It's a modern film using story telling technique that's close to a century old. For no other reason but to cover its simple, predictable, mostly boring, naively told story, that you wouldn't look at twice if it wasn't for the fact they weirded it out into silent movie. And the effect is not there to make a "girl with a red coat in the middle of black and white war movie" impact, it's there because otherwise it would be tuesday evening hallmark movie at best. And awarding that story with best film and best leading actor, just because story telling method is intriguing, retro and weird, is a bit too douchey and connesseur for me. It's like that year when Chicago won. To put this film next to Amadeus, Platoon, Last Emperor or One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest for the top award is a slap in the face to the film makers and cinema goers together. Granted, it was a bad year for movies. It was bad enough to watch William Bradley Pitt and Sean Penn try their best this year to get into every looooooong, boooooooring, self indulgent snooze fest possible with "please nominate me" practically tattooed on their foreheads. But making The Artist Best Movie is a bit of a joke. Let's not be afraid to say it - the foxtrotting thing was boring and got old as quickly as a mime from Covent Garden doing glass wall routine.
Oscar Nominations 2012
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
It's a modern film using story telling technique that's close to a century old. For no other reason but to cover its simple, predictable, mostly boring, naively told story, that you wouldn't look at twice if it wasn't for the fact they weirded it out into silent movie. And the effect is not there to make a "girl with a red coat in the middle of black and white war movie" impact, it's there because otherwise it would be tuesday evening hallmark movie at best. And awarding that story with best film and best leading actor, just because story telling method is intriguing, retro and weird, is a bit too douchey and connesseur for me. It's like that year when Chicago won. To put this film next to Amadeus, Platoon, Last Emperor or One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest for the top award is a slap in the face to the film makers and cinema goers together. Granted, it was a bad year for movies. It was bad enough to watch William Bradley Pitt and Sean Penn try their best this year to get into every looooooong, boooooooring, self indulgent snooze fest possible with "please nominate me" practically tattooed on their foreheads. But making The Artist Best Movie is a bit of a joke. Let's not be afraid to say it - the foxtrotting thing was boring and got old as quickly as a mime from Covent Garden doing glass wall routine.
Have you seen the Artist Marky? I thought it was a great film but blown completely out of proportion. I would have rather seen Moneyball or The Help win best picture.
Your justifications as to why it shouldn't have won the Oscar are pretty stupid
No need for me to elaborate though, VonHelmet has done the work for me 
In Oscar related lolz...watch this.
Your justifications as to why it shouldn't have won the Oscar are pretty stupid
No need for me to elaborate though, VonHelmet has done the work for me In Oscar related lolz...watch this.
Last edited:
Have you seen the Artist Marky? I thought it was a great film but blown completely out of proportion. I would have rather seen Moneyball or The Help win best picture.
Your justifications as to why it shouldn't have won the Oscar are pretty stupid
In Oscar related lolz...watch this.
I have and it was boring
My justification was that the Academy pick one movie (The Artist in this case) and throw awards at it. I don't think this is stupid, if you see the awards in previous years it's exactly the same.
My point with using older technology was just another stab at a film I thought wasn't even worthy of a nomination let alone a bunch of awards...
The Artist is a celebration of the heritage of cinema though. Much like Hugo is.
It's not "older" technology by any means: for one, it wasn't filmed on old film stock (and rightly so, that stuff is literally explosive), but that's not really the point. The Artist heralds back to a time that not many people have experienced. That's why it's an adventurous film; it is absolutely a gamble, who would have thought that a film with no dialogue would be so popular in the present day climate?
I think you're missing the point a little. Fair enough if you don't like the film, but deriding it for being, and making exactly no bones, about what it is, is a little silly, I think. People should be celebrating that era of film. Did you know that about 85% of films produced pre-1950 no longer exists because of how volatile and violently flammable the film stock is? The majority of cinemas back then would throw the film away when people stopped coming to see them because keeping them around and archiving them posed an extreme risk of fire (old nitrate film stock released chemicals inside the can which could, over time, cause it to literally explode of it's own accord; it's more flammable than gunpower, with a higher burning point than newspaper). Most people know that the genesis of modern cinema lies in silent film, but very few people have seen one. So why not create one? Why not celebrate the medium which gave birth to entire canon of films we love, and an entire industry which is, well, vital? So much of our cinematic history has been lost and that's why I think it's important to celebrate it, and I think that The Artist does celebrate it rather well.
By and large I agree that the academy are prone to giving awards to films that don't deserve but I think this does. It might not be innovative cinema, but it's probably the most pure representation of cinema that there has been for a good decade at the very least. Giving a film like this an award is essentially the academy's way of saying, we acknowledge where WE come from. And there is not a thing wrong with that.
It's not "older" technology by any means: for one, it wasn't filmed on old film stock (and rightly so, that stuff is literally explosive), but that's not really the point. The Artist heralds back to a time that not many people have experienced. That's why it's an adventurous film; it is absolutely a gamble, who would have thought that a film with no dialogue would be so popular in the present day climate?
I think you're missing the point a little. Fair enough if you don't like the film, but deriding it for being, and making exactly no bones, about what it is, is a little silly, I think. People should be celebrating that era of film. Did you know that about 85% of films produced pre-1950 no longer exists because of how volatile and violently flammable the film stock is? The majority of cinemas back then would throw the film away when people stopped coming to see them because keeping them around and archiving them posed an extreme risk of fire (old nitrate film stock released chemicals inside the can which could, over time, cause it to literally explode of it's own accord; it's more flammable than gunpower, with a higher burning point than newspaper). Most people know that the genesis of modern cinema lies in silent film, but very few people have seen one. So why not create one? Why not celebrate the medium which gave birth to entire canon of films we love, and an entire industry which is, well, vital? So much of our cinematic history has been lost and that's why I think it's important to celebrate it, and I think that The Artist does celebrate it rather well.
By and large I agree that the academy are prone to giving awards to films that don't deserve but I think this does. It might not be innovative cinema, but it's probably the most pure representation of cinema that there has been for a good decade at the very least. Giving a film like this an award is essentially the academy's way of saying, we acknowledge where WE come from. And there is not a thing wrong with that.
Last edited: