The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius, 2011)

[mfunk9786]

... a method of filmmaking that has been quite literally unnecessary for nearly a century now.

Sigh...where to begin.

Begin! Making a silent film in this era is most certainly a gimmicky way of doing things, regardless of whether or not you do it well. It just is. A great many excellent films were made during the silent era because there was no other way of making films, but that doesn't lend the method any superiority over sound films now that they can be made. It's like the photography student who only takes polaroids - okay, that's neat, but don't try to tell me they look better than a high resolution digital photo could look if you'd made the effort.

[swo17]

Then end your rant on a more substantial note, guy

All I think he was saying was that he likes Maddin films because Maddin not only understands the art of silent filmmaking but also leaves a distinct mark on his films, whereas The Artist only understands silent cinema enough to parody it and, worse, has no flavor to it. If anything, this guy seems to wish that it was more than just Maddin playing in this particular sandbox:

As someone who can never get enough silent cinema, you can imagine my excitement when I heard that someone had actually made a contemporary silent film

[triodelover]

... a method of filmmaking that has been quite literally unnecessary for nearly a century now.

Sigh...where to begin.

Begin! Making a silent film in this era is most certainly a gimmicky way of doing things, regardless of whether or not you do it well. It just is. A great many excellent films were made during the silent era because there was no other way of making films, but that doesn't lend the method any superiority over sound films now that they can be made. It's like the photography student who only takes polaroids - okay, that's neat, but don't try to tell me they look better than a high resolution digital photo could look if you'd made the effort.

Other things that are unnecessary:

1. B&W - we've had color, like, forever
2. analog sound - Perfect sound forever since 1983
3. academy ratio - With all our widescreens? Get outta here.
4. film itself - digital handhelds, baby!

Take your point to its (il)logical end and almost anything can be deemed unnecessary. We've increased the vehicles for artistic expression. That doesn't mean previous vehicles are always obsolete or aren't useful methods of expression.

[MichaelB]

It's just silly that we're even at a point where we're whining about who is and isn't able to make films under the constraints of a method of filmmaking that has been quite literally unnecessary for nearly a century now.

But who is "whining" about that? Klymkiw's objections to The Artist are considerably more complex and nuanced than "it wasn't directed by Guy Maddin", as becomes obvious when you read the whole thing instead of fixating on its final sentence.

Making a silent film in this era is most certainly a gimmicky way of doing things, regardless of whether or not you do it well. It just is. A great many excellent films were made during the silent era because there was no other way of making films, but that doesn't lend the method any superiority over sound films now that they can be made. It's like the photography student who only takes polaroids - okay, that's neat, but don't try to tell me they look better than a high resolution digital photo could look if you'd made the effort.

Define "better" in a way that isn't exclusively technical.

Take your point to its (il)logical end and almost anything can be deemed unnecessary. We've increased the vehicles for artistic expression. That doesn't mean previous vehicles are always obsolete or aren't useful methods of expression.

Absolutely - and one of Klymkiw's points is that the transitional period of the late 1920s was over so quickly that very few people really explored its new artistic potential to the extent that it deserved. I absolutely agree with him when he complains that "silent cinema feels like it was flushed about 10 years too early", as many of the medium's supreme masterpieces were made only just before sound came in. Imagine what film history would have been like if the likes of Murnau and Gance and even Anthony Asquith had a few more years in which to flex their creative muscles - we'll never know what a sound Murnau film might have been like, but Gance and Asquith never really took to the medium. (I think Asquith is very underrated generally, but more because his silent films are staggeringly good: his later films are more interesting than they're often claimed to be, but never once reach the same heights).

[triodelover]

Absolutely - and one of Klymkiw's points is that the transitional period of the late 1920s was over so quickly that very few people really explored its new artistic potential to the extent that it deserved. I absolutely agree with him when he complains that "silent cinema feels like it was flushed about 10 years too early", as many of the medium's supreme masterpieces were made only just before sound came in. Imagine what film history would have been like if the likes of Murnau and Gance and even Anthony Asquith had a few more years in which to flex their creative muscles - we'll never know what a sound Murnau film might have been like, but Gance and Asquith never really took to the medium. (I think Asquith is very underrated generally, but more because his silent films are staggeringly good: his later films are more interesting than they're often claimed to be, but never once reach the same heights).

The proof is comparing a lot of the early talkies - little more than filmed stage plays - that were awkward and stilted to the sophistication of a film like City Girl or Tabu. Even in the late thirties after talkies matured quickly as an art form, a film like Modern Times easily held its own. In countries where the conversion to sound came more slowly like Japan the silents of the early 30s compared favorably with the talking pictures from the English speaking world, even without benefit of the benshi.

If silence was truly unnecessary, what does one say about the 28-minute sequence in Rififi?

[MichaelB]

If silence was truly unnecessary, what does one say about the 28-minute sequence in Rififi?

Or indeed the entirety of Le Dernier Combat (Luc Besson's best film by far, for my money - he's a terrible writer of dialogue!) and Conspirators of Pleasure.

Mind you, those are more "dialogue-free" than "silent" - something like Night of the Hunter owes a lot more to the aesthetics of silent cinema than those two.

[triodelover]

...something like Night of the Hunter owes a lot more to the aesthetics of silent cinema than those two.

If we're going to segue to influenced by, we watched the Exposure Cinema DVD of Lang's Secret Beyond the Door last night with it's clear harkening to Expressionism. I thought how well it would work as a silent, with Joan Bennett as the benshi.

[hearthesilence]

I think those are great examples. When I think of silent film in its purest form, I usually equate it with "dialogue free" expression rather than something that's completely silent, with an emphasis on visual (and wordless) communication.

I made this point in an earlier post, and I repeated it elsewhere only to have some obnoxious jackass miss the point, but I'll repeat it here - one thing I wouldn't call The Artist is a triumph of silent filmmaking. I think a film like Wall*E (rather the first half) comes close because so much of it is wordless - it builds on the accomplishments of F.W. Murnau's final films where film language is distilled into something close to a wordless (visual) form of expression. With The Artist, I remember so many gags were just there for you to read, either in letters or title cards. There was one (maybe two) that could only work as a title card joke (it was based on a sound affect), but a lot of it was just one-liners dropped into the film, stuff that would've worked just as well, if not better, in a sound film. To be fair, there were also some that were tongue-in-cheek remarks about the fact that this was a silent movie, but one clever remark was really enough - I could've done without the rest.

[colinr0380]

Another film that might be interesting to throw into the conversation would perhaps be Sidewalk Stories, the 1980s black and white, almost silent comic film about homelessness, made as a kind of homage to Chaplin's The Kid.

[antnield]

...and Rolf De Heer's Dr. Plonk from 2007.

[Gregory]

Margarette's Feast (2002)

[stroszeck]

Another film that might be interesting to throw into the conversation would perhaps be Sidewalk Stories, the 1980s black and white, almost silent comic film about homelessness, made as a kind of homage to Chaplin's The Kid.

This was an absolute gem of a movie. Anybody have any ideas if its available anywhere?

[Mr Sausage]

I think a film like Wall*E (rather the first half) comes close because so much of it is wordless - it builds on the accomplishments of F.W. Murnau's final films where film language is distilled into something close to a wordless (visual) form of expression.

Really? Because that section of WallE was extremely aural. Huge amounts of meaning were being communicated by sound. Every buzz, click, whistle, drone--every sound, basically--that WallE and Eva made was calculated to communicate their thoughts and emotional reactions as surely as if it were dialogue. The film may not have been using actual dialogue, but the soundtrack was integral to it. It did not strike me as being anything close to a silent movie.

[knives]

I was trying to figure out a way to phrase that, but yes Wall-e even in it's silent section is using the grammar of sound films which is I think Klymkiw's problem. It's shot as a 'silent' but is still essentially a talking picture.

I'm actually shocked that it's only about 90 minutes since it conveys as much information as a lot of these three hour films. Despite compression he really knows how to make it feel like real time.

[hearthesilence]

I won't deny that - I wanted to emphasize "wordless" more than "visual" partly for that reason. If you think of Murnau's later films ("The Last Laugh," "Sunrise," etc.) as being the apex of silent filmmaking, again it's because there's so little in terms of words. Very, very little text (very few title cards and signs), communicating almost everything through visual means, the main thing he has at his disposal. (I suppose he could've composed a musical score, but I think what went into the film was really the only thing the director could reliably - more or less - control with silent films.)

I would still argue that something like Wall*E builds on that accomplishment because it uses sound in a way that compliments that aesthetic sense. (And it feels even more progressive instead of regressive in that respect - mastering silent filmmaking without ignoring the possibilities of sound, and I mean "sound" not dialogue.)

In terms of the visual component, I'm guessing most of the first half would still make sense if you stripped out the soundtrack. (fyi, haven't tried this myself.) But as you mentioned, the soundtrack does bring something to the film - it does communicate specific things with manufactured sound effects. All of this has to be heard too - it wouldn't make any sense if you transcribed it on paper (and besides, how could you effectively transcribe it)? But it also needs the visuals - if you played chunks of it on the radio, I doubt you could make much sense out of it. It's a very cinematic way of using sound.

[MichaelB]

I won't deny that - I wanted to emphasize "wordless" more than "visual" partly for that reason. If you think of Murnau's later films ("The Last Laugh," "Sunrise," etc.) as being the apex of silent filmmaking, again it's because there's so little in terms of words. Very, very little text (very few title cards and signs), communicating almost everything through visual means, the main thing he has at his disposal. (I suppose he could've composed a musical score, but I think what went into the film was really the only thing the director could reliably - more or less - control with silent films.)

You could also argue that Miklós Jancsó is another of the heirs of the silent masters. His great films of the 1960s admittedly have dialogue, but it's obviously dubbed (Jancsó shot his extended takes silently, to facilitate his constant direction throughout), and they make near-complete dramatic sense even if you switch the subtitles off.

In fact, by way of example, here's a clip from Red Psalm. For the first three minutes at least, there's virtually no spoken content (and what there is is easy enough to divine from the context), no music, comparatively few sound effects - and bells and whip-cracks are easy enough to mentally fill in, since the origins of the sounds are visible onscreen.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

... a method of filmmaking that has been quite literally unnecessary for nearly a century now.

Sigh...where to begin.

Begin! Making a silent film in this era is most certainly a gimmicky way of doing things, regardless of whether or not you do it well. It just is. A great many excellent films were made during the silent era because there was no other way of making films, but that doesn't lend the method any superiority over sound films now that they can be made. It's like the photography student who only takes polaroids - okay, that's neat, but don't try to tell me they look better than a high resolution digital photo could look if you'd made the effort.

Well there's always Tarkovsky's Instant Light Polaroid collection or Kaurasmaki's Juha as counter arguments to being unnecessary.

[TMDaines]

Take your point to its (il)logical end and almost anything can be deemed unnecessary. We've increased the vehicles for artistic expression. That doesn't mean previous vehicles are always obsolete or aren't useful methods of expression.

The two of us don't agree on much but I'm absolutely with you here. It seems for me at least that many of the technical innovations have come to limit to expression and storytelling as a greater focus is placed on utilising the technology rather than having a great narrative, absorbing acting and genuinely beautiful cinematography. I don't think I've ever watched a great classic film and thought "if only it was made today." I find mfunk's comment baffling quite honestly and wonder if it was meant to be interpreted differently.

[MichaelB]

Technical "progress" doesn't necessarily mean superiority either.

For instance, in terms of image quality, a 2K digital projection is appreciably worse than 35mm (so is 4K, come to that: the resolution gap is narrower, but there's still a noticeable qualitative difference), and 35mm safety stock is appreciably worse than the 35mm nitrate stock on which all original silent films (and most sound ones prior to the 1950s) would have been shot. So we've actually been going backwards to a certain extent.

The "progress" was to do with safety (nitrate film being so volatile that only one public cinema in the UK is licensed to screen it any more) and cost (it being far cheaper to reproduce and distribute a DCP than a 35mm print).

[triodelover]

Take your point to its (il)logical end and almost anything can be deemed unnecessary. We've increased the vehicles for artistic expression. That doesn't mean previous vehicles are always obsolete or aren't useful methods of expression.

The two of us don't agree on much but I'm absolutely with you here. It seems for me at least that many of the technical innovations have come to limit to expression and storytelling as a greater focus is placed on utilising the technology rather than having a great narrative, absorbing acting and genuinely beautiful cinematography. I don't think I've ever watched a great classic film and thought "if only it was made today." I find mfunk's comment baffling quite honestly and wonder if it was meant to be interpreted differently.

Before I reply, I want to apologize to you for being out of line in the Loves of Pharoah thread. We rub each other the wrong way, but that's no excuse. So I'm sorry for my behavior. I'm too old to act that immature (or I should be, at least). If you'd like to discuss things further PM me. As far as not agreeing on much if you'll read what I've written, I've agreed with your basic point more than you seem to realize. It's just that I've taken a more equivocal position.

On to the matter at hand, I agree that I've never watched a film from any past era and thought it would be so much better if only the filmmaker had (pick your favorite technology au courant ). I think we're fortunate in a way - possibly more fortunate than the Silent Era audiences - in that we know how much more can be done technically and yet we can still be amazed at what Murnau accomplished (and how limiting have all these bells and whistles can be as you say).

[lady wakasa]

On to the matter at hand, I agree that I've never watched a film from any past era and thought it would be so much if only the filmmaker had (pick your favorite technology au courant ).

While I completely agree with you, I think it was Paul McCartney who (recently) said that a lot of what was attempted with Magical Mystery Tour would have been better realized with modern (computer) technology.

Aaaand I'll never find that quote again. %^(

[GaryC]

On to the matter at hand, I agree that I've never watched a film from any past era and thought it would be so much if only the filmmaker had (pick your favorite technology au courant ).

While I completely agree with you, I think it was Paul McCartney who (recently) said that a lot of what was attempted with Magical Mystery Tour would have been better realized with modern (computer) technology.

Aaaand I'll never find that quote again. %^(

Though Abbey Road Studios were less state-of-the-art than certain American studios at the time - Abbey Road (the album) was the first Beatles album recorded on eight-track. If they were recording their albums nowadays, would they necessarily be better, just different?

[Klymkiw]

Hazanavicius does not understand nor, on the basis of The Artist, truly appreciate the period/style of cinema he is trying (not too hard) to purportedly recreate. He doesn't even seem, by his approach, to love it. Great satire and/or parody (a teetering fencepost Hazanavicius undecidedly appears to rest upon) must, I believe, be infused with a thorough knowledge of its bullseye in order to adequately demonstrate love, hatred (or a bit of both) for its said target. Few directors are endowed with this - save for Scorsese, Maddin, DePalma, Allen and (on occasion) Tarantino. The result is a one trick pony of the lowest order. For me, he's a bit like Christopher ("One Idea") Nolan in the trick pony sweepstakes. I hope this somewhat clarifies aspects of my review for those who might have found it a trifle confusing.

I'm delighted to have stumbled upon this forum. If this thread is indicative of the high level of discourse that occurs in other threads, I may pop by again.

[Kirkinson]

It's like the photography student who only takes polaroids - okay, that's neat, but don't try to tell me they look better than a high resolution digital photo could look if you'd made the effort.

Define "better" in a way that isn't exclusively technical.

The word "effort" is problematic, too, given that any decent digital camera can take great-looking high-res photos on totally automatic settings. And then there are the substantial one-click improvements you can make with Photoshop Elements or even free software like Irfanview that require absolutely no education or expertise. On the other hand, the effort required to make a good looking Polaroid (i.e., focusing on composition and content and only thinking of the technical side in terms of how to work within its limitations) can only make you a better photographer all-around, which actually makes it an ideal tool for students to use. Similarly, many film school programs still include exercises in silent filmmaking and in-camera editing, precisely because they're a great way to teach students to focus clearly and concisely on the "guts" of filmmaking without being distracted by dialogue or post-production, where many film students today tend to spend most of their time and effort.

Not that I want to pile on mfunk, whose first comment in this thread suggested that people other than Guy Maddin should be allowed to make silent films if they want to. I just found this analogy to Polaroid photography (and particularly by students) kind of strange.

[AWA]

It's like the photography student who only takes polaroids - okay, that's neat, but don't try to tell me they look better than a high resolution digital photo could look if you'd made the effort.

Define "better" in a way that isn't exclusively technical.

The word "effort" is problematic, too, given that any decent digital camera can take great-looking high-res photos on totally automatic settings. And then there are the substantial one-click improvements you can make with Photoshop Elements or even free software like Irfanview that require absolutely no education or expertise. On the other hand, the effort required to make a good looking Polaroid (i.e., focusing on composition and content and only thinking of the technical side in terms of how to work within its limitations) can only make you a better photographer all-around, which actually makes it an ideal tool for students to use. Similarly, many film school programs still include exercises in silent filmmaking and in-camera editing, precisely because they're a great way to teach students to focus clearly and concisely on the "guts" of filmmaking without being distracted by dialogue or post-production, where many film students today tend to spend most of their time and effort.

Not that I want to pile on mfunk, whose first comment in this thread suggested that people other than Guy Maddin should be allowed to make silent films if they want to. I just found this analogy to Polaroid photography (and particularly by students) kind of strange.

While I agree with what you're saying, I would like to offer a defence of Photoshop, be it Elements or the full program, or any other Photo editing software. The notion that Photoshop or photo-editing software is somehow cheating genuine effort and artistry is ignoring the history of photography, where such methods were applied in the darkrooms. The one-click filter improvements of today are equal to the one fliter development you could choose in the darkroom without any real hassle (or care to detail for that matter). Photoshop / editing is just a digital darkroom, be it the elaborate stuff or the one button app filters... they all have their equals in darkroom process. The only photographer who cheats these days is one who thinks they're a great photographer without photo editing of any kind. Photography falling into an everyman's art has also carried with it the hangups of what the public knows, or more aptly, what they think they know. Ansel Adams was a great documentarian, yes, but to think those are true life documents without extensive darkroom editing - contrast enhancements, burning and dodging light, etc - all technical processes that have everything to do with image enhancement. It would be like demanding a painter never mix their paints. You would create flat, dull, uninteresting paintings that way.

I do agree about Polaroid photography making you a better photographer - very much so. I started the same way. Provided you don't get hung up on the aesthetics of it and keep thinking in terms of the photograph, composition, subject, etc. Otherwise you'll just end up staring at That Hipster Porn blog all day

Anyways, we're way off topic here. I agree about The Artist! Although it will likely end up on a lot of art film fans' guilty pleasure list in years to come.