Did you guys just wake up in Squareville USA, or what? It's a slang expression that people of all ages use all the time without really meaning anything by it, except that they're trying to get your attention. If a 78-year old movie star finds need to get your attention in order to prove just how much the film offended her, I'm willing to listen. She didn't literally mean that she got raped, you know.

It just seems like a way to avoid considering the actual implication of what she said, and to avoid actually criticizing the film. Did you ever think that the movie just sucks THAT much?

Squaresville? Cool your jets, daddy-o. I can dig your point, no need to get all freaky with the

*ahem*

We all know what Novak meant and none of us thought "Hmmm. Novak was brutally fucked at knife-point by The Artist." But you know how it is: use a loaded word like "rape" and your going to eventually have to explain yourself. Such is the power of words and man's ability to take offense when none is intended. So while we all understand Novak's meaning, I know you know that it isn't ridiculous for anyone to find her choice of word poor.

Novak is free to describe her Artist-born insult any way she likes, of course. I'd be surprised if she felt in any way traumatized as she watched the movie but I'll grant you that some movies do, in fact, suck that bad.

Vanilla Sky being a prime example of one of those films, why critics praised it I will never know.

But it's ridiculous to call more attention to that than to the fact that she spoke up in the first place. The main point is that she clearly used the word in order to make her opinion all the more blunt. Common sense says that it was a lot more than the Vertigo music which riled her up.

Let's look at this a little more objectively. Novak is most famous for a technicolor vista-vision film made 30 years after silent movies died. At the time, Hitchcock used her performance, Hermann's music, and relatively new technology to create an undeniably significant work of art. The Artist takes one of that film's components and applies it to something that had become more outdated in 1958 than record albums are now. Novak, and other people in her age range at the time, probably would have called the film boring, nerdy, baffling, lame, and yes, even insulting. Take a closer look at the other names the Artist director listed; think any of those guys would have been caught dead making a silent melodrama in 1958?

What saddens me is that I think everyone knows the truth. Critics know that this film cannot possibly be enjoyed by a popular audience. I get the sense that some of them think an audience should enjoy it, but not necessarily that they will enjoy it. When Ebert tells me it's the "most entertaining film in many a moon," and I buy a ticket on that basis, I feel I've been lied to. To me, a lie hurts more than a poor choice of words.

Alright. There isn't any reason why this thread needs to become logged with more thrust and parry than anyone can bother to read and/or type.

So I'll say this:

I'm past the point where I need to see everything that gets a release in my area. Forget the time, money, wife, kids and whatever other commitment might keep me away from the theaters -- my interests have narrowed because I finally had to listen to reason and reason said "another movie like The Princess and the Warrior... man, that's gonna suck."

When I was younger I was guilty of some commonplace self-deceipt as I watched something like, say, Casablanca and thought "I love this because I feel sort of obligated to do so." I eventually learned to appreciate the movie for what it was, not just what it meant for filmdom. It can be tough to separate the two but, in the spirit of honesty, I had admit to myself that I found Casablanca pretty much as great as everyone said. No surprises here. But then you take something like Night of the Hunter and... well, sort of underwhelming. Maybe I missed something. Or not. Either way I could rationalize the movie to perfection if I wanted to justify my spending money on a blind draw at the Criterion barn (something I didn't do, mercifully). But then you've got some objectivism and, mixing it in, others might rationalize why I'm a schmuck for not being thrilled with the movie. It could go on and on.

Honestly? I could give a fuck about The Artist. Also honestly: I don't really care if Kim Novak wants to climb Everest naked to plant a little "The Artist sucks!" flag at the summit. So, on the one hand, you're right: I don't really feel like investing my time in a deliberately anachronistic movie that celebrates a period of time it probably doesn't belong to. That is, The Artist clearly exists because we're no longer in the era of silent film. Could be that the movie is a sham, could be that Ebert was being self-deceptive, could be that he found the movie entertaining beyond all reason... no matter what, The Artist is authentically inauthentic. So is Magnolia and I... well, I only kind of liked it. Oh! I know: Guy Maddin. Love the guy's movies. And they're all like little time-traveling objects from the silent era. I don't think of his movies as frauds but I don't think he's playing at dazzling the audience with some false authenticity. Which is what you're accusing The Artist of. And that's okay by me.

It's just that so much of the arguing is Heston crying out that Soylent Green is people. The people probably don't want The Artist so don't worry about proving it a fraud... it'll keep Kim Novak from developing high-altitude pulmonary edema, anyway. That said, I'll keep the apples with their brethren, the oranges with theirs by sparing myself the honesty of Transformers 4: Optimus, We Hardly Knew Ye while driving past the theater playing The Artist.

Now someone edit this down and throw in a couple of prostitution jokes to make it sound more like something I'd write.

Okay, I've written a review of the film myself at Culture Northern Ireland for those of you who want to check it out.

But for those of you who don't, let me sum up my feelings about the film in a nutshell: The Artist is the best film of 2011. It's to silent movies what Super 8 is to the best of Spielberg - if not better.

In your review, you say:



With the popularity of Netflix and so many silent films available for viewing, why is The Artist a superior discovery for modern day audiences as opposed to simply renting The General, Sunrise, Metropolis, or any number of silent classics?

He didn't say it was a superior choice to the great silent films, he said that it was a possible avenue into modern audiences discovering the genre. You bring up box office as a measure of quality and success so often, and modern audiences who decide the box office aren't eager to put an "old" film in their queue. Because The Artist is sexier and newer some might check it out, like it, and then go back to the older stuff. It's a window into the genre, even if it's not a particularly good example of it.

Indeed, Shade - that's exactly how I meant to put it! Thanks.

I would also add that, to me anyway, renting a silent film or watching it online wouldn't quite be the same as experiencing it in a cinema - which is exactly what Hazanavicius' film is giving people the opportunity to do. I also love the cinematic feel and gravitas that black and white cinematography can lend to a film (see: Schindler's List).

But even when you put the technical aspects aside, the film is still a well told story with genuine characters. That's more than enough to make it worth seeing.

Five years ago, you would've been right, but I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Film nerds now make up a large enough niche in the audience to justify releases which are designed almost exclusively for them. Hazanavicius is just playing to a certain market.

Filmgoers demand refunds after discovering The Artist is silent film



http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jan ... lm-refunds

Thank you for the info about the refunds. To be honest they did say that it was a small portion of tje viewers. I know several people who asked for refunds for Crouching Tiger not realizing it had subtitles.
My own brother who I love dearly has actually asked for a refund for a movie he has watched all of the way through. His complaint? "It was out of focus."
I will admit that this movie is a one off for me as having seen it i have no desire to go out and watch any other silent pictures, classics or no.

It's a fun movie and of course the novelty of being a "silent" movie and a throwback to the acting styles of that era are a joy as well. It is it as great as the awards hype? Not to me. All of this has been done before and the main plot is very shopworn. Well done and as I said enjoyable for me but not the Best Picture of 2011. This movie along with his insertion into Hugo did get me to get me to fish out my Harold Lloyd in a yet again vain attempt to get the wife and kids to watch some of my old black and whites. I've even ordered a copy of Mel Brooks' Silent Movie as I recall enjoying it more than I did The Artist. I guess I prefer my homages done as parody and even the dog can't out mug Marty Feldman.

I respect this position. I think parodies are the best form of homage.

I really enjoyed this one. I thought it completely worked. It took maybe 5 minutes to get over feeling like I was waiting for someone to talk. I was worried it would feel like a novelty the entire time and keep me out of the movie, but I got really invested with it simply as a movie--which I'm certain was the point.

I was impressed with how straight the movie played its premise. The use of effects in the dream sequence, I thought, actually helped pull the audience further into the picture after it was over. None of the effects in that sequence added anything to the movie, and even seem designed to pull you out of it. Almost like the movie was saying "see--you're not missing anything." Other than that, the biggest "wink" in my mind----worked completely apart from any possible tongue-in-cheek intent. That is a "trick" pulled in so many talkies that it was neat--in my mind--to see it used so beautifully, and silently, here.

As for the score "controversy"--well, I've only seen Vertigo 2 or 3 times, and not really recently, so if I hadn't seen Kim Novak's comments, I would have only had the feeling I knew the music from somewhere. As it was, I found it very similar to some of Tarantino's better uses of Morricone--especially the grave escape set to the entirety of "L'Arena" in Kill Bill 2. It fit perfectly here, so I can appreciate it as a loving homage.

I liked a lot of this one, particularly the dream and dance sequences. There are a lot of homages here to silent films (especially Douglas Fairbanks) and sound films (Citizen Kane is pretty obvious), so the use of Vertigo's score doesn't bother. I guess it might if I liked Vertigo better. I really liked Bérénice Bejo's supporting performance, even more than Jean Dujardin's lead; the two are really good together. And Uggie is well worthy of the Palm Dog.

I'm still rooting for Hugo for best picture (though I haven't seen The Descendants yet), but this was certainly one of the nine best films I saw this year.

Based on all of the above information, Kim Novak must be one of the dumbest people alive. What an air-headed use of a traumatic real-life term.

I hate to think how she'd feel after watching High Anxiety.