Why George couldn't make the transition - The Artist (2012) Discussion

[–] Ambrosia-I 12 years ago

My own view is that his accent had nothing to do with him not wanting to make the transition. Both Hazanavicius and Dujardin have said in interviews that such an interpretation was something they didn't expect. I think it's a conclusion that native English speakers jump to. To me, the reason George didn't want to do talkies was a mixture of arrogance and fear. George says as much to himself - "Look at what you've become. You've become proud! You've become stupid!" He was successful as a silent movie star and he wants things to stay as they've always been. He's a very human protagonist with very human flaws, but he's never mean-spirited or nasty. I think that's why people love him so much.

reply

[–] ecjones1951 12 years ago

My own view is that his accent had nothing to do with him not wanting to make the transition. Both Hazanavicius and Dujardin have said in interviews that such an interpretation was something they didn't expect. I think it's a conclusion that native English speakers jump to. To me, the reason George didn't want to do talkies was a mixture of arrogance and fear. George says as much to himself - "Look at what you've become. You've become proud! You've become stupid!" He was successful as a silent movie star and he wants things to stay as they've always been. He's a very human protagonist with very human flaws, but he's never mean-spirited or nasty. I think that's why people love him so much.

There you have it in a nutshell. Well said, and right on target.

reply

[–] Ambrosia-I 12 years ago

Thank you. That's kind of you.

reply

[–] moviewatcher125 12 years ago

Ambrosia hits the nail on the head. I would have thought it was the accent at first too, but I think it is all about fear of change. And George didn't know how to handle it although he would never have admitted it to anyone personally. It makes more sense now.

reply

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

Precisely, I think Charlie Chaplin was an inspiration for the character becuase of similar views to talkies.

reply

[–] Rvrgm 12 years ago

Firstly, why in the world are you here talking speculations about a movie you haven't watched yet!!?

Anyway, the movie isn't about his inability to transition - its his UNWILLINGNESS to transition. The movie is about pride. George thinks "talkies" are a fad - his response is the same that many producers have toward 3D - "is it REALLY the future, or is it just a fad? Sorry, I'm gonna stick with my 2D!" Same as filmmakers two decades ago felt about the digital revolution ("Sorry, I'm sticking with film").

The only reason he is french is because this was a French produced fillm.

reply

[–] Ambrosia-I 12 years ago

I don't think 3D is the future in the way sound was. Unless they solve the 30% light loss that goes along with the 3D glasses and the often blurry double images that 3D produces whenever there's any fast movement on screen, I don't think it's something that will stand the test of time. 3D is, in my view, a fad that people are already growing tired of. Filmmakers have tried to introduce it every few decades for over a century and it has never really stuck because very few films are enhanced by the experience of watching them in 3D.

reply

[–] springz_nineeleven 11 years ago

George, is that you?

They've already made huge improvements in the lighting, just check out an UltraAVX movie. Much Brighter.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 10 years ago

I have to agree with the previous poster about 3D. 3D has been around since the 60s and hasn't really caught on as sound has. There are numerous issues with 3D films, it simply isn't realistic enough to draw you in. The important part of film is 'the suspension of belief', 3D attempts to recreate our reality but can't AOTM. I was very excited about 3D films & attempted to watch several on IMAX but after a while, you realize that except for a few films, it simply isn't worth it. Most often, it even destroys the illusion of the story & characters because the depth perception simply isn't the same as we see it in reality. It strains the eyes because we're trying to associate everything we see with what it's suppose to be in reality. By doing so, we are very much aware that we are watching a film. We cannot lose ourselves into the story or characters. Plus those glasses are painful.

Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply

[–] mechafi 8 years ago

Actually, 3D films predate sound films. First ones were made in 1910s. When you think about it, George's attitude towards sound films becomes more understandable. "Bah, sound films?! That's just another fad like those three dimensional movies they made 20 years ago, I'll stick with silent movies".

And yes, 3D films have been "on the verge of breakthrough" for the last one hundred years. I don't think they make it this time either, not in the long run.

reply

[–] martinuhlig 12 years ago

It's not like 2D to 3D, going from silent to talk was huge. People suddenly used a whole extra sense (I disregard the music that accompanied the silent film), and that gave a much bigger feeling of "being there" when the film was running.

The day they implement some mechanism that allows us to smell and taste the film, that will be as huge. And yet, to many this will be crossing a fine line, where we go from being spectators, to being part of the film.

Apart from the actual film, being able to have voices/sound as well, was the biggest revolution ever being made in the film-industry, nothing will come close to it, and everything made after that has just been improvements, not revolutions.

I understand George's unwillingness to adapt. First of all, hearing yourself talk, I remember from my childhood, was quite weird. You don't sound anything like you think you sound, and imagine this happening at the age of 40?

reply

[–] winzentween 11 years ago

3d is a fad lol or a gimmick as it is not nec. has yet to really make a diff. and really only works well with animation and guess what AVATAR was mostly animated lol oh and it looks the same on 2d screens its the size of screen which really makes the difference!

reply

[–] crpl_hicks 11 years ago

Since I started this post I have seen the Artist. And whether his accent was behind his reluctance to accept Talkies or not, depending on the theories, my original question still remains.

Since I am NOT a film historian, I don't know how many actors/actresses career was truly affected by an accent. If their fear was that people would not accept them because they were not American, I still do not believe that these people lived in a vacume. They had to interact with people, do interviews, be seen in public, ect...so you would think word would get out that George Valentine was French.

Or could it be as simple as people liked watching George on screen, but to listen to his voice would make him unlikable? Is that what George thought? If you subscribe to the whole accent theory.

We're all in strung out shape, but stay frosty, and alert.

reply

[–] JW-7 12 years ago

I agree with Cartwheels--do NOT make assumptions from the "consensus" that you have only read about. See it for yourself. Anyone who makes such a judgment and who has not even seen the movie sounds impossibly dumb. If you have read any of the many any other posts on this subject, you would have found that this theory has been denied by the director and the actor, who were quite surprised that this theory sprung up. It has been largely discredited. So the "consensus" you refer to is either mistaken or written quite some time ago.

Our friend Cartwheels just saw the movie [the post before this one] and came up with the theory that most accept as accurate. You need to see the movie for yourself before you jump to such a conclusion based on third-hand opinions. You may still feel the same way, but at least it will be based on your own interpretation, not someone elses interpretation of someone elses interpretation.

"The wrong kid died."

reply

[–] crpl_hicks 12 years ago

First, let me say that I do not think I am the only person to ever post a question about a film I have not seen yet. There are people who ask questions such as "Is this film worth seeing" or "What is the plot?" I did not realize that asking questions about an unseen film was forbidden or considered "impossibly dumb".

Secondly, my post was NOT a speculation. At no point did I make a statement that would lead someone to think I had the "answer" nor theorize or speculate an answer. Instead, if you read what I posted, my comment casts doubt on the whole "accent theory"...

"but realistically would an accent keep someone from doing talkies?"

In retrospect, the word "consensus" was a poor choice. Perhaps I should have said ..."based on what I have read one of the THEORIES was.."

But hey, thanks for jumping down someones throat just for asking a question that CLEARLY makes the theory of an actors accent affecting his transition to talkies seem hard to accept.

"I am not denying that this might have been the reason, but realistically would an accent keep someone from doing talkies? A squeaky voice or one that sounds like nails on a chalk board would kill a movie career, but an accent?"

So again, thanks for your comments. Thank god I didn't ask if there is a colorized version or are there subtitles?? BTW I'm being sarcastic, so don't get all pissy!

We're all in strung out shape, but stay frosty, and alert.

reply

[–] Rvrgm 12 years ago

Crpl Hicks - I apologize if I seemed to be jumping down your throat. I did not intend to offend you - I was just surprised that someone would want to talk theories about a movie that they hadn't seen yet, when seeing the movie would answer the very question. It wasn't meant as an insult, just a comment.

Anyway, I understand you are asking about something you've read elsewhere...

So, as has already been stated, the "Accent" thing is an extrapolation by some viewers, and not intended by the filmmakers.

But, to your original question... would accents have interferred with silent starts making talkies...

1) You surmised that people would have known about their accents already because of public interaction. Remember, this is close to 80 years before the advent of the internet, and 30 years before television - celebrities were not ALL OVER THE AIR WAVES the way they are today. So, it's highly doubtful that your average person would have a clue what a silent film star really sounded like. Keep in mind also that, at the time, movies were a fad, not a staple of daily life. People would often wonder into a movie screening half-way through it, and leave before it was finished. It was a novelty, not an obsession.

2) In point of fact, vocal talent was EXACTLY what killed many silent film stars. They acted with their faces and expressions, but their voices were not professionally trained for the medium. If you haven't seen it already, see SINGING IN THE RAIN, one of the all time BEST movies about this very thing.

So, yes, his accent, had he been a real silent movie film star, would have been a major liability in his continuing in American talkies.

Hope you stick around the boards, and come back and let us know what you think of the movie once you see it!

reply

[–] JW-7 12 years ago

Couple of things. First I did not say you were dumb, I said you sounded dumb for posting about an interpretation of a movie you have not seen. There is a big difference between "what's the plot?" or "is this film worth seeing?" posts, and one that ventures an opinion on a plot point that depends on having an informed point of view, when one has not seen the movie. Anyone who ventures such a discussion on a movie not seen sounds impossibly dumb.

But okay, lets say that I misinterpreted your post. You were not saying that this was the point the movie was making, but you were asking if that's the case, how would that make sense? In that case I apologize for jumping into your stuff, and offer a "mea culpa" for accusing you of propounding a theory on a movie which you have not seen, which we know would be a dumb thing to do. In that case, I actually agree with your point that an accent would not prevent someone from doing talkies. On another thread, I named a number of actors and actresses who were successful despite heavy accents. I will not repeat them here. I do agree with Cartwheels in response to your statement about, for lack of a better word, "common knowledge." Prior to TV and sound movies, the moviegoing public had no idea what their screen idols sounded like, and an unpleasant, or out-of-character voice could indeed hinder a transition from talkies to sound.

All that being said, you should see the movie. I'd be interested in your own take after you do.

"The wrong kid died."

reply

[–] imapunk2222 12 years ago

I was one who thought that his French accent was supposed to be a twist that changed his motivation from from arrogance to fear. I loved that, no big deal though, the more I thought about, the more I came to the conclusion that it was actually fear all along. He was just fearful of change in general and worried that his talent is only for mugging (and let's be honest, he is great at mugging.)

In defense of us ugly Americans, this would have been a great twist if it was an American production and it was intended.

As for 3D, it may be the future, but film makers not embracing the change is because it is still in its diapers. When it s perfected, then your point stands, but right now the anti-3D class is only about half fear of change and the other half is fear of change to this clunky gimmick.

reply

[–] imapunk2222 12 years ago

Wait, my girlfriend just pointed out to me that the rest of the speakers in the talking scene clearly sounded American. The fact that Valentin spoke with a heavy accent while no one else did can't be an accident. Nope, his French accent was probably meaningful, not definitely, but I think so. Hell, when you read their lips, this movie is in English. You guys laid the seed of doubt, and I genuinely appreciate it, but I think you're wrong.

reply

[–] Ambrosia-I 12 years ago

Here's a article I found some time ago in which Jean Dujardin talks about people's interpretation that his accent was the reason George Valentin was afraid of doing talkies. Dujardin makes it pretty clear that it came as something of a surprise to both him and Hazanavicius, as it wasn't something they'd intended. As for John Goodman having an American accent, well, he's American so he would. If rising star Peppy had been given something to say, she would also have had a French accent because Berenice is French/Argentinian.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/15/the-artist-golden-glo be-winner-jean-dujardin-on-its-surprise-ending.html

Through his grueling weeks of tap lessons and the 35-day Hollywood shoot, Dujardin says he always imagined that Valentin had come to America with his family in the 19th century. “And then, as they did in the era, it’s silent film, so there could be Italians, Irish people, French people. So it amused me to say ‘wiz pléjure,’” he says.

But the idea that Valentin’s accent was the reason he couldn’t make the leap to talking movies? “Ah, no. We never thought of that.” No? “No. That is coming up now, obviously, when folks hear ‘wiz pléjure’ they understand why he had trouble getting into the talkies,” he says with a laugh. But that wasn’t the goal? “No, that wasn’t conscious at all. Not at all.”

Still, the actor says he thinks it’s great that people do interpret it that way. “I mean, at the same time, I live the same thing as George Valentin in the United States. Since I don’t speak English very well, I find myself in a world with mouths, with people talking, and I don’t understand anything at all,” he jokes.

I'm not saying the interpretation has no validity, just that it wasn't intended by the film's makers.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] imapunk2222 12 years ago

Good info, thanks for that, I read the article and it seems clear.

Let me just explain how logically this makes the last line go from being an amazing twist to being a gaping mistake.

Scenario 1: Valentin appears to be a stubborn silent actor who is afraid to go into talkies because he fears change. At the end, he compromises to do movies with sound, but where he doesn't have to speak. In the last line of the film, it turns out that he was afraid that his heavy French accent would hold him back in talkies which makes him more sympathetic.

Scenario 2: Valentin is a stubborn silent actor who is afraid to go into talkies because he fears change. At the end, he compromises to do movies with sound, but where he doesn't have to speak. In the last line of the film, it turns out that he has a heavy French accent which actually would hold him back in talkies, which means it never occurred to him that his accent would be an issue, but he resisted anyway. This makes the character both stubborn and oblivious.

This is so stark that I wonder if Dujardin just never realized the twist since it is a matter of casting rather than direction. I'd like to believe that, but it is more likely that Hazanavicius just stumbled into genius...there is no shame in that, it is actually the norm in my opinion.

reply

[–] JW-7 12 years ago

I don't get what you're saying. It was neither an amazing twist nor a gaping mistake. His accent had nothing to do with anything. He said what he said to show that his character now got pleasure from something he was so afraid of, and it reaffirmed his return, both to film and to life. The fact that he had an accent would not have precluded him from success in talkies, so he had no reason to think it would, He was not sympathetic, stubborn or oblivious because of his accent, but because he faced an industry in metamorphosis, and was not sure if he would succeed--not because of his accent, but because of his acting technique which he would have to change to accommodate the demands of a new medium. The article and the interview with both Dujardin and Hazavanicius show that they were never intending, by that last line, to intimate that his accent was a stumbling point, and this theory, when espoused by filmgoers, took them by surprise.

"The wrong kid died."

reply

[–] imapunk2222 12 years ago

To clarify, I made the assumption that in the real world his accent would affect his success. You said flat out that it wouldn't. My reasoning is that this took place in America and Americans are xenophobic, I assumed it was worse back when society was more homogenous culturally. You can set me straight by giving me evidence that my assumption is unfounded, otherwise it is just your assertion that it would not have any impact. I am genuinely not well informed about that era of cinema.

I acknowledged that the lead was surprised by the English speaking response (though the linked article is the actor not the director, I assumed that the idea of the twist ending was dead in regards to him too.)

reply

[–] imapunk2222 12 years ago

Okay, don't bother replying, I am going to find your thread where you mentioned actors and actresses who were successful despite accents. If it holds ground, which I am sure it will, I will stand corrected.

Either way, the idea that his accent was an issue is intriguing even though untrue.

reply

[–] JW-7 12 years ago

Agreed, the idea is intriguing. What annoys me are the posts that say, "aha! so here's why he could not make the transition" as though it were a fact. True enough that I'm sure it was an issue in some cases, but there are many examples of actors who were big stars despite, or, in some cases, because of, their accents.

"The wrong kid died."

reply

[–] selkn-asrai 12 years ago

I've never heard the argument that it was because of his accent, but I think it's fairly asinine: a myopic and slightly xenophobic reaction by an American (or Americanized) audience.

George's hubris is constantly cited as his impediment, in the dialogue, characterization, and action. That's why it's a portrait of him as The Artist. His evolution, not his accent, is the driver of the film.

As an aside: George's surname is French, anyway. It's not like his accent would be a huge shock.

"Now, bring me that horizon."

reply

[–] KitchenKnives 12 years ago

It's an interesting thought, for sure. I also considered that it may be a deliberate twist, and in a way, I like to think of it as one, even if it was unintended. It's also interesting to think about how we're instantly accepting of American accents in places they really shouldn't be. For some reason, Disney films spring to mind, especially Aladdin. Logically, it's a complete minefield, but within the movie it's a non-existent issue. The audience accepts it without question, yet when faced with a Frenchman in Hollywood, tongues start to wag and theories begin to surface.

reply

[–] springz_nineeleven 11 years ago

Yeah, I thought it was a joke at the end.

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

I'm glad that I saw the film fresh, and being able to be surprised by the his French accent at the end. Even if I KNEW that the actor was himself French, it's not something you're thinking while watching the film, unless you're seeing it after reading discussions.

I want to shake every limb in the Garden of Eden
and make every lover the love of my life

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

One should remember that many silent stars feared sound, not because the had bad voices, but because the possibility that the voices might be different than what the public expected.

This is most likely the case with John Gilbert (some of whose personality and life can be seen in Valentin), who had a wonderful speaking voice, but people expected something more "masculine". Chaplin also had a beautiful and effective voice, which he used on stage (the fact that many silent actors came from the stage is too often forgotten). But people might have been surprised and even turned off by his particular English accent.

I want to shake every limb in the Garden of Eden
and make every lover the love of my life

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

George is a fictional character, and the movie is fiction, so anything beyond what we actually see and hear is speculation. But the discussion is interesting nonetheless.

To those who stated that the film-makers denied any intention, this is an interesting part of the equation, but not a game-breaker. One needn't find prior intention on the part of an artist, for there to be any legitimate "reading" of that work.

I want to shake every limb in the Garden of Eden
and make every lover the love of my life

reply

[–] Ambrosia-I 12 years ago

Michel Hazanavicius has said as much. The interpretation came as a surprise to him, but he seems quite happy for people to interpet it in that way. I must say, though, I just don't and never have because I think the reasons George didn't want to make the transition are made pretty clear in the film.

reply

[–] edjavega 12 years ago

I for one do think that while his main problem was his stubborn refusal to go along with change, his pride in his art as a silent film artist, and so forth, the fact that he had a French accent gave an additional dimension to the issue (however unintended by the moviemakers, or so they claim).

Maybe he was such a perfectionist that deep down, he felt (maybe correctly) that for audiences to hear him speal with a French and not native speaker accent would be an "imperfection" to his art, so he was afraid to do talkies. Of course, one flaw in this is that, for sure, audiences had heard him speak in public with that French accent, and this is never mentioned in his interaction with Peppy and the rest, so...

So what's the solution? He will appear in talkies but only as a dancer? Is that the conclusion of the movie?

reply

[–] JW-7 12 years ago

No, not exactly. It showed (a) he was BACK, both emotionally and physically, and (b) he was not merely the actor in the roles for which he gained fame as a silent film star, but was capable of branching out and broadening his range, and be successful in other phases of talkies.

reply

[–] Ambrosia-I 12 years ago

Why on earth would George think that his French accent was an "imperfection"? There is nothing at all in the film to suggest that he felt ashamed of his accent or thought that it would be a hindrance. To me, that seems a rather xenophobic interpretation of his motivations, i.e. - hey, he doesn't speak with an American accent, he must feel ashamed and imperfect.

reply

[–] cellist 12 years ago

I agree - assuming that George was insecure about anything when deciding not to do talkies (including an accent) goes directly against character for him and makes no sense in context. It misses the point completely. Allowing 'George' to speak with Jean's French accent is merely one of the first and most meaningful fractures in the movie's world - bringing us closer to the actor rather than the character and reminding us that we had not completely understood the reality - that our imaginations had filled in blanks - absolutely brilliant! Or, better said, the French accent is not a plot device, but is only important in its 'realness' or existence outside the movie's world.

And, as the camera moves back and the sound of reality invades, one realizes that we have moved away from the movie and into living, breathing existence. There would be no point, metaphorically speaking, to having the actor, Jean, speak in a way that was unnatural. Jean, as the actor playing the part, was a part of the metaphor and is expressing this by speaking exactly as he does in real life. And, just as we hear the word 'action' and as their scene begins again, we are completely thrust out of the movie and the transition to reality is complete. We have gained our hearing, but lost our innocence. And in the end, isn't that exactly what this movie is all about - the movie patrons have gained their hearing, but have also, in a sense, lost their innocence. The best ending possible. Genius.

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

As a fictional character, we can't possibly KNOW what he might have felt. But, for the historical record, the studios were afraid of their actors' accents, and even kept Garbo from speaking until that famous "GARBO SPEAKS" movie, Anna Christie. The great Chaplin, who had a wonderful speaking voice, was afraid that his English accent would not be accepted by the public.

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

reply

[–] veryhornyfox 11 years ago

The silence in this movie represents the lack of communication between the two main protaganists and is finally removed and resolved not only when he enters the world of talking movies, but also when their previously unspoken feelings are finally resolved.

reply

[–] JW-7 11 years ago

Interesting perspective. Never thought of it that way, but it fits.

reply

[–] eily 12 years ago

A French accent wouldn't have hurt his career at all. On the contrary, it would have made him sound exotic and sexy. If he'd had a Brooklyn accent, or a Minnesota accent, or a Texas panhandle accent, etc. THAT would have hurt his career. In the early days of talking films, there were accented people, Greta Garbo the most famous. Later people like Charles Boyer, Maurice Chevalier, and others. But most of the American actors spoke with clipped upper crust accents that sounded almost British, and were certainly not their own.

reply

[–] Nanrad 10 years ago

Exactly, and that is why I call BS on the accent theory. Actors with accents did have success in Hollywood when talkies were introduced.

Not only that, why would George even be insecure about his voice in the first place. Unless it is highly unpleasing to listen to like Lina in Singing in the Rain, why would George assume his voice was a turn off for the audience--accent or not? George immediately dismissed talkies without hesitation, so when did he have time to contemplate how his voice would end his career? The thing that prevent him from making the transition was pride and fear.

reply