The Artist: A Rare Case In Which Hype Is Deserved

There's a distinct moment in The Artist where I stopped just liking the film and decided that I loved it.

I won't spoil what happens, but when that something does happen, the soundtrack borrows a bit from Bernard Hermann--and the moment that familiar score started, my heart basically melted and I fell completely in love with this movie.

The Artist is Exhibit A of how far talented actors and a great story can get you. Sure, it's stylized, but while this film gained a lot from it's silent film format, it also lost some things. Particularly, it lost a lot of things modern films rely on. For example, we take for granted how much an actor's voice can elevate a scene. If a character's distressed, the extra tremor or melodramatic crack in their voice automatically effects us and let's us know that "things just got real". The sound of crying, also, is a great aid in dramatic scenes. We don't really know how important these things are in a film until they're gone.

And yes, these things are certainly gone in The Artist. But did the film suffer? Absolutely not.

Back to my point about talented actors and good stories. Jean Dujardin, who I SINCERELY hope is the next Javiar Bardem (non-American actor who breaks into Hollywood), can tell us everything we need to know just with his facial expressions. When he breaks, we don't need any dramatic howling or loud sobs--all his pain is conveyed to us just by the look on his face. And that, my friends, is talent. The same goes for Bérénice Bejo. The both of them together in this film leave nothing to be desired; I never MISSED the spoken-word dialogue for one second because I didn't need it. I don't know about you, but I can't think of very many actors who could carry a film like this.

The Artist, while it has its plot about the transition from silent film to talkies and the way this radically changed Hollywood and blah blah blah, is above all a love story. We have two magnetic characters meant for each other going down these two separate paths, both effected differently by this change in the industry. The movie isn't about the change, though--it's about them. It's always about them, and I think that's why The Artist has so much heart. For example, by the time the film is halfway over, I think it's impossible not to care about George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). When the climax begins (and that sweeping Bernard Hermann score takes over), I was a nervous wreck--and you know why? Because I cared. And really, when I think about it, I rarely care anymore when I go to the movies.

It's nice to care.

Before watching this movie, I felt wary about all the insane, seemingly out-of-left-field buzz. One minute we were all talking about War Horse, and then out of nowhere this unknown film is sweeping up award after award at the Golden Globes. I went into The Artist with this same attitude, ready to pffft at it heartily and deem it overrated. I figured that all the people raving about the film were only doing so because it was different, and like, you can look super intellectual if your favorite movie of the year was black, white, and silent.

Thankfully, that's not the case. The Artist deserves every last iota of hype it's received this awards season, and I honestly can't think of a film (or a pair of leads) more deserving of an Oscar--specifically Jean Dujardin, who is extremely talented and attactive. I feel like I haven't stressed this enough. I mean, he makes me want to learn French.

RATING: 5/5

Unwatchable.

It should be pretty clear to most of you all that I like movies. I like to watch them, I like to talk about them, and I like to write about them. Usually, even if the movie's bad, I can appreciate something about it--some stinkers have good acting, for example, or some movies are so bad that they're ridiculously entertaining.

But what do you do when a movie is SO bad and SO devoid of anything worthwhile whatsoever? Well...you turn it off.

Which is what I did with The Tree of Life. I just want to say that this is NOT something I normally do. I've struggled through an endless number of 'meh' movies just because there was a *slight* chance of something interesting happening. I knew within 10 minutes of this thing that that just wasn't going to happen. There just wasn't anything worth waiting for.

What's so bad about The Tree of Life, you ask? Everything.

Very soon after popping this DVD in, a word appeared in my mind and started flashing over and over again in pink neon lights.

**PRETENTIOUS. PRETENTIOUS. PRETENTIOUS.**

Oh hai, my name is Terrence Malik, and I'm a pretty well known director. My movies are ART, and if you don't understand them, you just don't appreciate ART. Now look at this 4 minute-long shot of lava coming out of a volcano.

To say that there is a story to this movie is beyond a stretch. In the 40 minutes that I suffered through this turd, this is what was clearly communicated: Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain are a married couple raising children in what looked like the late 60's or early 70's. One of their children dies, and they're devastated. We don't know HOW the child died--we just see the mother character open a letter and start sobbing. Keep in mind there's VERY minimal dialogue in all of this. I guess spoken-word is a little too mainstream? Most of the speaking is done in the narration, which skips between a female and a male voice. Had I not had the movie on subtitles, I wouldn't have known that [MOM'S VOICE] was the female and [SON'S VOICE] was the male. There's a great big monologue about how there are 2 types of people in the world: nature vs. grace. It's all very existential and "deep".

While I enjoyed none of this part, at least it was something resembling a movie. Then it all just went to hell.

The next part skips ahead in time to Sean Penn's character, who is one of the sons we saw in the first part. You know how I know this? Because I read the synopsis. The movie does not communicate this to you AT ALL. He says nothing in the whole ten minutes of this segment. We see him wake up, walk around his house, walk around at work, and look distressed. WAIT--he did say something! One of his coworkers looks at him strangely and he mumbles something about "this day". That's all that's said, and I GUESS this is implying that it's the anniversary of his brother's death? I'm sorry, but this is where the movie became unwatchable for me. Nothing is happening! What is going on? I don't know--nobody knows!

*cough cough* I MEAN...I guess I just don't understand the "art".

The next 10 minutes completely convinced me to eject the disc. Seriously, from that point on, it was nature shots. Ten minutes of NATURE SHOTS. Lava emerging from the dome of a volcano. Water rushing over a bed of pebbles. Some swirling nebula in space.

DINOSAURS TROTTING NEAR A BABBLING BROOK.

What. The. Hell. Is. This. <--- (that's what I said)

I'm sorry, but cool graphics alone aren't gonna cut it. Sue me, but when I walk into a movie, I expect established characters, DIALOGUE, and a plot that makes sense. It's not asking for much, really. I'm not even asking it be done well! The Tree of Life attempts to do none of these things because it's "art", and like...if you don't like it, you just don't get it, okay?

If you had a different experience with this movie, go ahead and share it with me, although it's hard for me to believe that this movie is watchable without lots and lots of drugs. For me, I have to agree with a reviewer who said on Amazon that this movie was, quote: "A reinvention of the screensaver". That just sums it up perfectly.

Y U NO HAVE TOP 10 YET?

This short post is directed to the ENDLESS NUMBER OF PEOPLE (no one) demanding to see my Top 10 of 2011 list. I mean, I had my Top 10 of 2010 ready at the beginning of January last year--what's the hold up this time?

I'll tell you what the hold up is: about a jillion movies came out in 2011.

For the first time that I can remember, there's not really a clear sense of what movies/actors are going to win what awards. This time last year, the list of award-winning movies was pretty clear and straightforward. We knew the race for Best Picture was going to be between The Social Network, The King's Speech, and The Fighter. Can I say that for this year? Absolutely not.

I have no idea what's going to be nominated, let alone what's going to win. You might say, "Leah, didn't you watch the Golden Globes?" Well, yeah, but I really don't think that served as an indicator this year. There is no way that THE DESCENDANTS is the best movie of the year--and there is no way that it's going to win Best Picture at the Oscars. You can quote me.

You might also be saying, "Leah, who cares what's going to win awards? It's YOUR top 10 list, just make it already!"--and to that, I respond with: how am I supposed to know what to watch? Generally, I get a sense of what movies are worth watching based on critics' feedback. So many movies were reviewed positively this year, and without a narrower list of well-received movies, I've basically got to watch them all. Which is what I've been trying to do.

There are a number of movies that I feel like I have to see before I can make a top 10 list. Some of these I unfortunately won't have a chance to because I missed their run in theaters and they won't be coming out on DVD until long after the Oscars have aired. MELANCHOLIA, for example. Other movies will either be coming to theaters near me soon (THE ARTIST) or will be coming out on DVD soon (DRIVE, 50/50).

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I'm going to watch the most movies I can before the Oscars and write my top 10 list at that point. Okay? Now will you all stop BUGGING ME!? (no one cares, Leah...)