Take away the novelty

I'm a movie buff of sorts and have seen a number of silent films in their entirety.

A film is judged first by the era in which it is made, with the equipment and technology in existence at that time, as well as within the frame of the issues of the time, except for universal, timeless issues.

This was not a pure silent film in the same way that 1920s films were silent. The Artist is a mainly silent B&W film made during an era of talkies and computer graphics, to tell a story that occurred during the silent era. Much like a movie about the Civil War would be done. But silent films of the '20s were the height of technology and that was the most advanced that was done, known, or could be done.

So the two types of movies - mainly silent as a flashback movie in talkie era vs total silent movie made in the silent era - are judged differently, IMO.

Nevertheless, yes, this film is as good as, and better than, most silent films. I think that's because film was in the early days in the '20s, so the art of putting drama and comedy on film, as well as plot, acting, and of course technology, were not nearly as advanced as now. People in the biz know well how to transfer a good story to film. It's old hat, so it's done deftly these days. Their concerns are different, now. Editing, for example, is a big part of picture making these days.

The silent films were, IMO, often overacted, overdramatic, hammy, and corny. There was little subtlety. Evil was pure evil, complete with mustaches and darting eyes, and good was pure good, complete with white dresses, blond wavy hair with bows, and long eyelashes. The comedy was slapstick (Keystone Cops). No subtlety whatsoever, stemming from vaudeville, I suspect.

One exception in the silent era was Charlie Chaplin. He brought subtlety that was lacking in so many of the silent films. He also brought more realistic drama. His films were at times still hammy, by today's standards. But he was the Woody Allen of his day and was a genius at the business.

Yes, The Artist is heads above the old, real silent films. But it's unfair to compare today's films with the beginning days. That would be like comparing the art of a 16 year old with that of a 10 year old.

In any era, it is a mediocre film at best. It's also a sad testament to what has happened to Hollyweird (and our nation in general.) The film and music industry have died in America and it isn't likely to return anytime soon.

Remember When Movies Did Not Have To Be Politically Correct?

I feel that it still would rise above the movies of 1929. It was of much higher quality and had a much better story than most of the silent era movies, most of which were very melodramatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

The story is old but the execution is brilliant.

Not pre-warned about what I was expecting to see, it took me a time to settle into 'The Artist.' I began to enjoy it more and more as I 'got' what the film was about. I shall enjoy watching this again. But it won't tempt me into watching silent films, apart from the occasional one.

I don't think that a 1929 audience would have 'got' the significance of what a massive change talkies were about to make. And how some of the stars would not adapt to the new medium. A lot of people may have even thought that talkies themselves was just going to be a novelty at the time.

I didn't want to watch it because A: B&W and B: silent. I watched it anyway because it got so many good reviews and I loved it...despite the reasons I had NOT to watch it.

It was an interesting, entertaining novelty. However, if it had been released just as it was--a black-and-white, silent movie--in the late 1920s, it would be forgotten today. And if it had been released with the exact same story and actors, but as a color film with sound, in 2011, it would also be forgotten.