quicksand
by Douglas Messerli
Michael Hazanavicius (screenwriter
and director) The Artist / 2011
George Hazanavicius' The Artist may not be the most original
film of the year, but it is certainly one of the most enjoyable. Echoing as it
does dozens of films which relate to acting and filmmaking, The Artist steals its situation from A Star Is Born, with a story that, like
the Judy Garland/James Mason work, centers around a young up-and-coming actress
falling in love with a matinee hero whose career is about to collapse, the
former star sinking into alcoholism and suicide. The Artist's focus on the quick shift from silent films to talkies
is parallel with much of Singing in the
Rain. And the film's obvious love affair with silent film-acting
demonstrates connections to Sunset
Boulevard. But while those great films told their story through their
character's words and songs, Hazanavicius' does it all without a peep—well, not
quite! The music—popular songs of the day, the poignant Bernard Herrmann love
theme from Vertigo, and original
music by Ludovic Bource—is crucial to the film. And, although I doubt this will
happen, the sound man should receive a major award. Despite the characters'
silence, sound does play important roles throughout.
The story is almost insignificant. Noted actor (Jean Dujardin as George
Valentin) accidentally bumps into a
want-to-be chorus girl (Bérénice Bejo as Peppy Miller), he (trapped in an
unhappy marriage) falling for her, she already in love. Peppy gets a small
dancing role in his next movie which intensifies their relationship. But before
anything can happen between them, the advent of talking films changes
everything: Peppy is suddenly asked to star in a new film, while George is
fired.
Using his own money and directing himself, George attempts a comeback, a
silent film that ends, quite ridiculously, with the hero being swallowed up in
quicksand, just as his life has been swallowed up by the new medium in which
Peppy is featured. Both films are scheduled to open the same night!
Peppy is one of the few members of the
audience for George's disaster, while her own film is mobbed. Suddenly, as the
fan magazines might put it, she is "everyone's favorite," while
George's wife leaves him, demanding that he clear out of their house. The stock
market crash leaves him reeling. Spiraling into alcoholism, he is forced even
to pawn his tux. He fires is loyal driver-butler (James Cromwell) and puts his
few possessions that remain up for auction, Peppy secretly buying them.
The rest of The Artist is an
artful seesaw between the two, as time and again Peppy—a nearly unstoppable
force—attempts to create a deeper relationship, while George, out of stubborn
pride and self-pity, pulls away, until he finally tries to burn down his
apartment with himself in it.
His amazing pet dog, Uggy, races to a nearby policeman, who pulls George
to safety. Peppy, rushing to his side finds him lying in a hospital in a near
coma, and takes him home to her new mansion. She even blackmails the studio
head (John Goodman) into featuring George in a talking picture. But when George
gets wind of her good attempts and discovers her purchase of his mementos, he
once again returns to his burned-out hovel, taking out a hidden gun with the
intent of killing himself. When Peppy discovers his absence she calls out for
her driver, Clifton (the former driver for George, whom she has hired), but
when he does not appear, she impatiently takes over the wheel herself, despite
the fact, as it quickly becomes apparent, that she cannot drive. The tension
between the possibility that she will kill herself in an automobile crash and
George's slow employment of his gun is an exciting near-end for this melodrama.
I don't think it will ruin the film to tell what anyone who understands
this work as a comedy will have already figured out. She hits a tree, but
safely arrives, and although an intertitle shouts "BANG," George does
not shoot the gun.
The final scene is a joyful filming of them dancing, a là Astaire and
Rodgers. The pair, as the director declares, are sensational! With so much
talent, one wonders why George has not previously attempted to act in talking
films. Asked by the director to repeat the scene, George says—he'd be glad
to—with the heavy French accent, of course, of Jean Dujardin!
It has all been great fun! But The
Artist is not really about its clichéd plot but rather concerns silent and
sound filmmaking. How does film mean? And how does film narrative get conveyed?
It's not just that Hazanavicius's film is a valentine to silent film pictures;
it is a kind of imaginary silent film that should/could have been made, had
that era had all the technical abilities that we have today. And in that sense The Artist is a sort of wonderful fraud,
a film that just like forged art works, looks like an original until you
discover that the paint did not exist during the artist's life or that the
canvas upon which the work has been painted was made years after the artist died.
I do not mean that Hazanavicius is attempting to fool anyone, and, in
fact, the audience has joined in the pretense from the beginning. He makes his
act of "forgery" quite obvious, and it is these obvious
"clues" that ensure that this work is so interesting. When George
first discovers the existence of talking films, for example, suddenly a brush
and comb come to life in sound, a jar scratches across the table, the whole
chattering world is blown in through his window. The noise is unbearable!
Later, in a moment of utter drunkenness, George suddenly sees miniature
versions of himself and fellow cast members, and is about to wipe them off the
bar counter before he falls stone drunk to the floor, as if in destroying his
visions of himself, he has himself died. When the dog soundlessly barks at the
policeman, the officer at first seems impervious to his calls for help. Is the
dog barking or pretending to bark? If a tree falls in the forest without a
witness, does it make a noise?
These inherent cinematic conundrums and numerous others enrich this work
and transform it from a mere exercise in recreating an older form into a
questioning of that form and of film genre in general. By film's end the
director has publicly investigated the role of the artist, director, editor,
composer, and actor. And, in doing so, Hazanavicius has truly brought some of
the past back to life, or, more correctly, stolen some of our present to bring
back into the past.
Los Angeles, December 14, 2011
Reprinted from Nth Position (January 2012).
