What does this even mean?Colin Jacobson said:
Really. The "gimmick" as you call it, is the film's reason for being. It's not a "gimmick" any more than any other film's style is a "gimmick." It was voted best picture because that's what Academy members voted for. It's fine to think it didn't deserve it but to say it would have had less attention without its gimmick is, well, I don't know what it is. Of course it would have had much less attention - because the film wouldn't exist.
You can debate originality till the end of time. If something works, it works. If it's done well, people will enjoy it again. You think it's easy to make a successful silent movie in this era? You see NO ingenuity or artistry or skill in the film? Fine if you preferred another movie, but dismissing it as a "gimmick" sounds like sour grapes bitterness to me because it's not a good argument. I think dismissing the success of "The Artists" as simply a "gimmick" is very shortsighted in that it pointedly ignores that the movie succeeds without elements all the other films used. If you want an excuse to dismiss a movie, there are plenty of effective and successful movies that you could poke at for having a "gimmick." It's like saying Wallenda was using Niagara falls as a gimmick when he could have done his walk elsewhere. You may as well be asking why The Haunting or Paper Moon or Last Picture Show needed to be in B&W when they could have told the same story in color. And if The Artist wasn't told in the B&W silent style you would probably be right here again arguing that it had nothing new or unusual to bring to the table. Making The Artist in that style was an artistic challenge that made it more interesting. I think this movie didn't win because it was "silent" - it won because it was a GOOD movie despite lack of dialogue, color, etc...Colin Jacobson said:
Because that's what its director/writer wanted to do. There is no arguing this. You didn't find it deserving of all the praise, others did. He didn't want to tell this story any other way. He wanted to do a movie in the style of silent movies. That's his choice, like it or not. Whether YOU think it didn't need to be black-and-white and silent is completely irrelevant. He is the filmmaker, not you. You are an audience member and can respond or not. I thought he succeeded in everything he set out to to, unlike most of the tripe I see today.Colin Jacobson said:
While it's convenient to leave out what I was responding specifically to, I'd just ask others to scroll up so they can see it. I won't play this game, sorry.Colin Jacobson said:
I hesitate to speak for others, but my impression is that the "sour grapes" remark was aimed primarily at Lord Dalek, who essentially accused Harvey Weinstein of bribing the Academy. See his evidence-free comment about "the usual Weinstein payola scam."Colin Jacobson said:
Since my copy preorder hasn't even shipped yet, I'm curious how the picture is framed. When I saw it, i remember grey bars flanking the picture in the beginning, and it took this ostensibly premium cinema quite a while to bring in the masking.Ronald Epstein said:
The 35mm prints had black bars on the left and right (with the actual Academy ratio image set to the height of a 1.85 frame). I didn't see it projected digitally.NY2LA said:
Thank you. That's as it should be, but this "state-of the-art 'black box'" cinema had grey bars until they thought to close the masking about 20-30 minutes in.Peter Apruzzese said:
Should be the same level of detail as every other Academy ratio film released on Blu-ray.NY2LA said:
