Review: The Artist

Set in Hollywood in 1927, Jean Dujardin plays George Valentin, a big star of silent swashbucklers (think Douglas Fairbanks) who is unhappy in his marriage to Penelope Ann Miller, and with the inevitable transition from silent cinema to ‘talkies’. Bérénice Bejo is Peppy, a promising, spunky up-and-coming actress whom Valentin starts to have feelings for. Whilst Peppy is pegged to be a big star of the ‘talkies’, Valentin is cynical of the invention and decides to go and make his own silent film. Also worth mentioning is Valentin’s dog (Uggie the dog), and equally faithful chauffeur/butler (James Cromwell). John Goodman plays a blustery studio exec, and Malcolm McDowell has a small role as a butler.

Written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius, this 2011 Best Picture Oscar winner is a nice, solid, but not great film. Years from now it’ll probably be one of those Best Picture winners that lots of people still haven’t seen and many will dislike, though plot-wise I can see why it appealed to the Academy. I liked it, but the film’s message borders on arguing that the transition from the silent era to sound pictures was a bad thing. That’s ridiculous. It’s called progress, and it’s a good thing. Anyone who thinks sound wasn’t an improvement is quite frankly an idiot. And I say that as someone who loves “Nosferatu”, “Metropolis”, “Sherlock Jr.”, etc just fine. Anyway, aside from a few slightly irritating things like that, the film is worth seeing. It helps if you know your movies and can at least appreciate silent films, but having said that, I did question whether a dog would be a huge star in the silent era. Maybe there were some, people with more knowledge of the era than me might be able to answer that.

No doubt about it, though, lead actor Jean Dujardin is pitch-perfect, a mixture of Douglas Fairbanks and Fredric March or something. He, like the film itself, just made me smile and feel good inside. This film kinda succeeds in doing what Woody Allen’s awful “Midnight in Paris” tried to do in recalling and revering a long-ago era. There’s an actual plot here, even if the ultimate message isn’t one I entirely embraced. There’s an hilarious way of introducing sound to the film, too. The feather in particular was a great touch.

Meanwhile, Penelope Ann Miller has never sounded better if you ask me. Yes, I meant that as an insult. Cast as either a tribute to Marion Davies or the Marion Davies clone in “Citizen Kane”, the role is right up her alley. And as much as I question the idea of a dog as a silent film hero, Uggie the dog is an absolute scene-stealer (despite not being an irritating camera hog like the animated dog in “The Adventures in Tintin”, which annoyed the crap out of me). He’s wonderful, and so well-behaved! John Goodman and James Cromwell are also solid in their roles, even if acting in a silent film requires them to change their acting styles, and to a certain extent, requires a lot less from them. Perhaps featuring such familiar actors was a mistake, because we know these guys can do so much more with sound at their disposal (Miller, however, is much better seen and not heard). Silent films had their own acting style, but when you know what these guys can really do, there seems little sense in them doing this. Cromwell, for instance, was much funnier as a chauffeur in “Murder By Death” than he is here, partly because of his ridiculous attempt at a French accent. Doing a story about the Silent Era as a silent film is appropriate perhaps, but also a bit of a waste of acting talent, I guess is what I’m saying. Still, they do perfectly embody their roles. Less effective is lead actress Berenice Bejo, who would probably look absolutely stunning and be wonderful in any other film except this one. Unfortunately, she looks far more like a Gina Lollobrigida than a Clara Bow, Lillian Gish, or Mary Pickford (who was married to Douglas Fairbanks, btw), and the makeup job is completely wrong to my recollection of what silent film stars looked like. Sure, her character is meant to be a crossover, but the lips in particular just don’t look right and she looks far too ‘exotic’ for the era to be playing the ‘good girl’ heroine. The reason why it stuck in my craw is because I find most silent film actresses tend to look exactly alike, especially the ingénues (Bejo, I believe, is white, but she doesn’t look like it, and for this film it’s actually important), mostly due to the distinctive makeup. This film definitely fouls up the makeup, though I’ve noticed that many have disagreed. I also wish her character was named Peggy, as Peppy is just stupid and would never have flown even in the Silent Era. Yes, I’m nitpicking- as I said, it’s a good film.

A slightly less important shattering of the illusion is the cinematography by Guillaume Schiffman, which at first bothered me because it looked far too pristine for what is meant to be a silent film set in the silent era. However, when you see a projection of one of Dujardin’s swashbucklers, it looks a lot more like a silent film, so perhaps this was the director’s way of differentiating between the two (I’ve read that the film was a colour film converted into B&W, which might explain things a bit). Truth be told, even the moment or two of sound that I liked, also shatters the illusion here, so perhaps I should stop nitpicking. I’m not even sure this is meant to be passing itself off as a silent film from the silent era (or even a mock version), given that I don’t recall too many silent films featuring infidelity, so perhaps such a discussion is just silly on my part.

It seems a decade or so out of step, but if that ending doesn’t make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, you’re clearly already dead. Look, this didn’t deserve to win Best Picture (the best film of 2011 wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture- “Rango”), but this film is almost impossible not to like. Ludovic Bource definitely deserved the win for Best Original Score, the Academy definitely got it right on that one. It’s the best thing in the entire film. It’s a feel-good film in many ways, even if I don’t entirely buy into its nostalgic message. I mean, it makes points against the Silent Era here, and every one of those points is valid...which makes the experience of actually watching this silent film very weird, especially since it ultimately wants to find sympathy for those the ‘Talkies’ may have left in their wake. Some silent films are better than some ‘talkies’, but the silent era is most certainly not preferable (And yet, I prefer B&W to colour, and technicolour to...whatever colour it is we have today. I’m a total hypocrite, and well aware of it). I still don’t think this is one of the better Best Picture winners, but you could do a lot worse.

Rating: B-