The Artist – a Hollywood Fairytale
Karina Longworth digs into The Artist and why it has struck such a chord. I think she might be the first who has made the connection between the old and the new. I remember when it was The Hurt Locker vs. Avatar it was clear that the Academy was sending the message that they were rejecting this new fangled way of making a movie and were sticking to the nuts and bolts films that have served them well over the past many decades. And last year, they yawned all the way back to England in the 1930s. Now they’ve yawned back even farther and it’s interesting, isn’t it? The fight continues:
Harvey’s unique gifts aside, The Artist wouldn’t have captured the imagination of the industry if it didn’t also speak to its anxiety du jour. For all of the silliness surrounding them, the Oscars are valuable as an indication of how Hollywood feels about itself in the given moment. This year, The Artist is not the best movie in the Best Picture field, but it is the best reflection of both the moment Hollywood finds itself in (facing a massive technology-driven industry transformation) and of why the Academy was created to begin with (to help the industry’s powerful elite survive a massive technology-driven industry transformation). The Artist, then, isn’t any silent film; it’s a silent film that transforms a real, historical Hollywood crisis into a fairy tale, complete with a happy ending depicting the industry emerging from that crisis ever stronger. It’s a fairy tale that Hollywood currently desperately needs to hear.
The Artist begins in 1927, the same year the Academy was conceived by MGM honcho Louis B. Mayer, who pitched the industry’s elite that strength in numbers could help Hollywood survive two significant predicaments: heat from the morality police, which was increasing in intensity as the celebrity gossip media expanded; and the rapidly escalating transition to talkies. At the same time, studio chiefs were smarting from a recent wave of unionization, and Mayer’s desire to consolidate power at the top of the industry later would be read as a move to protect his own bottom line by staving off further labor organization. The actual handing out of awards came later, as a PR move, an attempt to take the industry’s product, dismissed by some as a degenerate fad, and rebrand it as an art form worthy of canonization and preservation.
Over the next few years, studio heads like Mayer (represented by the mogul played by John Goodman in The Artist) took advantage of the change in technology and their consolidated power to cut salaries, renegotiate contracts and generally eliminate squeaky wheels. As The Artist dramatizes, well-fed older players were shipped out, and cheap “fresh meat” was brought in. A typical performer’s contract in the early days of talkies included a rider “approved by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences,” which gave a producer the right to record and reproduce an actor’s voice infinitely, and didn’t require payment for audio tests and retakes. These were just some of the ways in which AMPAS, as Anthony Holden writes in Behind the Oscar: A Secret History of the Academy Awards, served to “protect the studio bosses’ muscle against rebellious technicians, and to keep talent in its place.”
The Artist dramatizes the flexing of that muscle in a way that ultimately and cheerfully endorses the subservient relationship of the talent to the producer/studio. When the Goodman character fires Valentin, the star defiantly pledges to strike out on his own. “I’ll make a great movie,” he says. “And it’s not like I need you for that.” The rest of the narrative essentially proves him wrong: If Valentin wants to make a movie that anyone cares about, he needs to do it with a studio. That we’re supposed to accept his film-closing rebirth as an Astaire-esque dancing movie star — contracted by the same mogul who all but left him for dead — as a happy ending and not a humiliation, is a baffling turn of events, if we’re also supposed to sympathize with his plight as an independent artist. The Artist, then, is a film in which an iconoclast hits rock bottom by staying true to himself, and learns via near-death experience to embrace conformity.
Whether they know it or not, The Artist strikes a chord. But the funny thing about The Artist isn’t just that the industry are responding to it; most people who see it respond to it. It really is the kind of movie that does what movies were sort of designed to do – entertain us.
But I do sense a bit of paralysis where most of us are concerned facing our uncertain future. I don’t think anyone wants to see movies become giant effects-driven, soulless, plotless fanboy fodder only. We cling to the past, too, all of us.
25 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Why The Artist Will Win Best Picture at the Oscars – LA Weekly (blog) | TodaysCelebNews.info - [...] Sunday for The Artist, is more than just a reflection of the mogul's resurgent power of …The Artist – ...
- Entertaining with Oscar – Toronto Sun | Daily Hot News - [...] Crystal laying it on thick, and the bevy of beautiful people lining up to see who takes …The Artist ...
Leave a Comment
Tracker Pages
Recently on AD
Follow Us!
Tags
Gallery
(also from Karina’s original article): “The prize won that night by William Wellman’s silent war film Wings was called Best Production, while F.W. Murnau’s silent Sunrise took home the Best Unique and Artistic Picture trophy, an award conceived by the Academy’s founding body to be just as exalted as Best Production, but to specifically honor creative innovation.”
They knew then what we seem to have forgotten – a single “best” trophy for picture is either going to honor the best of the status quo, or award (and encourage) innovation in methods of storytelling that will keep the business alive and moving forward, like Woody Allen’s shark. A single Best Film Oscar cannot serve both purposes. They knew that Wings and Sunrise weren’t comparable. Time to consider a reinstatement, of some sort.
good article, btw
There’s a couple of points I disagree with in this article…
I don’t think Valentin’s self-produced movie fails because he left the big major studio, I think it fails because audiences were into the hot new thing.
Secondly, I don’t think we’re supposed to think the George is going to be reborn as a talkies star akin to Fred Astaire. I think the final scene is about him finding his place as a sidekick who’s better seen not heard as we find the real reason he’s being cast aside: his accent. That’s how I took it at any rate.
It is a good article – and thanks, Sasha, for bringing it to our attention. I do buy the idea that the success/popularity of The Artist has something to do with the industry’s anxiety about the future of film – and to that, I would add, the audience’s anxiety. But there’s one aspect of Karina Longworth’s reading of the film that I would contest. I don’t think I sympathised with George’s plight because he couldn’t survive as an independent artist – rather, I sympathised with his inability to secure work. He was an actor, he adored being in front of the camera, it gave him an identity and kept him occupied, and when talkies came along and his career faltered because he resisted adaptation, he sunk into despair. Yes, I suppose his relaunch with the studio had mixed elements – new success but also a new contract, thus new restrictions – but if it made him happy, then why not? There will always be people (in the past, moguls; now, corporations or businesspeople) who will seek to maximise profits from other people’s creativity – but at least they save the creative types from having to turn into businesspeople themselves.
Also, I can’t help feeling that the primary appeal of the film is much more simple to recognise: it is charming, witty, light and touching. If its success in 2011/2012 says anything to me, it says just as much – if not more – about audience’s desire for that sort of film as a welcome restorative in this age of financial woe as about their desire for a Hollywood of times past. Not because the desire for a Hollywood of times past isn’t there, but rather the opposite: because it’s always there (alongside, of course, other ideas, such as a bright and glorious future!!).
“That we’re supposed to accept his film-closing rebirth as an Astaire-esque dancing movie star — contracted by the same mogul who all but left him for dead — as a happy ending and not a humiliation, is a baffling turn of events, if we’re also supposed to sympathize with his plight as an independent artist. The Artist, then, is a film in which an iconoclast hits rock bottom by staying true to himself, and learns via near-death experience to embrace conformity.”
That’s the thing that bothers me about The Artist. It’s a wonderfully fun film, but the ending really bothers me. It sends a very bad message, and imo falls apart. I didn’t really think about it too much the first time I saw it (getting caught up in the silent film novelty), but the second time it bothered the hell out of me.
But, then, if there’s anything the Academy loves – it’s conformity.
I don’t know why so many people insist that the reason because George Valentin has been cast aside is his accent. Here it is a fragment of that scene in The Artist’s screenplay, available at the official site of the movie (sorry, the “paste” doesn’t respect the format):
The director smiles. Zimmer, sitting next to him, seems ecstatic. The director speaks and we hear what he says.
DIRECTOR
Cut! Excellent!
Zimmer has both his thumbs up. The director says to Peppy and
George.
DIRECTOR (CONT’D)
Once more? Please?
George laughs and replies, and we hear him too.
GEORGE
With pleasure!
If accent was the problem, the screenplay would made an emphasis on it. As you can read, there’s no evidence in the screenplay that accent was an issue. The “accent thing” annoys me because is biased. Actor Jean Dujardin is French and HAS a heavy accent when he speaks in english, but that doesn’t means that “George Valentin” was french.
It’s a very interesting article, I never thought of it this way. It makes even more sense now as to why the Academy will embrace it now.
As far as the ending and the conformity in the Artist, I don’t see how it could of possibly ended in any other way and not drastically shifted the mood and tone of the whole film and left an extremely bitter after-taste with the audience. He was on the brink of suicide, practically bankrupt, not enough of a good writer/marketing strategist to make it on his own … adapting to the talkies was the only way if he still wanted to have a career in showbusiness and be an ‘artist’.
@Max,
People think this way because this happened to actors. There are of course exceptions, like Maurice Chevalier, but some actors failed to catch on after talkies because of the way their voices sounded. And George Valentin sounds like a French name to me?
I don’t like the fact that the resolution of the film doesn’t seem to deal with the fact that he’s suicidal. It’s not like he decided not to kill himself. He was distracted by the sound of the car crashing outside the house.
So the fact that he can actually go back to work makes everything okay? What about when he gets even older, and is tossed aside again? Time to pull the gun out again.
the film doesn’t seem to deal with the fact that he’s suicidal. It’s not like he decided not to kill himself. He was distracted by the sound of the car crashing outside the house.
“Gaul Interrupted”
(I apologize)
Where’s Eve Harrington when you need her? She would have been a far more interesting co-lead in The Artist. Tension – dramatic tension – something to prop up the cardboard plot of the film. The ending of the film is in keeping with the rest of it – sugary sweet! All about Eve – now there’s a film about the changing of the guard and of ego and loss and ambition. And oh so witty! Actually a silent b&w version of All About Eve would work, evenwithout the dialogue – the plot is infinitely more interesting.
More on the accent, I just found an interview where he does state that the accent was not intended to be the reason he had trouble getting into the talkes, though he does add: “I mean, at the same time, I live the same thing as George Valentin in the United States. Since I don’t speak English very well, I find myself in a world with mouths, with people talking, and I don’t understand anything at all.” So I still don’t think it’s necessarily an unfair assumption. T
he entire article can be found here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/15/the-artist-golden-globe-winner-jean-dujardin-on-its-surprise-ending.html
It’a the love story, I feel, really, that is so powerful. We all want believe in the power of love, and it’s love that brings Peppy back to George ‘to help him, bring him back to life, to the business” to quote Berenice Bejo said to me.
It’s a successful romance. How long has it been seen we’ve seen one of those????
It’s a successful romance. How long has it been seen we’ve seen one of those????
In the movies? or in real life?
In the movies, romance only needs to last about 2 hours. Looking at my recent real-life history, that sounds about right.
Good point though, Stephen. Who among us doesn’t wish real-life romance involved a lot less talking?
We’ll overlook the fact that The Artist is a romance where the partners never so much as kiss.
(Realistic Romance? How about Weekend?)
The Artist-bashing bait.
Here we go again. Can next week be over already?
“The Artist, then, is a film in which an iconoclast hits rock bottom by staying true to himself, and learns via near-death experience to embrace conformity.”
I cannot express how much i disagree with the author on this. She is looking at it in a very close-minded way. I mean… what about looking at it from the perspective that the artist is a stubborn actor who has no vision of the future and his arrogance and stubbornness made him lose all his money trying to prove that the new technology was no good? I mean who nowadays uses a typewriter? I bet when the transition was made from typewriters to computers some people (older people) refuse the transition at first? Does that mean that when they did made the transition to computer they where embracing conformity? I look at it from the point of view that they finally learned a lesson. And they choose the transition instead of stubbornness. Which is a good lesson if you ask me.
Sometimes we all cling to something even though we know it is not the best for us. Be that a girl, a job, a friend, a business, etc. just to prove everyone else wrong. Or prove ourselves right. In the end it takes more guts to accept our mistake and moving on. I believe that is why the artist works. Not because he finally learned he needed someone to help him make that transition, but because he accepted the help. And for some of us who are not only stubborn but full of pride, that is a lesson we all need.
Breaking news; the Artist will expand into a ginormous, epic large, supersized….200 theatres this Friday. Maybe 400. That’ll bring the super-duper theater count either back to 1000 or maybe 1200. Depends on your definition of ‘big’, I guess. This won’t be the worst Oscar BP winner of all time. 2009 took that cake and it’ll take a Herculean effort to wrest that crown of infamy away from it. But it’s surely one of the 5 worst.
Needs to be said one more time; Fuck Harvey Weinstein to the deepest bowels of hell.
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/indie-box-office-artist-takes-3m-has-big-expansion-plans-35558
Ryan and daveinprogress: like clockwork, you guys never a skip a beat
There is no evidence that George was suicidal in this whole film, until the very end when he felt like he saw no way out and his own pride almost crushed him. Lowest point of his life: what you gonna think of? Gun it is. With some brilliant acting. Even Uggy, the dog he greeted before saying hello to his wife, couldn’t dissuade him from shooting. And then a car crash, unexpected loud noise, makes him stop and think for a few more seconds, and he realizes how insane this action was. And he’ll never do it again. Especially after finally letting Peppy help him.
I don’t see why the critics of this film can’t see it that way. It’s like you’re searching for darkness in a romantic comedy (which is essentially what the Artist is). Unrealistic expectations my friends.
When I was watching The Artist, I kept coming away with the fact that George would probably fit into “The Waxworks” from Sunset Blvd.
I still don’t see how this movie is a comedy.
Nik, i admire your passion for film, have said so before. We can’t all enjoy the same film the same way. There are films that i love that other people detest – it is just the way of the world. The more i sit with my thoughts on The Artist – the less enamored i am with it! The more awards it wins, the more I scratch my head. But we have to back our selves in our reactions to movies. I am able to challenge my own mindsets and constructs on how i respond to a movie. I value that part of my personality.
I don’t find the Artist the least bit romantic or particularly funny – so romantic comedy – i can’t categorise it that way. I don’t find anything believable in Peppy and George as a couple – and the ending is pure contrivance – delightful – but a hasty conclusion to a half baked notion of the protagonist ‘adapting’ to change. I didn’t buy it. It was all too hammy and cardboard cutout moments – that didn’t move me, or make me feel like any character development had occurred. I love romantic comedies – with characters i can believe in.
@daveinprogress: I admire yours as well, very much so. My comment to you and Ryan both is meant to be more of a “tip of the hat” for your continued passion on how you attack this film, being the clear front runner for Best Picture and one that you don’t admire it is ripe for attack. I truly do admire that, it’s like me and “Zodiac” just to give an example. People love that movie to death but it bored the living daylights out of me. As soon as I hear someone praising it I pounce like a pitbull. I notice the same reactions with you and Ryan and you have my respect. Like Omar says, “all in the game yo”.
@John W. If you didn’t laugh, then it’s not a comedy for you. I laughed mutliple times, and when I wasn’t laughing I was smiling.
But I do believe that if there’s one genre we can stick on The Artist, it’s romantic-comedy. Not sure what other genre people can put it under.
So the fact that he can actually go back to work makes everything okay? What about when he gets even older, and is tossed aside again? Time to pull the gun out again.
Strange copy-pasting going on there but … why do you care what happens when he gets older when it’s not part of the story?
Either case, I’ll tell you what happens. He gets too old dance and perform, he retires with the money he’s made maybe with Peppy, maybe not, and lives happily ever after until he dies of old age.
No need for guns.
I see a common thread between the endings of The Artist and Slumdog Millionaire. Both films ultimately brush aside the central threat of their narratives (severe depression and terrible living conditions, respectively) and, instead of resolving the threat, exploit the threat by using it as a launch pad into a saccharine dance number. At least Slumdog has the decency to be meta about it; the last scene in The Artist just feels contrived and disjointed. Taken in and of itself, it’s sort of a lovely scene, but George had a gun in his mouth 45 seconds ago!
Ryan G,
Great observation! I condensed it to tweet length.