It's true: about 90% of the black and white film is without any spoken dialogue, relying instead on the occasional movie card (just like the silent movies) and a beautiful score by composer Ludovic Bource. The rest is up to great storytelling and actors, who show a lot of passion and conviction here. The two leads− Jean Dujardin as silent film star George Valentin; and Bérénice Bejo as actress Peppy Miller, who successfully transitions to the talking movie era− are incredibly charming, and showed a really nice chemistry that we understood perfectly. Valentin also has a pet dog who really should get an Oscar as well for best performance by an animal− he brought to mind the lovable Asta from the old Thin Man movies from the 1930s. I have seen a couple silent films from Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, and Fritz Lang's amazing Metropolis (still impressive to this day!), so there was a lot that I felt successfully paid tribute to that bygone era.
However, there are those who have criticized the film for that very reason. An article in yesterday's Atlantic argues that the film doesn't deserve the Best Picture Oscar because the writer feels that it's winning would endorse the idea of recreating the past instead of "striving for originality and present relevance." I'm not sure I agree with this writer. The movie feels quite relevant to me in this age where, as The Daily Beast's Tina Brown points out, "the arrival of the Internet has turned lives and careers upside down with the same seismic irreversibility as the arrival of the talkies. Everyone has to reinvent now or die."
I spent a week with colleagues discussing the changing face of marketing: social media, online presence, QR codes, etc. Things are moving real fast− some beneficial, others seeming to call out for a little more analysis and thought. I see some people getting pretty burnt out trying to keep up with "the machine"... and taking things in? I know from my own occasionally distracted experience that this information overload is not necessarily making us more efficient workers. But like George Valentin, you don't keep up with the times and you may find yourself silenced for good.
I certainly consider myself progressive, but the past can serve to ground us. As a music lover, I have to agree with Dave Grohl's speech at the Grammy Awards where he criticized the use of computers to make things perfect. I think he was dead-on in indirectly calling out the use of Auto-Tune and other software that is making some modern music sound quite soulless. The same goes for film− there are many movies that I find unwatchable, with their over-reliance on CGI to the point that nothing looks real on the screen. I guess my point is that technology should be used to help and expand our lives, not rob it of its beauty.
Sarah remarked to me after seeing the film that she thought there was some color in there... surely Peppy's coat at one point, or the streets... no, I don't think there was. The film was made pretty old school, right down to the aspect ratio, with some modern flourishes that helped the film's theme... it stood out, like many of the modern-day "retro soul" singers do, because it had depth. On the other hand, some critics have argued that The Artist's story was slight and predictable, and that even Midnight in Paris was nothing new... well, both of these films sparked my imagination, and made me want to go back and learn about the silent movie era, or 1920s Paris... they just felt good, celebrated a love of the movies/art, and were meaningful in the way that they both made me stop and consider the way things are moving...
So here's to the past and future− hoping to find the best of both worlds, in order to enhance our daily lives and create beautiful work.
Related Links:
"Why The Artist Should Win The Best Picture Oscar," The Guardian, February 7, 2012
"Oscars: Cinematography nominees discuss film versus digital," Los Angeles Times,
February 19, 2012
"'Plug In Better': A Manifesto," The Atlantic, February 14, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment