The Artist

Those who know my ratings a little will be well aware that I am not a fan of silent movies. My relationship with them is similar as with pizza Margherita: I have nothing personal against it, but without at least ham, it doesn’t quite make it. And that’s the reason why I wasn’t that excited about this movie; at worst, I expected an unlikeable romantic and artsy Oscar bait, and at best, a bearable and sincere but rather boring movie. I was wrong, The Artist couldn’t have been a more pleasant surprise. It’s a very entertaining, nice and charming movie that doesn’t need sound. But when it does use some sound, it’s worth it (e.g. the nightmare). It left me with a feeling that none of this year’s other Oscar contenders did: having watched a truly exceptional movie. So I’m really rooting for it, and I’m saying this as someone who normally appreciates movies that are more progressive in their contents or format over “retro” ones (like The Social Network over The King’s Speech last year). 9/10 (01/21/2012)

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. (01/21/2012)

Playful and in love with film. If it hadn't forcefully slid into the existential realm and screamed so boldly about "silent" emotions in the last third, it would have been the daredevil of the year with The Artist, who is now rightfully collecting laurels. This way, I can't get rid of the feeling of a slightly desired gradation that thus works a bit less than it could, but in the end, I still have to praise it. The main couple shines in every smile or dance, period films force me to reminisce, and the retro soundtrack works so perfectly that I devoured the transformation into the twenties to the last box. As a whole, however, due to the aforementioned, only 75%. (01/27/2012)

I wasn’t particularly enthused about this. I suspected that the film would not be quite right and that's why I postponed watching it. Then, just to be sure, I watched it again. It's not an entirely bad film, and if it inspires even a fraction of viewers to discover real silent films, then it has served its purpose. On the other hand, the story is just a continuation of the bad aspects of Singin' in the Rain, and I have a huge problem with that. The heroes of yesteryear can be none other than the combination of Rudolph Valentine, Douglas Fairbanks, and John Gilbert. Fortunately, there's also the cheerful studio owner and anyone from those legendary head honchos to William Randolph Hearst (played by the excellent John Goodman). The film also features a cleverly trained dog, believable sets, gorgeous costumes, a near-perfect final dance number, and some hope for a better tomorrow. What is somewhat deceptive is the sound nightmare and especially the 1936 song used as background for 1931. Equally problematic and redundant is the conveyance of actual footage from The Mark of Zorro (1920). The question thus remains whether the story of silent film is really interesting just because that era is long gone. (04/23/2012)

When I found out which film won the main awards at the Oscars, I was very surprised. The best director was a Frenchman that nobody had really heard of before, and the same was true for the best actor category, where I was disappointed that Brad Pitt didn't win the award, as he deserved it a lot. Perhaps he should have danced in "Moneyball." However, the biggest shock was that the award for the best film went to a movie that was neither American nor co-produced, it was a French-Belgian film. "The Artist" was personally like a bolt from the blue for me. The presence of several film stars in it still doesn't make it an American film, but on the other hand, a film was created that is incredibly American in the sense that it takes place in the USA, from 1927 to 1932, which were not only the years of the crisis but also the years when the transition from silent film to talkies was happening and the stars of silent film were forgotten. This is exactly the case of George Valentin, who can't come to terms with the fact that people want to see talking actors. "The Artist" is a film that showcases the era in its beauty, it is a tribute to American silent film and silent film in general, it is a beautiful film, a film for the viewer. Yes, it is possible to watch a silent film and enjoy it even in the 21st century. It is good that the film made it to cinemas and that people know about it. Perhaps there will be increased interest in other silent films of the modern era. Michel Hazanavicius created a work that is not stunning in terms of the script, but it is stunning in its presentation, form, and cinematic beauty. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/05/9-umelec-diktator-nacho-libre-rise.html (02/19/2013)