The Artist tells Hollywood a comforting bedtime story about itself and the future of the industry

Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo showing a lot of face in The Artist.

More fun for Oscar Week in Mannionville.

The Artist has finally turned up in theaters in these parts, but I don’t think we’re going to be able to see it before Sunday.  Odd thing, though.  I’ve heard almost nothing but glowing things about it, but the longer I’ve had to wait and the more glowing things I’ve heard the less I’ve wanted to see it.  I think there’s a point where when you’ve heard a movie talked about a lot you begin to feel as though you’ve already seen it, several times, in a bad mood, with a headache.

The trailer has put me off a bit too. Too much face.  Everybody has too much face.  John Goodman, too much face.  James Cromwell, too much face.  Penelope Ann Miller, Berenice Bejo, the dog.  Jean Dujardin, way, way too much face.  The camera gets in too close and at a disconcerting angle or maybe it’s the way they’re lit.  But the only person in real life who ever presents you with that much face is your dentist.

That’s just me. Word is that The Artist is likely to pick up the Oscar for Best Picture and deservedly.  But Karina Longworth, film editor for LA Weekly and Village Voice media critic, thinks it’s going to win and when it does it’ll be because there might be something else behind it besides an appreciation for good movie-making fun.

The Artist, she says, tells a story about Hollywood Hollywood needs to hear about itself these days.

Like Singin' in the Rain, a film to which it's often compared, The Artist is an example of the kind of mythic history Hollywood tells about itself in order to promote its own survival in times of trouble. When Rain was released in 1952, studios were struggling to adapt to both a 1948 court order that forced the studios to give up ownership and management of movie theaters, and the growing lure of television. The Artist has been released into a similar period of transition, as celluloid technology is being replaced by digital, and theater attendance is threatened by the habits of a new generation born into an on-demand world. If the Oscars truly are Hollywood's way of telling us what it's thinking about itself, then the dominance of The Artist reflects the paranoid uncertainty of a contemporary movie industry barreling toward an uncertain future, and looking to the past for reassurance.

Read Longworth’s whole post at LA Weekly.

Comments

[charlie]

yes, a movie about change (and the Depression) is a lot more likely this year.

But you're really missing the point. It's just a movie, Lance -- fluff and happy endings. There isn't anything really there -- although the "Free Georgia" line was interesting.

[Ken Houghton]

As I said on Twitter, I regret (not enough) having seen it on DVD because there are several shots that BEG for the large screen.

It's "often compared" to Singing in the Rain because there's a, er, rather similar plot, if you watch movies for such things.

Of the nominees I've seen (or, in the case of The Descendants, tried to see), it's the easiest one to watch and enjoy while also saying, "Yes, film is the right medium here."

Quibble: the "happy ending" only lasts until you think about it for a while. (In this, it is perhaps similar to Moneyball.) As with the move of film production from Fort Lee to Hollywoodland, there are casualties, and the movie's end does not signal their end.

[Dave]

See it, Lance. It's brilliant and totally grabbed my heart.

[Hannah]

I loved it. I think HUGO is better, but THE ARTIST is excellent. It's charming and fun and begs you to be nostalgic. And about all those faces, remember, "[They] didn't need dialogue! [They] had faces!"

[Cassandra]

I loved it too, for its sweetness, and its beautiful and loving evocation of a extinct style of moviemaking. No one can mistake it for a documentary treatment of behind-the-scenes Hollywood at the time.

[Rana]

You should see it, if only to get those impressions out of your head. There's a lot of artistry in it, and while I found the plot and characters somewhat affecting, it was the film itself that I found compelling. There are a lot of clever (but not "too" clever, if you get what I mean) bits of framing, use of focus, playing with props, etc. that add up to a surprisingly wonderful whole. Now, I may be a bit prejudiced, because my research area means that I've stared at a fair number of early movies and read a fair bit about the way they were made and shown; my husband thought it was fine, but wasn't as blown away by it as I was, and I think the key difference was my appreciation of the technical side of it.

But do see it in the theater. It's not just the benefit of the large screen (though given the subtle use of background images, that's important), but the experience of seeing it with an audience. It's that sort of movie; it needs the feeling of human beings around it to work best.

[Lee]

If you're trying to convince your readers of the lack of artistic merit of "THE ARTIST", forget it. That is not what they want to hear. They want you to praise it to the skies.

Let's face it, the different movie industries around the world is becoming increasingly conservative in a period in which people embrace conservatism as a lifeline against the difficult economic times. They want happy endings and homages to the past.

I don't mind watching movies laced with conservative values. But I do mind when they are rewarded by critics and the film industries for those values, instead of any real artistic merit.

[Dee]

This movie won Best Picture of the Year from the Academy Awards and the BAFTAs, along with one of the top awards at the Cannes Film Festival? Really?

Mind you, it's a cute film. And I like the look of its production. But Best Movie? I don't think so.