It's A Novelty Film, Folks

Rating: 7/10 (18 March 2012)

Some reviewers have called this movie pretentious. I, however, never got the impression that it tried to convey any deep meaning, or make the protagonist some tragic hero. It was "artsy" in its use of black and white photography, old movie clichés, dialog panels, etc. to convey the era. But I got the idea that this was meant to show that the protagonist was only able to work in that medium and was unable to do things the new way (as indicated by the dream sequence where suddenly the world makes noise but he still cannot vocalize.) The protagonist is somewhat sympathetic, but is it any fault other than his own he cannot make the transition to sound movies? Does his wife get the blame for his failed marriage? He ends up relying on others (including his dog) to save him from his problems.
The story could have been told as a conventional movie with color and sound. But the idea was to deliberately produce it as it was, more as a novelty than a great story, and the movie's novelty value was undoubtedly the reason it has garnered acclaim. It was certainly better than Mel Brooks' "Silent Movie".