The Artist
Still without a pass but I owe it to my reader to keep on trucking... especially when it comes to watching and reviewing the Oscar Best Picture front-runner...
Roll Call: Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell, Penelope Ann Miller, and Uggie the dog. Michel Hazanavicius, writer and director.
What's It About: The simultaneous struggle of silent film superstar George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) and meteoric rise of budding starlet Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) as talkies begin to overtake silent films in Hollywood. And yes, of course, the movie itself is a mostly silent film.
What About It: What about it? How about the fact that it is the odds-on favorite to capture the Oscar for Best Picture? Though, that really doesn't reveal much about the film, does it? Just, I suppose, that a lot of people expect it to win best picture. But should it? Well, it wouldn't be the worst film to do so, but, at the same time, I can think of better films this year. So... should it win? Probably not. At least in my mind.
Ok, with that out of the way... let me say this: it's a hell of a charming movie. Maybe not the most charming movie I've ever seen, but it won me over pretty easily. I'm not sure if it's the premise or the style or what, but I enjoyed watching the movie. Now, that being said, I can't say I was blown away by it. It didn't feel as fresh as- say- Slumdog Millionaire did a few years ago, but it was thoroughly enjoyable. And I suppose that's a credit to Michel Hazanavicius as much as anyone. The whole silent movie routine could easily have come off as a gimmick or a stunt, but somehow Hazanavicius manages to make it work. The fact that it's a nearly silent movie seems right and natural for the story; it never felt forced or out of place. (And in the few times the film does incorporate sound- other than the lively soundtrack- its use is pretty ingenious.) I guess that was my biggest fear in going to see the movie; I was afraid that the whole silent movie gig would essentially devolve into a heavy-handed, "look how clever we are", attention-gobbling stunt. But, it just didn't end up there. In fact that angle probably made it a more enjoyable and charming movie on the whole. So, well played Monsieur Hazanavicius.
I imagine, though, that the whole silent film trick was pretty darn risky. Without the right cast, it could have flopped... big time. Fortunately, Hazanavicius and crew hit a home run when filling out their casting card. Jean Dujardin seems tailor-made for the role of George Valentin with his dashing, Golden-Age of Hollywood good looks and sly expression. Likewise, Berenice Bejo was an absolute gem as the plucky sweetheart in the making Peppy Miller. I imagine it would be incredibly hard not to fall in love with her performance here. Both Dujardin and Bejo prove to be pros at the silent-film game. Both present performances rich with subtle and evocative expression; the tilt of the head or flash of an eye saying so much more than words could. The real gem of the cast- outside, of course, of Uggie the Jack Russell Terrier- however, was John Goodman. I suppose this shouldn't be much of a surprise now that I think of it- Goodman has, it would seem, always been an incredibly expressive actor (particularly in The Big Lebowski). But here, in my mind, he steals many of the scenes he's in. I really could sense the vibe Goodman was supposed to give off: a big shot studio boss with a heart of partial gold and enough slime around the edges that you feel as though you need to wash up after hanging around with him... even if you did enjoy it. And all that was revealed through facial and body expression. Expertly at that, I might add. Actually, in truth, I can't think of a single actor who fell flat in the face of the unique demands brought on by this type of movie. Does that mean that a silent flick is easier to act than a talkie? Probably not. In this case, I think it means that the casting folks did their job extremely well.
And yet, despite everything The Artist has going for it, I can't help but feel a little let down by it. I liked the movie a great deal, but I guess I was just expecting to be blown away by it... and I wasn't. This may- in part- be because one of the prevailing criticisms of the film actually rang truer than I had hoped. I was sure that the increasing number of critics and casual viewers calling the film fluff, slight, or thin was just a case of natural front-runner backlash gaining momentum. It seems like every early Best Picture candidate through the years has to fight off a wave of pre-ceremony backlash designed to either create artificial suspense and intrigue or to knock a the favorite out of pole-position. Wasn't The King's Speech knocked around a bit last year for being too "typically Oscar"? (Or something to that effect). This year, there seems to be a number of folks carrying on about how The Artist is a nice movie, but it has about as much depth as a piece of paper. I had hoped that this criticism was off the mark. And while I think it isn't as thin as many suggest, I do have to admit that the story does lack any substantial depth. It is a very much on-the-surface movie. It just is what it is. George Valetin is on the top of the world, the dawn of sound kicks in forcing the ever-prideful actor out of the spotlight and into despair, and then with a little help from his friends, George seeks a comeback. Meanwhile, Peppy Miller goes from complete unknown to Hollywood megawatt star and, all the while finds herself falling for the increasingly downtrodden George. The story goes from point A to point B to point C and that's it. It finds its path and sticks to it. Or so it seems. I actually see some subtle points being made about the ruthlessness of the early Hollywood studio system and the price and cost of pride. But the movie almost seems to make observations on these themes by accident. Squint really hard and you might see deeper meaning. Still, it's not enough for me to write off the mounting criticism. Which is unfortunate because it really is a nice movie. A really nice, enjoyable, fluffy movie.
The Bottom Line: So, I guess this all begs a question: does a movie need to dig deeper to be good? Can't it just present a really simple, really cool story in a unique and- above all- expert way? Well, yeah, I suppose there's nothing wrong with a nice but fluff-laden movie. It's just that in the case of The Artist it could have been better if it had just dug a little deeper. Just a little. The performances are there, the charm is there, the look and feel are there. So what's missing? Depth? Well, maybe. But all that means is that it isn't among the best of the best. But because it does what it does so damn well, it's hard to think of it as anything other than a really good movie.
Grade: A-
No comments:
Post a Comment