bpmford wrote:Hey NTROST, thanks for replying!
I'm sorry, but silent films were done for many years, so the need to express emotion without words is neither new or imaginative.
I don't know what the big deal with CGI is any way, it is an amazing technology that allows film makers to do things and create worlds that would otherwise be only possible in our dreams. Personally, I really enjoy a film-maker's ability to mix CGI, Motion Capture and physical production all together to make a movie.
I fully know the film making process, and to me a silent film is the easier way out. There is so much reference material, the directors and actors jobs are practically already done.
As for assuming you know what I think should have won in 2009... I don't think Avatar was the best picture, but it was way better than Hurt Locker. And by saying it was a gimic is IMO seems to be your way of de-valuing the work that was put into it.
That year, I do believe Inglourious WAS the best movie, by far, yet the academy chose to give it to Hurt Locker... maybe because a female directed it, maybe because it is an american story... maybe a little of both.
Tarantino has spent many years pouring his heart into movies that re-define their generation and push every limit, and he still doesn't have a Best picture award to show for it.
I agree, The Artist would be a well-crafted film, if this year was 1925, but it is not.
I also find it funny that you call Avatar a rip-off of other films while defending The Artist, which is a rip off of an entire film generation!
Guess we just have different opinions. Personally, I like watch new movies that push new technologies, not re-creations of old films... Moving forward, not backward!
Also, can I ask that you please leave out words like 'pitty', I am just stating my opinion to get some conversation going.
Let me start of by saying, I don't mean to come off as strong or harsh as I may sound.
Now to the topic, filmmaking is about storytelling NOT about special effects. "The Artist" demonstrates well-crafted storytelling, narrative economics, solidified acting, competent direction & so forth. Great storytelling is great storytelling no matter what year, decade & so on it is (same with filmmaking which is a visionary skill set). Things don't have to be "new" in order to be valuable or valid. Emotion is an immense part & key figure of film & storytelling. I studied in film & can tell you from knowledge (not an opinion) CG technology has made things easier & even improved certain elements of filmmaking, yes but it also has created a lazy facet factor to filmmaking & to storytelling. More filmmakers today cop out more than ever before & put CG over story which says that filmmaker isn’t a storyteller in which fails more times than succeeds by a massive margin (just check out the majority of big-budget films). We live in one of the weakest generations ever in the lack of strong filmmaking & storytelling even imagination which things are more spoon-fed & already pre-done.
"The Artist" demonstrates solid storytelling. Yes, it's a silent film but that doesn't discredit it nor does it take away from the filmmaking. The film has a premise about the silent film era. Granted, it's not the first time a film's premise was about the silent film era. Just check out Stanley Donan's "Singin' in the Rain" (brilliant film). You are judging against a film because of its setting which is really ignorant if not misguided. You keep saying directors & actors can go back to reference material? They aren’t doing a remake of an already done film here. They are telling a story about a specific era. The director & actors can’t rely on CG or any other type of technology to distract the audience in this film which is what many filmmakers do today to cover themselves. More psychical talent was used in making “The Artist†than in making a film like “Avatar†where the director & actors just do placement acting or re-acting in front of a blue/green screen which by the way, is one of the most simplistic acting methods. The only real talent show in “Avatar†was the SFX artists, designers & engineers.
You take a film like "Avatar" which didn't revolutionize CG (like some people claim) but ONLY enhanced the 3D experience which is a fading aspect already. The film had plausible storytelling with a formulaic premise that took from immense facets from "Dances with Wolves", "Ferngully" & "Pocahontas". "Avatar" only had the 3D element going for it. “Avatar" wasn't a compellingly, evocatively nor persuasively strong with its storytelling by any accounts as it put its actual story as the third important element behind the 3D & CG facets. The people at Weta Digital put more work & talent into this film than the actors (who did their job well) or Cameron himself did (& yes, he came up with the world & characters per se) but that’s another story. The film was more interested in being a roller-coaster ride with pretty colors then being an actual film that told a story. Hell, "Avatar" that year was one of the weaker candidates for Best Picture compared to films it went against like "Inglourious Basterds", "Up", "Up In The Air", "District 9†(a superior Sci-Fi film than “Avatarâ€), “Preciousâ€, “An Educationâ€, “A Serious Manâ€, “The Blind Side†(arguably the weakest of the bunch but still a well-told) & yes, “The Hurt Locker†(which had a better story over “Avatarâ€.) At best, “Avatar†was the 5th or 6th best film out of the bunch.
Let me also say I’m not a fan of remakes of already well-established films & do like to see new stories told on film. “The Artist†ISN’T a re-creation of already made film. It’s a new film just using the silent method to tell its story. Your logic is flawed in this matter my friend.
