So, The Artist. I saw this movie. I was excited to see this movie. I am a film history buff. I figured I’d enjoy it for the setting alone. 

Full Disclosure: I do kind of hate silent movies.  Much the same as I dislike going to live music unless it’s a band i’m really into. I like pictures with my sound, sound with my pictures. But I have seen enough silent film to know that the people who said filmmaking was an art that potentially lost something when movies started talking weren’t themselves talking out of their butts. You can’t watch something like The Crowd or The Last Laugh and not see that. 

But The Artist is just sort of ok.  It’s not The Passion of Joan of Arc, but then I’m not saying it has to rank among the top all time silents. It’s also not as good as, like, Four Sons, an old John Ford film I saw recently that nobody mentions as among his best or the best silents, or even much at all. Visually the artist is kind of sparse and minimalist for a silent movie…but not in a way that qualifies as a specific, interesting, beautiful or otherwise unique aesthetic. Again, I’m not an expert on Silent Films unless they’re about female movie workers, which they are pretty much not. But it’s not doing anything better than the oldies do it. And it’s not doing anything new. 

It does have cool performances. The actors are EXCELLENT mimics of silent film stars, both in the way they behaved on film, and the way they “performed” their personas in the public. But to me, these read as impressions, not original characters or performances inspired by a general love of old movies. The reason I think this is that the most exciting parts of the film are not only references, but almost direct copies of other films. The early stuff is straight out of Singin’ in the Rain (among others), still one of the best sound films about silents. If I’m not mistaken, for that cool part when the main character watches his old films and some of the amazing stunts he did in them, if I’m not mistaken, they’re actually using footage of Douglas Fairbanks in The Mark of Zorro (Watch the last minute or so of the film -from 1:05:55— if you want to see one of the shots I’m talking about). Same with the Dog, who is clearly cast to look and behave exactly like the famousest of all movie dogs who didn’t have a tv or movie series, Skippy (From The Think Man and Topper Movies, as well as The Awful Truth and Bringing Up Baby). Yes, I get that these are tributes and that the characters are supposed to be composites of Fairbanks, Keaton, Bow and other silent stars. 

But other than mimicry of, nostalgia for and paying tribute to older movies and stars, for me, there’s nothing much going on here. Though it’s made for a contemporary audience, the plot feels as thin as those silent movies it seeks to recreate. Which seems unnecessary to complete the effect, and like a wasted opportunity. Because to make a silent film now? What an opportunity to really take that version of storytelling and moviemaking for a spin.Instead, I’m afraid I’m right and this is just a nicely made love letter. Which is fine. Except the critical response (much of which is positive but acknowledges the film as a novelty, a love letter, a wink, rather than an outstanding achievement in cinema) has led to awards show response, which has led to ad campaigns talking about how it’s an outstanding achievement in cinema that does move film art forward. Awards shows are bullshit, I know.  But it bothers me when something goes down in history as the opposite of what it is. 

So, are we giving highest honors to stuff that manages to look, sound and seem like an old movie, even if it doesn’t bring anything new to the form? Because if there’s nothing here but affection for old movies, I think it would be better to watch Wings or The Kid or Way Down East. Because they’re better silent movies. And most of them are practically as complex in terms of human emotions, which is saying something, since you can describe the plot, characters and emotional journeys of many in about 2 lines. They were simplistic because they were from a different time and speaking to a different audience and their understanding of characters, psychology, performance, society, the audience and what they could do with the medium was not as developed as ours is now. So why make a movie, even in tribute to these films, that doesn’t do what they would have done if they’d known how? Because this is more than a tribute. It’s mimicry. 

Here’s what I think is really happening: the people who are giving this movie awards are really giving themselves an award. That award is The Cool Filmgoer Award for Outstanding Achievement in Going to a Silent Movie, Watching the Whole Thing, and Enjoying or at Least Appreciating it.

Tell me what I’m missing.  I want to feel like I missed some kind of allegory and it’s not just nostalgia for an art form that most of the people in the audience have had little to no experience with in a theatre.  Also, go see The General or something. I am pretty sure that’s what The Artist is advocating. I don’t think it’s advocating that you never see The General because you already saw The Artist. But in this town that will be the most likely effect. Just like the existence of Casablanca as undisputed favorite all-time old movie makes a lot of network executives not watch any more old movies once they’ve seen it (I have heard the phrase, “Believe me, I love old movies. I’ve seen Casablanca” precede more conversations in which the speaker proceeded to shit on or dismiss pre-80’s movies than I care to count).  

What’s my point? Oh yeah: The Artist is a lovely tribute film, not a great movie. And if you’re going to not watch silent films, you shouldn’t not watch them because you’ve seen The Artist and thus have sampled the cream of the crop and know what they’re about.  You should not watch them because they are BO-RING!