On the Validity of The Artist

The Artist opens with an audience watching a silent film in 1927 and the experience, as a contemporary audience, of watching a silent film within a silent film and the knowing nods that come with it provides the theme for which most of the pleasure of this film derives. Yet The Artist has enraptured the imagination of almost every critic and captured the attention of almost every awarding body in America and the UK. In fact many predicting the results of the award season, which we are about to enter, see The Artist cleaning up. The question to be asked is why?

It is possible that it is the experimental nature of The Artist is responsible for its remarkable success. A (almost completely) silent film in 2012 is certainly a curiosity and without a doubt The Artist communicates a clear narrative without the use of sound. Yet, we cannot be surprised that contemporary audiences are able to follow a cinematic art form that has been redundant for almost 90 years. We live in such a media saturated world that many of us are sophisticated consumers of media without being aware of it or of the study and theories of media. We immediately construct narratives out of images all the time: a photograph on the front page of a newspaper before we read the headline, a painting in a gallery. Before receiving any other form of information to anchor the image, we construct a story. Therefore the lack of dialogue in The Artist should pose no issues in how it communicates especially as its story is very simple to follow. It is also worth questioning how valid an experiment this is. There are many great silent films still easily accessible today, the work of Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. Yet, silent film fell out of favour because of audience demand (as The Artist tells us) and should we be celebrating the pastiche of a cinematic form that is no longer valid for contemporary audiences. Instead, should we not celebrate the advancement of technology? Should we not celebrate those filmmakers experimenting with IMAX, with 3D or even with narrative? Is Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight (2008), a film with a complicated but clear narrative, filmed in part for a growing technology, IMAX, not something more worthy of our congratulations? Or, it is because it deals with a superhero that it is deemed a less artistic venture?

Maybe, as mentioned above, it is the way it tells a story while also giving the wink and the nod to an audience already aware of the history of cinema. If this is the case then Scorsese’s Hugo (2011) achieved this far more successfully and continued to push the advancement of 3D technology while retaining a beautifully nostalgic feel. Hugo also reminded us the way in which actual silent film was made and the creativity and danger behind it. Surely The Artist had every advantage that modern technology allows.

This is not to completely discredit The Artist; it is thoroughly enjoyable and well acted. However it is an event movie for a niche audience. It is the film lover’s equivalent of a summer blockbuster, something to be seen and talked about at the water cooler. It should not be placed on a pedestal and lauded and awarded above more valid cinema simply because it is unique for 2012.