An obnoxious stunt film

Rating: 4/10 (27 April 2014)

In a modern age of cinema, directors sometimes opt to go with black and white for artistic reasons, and it often works for those films. I rewatched Schindler's List after seeing The Artist for the first time yesterday, and the 1993 Best Picture winner was totally worthy of the honour. A silent film for the sake of "artistic" reasons, on the other hand, you pretty much never see, until this. There's a reason we stopped making silent films, after all, as it's generally a lower form of art. A film, at least for me, is usually defined by its dialogue, and an actor by his/her delivery. And it's the way drama is supposed to be. If you went to a Shakespeare play at the Globe Theatre, would you be able to hear the actors, or would you just see them mouth their lines, occasionally with cards held up indicating some of what they said?
The Artist explores a cliché concept, a silent actor struggling to adjust to sound, that we've seen done before, and better, with Sunset Blvd. (1950) and Singin' in the Rain (1952). This one is simply distinguished by an obnoxious stunt, being silent (or mostly silent), with the usual problems that come with it. Most of the dialogue is not only inaudible, it's not written on the cards, leaving you to guess what it is, unless you're HAL 9000. And to tell a story not worth retelling. What was the point of this film, aside from anything we hadn't seen before from Sunset Blvd. or Singin' in the Rain? Just to see the cute little doggie? A low point among Best Picture Oscar-winners, to claim this is better than The Descendants or A Separation baffles me.