MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Review: The Artist (spoiler-free)


It’s bad hoodoo to explain a joke. Or a great dramatic moment, for that matter. Emotion, whether laughter or tears, is not an intellectual exercise and this, intellectualizing them is a losing pursuit.

The Artist is both of these things… and not a whole lot more. It will make you laugh… and cry… and reflect.

We can discuss the technique, but that’s not what you want to know. I won’t discuss the structure here because the experience of the film is so much about the choices that Michel Hazanavicius makes as a writer and director. As an audience member, you anticipate choices that seem more or less obvious… and if and when they land, somehow, they still feel fresh.

We’ve seen this story before. It’s the arrival of the talkies from Singin’ In the Rain. It’s the rise, fall, and survival of a movie star and his relationship with a rising talent from A Star Is Born. It’s the comedic brilliance of silent films from Silent Movie, and, of course, from a long history of silent films.

But it’s really not like anything we’ve ever seen because it is the unique voice of Hazanavicius and the talents of Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo that make it all theirs. It reflects everything and feels singular.

It’s funny… the trailer tells so much of the story, but can’t begin to convey the sweep of the piece. The film defies the idea that you can have the experience in 2 minutes. Or, for that matter, in a review.

Not everyone will love it, but for those who do, it will be a lot like falling in love. You can’t really express what it is you feel, but you feel it so powerfully, you can’t ever imagine not feeling it… or even feeling it less.

I wish I knew how to say more without infringing on whatever your experience is going to be. But I am pretty sure that 90+ percent of people who read this review will see this film… because a film lover has to… and if you’re not one, how the hell did you end up reading this review?

20 Responses to “Review: The Artist (spoiler-free)”

  1. The Pope says:

    Obviously I haven’t seen this yet, but with the Weinsteins positioning it my current question is in which category are they going to propose it? Best Feature or Best Foreign Language…

  2. David Poland says:

    It’s Best Picture.

    And it’s a silent film, though in theory – won’t happen – France could put it up.

  3. Are the festival prints in proper Academy ratio or pillarboxed 1.85? Given how many art-houses butchered the presentation of MEEK’S CUTOFF, I’m kinda hoping it’s the latter, especially if THE ARTIST gets some multiplex play in the event of a BP nomination.

  4. Oliver Fish says:

    Possibly my most eagerly anticipated film of the year.

  5. ThriceDamned says:

    Super-excited for this one. Incredible trailer.

  6. Stephen Holt says:

    Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Costumes, Best Editing, Best SCORE(!?!)Best Sound, Best Sound Editing…Harvey will hit all the high notes with these branches that he can. You know that. Nice, spoiler-free review, David. I saw it in Montreal and fell madly in love. I was dancin’ in my seat! Who needs sound films anyway?=The great question “The Artist” poses so beautifully.

    If Harvey can get an Oscar for Roberto Benigni for Best Actor, he can do it for Jean Dujardin!

  7. movielocke says:

    I’ve noted that not many people are prediction Bejo (who will probably be winning) in BSA, even though almost everyone has jumped on the Dujardin train. Immense oversight?

  8. LexG says:

    This DUJARDIN guy looks like a mugging douche and nobody’s ever heard of him before.

    Looks awful, hope it bombs.

  9. cadavra says:

    But look at the bright side, Lex: at least you won’t have to close-caption it!

  10. yancyskancy says:

    If only he had the name recognition of Sam Worthington. :)

  11. cadavra says:

    Yancy FTW.

  12. Brooke C says:

    I just saw this at Telluride. I absolutely loved it….I smiled non-stop for the first half hour. DuJardin is beyond perfect. Just a lovely, lovely film.

  13. cadavra says:

    I just hope its success doesn’t prevent them from making that third OSS 117 film they promised us.

  14. JKill says:

    I watched the first OSS 117 film to see what all the fuss is about. I was hesitant because I didn’t think the world needed another 60s spy spoof but man, was that movie hilarious, not to mention well shot and clever. I smiled and laughed throughout. Dujardin is pretty brilliant. I’m now quite excited for THE ARTIST.

  15. TorontoMovieLover says:

    The movie was shown at the Toronto Film Festival using the 1:33 aspect ratio. The audience on Friday night loved it. I was there. I loved it, too. However, what needs to be explained by Harvey W. and his minions is the full use of an orchestral sweep from Bernard Herrmann’s “Vertigo” score. We’re not talking a snippet here or there, we’re talking using the “Vertigo” music in most of the dramatic scenes before the end of the movie. Why? How was this decided?

  16. cadavra says:

    Probably by the director. It’s not unusual to reuse film music; in fact, Scorsese used Herrmann’s entire CAPE FEAR score for his remake. Plus Hazanavicius used a faux Herrmann cue for the climax of OSS 117: LOST IN RIO, so it’s not surprising he’d go for the real thing here. After all, isn’t the entire picture a love letter to Old Hollywood?

  17. Wiseacre says:

    Saw this at TIFF and it is truly marvellous. Witty, clever, moving, beautiful to watch, it’s a filmlover’s dream. I am having a hard time imagining how this movie was ever greenlighted but we should all be grateful that it was. I can’t wait to see it again.

  18. I’ll right away seize your rss as I can not in finding your e-mail subscription hyperlink or newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please let me know so that I could subscribe. Thanks.

  19. Sop1 says:

    Totally agree with your review.Anyone who says that there’s no real use for a concept like this film presents, whether regarding the score, script or the artists involved, is blind to what art really is, and needs some lessons.It was for me like falling in love with my spouse of nearly 30 years: Unexpected,a little strange but strangely familiar, overwhelmingly romantic without being calculated, with the ensuing deeper meaning/conflict/passion/laughter/joy keeping up interest for decades. An homage to the classics, it is now a classic, itself.

  20. old faithful says:

    For ages we’ve embraced Tarantino’s genre-rescuing and revisionist mash-ups, anachronistic fun. Pastiche King wearing conservationist-nerd badge like your GPS-film encyclopedia.

    And still silent movies (that included loads of different genres too, you know) remain the last bastion of snobbery? When it’s attempted, it’s gotta be 100% accurate, must be a profound masterpiece outting everytime (because ALL silents made back then, “were”?), the barrage of historical checking or pot-calling-kettle bias discredits every attempt…

    Lawd.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Any time a movie causes a country to threaten nuclear retaliation, the higher-ups wanna get in a room with you… In terms of getting the word out about the movie, it’s not bad. If they actually make good on it, it would be bad for the world—but luckily that doesn’t seem like their style… We’ll make a movie that maybe for two seconds will make some 18-year-old think about North Korea in a way he never would have otherwise. Or who knows? We were told one of the reasons they’re so against the movie is that they’re afraid it’ll actually get into North Korea. They do have bootlegs and stuff. Maybe the tapes will make their way to North Korea and cause a fucking revolution. At best, it will cause a country to be free, and at worst, it will cause a nuclear war. Big margin with this movie.”
~ Seth Rogen In Rolling Stone 1224

“Yes, good movies sprout up, inevitably, in the cracks and seams between the tectonic plates on which all of these franchises stay balanced, and we are reassured of their hardiness. But we don’t see what we don’t see; we don’t see the effort, or the cost of the effort, or the movies of which we’re deprived because of the cost of the effort. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice may have come from a studio, but it still required a substantial chunk of outside financing, and at $35 million, it’s not even that expensive. No studio could find the $8.5 million it cost Dan Gilroy to make Nightcrawler. Birdman cost a mere $18 million and still had to scrape that together at the last minute. Imagine American movie culture for the last few years without Her or Foxcatcher or American Hustle or The Master or Zero Dark Thirty and it suddenly looks markedly more frail—and those movies exist only because of the fairy godmothership of independent producer Megan Ellison. The grace of billionaires is not a great business model on which to hang the hopes of an art form.”
~ Mark Harris On The State Of The Movies