Dr. Johnson's Dog

Rating: Null/10 (5 January 2012)

I liked this movie, but it reminded me a bit of Dr. Johnson's dog walking on its two hind legs: it was noteworthy only because it could be done at all. (The real dog in The Artist is one of the best things in the film.) Otherwise, I was principally struck by the camera work. The film seems largely true in its sets, costumes, music and, most especially, in the over-sized, operatic acting that is necessary for a silent. But the camera work is oddly, relentlessly modern. The filmmaker avoids antique devises (there was one iris-in; no wipes or dissolves). The editing is quick. There was a lot more tracking and dollying than I think would be the case in your average silent where the actors spend more time moving about in a static establishing shot.
So we are left with an odd conclusion: the filmmaker (or the producers) evidently decided that we would pay money to see a silent film only if it was not VISUALLY true to the silent era. And, after all is said and done, we get exactly what the movie is: a modern film pretending to be a silent.