Skip to main content

Why the Coming Backlash Against 'The Artist' is a Good Thing For You

The Artist

First Posted: 01/06/12 03:17 PM ET Updated: 01/09/12 10:48 AM ET

"Repeat after me for the 17th or 37th time -- 'The Artist' is all about re-creation, backward visitation and reflective surfaces," wrote an irate Jeffrey Wells after 'The Artist' won Best Picture from the New York Film Critics Circle on Tuesday. "It possesses and radiates nothing that is truly its own, except for a desire to give entertainment-seekers a nice pleasant time. And that's not nearly enough to warrant a Best Picture prize. Shame on the NYFCC in this respect ... shame!" A movie that wants to give "entertainment-seekers" a "nice pleasant time" winning an award for Best Picture from the NYFCC? That's unheard of! (Or not.) Regardless, Wells -- who currently has 'The Artist' ranked fifth on his Best Picture charts over at GoldDerby.com and doesn't dislike the film -- is far from being alone in his head-scratching over the deafening Oscar buzz for Michel Hazanavicius's silent-film curio. Which means the backlash to the charming indie -- about a silent film star coming to terms with his dwindling fame -- has already begun, less than one week after its release.

Make no mistake: 'The Artist' is doing well financially. Through Nov. 28, the film has earned a very respectable $224,366 from four theaters in New York and Los Angeles. Assuming $13 ticket prices, that means just over 17,000 people have paid to see 'The Artist.' Congratulations, 17,000 people! You know the film is heartfelt, sentimental, sweet and funny -- a throwback that honors classic Hollywood conventions in a new-old way. The Oscar heat surrounding 'The Artist' -- and Hazanavicius, as well as stars Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo and ... Uggie the dog! -- is deserved and very real. After all, in a year with few favorites, 'The Artist' could be the one film that everyone winds up agreeing on; it appeals to the old Academy voters who want to remember the past, and the new Academy voters who want to honor a young mind like Hazanavicius, the 44-year-old director behind the hipster-approved 'OSS 117' films. It's like 'The King's Speech' and 'The Social Network' in one movie! Good luck overcoming that combination, 'War Horse' and 'The Descendants'!

So, how can you avoid being wildly disappointed by 'The Artist' when you see it at some point during the next three months? (And if you like movies, you will see it; this thing is basically locked in for seven or more Oscar nominations.) Simple: by reading the backlash! Wallow in it, if you can. Since debuting at the Cannes Film Festival in May, 'The Artist' has been hailed by critics as a marvel to the point of near unanimity. That writers like Wells and some other brave souls are coming out against the film's Oscar bona fides is just what needed to happen for general audiences. After all, if decide to see 'The Artist' after reading its fawning reviews, and then realize it's only ("only") a silent film with a story as old as Hollywood itself, you'll probably be pretty upset. (File that under: There's nothing worse than inflated expectations.) Now, you might plunk down money to see 'The Artist' with a bit of trepidation. That's good! It alleviates some pressure.

"Americans are more relaxed," said Dujardin in a recent interview with Moviefone about the film's box-office potential in America. "Films are a spectacle [to Americans]. Entertainment. Here, people comment live. They laugh. They live it. That's the best gift you can have." That, and some well-timed backlash.

FOLLOW MOVIEFONE

"Repeat after me for the 17th or 37th time -- 'The Artist' is all about re-creation, backward visitation and reflective surfaces," wrote an irate Jeffrey Wells after 'The Artist' won Best Picture from...
"Repeat after me for the 17th or 37th time -- 'The Artist' is all about re-creation, backward visitation and reflective surfaces," wrote an irate Jeffrey Wells after 'The Artist' won Best Picture from...
Filed by Christopher Rosen  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sistagirl Young
08:06 PM on 02/10/2012
To each his own obviously. I kept wonderin' it was biographical. I read where Ronald Colman didn't want to do talkies. He thought his voice wouldn't cut the mustard so to speak. I can't imagine him thinkin' such a thing. But it obviously was his perception. I can't imagine how he arrived at such a ridiclous conclusion. With that said, was the implication that DeJardin's character had a voice that the public wouldn't accept? I liked it as a love story, though. But I don't think it was Oscar winnin'. But like eveyone else this is just an opinion. Mine. Life.
09:19 PM on 02/04/2012
I love silent movies. I am looking forward to see this movie.
05:46 PM on 02/03/2012
I saw "The Artist" yesterday and was a little apprehensive before the movie began. I had such high expectations, I was certain I'd be disappointed. I WAS NOT! I left the theatre feeling I had been wonderfully entertained. I actually felt good! I found myself being drawn from emotion to emotion during the film -- first smiling from ear to ear, then shedding a tear, then smiling again. I also found myself using my imagination during the film, as I suppose my parents did in the days of radio serials. This is not just a movie, it's a wonderful experience!
10:35 PM on 02/02/2012
I loved this movie. At its heart, it is a very simple, entertaining film and I walked away from it with a smile on my face, but its also deeper. Who can't relate to the feeling of being left behind and not valued, of the world moving too fast for one to catch up with, of having to dust off the old self and reinvent a new one? I think all of these themes are relevant to today and made more so by the use of an old movie genre.

I recently saw "The Descendants" and while I thought it was very good, I felt there was more hype with that movie than with "The Artist".
11:00 PM on 01/30/2012
This movie was a waste of film, money and a movie review.
12:19 AM on 01/29/2012
The problem is necessarily the movie. I liked it like. Just like others, I thought it was simply entertaining. The problem is the academy awards. They aren't always good at choosing the right films, actors, directors, and so on. The same with the Tony's, the Grammy's, the Emmy's, name it. They all, just like the entertainment they are awarding, are entertainment themselves. These shows are good TV, selling advertising space. If they didn't choose the most popular or shockingly unworthy films of the year, the Academy Awards wouldn't be in business. This is why you can almost always predict the movies that are going to get nominated and win. Don't come down on the movies, cause it's really the Oscar's doing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johnny Carlson
02:46 PM on 01/27/2012
It IS new because most Americans have NEVER taken time or an interest in watching the old Silent movies. They have no idea what watching a silent movie was all about. How silly that what is very new to the last few decades would not be worth seeing. I realize that many Americans do not know how to sit and be quiet and appreciate art -- and the scenes are artistic. Perhaps we shouldn’t take the time to watch the recent Civil War documentary, or the one on Baseball - “because it isn’t new” Give me a break.

The addiction to TV sitcoms and reality shows that feature rude, selfish people may be entertainment, but is not contemplative art. One liners on the sitcom and continual insults to each other on much of reality TV is dumb. I’ve heard people say “why should I watch a foreign film and have to read subtitles when there are so many good films in English. Well, how about because something different might be worth sitting through -- unless of course you are illiterate, which is fine. Don’t try any new foods either. The person who wrote the above is wrong and should just sit there in their wrongness and be wrong.
05:05 PM on 01/27/2012
Hmm. I don't think anyone said anything along the lines of what you're suggesting. Also, I'd argue that the difference between something being "new" and something being "ignored" are quite different. In my case, I'm simply saying that it's one thing for the film to be enjoyed, but another for it to be honored with awards by industry voters. This is the difference between public "viewing" and academy "voting". It's great that Americans are being introduced to silent film, of course, it would be absurd to suggest otherwise. It is, however, also absurd to hold up one example from 2011 as a grand achievement in the medium if you've never had the patience to sit through a silent in the past. I'm all for viewing films and studying them, but that doesn't mean that something using history accomplishes all it should. As someone who teaches film fairly often, I can tell you there are incongruous attitudes between public response to "The Artist" and my students who have been spending time looking at Fritz Lang, Murnau, and the backstage MGM musicals of the day. When compared to the films it mimics, "The Artist" is a shadow.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, in short. It's silly to suggest that any one of the literate individuals here is saying not to watch something because it "isn't new" and is perhaps more ridiculous to compare "The Artist" with a Ken Burns documentary.

This is why I rarely comment on sites like this...
11:35 AM on 01/27/2012
Count me among the disappointed, after all the hype. It was a mildly pleasant diversion, but in no way deserving of a Best Picture or Best Actor award. Not an original idea in its head.
04:02 PM on 01/26/2012
The thing is that this film isn't something different. It's a silent film very much in the tradition of the old silent films. Yet, it isn't ground breaking as far as silent films go. In fact, Chaplain's silent films are far more gutsy and far more groundbreaking. The same can be said for a film such as "Nosferatu." Now, "The Tree of Life" actually did something different and modern with silence, which makes it a much more "artsy" and intriguing film. Don't get me wrong, "The Artist" was fun, but how can you think of giving it an award for best picture when it's entire premise is driven by novelty and hasn't done anything new with that novelty? I can name five movies I have seen this year that are much more interesting than "The Artist." I can also name five silent movies I have seen that are much more interesting. Not exactly best picture stuff. However, if a film like Titanic can win best picture, anything can.
11:52 AM on 01/27/2012
We're on the same page.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johnny Carlson
06:19 PM on 01/27/2012
Patrick2574, you have got a lot of response to your comment. I get what you are saying, but it might just be a matter of taste. Some people adored the film, some were confused by the hoopla.
photo
SemperVeritas
Truth be told
03:21 AM on 01/26/2012
"The Artist" is a superb bit of filmmaking from everyone involved.
The audience applauded long and loud at the end, and I have not
experienced that in many many years.
02:27 AM on 01/25/2012
Jeffrey Wells is probably one of those people who think the vastly overrated George Clooney and Brad Pitt are at the forefront of great actors. Sorry, neither of these emperors has any clothes.

"The Artist" was wonderful.
09:35 AM on 01/24/2012
I don't know what your point was. It's been a long time since I enjoyed a movie as much as I did "The Artist" and Jean Dujardin is a joy!
02:28 AM on 01/25/2012
I agree!
02:48 PM on 01/22/2012
What?
05:38 PM on 01/18/2012
Actually, I've been calling it an "art" film for people who find actual art uncomfortable, in my experience, the same people who "didn't get" "Tree of Life" are the same who love "The Artist" solely because it's "simple" (Funny, because Tree of Life utilized 'silence' in ways that were beautiful and thought-provoking...it's a modern day silent). For my money, The Artist truly was a dreadfully overrated novelty that achieves nothing worthy of canonization by the Academy. I'm shocked Hollywood loves it as much as they do, as to me it signifies a reliance on nostalgia, a lack of forward-thinking, and mindless appropriation. It would be a true shame if it won Best Picture in a year when we have so many actual gutsy risks and influential bits of filmmaking....

Also, seriously guys, if you love Uggie so much just go google "stupid pet tricks" and nominate whatever YouTube vid you come up with for best picture...

So, VIVA THE BACKLASH!
photo
SemperVeritas
Truth be told
03:19 AM on 01/26/2012
You are wrong.
11:21 AM on 01/27/2012
This is film is fun, it is simple and it does rely on nostalgia. What is wrong with any of those things? You say it shows a lack of forward thinking, but there are far too few film-makers with enough guts to release this type of film in the 21st century (I will call it reverse - forward thinking). I'm 30, have never seen a silent film in my life, but this was probably the most refreshing movie I have seen in years. Best picture of 2011? Out of those that were nominated, it would certainly get my vote. But to be sure... I have some catching up to do.
11:49 AM on 01/27/2012
Don't get me wrong: there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fun, nostalgic film and, you're right, there aren't many filmmakers willing to try a silent film at this point in time (though Guy Maddin has been doing it for many years, with really surprising results). My problems with the film really stem from the amount of attention it's getting this awards season. It's one thing to love a film like this (though I clearly wasn't impressed, I have loved other timewarped nostalgia pictures like "Down with Love"), quite another to actually hold it up in a time-honored place as the film most representative of its art form in 2011. In my opinion (and I must say, I love being told i'm "wrong" on something so subjective), the Oscars should reward artists that are working within their medium to accomplish something new, to tell a story that hasn't been told and tell it well.

"The Artist" offends me in large part because it's pastiche: it's something everyone with a silent film familiarity has seen before and seen accomplished more successfully. That's the kicker. As such, it seems tremendously silly to recognize it with awards historically so prestigious when there are so many other truly bold, beautiful works of cinema that could have been in the running.
11:49 AM on 01/27/2012
Yes, for what it's worth, "The Artist" was quick and light and nominally entertaining. As someone who has watched a great many silents, I can tell you that I appreciated what it was trying to do, but that it failed for me in a great many respects. Amazingly, in the best picture category the cinematic love letter worked into "Hugo" functioned more efficiently for me as an ode to silent film. It captured the beauty and simplicity of early filmmaking while simultaneously creating something new and telling a story we hadn't heard before. "Hugo" makes us want desperately to revisit and bask in the artistry of those pioneers, and the depth of feeling in Scorsese's understanding, love, and obsession with film is immediately apparent. "The Artist" merely makes us curious.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
poozybear
I'll take coffee. Tea makes people bitter.
11:37 AM on 01/12/2012
I'm an industry awards voter and was fortunate enough to receive a screener copy of this film. On first watch I experienced the "wild disappoint" that they talk of in this article. It's original ad very cute, but I didn't see it as awards material. On second watch, I got what all the fuss is about. That said, many who pay today's outrageous theater prices will come away with that WTF feeling. This is very much an "art" film, black and white, and yes, it is a silent film. Very clever, though. And if you love animals, Uggie the dog absolutely steals the show. If you're up for something completely different, go see it!
photo
SemperVeritas
Truth be told
03:24 AM on 01/26/2012
This film MUST be seen with others in a theatre. It loses all its charm
when viewed on a TV screen or computer.