Looks like I’m not the only one that’s a bit perturbed at the adulation “The Artist” has received this awards season. From film critic Jeffrey Wells’ Hollywood Elsewhere blog:

I’m trying not to pay too much attention to this or give it too much weight, but when I do think about it I get a little bit sick. It’s 1953 all over again, and we’re about to give the Best Picture Oscar to The Greatest Show on Earth.

The Artist is a 2011 version of That’s Entertainment! in a silent, black-and-white mode with a strong narrative assist from A Star Is Born and Singin’ in the Rain.

Echoes a lot of my feelings on the film. Charming? Sure. But it’s way too derivative, twee, and self-congratulatory (not to mention a bit backwards and weird in its romantic themes) to warrant “Best Picture” consideration.

It’s popcorn. Nice to have at a theater, but not something I’d dare accept as a substitute for sirloin.

Previously: on French nostalgia for Western film and zombies

Tagged with:

2 Responses to More anti-love for “The Artist”

  1. rogerogreen says:

    Actually, I thought it was very well done.  But it’s the best silent film of the 21st century.  If I were picking my best pic, it’d be Midnight in Paris, which I think is more fully realized.

  2. J Eric Smith says:

    I’m also in the camp that thinks that (a) “The Artist” will win, in (b) one of the worst nominated slates of films in many, many years, becoming (c) one of the worst Best Picture choices ever. I even demonstrated it mathematically . . . . http://indiemoines.com/2012/02/07/oscar-by-the-number-2012-and-the-academy-award-for-best-picture-goes-to/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>