Engaging and affecting but unoriginal

Rating: 6/10 (5 October 2014)

Okay, so it's paying homage to silent films. But to really do that, you have to step up to the task and outdo the genre or it doesn't work. Just as Scream was better than most of the horror films it was mocking and Singin' in the Rain was possibly the best musical ever made. That's why they worked - they respected the past and improved on it. Speaking of which, this film was very reminiscent of Singin' in the Rain - to the point of feeling like a weaker version that made me want to watch the original. Much of the story and tone overlap. But of course, Singin' in the Rain came out 59 years earlier, had colour and singing and dancing and was hilarious and clever and still managed to pay homage to silent films.
Jean Dujardin is very comically talented, a really good and charismatic actor (he coincidentally looks and smiles a lot like Gene Kelly). Bérénice Bejo was also very good and seemed to suit her role. But The Artist lacks a strong pull of its own. It's not particularly insightful - you learn nothing new about cinema. It doesn't make you think more deeply about the way we view films. The ending is a bit anticlimactic and too weak to make any kind of meaningful statement.
There are quite a few hilarious moments, almost solely due to Dujardin. His timing and natural facial expressions are joyful to watch. The movie is quite engaging but that's largely because it's well-shot and looks nice, not due to a sweeping or profound or original story. The music is generally good but is still mere imitation and doesn't breathe new air into the style it's mimicking.
It's ironic that The Artist reminds me of how unnecessary most dialogue is in films in general. Most films are full of vapid dialogue to an obscene degree. This has almost none and you can easily follow it and connect with the characters. So many movies would be better with all the talking cut out. The Artist believes in the magic of movies. It's very romantic (in the way that it's filmed). My eyes were glued to the screen much of the time. It understands the power of a silhouette, a gesture, a smile, a moment. But those are naturally powerful. It just takes a little guts to stick to them without trying to get flashy. But a great film still needs to say something with those things.
There were a handful of times where it neglected to show what a character was saying - I couldn't tell at all and watching a person talk at length with no sound is incredibly dull and pointless. In those instances, they should have either "spoken" non-verbally (with posture and expressions but no speech) or, if it was so important, the words should have been shown!
Unoriginality was the main weakness here. I immediately recognised the music from Vertigo which was casually used for what felt like 10 or 20 minutes. That music was written for another film. I was thinking about Vertigo and how good it is and how I wanted to watch it. That's a bad sign. Yes, Bernard Herrmann based his themes for Vertigo on Tristan und Isolde, but that was only his starting point. He didn't simply use it as it was. Plus, that was an interesting and meaningful artistic choice that he made. Here, using Vertigo's music was distracting, inappropriate and harmfully unoriginal. Yes the images and music affected me but put nice music to any vaguely emotional imagery and you get the same effect. I can't believe a film that does something like this could win an Academy Award. Imagine a film winning Best Picture which has 10 minutes of dialogue taken directly from a Tarantino movie. Music is its own language which deserves just as much respect.
Another small scene was a direct rip-off of Citizen Kane. Again, it wasn't a homage because it wasn't as good. It reminded me of the other film and how much better it is. Raiders of the Lost Ark pays homage to earlier adventure mediums successfully, it was the best adventure film ever made - it earned the right to play with the genre. In contrast, unfortunately, The Artist's most powerful scenes are when it blatantly imitates earlier films, following the existing tropes without adding anything. They're nice but not as powerful as their ancestors.
It's not anywhere near as funny or poignant as Chaplin's or Keaton's films. It's not as provocative or beautiful or haunting as many other silent films I've seen. It won't be influential. It makes no profound statement about silent films or life or anything else. However it is quite charming and heart-warming and enjoyable. It's a good movie. It reminds you of how powerful films can be - to make you cry or laugh within seconds.
It'd be really great to see Dujardin in a comedy with an original story, a role which uses all his skills. He's extremely likable and funny although clearly not a dancer (he did very well but I could tell). It'd also be great to see a new silent film which isn't about silent films but is simply silent because that's still a powerful and valid way to make new movies.