Sure enough, there are many voices of praise infected by the feelings of the past on the Internet, and there are also many voices of doubts about the technology flow. Questions mainly focus on shots and editing. For those who are very familiar with silent films, the attention to shots and editing is understandable, as these are part of their definition of silent film. And a relatively novice audience like me is not sensitive to the scenes and editing that a silent film in the early 20th century should have. Judging such a film is more about whether it brings up a sense of nostalgia. In fact, this silent film is about a story about a sound film, not the plot that was commonly used in silent films back then. Using silent films to talk about the conflict between audio films and silent films is certainly a neat way to do it, but this "contradiction" actually shows that this film is not a stereotyped restoration of a 1920s film, but a silent film as the shell. Come to remember and pay tribute to that era. In short, nostalgic without being old-fashioned.
If this is recognized, then not only do the retro credits work, but these modern photography and editing techniques should also give the film extra points. Because they make the movie more compact and smooth, more in line with the viewing habits of modern audiences, and help more audiences feel nostalgic feelings together. You must know that most of the silent films of the past are procrastinated and monotonous today.
Although it is not to imitate an old movie, it is still to unfold the picture scroll of that era. Silent film actors cannot speak and can only externalize emotions and thoughts through gestures, movements, facial expressions, and body language. The male protagonist, the supporting roles and even the extras have achieved this slightly exaggerated and simple style of the times. This kind of demeanor is more difficult to describe, but think about the smile that the male protagonist sometimes shows similar to Clark Gable. Although Clark Gable is an era later than him, you should be able to understand that it is not on the current screen. There is such a smile. In my opinion, the biggest flaw is the heroine, who basically does not have the physical sense of a silent film actor. Her gestures are all after the 1980s, and she is still the one with poor acting skills, reminding me all the time of this piece of nostalgia. There is a transmigration woman in the breath. The dance at the end of the credits is clearly intended to evoke the legacy of Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire, but unfortunately the dance skills of the two protagonists are slightly inferior.
Due to the limited amount of information in the form of silent films and the avoidance of additional content to destroy the sense of the times, the plot of this film is relatively simple. The theme is sound. The birth of the sound film had an impact on the silent film star George Valentine (the male protagonist). George's wife also broke up on the grounds that George refused to speak to her, and then buckled the silent film form of the film without sticking to it. The method, in George's Nightmare, decisively stops the soundtrack and enables the sound, using up the impact of the sound. It may not be easy for us to understand the impact of the talkie on silent film stars today, but I think it is no less than the impact of digital cameras on Kodak film. This really destroyed many silent film stars who performed stylized exaggeration at the time. The realism brought by the sound film made their performances exaggerated and almost comical. But what this film has to say should end in the film circle, and there are not many incidental social hints and values. The point of view of this year's Oscars is left to the film industry itself.
WeChat public account: feidududu watching movies (feidudumovie)
View more about The Artist reviews
