Simple but striking

Rating: 8/10 (4 March 2012)

In 1927, big film star George Valentin has an accidental encounter with Peppy Miller, as a result of which he starts her on a film career. She rises from extra through bit parts to featured parts, supporting parts and, finally, star. The camera and the public love her. On the arrival of sound, Peppy embraces it but George rejects it on artistic grounds. George's self-financed silent film fails and he loses everything in the stock market crash, while Peppy's star continues to rise.
What idiot thought that a black and white, 4:3 ratio, dialogue-free film, about (and filmed in the style of) 1920s movies, starring two unknowns, would have a chance of success? Whoever it was, it turns out they backed a winner. But does The Artist merit the Oscars it has won? I think, yes, it does. This film is a masterclass on how to tell a story using images not words. Yes, there are some caption cards, but they are few and mainly used to clarify: the story is told through performance. And while the story itself is not wildly original, the telling of it is clever and witty, using a style of storytelling which manages to be both old fashioned and fresh at the same time.
And the performances, especially Jean Dujardin's Best Actor Oscar winning performance, are simply terrific. Through the first section of the film Dujardin conveys an insouciant charm which makes his physical presence amazingly reminiscent of Gene Kelly (is it a coincidence that this story, about the birth of sound in cinema, bears comparison to Singin' In The Rain?). His descent into despair is equally well conveyed and, like his chauffeur, you just want to shout at him that he should swallow his pride.
The direction is first rate, playing with cinematic conventions when it suits the film to do so. And the music, which takes the place of a conventional soundtrack, is just right, always complementing the visuals.
The reason why this film has enjoyed its success is that it is a first rate piece of cinema.