The Artist

heybaby

Have read amazing reviews about this black and white silent film that won an award at the Canne film festival this year, anyone any idea when this will be in cinemas in Ireland? I checked the IFTN website for forthcoming releases but theres no sign of it. the trailer looks terrific!!:D

bertie4evr

I'm really looking forward to this too but I have a feeling I'll have to travel to see this.

heybaby

bertie4evr wrote: »

I'm really looking forward to this too but I have a feeling I'll have to travel to see this.

Anyone know if this film is showing in Dublin? Can't find any cinemas showing it !

johnny_ultimate

Isn't out 'til Friday!

Mickeroo

Seems to be getting a big marketing push with TV spots, should be getting a reasonably wide release.

WatchWolf

Can't wait to see this. But I just know that through my look I'll go and there will be a bunch of prepubescent teenagers sitting in the back shouting "GAY!!!11!!!11". Ugh, I really hope not.

sillo

You can see it without irritating people at the IFI. Starts Friday.

http://www.ifi.ie/film/the-artist/

Sad Professor

I can't see many kids/stupid people going to see a black-and-white silent film.

heybaby

Sad Professor wrote: »

I can't see many kids/stupid people going to see a black-and-white silent film.

Brilliant can't wait, had feared it wouldn't be on general release. An intelligent film for a change and not a special effect on sight

Galvasean

Colour (or lack thereof) me intrigued

Renn

Bumping this since it's just been released today. Caught it a couple of weeks ago and although I did like it, I didn't come out loving it like most other people did. I'm a big fan of that era and got a couple of references and what not (not that you need to get them or anything) but there was something missing - it nearly felt too safe at times? I know it's a light romantic comedy and it's technically impressive, but I was kinda hoping for more One baffling thing was

the use of Bernard Herrmann's Vertigo score, wtf

Just made it in to my top ten of 2011, just.

blue note

Renn wrote: »

Just made it in to my top ten of 2010, just.

I thought it was supposed to be a film long after it's time, not ahead of it?

Renn

FIXED.

Sad Professor

I was really looking forward to this, but was left very disappointed. While it's very good in places and the two leads are excellent, it just doesn't have the energy, the inventiveness or the wit to be a great silent film. It's too modern in its approach, and as Renn said above, too safe. It just seems gimmicky. I also really didn't care for how they completely lifted Bernard Herrmann's Vertigo score and used it in the final sequence. It was out of place and only served to remind me of a far superior film. 

leggit

Doesn't look great to be honest unless you're a fan of the type of film, that's the feeling I get anyway.

I won't be going to see it as it definitely isn't my type of film, just seems that a couple of people said it was good and it's snowballed into "OMG the best film ever, give it all the oscars!"

johnny_ultimate

Very Good fun but utterly shallow. Like an airplane cut of Sunset Boulevard.

Sad Professor

I'd say this will sweep the Oscars. I'd put money on it.

johnny_ultimate

Its certainly blunt and inoffensive enough for it. I did really like it but my word the hyperbole machine is a rollin'

Technocentral

leggit wrote: »

Doesn't look great to be honest unless you're a fan of the type of film, that's the feeling I get anyway.

I won't be going to see it as it definitely isn't my type of film, just seems that a couple of people said it was good and it's snowballed into "OMG the best film ever, give it all the oscars!"

That type of film hasnt been done since about 1929 and I have seen very few silent films so its very difficult to know if I would be a fan, but stripping away all the technical innovations and concentrating on character and story may be a refreshing change, what makes films great anyway? It can't just be use of sound or colour or computer effects alone, I don't care about Oscars so I'll see what I think of it myself, I might hate it but it does sound intriguing.

Sad Professor

It's a definitely a good film and well worth watching. But the best film of the year? Pfft!

Technocentral

Sad Professor wrote: »

It's a definitely a good film and well worth watching. But the best film of the year? Pfft!

I try to ignore hyperbole, remember all the stuff about how great the likes of Titanic, Avatar and Inception were and they turned out to be very average and unoriginal (Avatar) and rubbish (the other two).

Edit: Oh yeah and that film where Adam Sandler played a "straight role", give me a break!

Renn

What Sandler film was that? Surely not PDL?

WatchWolf

I thought it was great.

Questions:

1. Did George not want to do talkies because

of his accent or because he believed silent films were the only true artform?

2. What was going on with the scene where he is looking at his reflection in the suit and the police officer comes up? I came back from taking a slash half way through that scene.

Technocentral

Renn wrote: »

What Sandler film was that? Surely not PDL?

The very same, big hype at the time for a v mediocre film.

Renn

Not sure if serious...

Anyway, WatchWolf - for your first question it's the former. Can't remember the other scene you mention though.

johnny_ultimate

Not on mobile now, so can speak a bit freer :pac: But yes - overall it was a solid, surprisingly funny crowdpleaser. The last bit is where the fault lies IMO - the ending sort of rang false, considering the reality and that something like Sunset Boulevard tackles the same ideas in a far more powerful, provocative manner. While it certainly looked fresh - and a few witty sound subversions - it just felt like a hollow homage at times. It was copying the ideas and style of the time without having much identity of its own (that was part of the point, one could argue).

It is one of the most enjoyable films I've seen recently, but I fully agree with Renn that it was too safe. I think if it probed darker, was a bit more adventurous etc... this had the potential to be great. As is, it's merely a really fun time, but one that reminds you how fantastic the great silents are without bringing a compelling individual voice (pardon the pun) of its own.

Also: didn't care for the brief 'fantastical' sequences at all, like the little people in the bar or the moving shadow. Felt strangely out of place and tone.

WatchWolf wrote: »

1. Did George not want to do talkies because of his accent or because he believed silent films were the only true artform?

I think it was mainly just a stylistic device to illustrate how he was unable to adapt.

But the accent revelation proved a clever punctuation mark to act as a pleasant closing touch. Still would've worked without it IMO

WatchWolf

Renn wrote: »

Not sure if serious...

Anyway, WatchWolf - for your first question it's the former. Can't remember the other scene you mention though.

Thanks for the answers everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OK7pfLlsUQM#t=115s

If you click the link it will show a short segment of the part I was referring to in question 2.

Sad Professor

Kim Novak has gone on the attack regarding the use of the Vertigo score, describing it as a "rape". While I think she overstates the case just a little tiny bit, it was ridiculous for the The Artist to use 6 minutes of Vertigo's score as if it were its own. There is no explicit reference to Vertigo in the film as there is to other classic sound films, so its usage really just seems like a case of "temp track love" on the part of the director.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/not-everyone-loves-the-artist-kim-novak-feels-violated-by-use-of-vertigo-score/

JP Liz V1

Did I see John Goodman in the trailer for this

emeraldstar

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Did I see John Goodman in the trailer for this

Yup.

Greyjoy

Sad Professor wrote: »

Kim Novak has gone on the attack regarding the use of the Vertigo score, describing it as a "rape". While I think she overstates the case just a little tiny bit, it was ridiculous for the The Artist to use 6 minutes of Vertigo's score as if it were its own.

Equating the use of another film's score (properly credited & licensed) with rape is overstating the case a "little tiny bit"? I'm sorry but in her piece Novak just comes across as a ranting idiot. If Hazanavicius had used the Vertigo score without acknowledging Bernard Herrmann then maybe Novak could have used such exaggerated language. But as it stands her ridiculous use of hyperbole only serves to undermine her own argument.

Sad Professor

I was being sarcastic.

Greyjoy

Fair 'nuff. I just took the post at face value and didn't twig you were being sarcastic. Apologies.

Sad Professor

I agree that Novak is overreacting, but she's obviously old school and the idea of a film using another film's score would be abhorrent to her. It's quite common these days, though it's usually a result of the director falling in love with his temp track and leaves the film feeling unfinished IMO.

Julie London

I found Vertigo to be a masterpiece . I wonder will the Artist be in the same class. Reserve judgement till I see it. All the same I can see Novaks point as the score was such an original piece of work and written entirely for Vertigo. It evokes memories of Vertigo, much like the Jaws music gets you thinking of impending doom! Novak prob doesnt want the younger genertaion associating vertigos music with the Artist. Most of the younger genertaion may not have even seen Vertigo. Hopefully the bit of publicity she has caused by her rant! will get moviegoers buying/renting/downloading Vertigo!

Sad Professor

Julie London wrote: »

All the same I can see Novaks point as the score was such an original piece of work and written entirely for Vertigo.

Here's the thing though, the Vertigo track wasn't completely original. It was heavily based on a piece by Wagner, which can also be heard in Melancholia. This is what I find so bizarre about this. Hazanavicius could have just used the Wagner piece, which sounds very similar, without piggybacking on the emotional resonance of another film.

kraggy

Sad Professor wrote: »

It's a definitely a good film and well worth watching. But the best film of the year? Pfft!

Sad Professor wrote: »

Kim Novak has gone on the attack regarding the use of the Vertigo score, describing it as a "rape". While I think she overstates the case just a little tiny bit, it was ridiculous for the The Artist to use 6 minutes of Vertigo's score as if it were its own. There is no explicit reference to Vertigo in the film as there is to other classic sound films, so its usage really just seems like a case of "temp track love" on the part of the director.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/not-everyone-loves-the-artist-kim-novak-feels-violated-by-use-of-vertigo-score/

Not sure if intentional....

Wikipedia:

"Kim Novak (born February 13, 1933) is an American film and television actress. She began her career with her roles in Pushover and Phffft (both 1954) but achieved greater prominence in the 1955 film Picnic. In the following five years, she appeared in The Man with the Golden Arm (1955), The Eddy Duchin Story (1956), Pal Joey (1957), and Bell, Book and Candle (1958). She is best known for her dual role as Judy Barton/Madeleine Elster in the 1958 Alfred Hitchcock film Vertigo!"

ollaetta

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Did I see John Goodman in the trailer for this

Good performance. Malcolm McDowell also pops up in a cameo role early on.

Skinfull

Just got back from this and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Great performances all round, music was very well done and the over all presentation was near flawless! Its been a while since I came walking out of a movie smiling for all the right reasons and for the last 3 mins of this movie I was beaming.

Mr E

I got to see this last night and had a smile on my face for most of the movie. It was utterly charming, and in an era of crash-bang-wallop mainstream cinema it was refreshing too.

Coincidentally, the impact of some of the quieter scenes (especially the one with George and Peppy at the end, just after BANG!) was ruined by a really loud Mission Impossible 4 scene next door.

I was talking to a friend after the movie and he didn't love it as much as I did. He thought the movie might have been better had it continued down the 'sound' route about half way through.

Renn

Ha, where did you see it? Screen Cinema?

Mr E

Omniplex in Limerick...

Da Shins Kelly

A friend of mine saw and absolutely loved it. I want to see it simply because I've never seen a silent film and I think it'd be an interesting experience to actually see one in a cinema. It looks beautiful in the trailer, and I think it was pretty brave idea to pitch, and then to actually make it happen is pretty commendable. I never would have imagined that a film like this would do so well. If nothing else, it's a breath of fresh air to see something like this, and the naivety and innocence it seems to have is quite charming, I think.

Skinfull

Renn wrote: »

Ha, where did you see it? Screen Cinema?

Screen is famous for the sound leaking... annoying!

I'm goin with my brother to see this again next week and I'm thoroughly excited!

Technocentral

Mr E wrote: »

I got to see this last night and had a smile on my face for most of the movie. It was utterly charming, and in an era of crash-bang-wallop mainstream cinema it was refreshing too.

Coincidentally, the impact of some of the quieter scenes (especially the one with George and Peppy at the end, just after BANG!) was ruined by a really loud Mission Impossible 4 scene next door.

I was talking to a friend after the movie and he didn't love it as much as I did. He thought the movie might have been better had it continued down the 'sound' route about half way through.

A good metaphor for how noisy crap like the MI films are blowing away all the artistry and originality in mainstream cinema.

Seren_

Saw the film earlier and I loved it! I actually wasn't expecting it to live up to the hype, but it was just so utterly charming. And I want George's dog so badly! He's awesome!

I liked how the film included a lot of references to early cinema history. George Valentin, not unlike a certain Rudolph Valentino. Kinograph = kinetoscope etc. Never thought that film module I studied last year would come in useful

misty floyd

Just back from this. I really liked it but i think i appreciated it more than i enjoyed it. I brought my dad, he hasn't been to the cinema in 15 years. He loved it, blown away.

We couldnt stop laughing at the gag in the movie with SPOILER: valentino in the quick sand. Hes with a woman, sinking, about to die and up pops the words " goodbye, i never loved you". Thing is, my da kept thinking about it laughing, he tried so hard not to laugh he let out a really loud fart.......at a silent movie. Ah you had to have been there.

Summary, its arty farty but well worth seeing. See what i did there :-)

EDIT: I know, I know, that's really childish

Da Shins Kelly

Saw it tonight. Loved it. Some truly amazing scenes in it like the

dream sequence, the scene where he discovers Peppy bought all his belongings at the auction, the scene with just George and Peppy and it's completely silent, and the final scene, of course

. It looks incredible and the music choices are great. The acting is wonderful and suitably old-fashioned in the slightly exaggerated facial expressions and such, and both the leads really look like actors from the silent era. And of course, the dog deserves a special mention - what a lovely little creature.

I don't think it'll be for everyone, and at first it did take me a while to get accustomed to the fact that there's no talking, but it makes for very refreshing viewing and it's utterly charming. By far one of the most original movies I've seen in a very long time, and I'd recommend it if only for the experience.

johnny_ultimate

'Original' isn't the optimum word here, I don't think. Pretty much everything is homaging classic cinema - from the screening scene with lighting lifted straight from Citizen Kane to the protagonist being an amalgamation of various silent stars. And it's not the first silent film of recent times (Guy Maddin's stuff as noted above as well as a handful of others). But I guess when what you're homaging is almost seven or eight decades old, it is certainly refreshing to see something like this in the cinema.

But I'd love to see it encouraging people to check out more silent cinema. The stuff Murnau, Melies or Eisenstein were producing at their peak is many, many times more technically and artistically ambitious and successful than The Artist. That stuff really blew me away when I watched them, but The Artist just seemed strangely hollow (if still charming and enjoyable) in comparison.

And for the love of all that is good - anyone who liked this film and hasn't seen Sunset Boulevard owes it to themselves to experience a far more thoughtful, scathing representation of the same themes.

Mr E

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But I'd love to see it encouraging people to check out more silent cinema. The stuff Murnau, Melies or Eisenstein were producing at their peak is many, many times more technically and artistically ambitious and successful than The Artist.

I had a look at their pages on IMDB and I'm ashamed to admit I'm not too familiar with their filmographies. Want to throw out some title recommendations to check out?

Will I Amnt

The pretentious crap on the first page of this thread is staggering to say the least.

"Oh I do hope we shan't have to sit with the riff-raff darling" :rolleyes: