The Artist

[Edward]

100% agreed! I hated that movie, except that it had some beautiful scenes. Waste of a lot of time watching that one.
The Artist could not have been more of a "regular joe" kinda film. Especially today with so many losing lower-tech jobs to hi-tech. It made me think of how I feel - constantly trying to stay relevant at work...

Mnn. Tree of Life was savaged by the critics here and by populist intellectualism, though 99% of all that was purely an attack on its claimed promotion of a Christian worldview, which clearly did not match with what the critics expected. I watched it on a plane journey in December largely as a result of such criticism (would probably never have heard of it otherwise). I loved how it looked - beautiful photography, and the wardrobe was lovely. I did find the narrative very hard to follow, however. This does seem a common problem with art films - as if somehow being as obtuse as possible about what is actually going on gives it some sort of gravitas.

I just read this Blog regarding the clothes in the Artist. He has a point. But honestly it didn't bother me much. One of the extras had a nice beltback suit when they rescued Valentin from the fire.


http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/the...-mens-clothes/
(Link may have some spoilers)

Interesting take on it. IMO, that the blogger has to go to such a level of finicky detail, for the most part, to find anything wrong speaks very highly of the wardrobe crew on this film. Bear in mind how easy it is for a production to simply decide "oh, no-one will ever notice", which is true for 99.9% of the audience.... I spotted the black bow tie with tails as 'off' myself pretty much immediately. I can let it slide for the Twenties, though. Remember that this was a transitionary period for men's evening wear with black tie gradually emerging to supplant white tie, and all sorts of in-between variations mixing the two. The most common mix was to see white tie rig worn with a dj replacing the tailcoat, but it makes sense to me that some would have opted for other variations. Of course in any given period there will be people who get things "wrong" too (I'm sure there were as many stars back then that have just been forgotten now who were as prone to ill-advised 'creative' takes on evening wear as we see nowadays! ).

The one thing where the blogger is, IMO, dead wrong is this:

The tailcoat trousers lack a double galon stripe, even though this remains the absolute standard for men’s evening wear to the modern day.

This is wholly correct over here in Europe, but in the US they always wore (and still do wear) the same, single-stripe trousers for both black and white tie. I actually have a Thirties midnight blue tailcoat with matching trousers - single stripe. This is a US / Europe difference. Personally, I prefer the European pattern, but I can very much see the utilitarian appeal of the US approach. Myself, I quite like to wear white tie trousers with black tie. Oh, I know, I'm incorrigible...

[Marc Chevalier]

... but in the US they always wore (and still do wear) the same, single-stripe trousers for both black and white tie.

Until the 1930s, white-tied Americans wore either double-stripe trousers, or a trousers with a single, wide tape of silk that had a satin line woven down the middle of it, creating the illusion of a double stripe.


In the 1930s, fashionable young Americans began wearing white tie with single-stripe trousers, though more traditional Americans continued to favor double stripes. By the late 1950s, even President Eisenhower wore single-stripe trousers, as did John F. Kennedy at his Inaugural Ball.


Nonetheless, double-stripe trousers have never completely disappeared from the U.S. landscape, and American bespoke tailors continued to make them throughout the '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s ....

[LizzieMaine]

Meh. They should take another look at "Show People," a film pretty much the same style and story as "The Artist." The only thing I found jarringly modern in tone about "Artist" was the bit where George's co-star flips him off --- obviously done only to avoid getting a G rating. (And there are even twenties films where the bird is on the wing -- there's a Harold Lloyd picture where he flips off his own reflection in a mirror.)

The only thing more irritating than pretentious art films are pretentious silent movie fan, the type who complain when there's a music score because it takes away from the "visual purity" of the viewing experience. I'm surprised we haven't had that old chestnut wheeled out yet.

[ButteMT61]

Mnn. Tree of Life was savaged by the critics here and by populist intellectualism, though 99% of all that was purely an attack on its claimed promotion of a Christian worldview, which clearly did not match with what the critics expected. I watched it on a plane journey in December largely as a result of such criticism (would probably never have heard of it otherwise). I loved how it looked - beautiful photography, and the wardrobe was lovely. I did find the narrative very hard to follow, however. This does seem a common problem with art films - as if somehow being as obtuse as possible about what is actually going on gives it some sort of gravitas.

I don't care about the views in the movie - I can watch a movie with any views as long as it's interesting and well-done. Like you, I loved the cinematography and costumes, etc. But it was just too pretentious for me, or I'm too dense to "get it". Either way, I came out feeling let down.

On a side note - I simply don't get all the attention that Clooney got for "The Descendants". I thought Ides Of March was way better. But looking for sense in awards is a bit stupid isn't it?

[LizzieMaine]

We had "Descendants" here for a month, and we were ready to haul it out into the street and set fire to it by the end. Clooney didn't do anything in it he hasn't done a hundred times before -- the only performer who I thought should have gotten honored was the teenage daughter, who was brilliant. And completely overlooked.

The Artist, by contrast, bears up extremely well under repeated viewings -- every time you see it there's a fresh detail to spot.

[Edward]

Until the 1930s, white-tied Americans wore either double-stripe trousers, or a trousers with a single, wide tape of silk that had a satin line woven down the middle of it, creating the illusion of a double stripe.


In the 1930s, fashionable young Americans began wearing white tie with single-stripe trousers, though more traditional Americans continued to favor double stripes. By the late 1950s, even President Eisenhower wore single-stripe trousers, as did John F. Kennedy at his Inaugural Ball.


Nonetheless, double-stripe trousers have never completely disappeared from the U.S. landscape, and American bespoke tailors continued to make them throughout the '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s ....

Ah, that's interesting - so it's more nuanced than I thought, but still bound up in the transitionary phase... (of course I can also see the appeal for those who produce off the peg evening wear for one style to predominate...). Thanks, Marc.

Meh. They should take another look at "Show People," a film pretty much the same style and story as "The Artist." The only thing I found jarringly modern in tone about "Artist" was the bit where George's co-star flips him off --- obviously done only to avoid getting a G rating. (And there are even twenties films where the bird is on the wing -- there's a Harold Lloyd picture where he flips off his own reflection in a mirror.)

The only thing more irritating than pretentious art films are pretentious silent movie fan, the type who complain when there's a music score because it takes away from the "visual purity" of the viewing experience. I'm surprised we haven't had that old chestnut wheeled out yet.

Ha, oh aye....

last year I went to a special screening of the final Lord of the Rings film in the Royal Albert Hall. The film was shown stripped of the musical soundtrack - which was played live by the Royal Philharmonic and three choirs. Many of these musicians were the folks who actually played on the film soundtrack itself. I had seen the film before, and been to a couple of live performances of the score alone, but this was a special experience (I wish I'd known about it when they did the first two!). I do think that it would be great to see The Artist like this. Or, for period appeal, to see it with the score rearranged for solo piano. I agree, though.... the types you mention can wait for the DVD and watch it on mute (if, of course, such a purist can bear to bring themselves to watch something as banal and modern as a television ).

I don't care about the views in the movie - I can watch a movie with any views as long as it's interesting and well-done. Like you, I loved the cinematography and costumes, etc. But it was just too pretentious for me, or I'm too dense to "get it". Either way, I came out feeling let down.

Yes, that was my feeling too. Just because I felt some of the criticism I heard was unfair doesn't mean I thought it was therefore any good....

On a side note - I simply don't get all the attention that Clooney got for "The Descendants". I thought Ides Of March was way better. But looking for sense in awards is a bit stupid isn't it?

Of course, especially dealing with something as politically (in the broadest sense) loaded as the Oscars.

[Marc Chevalier]

I do think that it would be great to see The Artist like this.

In December, Harvey Weinstein said that he would hold special 'tour' screenings of "The Artist", accompanied by a full live orchestra conducted by the film's composer. The screenings will be held in Geneva, Paris, Brussels, London, Los Angeles, New York, and possibly Australia: http://www.pastemagazine.com/article...orchestra.html

[ButteMT61]

I hope there's a dress code!

[Marc Chevalier]

I hope there's a dress code!

Dress code or no, the tickets will be expensive.

[Flicka]

The Artist still hasn't hit the cinemas here. We have to wait a few more weeks. I live in the provincial backwaters of Europe.