The Artist is a gorgeous film. A work of art. I was excited enough by the trailer for this that I marked the date of cinema release in my diary. It manages to embody much of what I love about pre-1960 films. I do love this film.
Honestly, if you think about, and you don't even have to think very hard... the plot is essentially the same as that of Singin' In The Rain. But with less cheeriness, more angst and just as much grace.
I found the line about audiences being tired of actors "mugging for the camera" to be an interesting one in this context, because one of my favourite things about this movie is how expressive the performers are. It seems these days that it takes skill to be expressive performer without resorting to mugging, and my preferred actors are those who are capable of it.
The actors in this film are spot on. He is marvellously charismatic, in true screen idol style, and she is captivating. Cromwell can break your heart while barely moving a muscle, and Goodman has such a recognisable voice that it's fascinating to see him working without it.
All that said, I do have a major issue with this film.
If your actors aren't dancers, please don't pretend that they are. Please. Don't give them a dance number. It shatters the illusion for any dancer in the audience, because the lack of skill is blatantly obvious and we just won't be convinced. Fred and Ginger they are not. For a film set in the 1920s, the lack of a convincing charleston step is depressing.
I appreciate that they worked on that final dance number for 5 months, that's commendable. But that's exactly how it looks; it looks like people who learned some dance steps for the first time in their lives 5 months ago. It made such an elegant film end like someone clumsily tripping over their evening gown as they leave a party.
Final Thought: Bring back the days of clever animal sidekicks!!
Up Next: August Rush (2007)
No comments:
Post a Comment