Take away the novelty

I have seeing a lot of silent films.

I think "the artist" is pure genius. Some routines I can recognize as classics of the mime art, for example when the girl put her arm on the jacket and then interact with it as if it was a different person.

I also enjoy the parts that use the audio, like the nightmare audio effects.

But also the genius on the silent part of the film, for example that part of the "BANG!" card, if it was audio we would have recognize the difference between the shot of a fire arm and a car crash, but because we don't have the sound the scene gains in tension.

This movie really make the best of both worlds.

I would not compare this movie to the ones from 100 years ago. About cinematography this movie is clearly superior in all aspects, but this we can blame to the better equipments of modern time. Many of Chaplin movies, for example, are all on cameras fixed in a position, camera doesn't move as well as doesn't zoom or any other thing you see in "the artist", no counting green screen, multiple expositions and a lot of other things that are going on in this movie.

We know for instance that one of the things Chaplin bring to the films was a huge improvement on quality. This because they didn't used to take more than 1 shot per scene, Chaplin insisted in taking all the shots that are necessary until the scene looks good, this of course increase the cost of production as film is not cheap. But we don't get to see the silly mistakes they made. In "the artist" the silly mistakes are actually part of the story of the movie, this is how far we have gone.

About cinematography "the artist" is superior to many modern movies.

That is my opinion anyway.

It's not "novelty," but allegory and symbolism. You can't take that away, becaue that is the story. The film *can't* be compared to other silent films because it's not a silent film per say, but a statement on those lost in the changeover to talkies. It's not supposed to make you better appreciate or understand silents. It's meant to show a transition and a story of how one gets lost in the change from old to new.
It *couldn't* have been made in 1929 because what that change meant was not fully understood.

I went to see it for the novelty and fell in love with it for the story, the
cinematography, the lovely soundtrack, the performances, the homages to many
other classic films, and its moral. And the wee doggie. I've seen many films of
the silent era, and it would have held its own among the better films of the late 1920s.



I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

Hewwo.

The Artist is not a film that could be released in 1929.

Its a pastiche although a lovingly recreated one to earlier days of cinema just as Hugo was. However the film does have the use of sound and songs in a way it would not had been released in 1929. However it does look like a novelty, a well made one hence why its divided people.

Its that man again!!

"Did this movie provide for anyone a gateway to discovering and enjoying classic silent movies?"

I remember I first saw a trailer for The Artist when I saw My Week With Marilyn, it caught my attention. Then I saw it in theaters twice, it was a loving reminder for me of why I love the movies, to be entertained. I had never seen a Silent film before The Artist speaking as a 25 year old guy. And now to date I've seen 20 silent movies, and that number will only rise. Does that answer your question for you? :)

The editing is fantastic in this movie and I think the story would hold up sound or no sound. The narrative is also very strong, which is usually characteristic of a well made film. So many films sacrifice narrative for plot cliches, characters, or totally irrelevant scenes. Most hollywood directors are guilty of not having a basic understanding of narrative.

Of all the films that were nominated, not one of them had the depth or the grasp that The Artist had concerning narrative.

Watching the film, I wanted to see what came next. Usually with these Oscar bait snore fests, I find myself looking forward to the ending because I know exactly what's going to happen. The Artist kept me on the edge of my seat. It was also much darker than I was expecting...I mean wow...

I don't expect much from these Oscar bait films, but The Artist blew my expectations.

That's a paradox. The movie is a tribute to the movies of that time. Also, you're confusing "novelty" with "gimmick". It's not a gimmick because there are many moments of self-awareness.

I'm watching it now, and while I knew the picture won, I didn't know this fellow won as well.

Plotwise, it is virtually a takeoff of a forgotten film from the seventies, Won Ton Ton: The Dog That Saved Hollywood, with Madeline Kahn, and of course can also be compared to Singing In The Rain.

Other than that, it's reminding me of old Twilight Zone episodes, I guess mainly the one with Buster Keaton.