Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

"The artist": overhyped?


Recommended Posts

I don't think it was overhyped at all...I just watched it tonight for the first time and LOVED it. If you haven't seen it, you need to give it a chance before passing judgement on it. It's a wonderful tribute to not only silent films but many other different classic Hollywood elements. A LOT of very clever little things in it, and Jean Dusjardin deserved winning his Oscar, because he's terrific in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't? You have to!!! it's great because it's not trying to compete with classic films, it's just very lovely to watch, It's the best time I've had in a movie theatre in my life, I went alone and i was curious to see it and it just keeps getting more and more and more intriguing.

 

And It's just this great story where you get to go inside the film industry and really get to know this actor, it feels like you're getting this chance to go inside their lives, it's a great experience.

 

I went to see it after i saw the oscars because I saw the commercials but didn't understand what it was about and in the Oscars they explained it a little bit and that's when I was really excited to go see it. And wow i just had a really great time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely thought it was overhyped. I liked it, but wouldnt rave to anyone about it. And all that hoopla over the dog.Nothing special in his antics. Was really annoyed they ripped off the theme to Vertigo.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've yet to see it, also. But after reading some of the posts here, it seems that much might have been overlooked. I wouldn't expect any movie made today in the fashion of the actual silent movies would do much to catch the attention or favor of today's movie audiences. Consider the "Swing" fad of the mid '90's. Any of us who are familiar with and fans of the actual Swing music from the '30's KNOW that the '90's "ressurection" wasn't a true representation. But it WAS kind of nice to see a young music listening audience learn that more could be done with music than what was being offered by Green Day or Eminem. In movie-going days gone by, it was no big deal to see an epic like *Ben Hur* or *Lawrence of Arabia* . THESE days, movie goers have de-evolved into complaining if a movie runs over 90 minutes. I know guys who are now in their 30's whose tastes haven't changed since the 8th grade. They think that Adam Sandler and Will Ferrill are the pinnacle of comedy "genius". A thirtysomething man I know keeps referring to the *Transformer* movies as "excellent". The one poster was correct in stating that many of the CGI explosions help to keep them awake. In a musical context, I have the same opinion about a plethora of special effects used in concerts. My ex's kid brother tried to tell me about a concert he went to once. I asked him if the band he went to see played well. He went on and on about the effects. They had flash pods, laser lights, pyrotechnics attached to their guitars, etc. When I finally cornered him on whether or not they SOUDED good, he simply replied, "Oh, yeah, I GUESS so".

 

 

Which now brings me to CGI in movies. If done right, they could be a huge asset. As long as they're used to represent what couldn't be done otherwise. But when CGI is misused, to me it's an annoying distraction. For example, if one wanted to show the skyline of 1918 New York City, CGI can accomplish this much quicker and cheaper these days than matte painting. I don't think there's any city in Canada that resembles it. So don't dismiss CGI out of hand. But DO dismiss it's overuse for gratuity only.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And anyway, what movie ISN'T over hyped these days? Fast food joints even offer lisenced toys from movies that have yet to be released. Other companies have movie "tie-ins" in their commercials. It's gotten ridiculous.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Aly_M wrote:}{quote}Hi I just wanted to ask people, maybe I am alone in this, but in what I've seen of the artist ( the film with all the oscar noms) it totally turns me off.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think part of the problem is what you just said in your opening sentence. Wouldn't it have been easier to just see the movie before starting a thread saying "...what I've seen of The Artist..."? For example, the part where you talk about the dancing...if you had bothered to see the movie, you would noticed that takes place in the last minute of the movie and occurs in the early sound era.

 

I've seen the movie and posted a review of the video in the DVD forum here on the TCM Message Board:

 

"The Artist" is about as charming and innocent a movie as you will come across in these 2010s. It is effective yet simple in this story of a silent film star and the young newcomer he helps, and when his career is wiped off the face of the earth, her star is ascending. It's sort of a new/old version of A Star Is Born, but without the depressing drama of that 1937/1954/1976 story. The cast is wonderfully charming, and the quality with which they captured Hollywood of the silent/early sound era is astounding. (With one small problem, The Jazz Singer was 1927, not 1929. It seems obvious they said 1929 so they could combine it with the stock market crash that year.)

 

And for classic film fans, no, you are not imagining you are hearing Bernard Herrmann's Love Theme from Vertigo in a lengthy piece near the end of The Artist. That is it.

 

While I really enjoyed the film, I don't feel it was worthy of the Best Picture Oscar. I still think that should have gone to another film about the early days of cinema, Hugo.

 

On the video front, I really want to applaud the producers/director for presenting it in the 4:3 format. It is perfect for the subject matter. The black and white video is superb, and in one of the documentaries on the disc I am glad one of the behind-the-scenes shorts talked briefly about how odd choices of color for the clothes were important because they had to look right in black and white. So many people forget about that when they think colorizing an old blank and white movie is okay. The colors they add aren't likely what the true colors were used for black and white film. (Did you know that in the 1950s, George Reeves' Superman costume for the black and white TV episodes was actually gray and brown, not red and blue?)

 

The movie is a tribute to old movies. And I am delighted in the way they transformed parts of current Los Angeles into the L.A. of the 1920s. One of the great locations they used was the Bradbury Building in downtown L.A. Another is the Orpheum Theater.

 

Don't knock the film until you've seen it.

 

There's also one thing I did not mention in the review but meant to include. I've seen plenty of movies like A Star Is Born about an actor falling out of favor, but when I saw The Artist, for the very first time I felt I was living the experience with him what it was like being the star of the lot and then seeing what he had vanish. You saw and felt his downturn step by step, which he still handled with dignity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Aly_M wrote:}{quote}Hi I just wanted to ask people, maybe I am alone in this, but in what I've seen of the artist ( the film with all the oscar noms) it totally turns me off. It looks way too stylized for one thing and I don't think it is doing any sort of tribute to classic films at all. Simply taking the gloss of classic film era and re-imagining it for today's audiences who aren't interested in learning the true classics.

> Also, I am suprised no one has pointed out that the subplot is exactly like a star is born.

> Frankly I don't see the purpose of making a silent film today and if they are trying to do a tribute to silents, why are they making it a musical? Who heard of a silent musical? They did not do tap dance routines like that in silents. It just really annoys me, the whole film. Is there anyone out there who is anything other than rapturous about "the Artist"?

> AM

You're expressing an incredibly close-minded opinion here...they made a silent film for ARTISTIC reasons, and as an homage to that era. The "subplot" isn't just a reference to A Star Is Born...there's references to many other classic movies in the plot. "A silent musical"? Excuse you, but it's NOT a musical...you also obviously weren't paying attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Krieger, you got it exactly right. Except it isn't a case of his not paying attention, he had nothing but a film clip to go by, I would expect.

 

And you are absolutely correct in that it is an homage. Basically, the character is a Douglas Fairbanks-type of actor. That's more than made clear when they used an actual film sequence from the 1920 "The Mark of Zorro" but had a closeup of him as Zorro. I loved that moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}Krieger, you got it exactly right. Except it isn't a case of his not paying attention, he had nothing but a film clip to go by, I would expect.

>

> And you are absolutely correct in that it is an homage. Basically, the character is a Douglas Fairbanks-type of actor. That's more than made clear when they used an actual film sequence from the 1920 "The Mark of Zorro" but had a closeup of him as Zorro. I loved that moment.

I thought that was a recreation and not the actual 1920 film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

filmlover, a few posts down you said ( amongst several other things):

 

"...While I really enjoyed the film, I don't feel it was worthy of the Best Picture Oscar. I still think that should have gone to another film about the early days of cinema, *Hugo.*"

 

Yes ! Finally somebody says that ! I happened to see both *The Artist* and *Hugo* over the same weekend ( not by design, just worked out that way), and while I enjoyed them both very much, I felt there was no comparison between the two in terms of which was the better film.

 

 

This is not in any way to belittle *The Artist*; but I cannot believe that it won "Best Picture" over the wonderful Martin Scorses creation. Now, I don't really put a lot of stock into the whole Oscar thing anyway, everyone knows that some films that win are fogotten a year later, while other truly outstanding pictures often don't even get nominated.

 

 

There is so much in *Hugo* to enjoy, to think about, to marvel at. And I'm someone who normally doesn't even like films that use CG effects, in fact usually I detest them. But Scorsese and his team prove with *Hugo* that it's all about how you use the technology.

 

 

*Hugo* the film is based on the children's book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, by Brian Selznick ( published 2007). I must admit, I have not as yet read it, but I should. Children's books often capture not only a sense of wonder and magic absent from so-called adult fiction, but also great truths.

 

 

I really recommend *Hugo* not only to anyone who loves old movies, silent films, and the concept of film preservation, but also to anyone who is moved by any artistic statement of genuine wonder and love for art and the people who make it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently saw HUGO...and also loved that film...but IMHO that's the movie which was "overhyped". Not to belittle it on a creative or entertainment way...it's an amazing movie...but I feel that HUGO's reputation was overrated a bit. Simply because it was Scorsese and all that, people seemed to think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I feel that THE ARTIST's reputation was quite well-deserved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, krieger, it was *The Artist* that won the best picture Oscar, not *Hugo*. In fact, as I recall, *Hugo* didn't even get many nominations in any category ( ok, a few, but not as many as it deserved.)

And we all know how much "hype" an Oscar win can generate.

 

Not to gush, but I think *Hugo* had some beautiful and profound things to say, not only about the value of art, but about how a person finds their place in the world.

Although I liked *The Artist* very much, I don't think it had a "message" that connected with me the way *Hugo* did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}I dunno, krieger, it was *The Artist* that won the best picture Oscar, not *Hugo*. In fact, as I recall, *Hugo* didn't even get many nominations in any category ( ok, a few, but not as many as it deserved.)

> And we all know how much "hype" an Oscar win can generate.

Excuse me for saying this, MissW, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

First of all, this has nothing to do with whether one picture or another won the Oscar...I never even suggested such a thing or whether it was relevant to my opinion.

Secondly, HUGO received 11 nominations, and won 5 of those categories. THE ARTIST had 10 nominations, and also won in 5 of those categories.

My comment with the word "hype" refers to how those films were publicized BEFORE the Oscars, not afterward.

 

Learn your facts before making suppositions like that.

 

 

*[The Artist|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=3&BSFilmID=39129]*

 

La Petite Reine/Studio 37/La Classe Américaine/JD Prod/France 3 Cinéma/Jouror Productions/uFilm Production; The Weinstein Company. [France]

[2011 (84th)|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSFromYear=84] *

 

[ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1553&BSFromYear=84] -- [Jean Dujardin|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49112] {"George Valentin"}

 

[ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1557&BSFromYear=84] -- [bérénice Bejo|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49125] {"Peppy Miller"}

 

[ART DIRECTION|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1558&BSFromYear=84] -- [Production Design: Laurence Bennett; Set Decoration: Robert Gould|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49135]

 

[CINEMATOGRAPHY|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1562&BSFromYear=84] -- [Guillaume Schiffman|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49140]

*

 

[COSTUME DESIGN|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1565&BSFromYear=84] -- [Mark Bridges|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49146]

*

 

[DIRECTING|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1571&BSFromYear=84] -- [Michel Hazanavicius|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49150]

 

[FILM EDITING|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1576&BSFromYear=84] -- [Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49165]

*

 

[MUSIC (Original Score)|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1586&BSFromYear=84] -- [Ludovic Bource|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49179]

*

 

[bEST PICTURE|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1605&BSFromYear=84] -- [Thomas Langmann, Producer|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49185]

 

[WRITING (Original Screenplay)|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1631&BSFromYear=84] -- [Written by Michel Hazanavicius|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49224]

 

 

*[Hugo|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=3&BSFilmID=39150]*

 

Paramount Pictures and GK Films Production; Paramount.

[2011 (84th)|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSFromYear=84] *

 

[ART DIRECTION|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1558&BSFromYear=84] -- [Production Design: Dante Ferretti; Set Decoration: Francesca Lo Schiavo|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49137]

*

 

[CINEMATOGRAPHY|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1562&BSFromYear=84] -- [Robert Richardson|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49142]

 

[COSTUME DESIGN|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1565&BSFromYear=84] -- [sandy Powell|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49147]

 

[DIRECTING|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1571&BSFromYear=84] -- [Martin Scorsese|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49152]

 

[FILM EDITING|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1576&BSFromYear=84] -- [Thelma Schoonmaker|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49168]

 

[MUSIC (Original Score)|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1586&BSFromYear=84] -- [Howard Shore|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49180]

 

[bEST PICTURE|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1605&BSFromYear=84] -- [Graham King and Martin Scorsese, Producers|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49189]

*

 

[sOUND EDITING|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1620&BSFromYear=84] -- [Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49206]

*

 

[sOUND MIXING|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1674&BSFromYear=84] -- [Tom Fleischman and John Midgley|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49210]

*

 

[VISUAL EFFECTS|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1626&BSFromYear=84] -- [Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann and Alex Henning|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49215]

 

[WRITING (Adapted Screenplay)|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=1&BSCategoryExact=1673&BSFromYear=84] -- [screenplay by John Logan|http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch?action=searchLink&displayType=6&BSNominationID=49220]
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, you're right and I'm wrong. In keeping with the tone of your post, you should have finished it off with "so there !" Mea culpa, mea culpa, ok?

I should never get into the whole Oscar thing, how many nominations a picture got, etc., because really I pay little attention to it. I wasn't intentionally bullshitting, I was just going by memory back to January/February of this year. And clearly my memory was faulty.

 

I may have been wrong about that, and maybe I'm even wrong about the "hype" stuff. Whatever.

All I was really trying to say is that I thought *Hugo* is, ultimately, a better film than *The Artist*. I liked *The Artist* very much, but compared to what *Hugo* had to say, and how the film said it, *The Artist* remains for me the lesser film.

 

 

So forget about the arguments concerning hype or lack of hype or too much undeserved hype, etc.

My point is - well, read what I said about *Hugo* a few posts down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruffle feathers? Not at all. Those with a brain know that the Oscars, Emmys, Golden Globes, and Grammys are good ole boys networks and are as crooked as the day is long and reward those who play the game.

 

MAYBE The People's Choice Awards are real, but as anyone with a brain cough Al Gore cough knows, numbers can be massaged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair to krieger, he wasn't citing *The Artist's* win as evidence of its quality. I do not know how he feels about the worth or credibility of Oscars per sec.

 

What I'm really trying to do here is generate some comments about *Hugo*, especially if there are any thoughts as to what I said about it.

filmlover, it was something you said about that film that inspired me to post here in the first place. Any comments about my ideas regarding *Hugo* ?

 

Oh well, I suppose if I really want that I should give it its own thread. Or resurrect the one that undoubtedly was started about it a few months ago.

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Jul 3, 2012 4:39 PM

How come this thread had enjoyed a renaissance until I started posting on it, and now it's dying? I am crushed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked *HUGO* better. It was a visual masterpiece, with a more compelling and original story. Only problem with *HUGO* is Howard Shore's music score, which drove me bonkers with its repetitiveness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha I dont know... maybe it's really awful and I have the worst taste, now I'm curious about what you think!

 

I really like Jean DuJardin but Ive heard a lot of people who can't stand him so maybe its very subjective, because I don't think it can be enjoyable for people who despise him, because it's basically all about him

 

And I remembered that in the Oscars the theme of the night was why we go to the movies and I think that's why the Artist won because it's so much fun to watch it in a movie theatre to me it represents that perfectly, so I don't think the others especially Money Ball or George Clooneys film had a chance

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be interested in seeing it, REDHarlow, but have to wait until it passes through the pay channels.

 

I have to say, though, that my first impression of him at the Oscars was not a good one. I know, I know, an actor has nothing to do with his role, but I am peculiar that way. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

HUGO and THE ARTIST make a great double feature. The other night I paired THE ARTIST with SINGIN' IN THE RAIN which also makes a great double feature.

 

I think THE ARTIST is NOT over-rated or over-hyped in any way. Sure, it's derivative but at the same time it's highly original in that no one is making silent films anymore. There are even very few title cards and what I find so wonderful and beautiful about the film is that it shows today's audiences (and I think that that is what caught everyone by surprise) that you don't need words in order to convey as much -- if not more -- emotion and heart. You really care about these characters. Those of us who are film fans already know this but today's moviegoer doesn't. They think it has to have lots of loud sound and blaring color. Movies don't have to have that.

 

For that reason alone, the film deserves the accolades it got.

 

I loved HUGO but it suffered from terrible marketing. I didn't go see it at first because I thought it was a kiddie film. That's how they marketed it. It's a VERY adult film. I think that was the worst marketed film of 2011. It's terrific. It was a hard choice but I think, in the end, the Academy which rarely gets things right really got this one right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hated MONEYBALL. Just didn't get it. It was SO long and I fell asleep a half dozen times. I'm not much interested in baseball or numbers so it just had no appeal to me. Jonah Hill? Someone please explain that one to me.

 

The film that was totally overlooked that shocked me was 50/50 which I thought was completely brilliant. Far superior, IMHO to MONEYBALL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...