.
I'm well aware some of my complaints make Comic book guy look like a jock compared to me. And I could have let a good ton of it go if this film hadn't had the fatal flaws that just stopped it from being overall entertaining and well put together. I think why he failed so in this is (and this is just my theory here, one of the many things I'd love to hear his thoughts on why he did it that way) he seemed to take different tones that disrupted the flow of the film. The best parts were when he did it straight up 20s, like the shots of George and Peppy's various films. This was accurate despite the nitpicky bits and every time they happened my hope would come back to life for only a moment. It seems when it was the behind the scenes bit he ran with the idea of trying to make it modern...which since the rules don't exist he just decided to write them how he liked. The filters, lighting, makeup, hair...much more off. In fact the technicals (lighting and such) seem to be too modern, they jar the hell out of the black and white (if he could have made them look as smooth as say a 50s film I would have loved that.) I blame this on the fact other than Schindler's List next to no one has done this since color film finally strangled black and white (now that I think of it Silent Film, the 70s film, was also in black and white and much less jarring in its technicals method.)
It just seemed more polished when the 'film' parts were shown, and almost gritty when it was the 'real' parts...even happy 'real' moments. I can't fault him for trying to do something new, but it just didn't 'take'...maybe something new could work (what it is I have no clue) but it would have been saner to just take the old method as doing it that way is rarer than nitrate these days.
In fact I think the failure is why The Artist is almost painful to me. Michael Hazanavicius clearly tried very hard, and he got it to a point I couldn't even dream of. But as a film alone it was just mediocre and I feel for him...its like it was SO close to being great, and however he went off the rails he just did. And I know he didn't mean to. He deserved to succeed.
I will say this: its better than that Vlad Koslov bullshit (which he tried to piggyback on The Artist release announcement judging by my google results.) Its better than a lot of shitty movies out there....like 90% of all the current films. And if it truly gives our generation a moment to go 'oh yeah I know what a silent film is' instead of the good ol 'what like muting the TV?' then he got through despite the lows of this film. And I will always be appreciative for that.
Click here to go to 
