The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
08-25-11, 08:37 PM
#1
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Louisville
Posts: 7,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZaYoHR57Q-A?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZaYoHR57Q-A?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Starring: Jean Dujardin (Winner of Best Actor award from Cannes); Bérénice Bejo; John Goodman; James Cromwell; Penelope Ann Miller; Missi Pyle
Looks interesting.
Starring: Jean Dujardin (Winner of Best Actor award from Cannes); Bérénice Bejo; John Goodman; James Cromwell; Penelope Ann Miller; Missi Pyle
Looks interesting.
11-07-11, 07:17 AM
#3
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
This film is getting a lot of positive buzz...the Weinsteins have picked it up and it might be in contention for some Oscars.
11-07-11, 08:15 PM
#5
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
Wow. Pretty brave move.
11-07-11, 08:39 PM
#7
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
Even though it looks to be really well done, it's ultimately just a novelty. It'll get all kinds of buzz, critics will love it, film geeks will love it, it'll win several awards, and in a year no one will remember it.
11-07-11, 09:10 PM
#9
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
It's by no means a novelty either. I don't know how that makes any sense whatsoever.
11-07-11, 09:35 PM
#10
Moderator
11-07-11, 10:08 PM
#12
DVD Talk Legend
11-07-11, 10:18 PM
#14
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near the Great Salt Lake
Posts: 1,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
Except that some silent films made 80 years ago are just as advanced as films made today. They're different than today's films, yes, but they're still incredible pieces of filmmaking and storytelling.
It's true that cinema has evolved since the 1920s - however, remember that "evolution" is not a progressive thing, it is not a movement towards some perfected endpoint. It's merely change. Indeed, film has never even moved on a single trajectory at all - rather, it moves in a lot of different directions based on the era, and each represents a different form than anything that came before or since.
Though the cinema of the first two decades of the century can appear a bit flat by today's standards, by the 1920s filmmakers had gotten a much better grasp on effective moviemaking and could make dynamic films with an incredible range of style and technique.
That is to say, there have been great cinematic storytellers since near the beginning of cinema, and the best silent filmmakers (Murnau, Lang, Epstein, Dreyer, Ozu, Sternberg, Stroheim, Naruse, Vidor, Sjostrom, Dovzhenko) were masters of cinematic technique who easily rival any of the best filmmakers of today. Those filmmakers weren't doing their best with a primitive understanding of the artform - they were making films that still hold up to the best films being made today. 80 years later and no one has improved upon Sunrise or The Wind or The Fall of the House of Usher - other equally great films have come out, yes, but they aren't superior to those older films, they merely operate in very different modes (just as films 80 years from now will be very different, stylistically and otherwise, from the films being made today.)
Yes, some technologies have improved, some techniques have changed - but it's not as if everything being made today is somehow a culmination of and improvement on everything that's come before. The films being made today aren't a culmination of all the positive technological and storytelling advances of previous eras - rather, they emphasize certain aspects while neglecting others. And those aspects that are emphasized aren't necessarily more "relevant" to our times - they're just different. Films today focus on different things, tell stories in different ways (ways that aren't inherently better than the methods of 80 years ago.)
Which is all to say - films of the silent era still have an enormous amount to offer us, and a silent film made today isn't a step backward to a more primitive form.
Sorry, but the whole "film is getting better and better over time" argument gets on my nerves, as it represents a basic misunderstanding of storytelling and art, as well as a form of chronological snobbery.
[/rant]
11-07-11, 10:40 PM
#15
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
[engage rant mode]
Except that some silent films made 80 years ago are just as advanced as films made today. They're different than today's films, yes, but they're still incredible pieces of filmmaking and storytelling.
It's true that cinema has evolved since the 1920s - however, remember that "evolution" is not a progressive thing, it is not a movement towards some perfected endpoint. It's merely change. Indeed, film has never even moved on a single trajectory at all - rather, it moves in a lot of different directions based on the era, and each represents a different form than anything that came before or since.
Though the cinema of the first two decades of the century can appear a bit flat by today's standards, by the 1920s filmmakers had gotten a much better grasp on effective moviemaking and could make dynamic films with an incredible range of style and technique.
That is to say, there have been great cinematic storytellers since near the beginning of cinema, and the best silent filmmakers (Murnau, Lang, Epstein, Dreyer, Ozu, Sternberg, Stroheim, Naruse, Vidor, Sjostrom, Dovzhenko) were masters of cinematic technique who easily rival any of the best filmmakers of today. Those filmmakers weren't doing their best with a primitive understanding of the artform - they were making films that still hold up to the best films being made today. 80 years later and no one has improved upon Sunrise or The Wind or The Fall of the House of Usher - other equally great films have come out, yes, but they aren't superior to those older films, they merely operate in very different modes (just as films 80 years from now will be very different, stylistically and otherwise, from the films being made today.)
Yes, some technologies have improved, some techniques have changed - but it's not as if everything being made today is somehow a culmination of and improvement on everything that's come before. The films being made today aren't a culmination of all the positive technological and storytelling advances of previous eras - rather, they emphasize certain aspects while neglecting others. And those aspects that are emphasized aren't necessarily more "relevant" to our times - they're just different. Films today focus on different things, tell stories in different ways (ways that aren't inherently better than the methods of 80 years ago.)
Which is all to say - films of the silent era still have an enormous amount to offer us, and a silent film made today isn't a step backward to a more primitive form.
Sorry, but the whole "film is getting better and better over time" argument gets on my nerves, as it represents a basic misunderstanding of storytelling and art, as well as a form of chronological snobbery.
[/rant]
Except that some silent films made 80 years ago are just as advanced as films made today. They're different than today's films, yes, but they're still incredible pieces of filmmaking and storytelling.
It's true that cinema has evolved since the 1920s - however, remember that "evolution" is not a progressive thing, it is not a movement towards some perfected endpoint. It's merely change. Indeed, film has never even moved on a single trajectory at all - rather, it moves in a lot of different directions based on the era, and each represents a different form than anything that came before or since.
Though the cinema of the first two decades of the century can appear a bit flat by today's standards, by the 1920s filmmakers had gotten a much better grasp on effective moviemaking and could make dynamic films with an incredible range of style and technique.
That is to say, there have been great cinematic storytellers since near the beginning of cinema, and the best silent filmmakers (Murnau, Lang, Epstein, Dreyer, Ozu, Sternberg, Stroheim, Naruse, Vidor, Sjostrom, Dovzhenko) were masters of cinematic technique who easily rival any of the best filmmakers of today. Those filmmakers weren't doing their best with a primitive understanding of the artform - they were making films that still hold up to the best films being made today. 80 years later and no one has improved upon Sunrise or The Wind or The Fall of the House of Usher - other equally great films have come out, yes, but they aren't superior to those older films, they merely operate in very different modes (just as films 80 years from now will be very different, stylistically and otherwise, from the films being made today.)
Yes, some technologies have improved, some techniques have changed - but it's not as if everything being made today is somehow a culmination of and improvement on everything that's come before. The films being made today aren't a culmination of all the positive technological and storytelling advances of previous eras - rather, they emphasize certain aspects while neglecting others. And those aspects that are emphasized aren't necessarily more "relevant" to our times - they're just different. Films today focus on different things, tell stories in different ways (ways that aren't inherently better than the methods of 80 years ago.)
Which is all to say - films of the silent era still have an enormous amount to offer us, and a silent film made today isn't a step backward to a more primitive form.
Sorry, but the whole "film is getting better and better over time" argument gets on my nerves, as it represents a basic misunderstanding of storytelling and art, as well as a form of chronological snobbery.
[/rant]
"METROPOLIS"
11-07-11, 10:52 PM
#16
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
Silent films have an extremely unique charm to them that films from other eras lack. Even films from the 30's and beyond can feel dated but something about silent films makes them timeless.
Oh and Louise Brooks is the most beautiful woman ever to put on film. And Renee Falconetti's performance in Joan of Arc is probably one of the all-time best acting performances. And then there's Charlie Chaplin... oh and Buster Keaton... I'll stop and just say that I love silent films very much.
Oh and Louise Brooks is the most beautiful woman ever to put on film. And Renee Falconetti's performance in Joan of Arc is probably one of the all-time best acting performances. And then there's Charlie Chaplin... oh and Buster Keaton... I'll stop and just say that I love silent films very much.
11-07-11, 11:24 PM
#17
Senior Member
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
This is screening at the Denver International Film Festival. I really want to see it but I am not willing to pay $35 to see it. I've already dropped over $200 to see movies and have to draw the line somewhere. I will catch it on dvd eventually.
11-08-11, 07:21 AM
#18
DVD Talk Legend
11-08-11, 01:05 PM
#19
Moderator
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
damn Denver's Film Fest tix are THAT much - get out of here?? 'The Artist' tix at last weekend's Virginia Film Festival were under 15 bucks
11-08-11, 11:36 PM
#20
Senior Member
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
Tickets are 13-15 for non members for most all of the screenings, but this is one of the few Red Carpet screenings that they are having at Opera House.
11-29-11, 07:26 PM
#21
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
Absolutely loved it! It brings you in and never lets up. Some tragic stuff is there, but it's a wonder to watch.
The dog is amazing! I usually only say this about female actors because they can use their facial expressions to greater effect, but Jean Dujardin has such a wonderfully expressive face - he's great.
The dog is amazing! I usually only say this about female actors because they can use their facial expressions to greater effect, but Jean Dujardin has such a wonderfully expressive face - he's great.
11-30-11, 12:09 AM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kingwood, TX
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
Tonight I had the opportunity to watch it again after having seen it a few weeks back. I was worried that the film wouldn't hold up on a second viewing, but I was still grinning ear to ear the entire time.
Here's a quick summary plus a link to my full review.
"The Artist is a niche film that I hope catches the attention of those who are looking to enjoy great cinema instead of just an entertaining movie. It’s intoxicating mixture of past with present technology makes it a cinematic wonder and is all the proof I need to know that as bad as some movies are there’s still magic to be found."
http://insidepulse.com/2011/11/13/the-artist-review/
Here's a quick summary plus a link to my full review.
"The Artist is a niche film that I hope catches the attention of those who are looking to enjoy great cinema instead of just an entertaining movie. It’s intoxicating mixture of past with present technology makes it a cinematic wonder and is all the proof I need to know that as bad as some movies are there’s still magic to be found."
http://insidepulse.com/2011/11/13/the-artist-review/
11-30-11, 11:57 AM
#23
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,052
Received 168 Likes
on
126 Posts
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
Has anyone seen the TV ads for this? It makes no mention of the fact that it's a silent film. I can't help but think that's a bad idea. It's better to sell it on its novelty than to hide the fact and suffer blowback by the audience when they get there and discover it's silent.
11-30-11, 12:13 PM
#24
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: The Artist - A silent film released in 2011
^
I'm sure the vast majority of people who would even go to see this will either already know or will be pleasantly surprised by the revelation.
I'm sure the vast majority of people who would even go to see this will either already know or will be pleasantly surprised by the revelation.