CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › THE ARTIST Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

THE ARTIST Discussion Thread

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
by Renn Brown: link

The greatest of films that exist to pay tribute to others are, invariably, themselves great examples of the genre, style, or aesthetic to which they pay tribute. This is largely because any filmmaker who can successfully comment on and deconstruct a certain kind of cinema likely has not only a genuine love of that genre, … Continue reading
post #2 of 64

There should be so much excitement for this. Just an absolute celebration of the form. Nothing more charming or entertaining in a theater this year.

post #3 of 64

I hadn't even heard of this (which generally seems to be the case for me), but it sounds lovely.  I hope I get a chance to see it soon.

post #4 of 64

This came out of nowhere for me too but it's sure as heck somewhere now.

post #5 of 64

Having just recently watched both OSS 117 films, I'm super-psyched for this one.  Dujardin is a movie star set to explode on the American scene, for sure.  

post #6 of 64

Heck yes, he's a ridiculously perfect blend of suave and hilarious in the OSS-117 movies.

post #7 of 64

I have a lot of problems with this movie, but the biggest is that Michel Hazanavicius isn't a great visual storyteller. I think probably the most effective set piece in the film is when George has a nightmare that involves diegetic sound.

 

If you're emulating the Silent comedies, I guess I can understand his simple camera placements, and they obviously slowed the cutting style, and shot a little wider to have that feel. The problem is that the Chaplin films, or the musicals that seem to be the basis for the film's narrative (there's a lot of The Band Wagon and Singin' in the Rain in the films, including direct lifts), you have main characters with indomitable spirits. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a Chaplin, Keaton, Astaire or Kelly film where we're forced to watch them mope that long without some sort of relief (maybe the closest to that would be An American in Paris, but that has way more fun in it). So when the film shakes loose the fun of its world to show the main character suffer, I didn't care because everything felt so loaded. They were still making silents after The Jazz Singer, the transition happened slower than it did in Singin' in the Rain and people would still go to see stars in silent movies. I understand that may not work for a simple narrative, but then is this a throwback or isn't it? Jean Dujardin is likeable, but what makes those other performers so likeable is their moxy. When he gives up, I kept waiting for the big turn.

 

But when you talk about the melodrama, the film doesn't embrace that language. Perhaps it's fair to say he's using the more comic director's approach to silent, but that doesn't work when you're showing a man fall further and further. And from Pabst to Von Stroheim to Murnau, etc. they were really sophisticated visual storytellers. Griffith and Eisenstein as well, if the idea is that it's mimicking the earlier greats. And when Hazanavicius used cues from Vertigo to basically give meaning and weight to a sequence that should have had that to begin with, I lost all respect for the movie. Vertigo earned that music, this didn't, especially in how that sequence is staged. I felt like this is a silent movie for people who don't know or like silent films. And I can totally see why Harvey Weinstein latched on to this. Like The King's Speech it's middlebrow entertainment that has the illusion of class/intelligence, etc.

post #8 of 64

Now I just want to see it MORE.

post #9 of 64

Andre put it so much better than I could.

 

I thought this was fitfully amusing for about forty five minutes, but beyond that, it's barely a movie. And Hazanavicius is ostensibly playing this movie straight, which means a slight break in the silent movie format is a cute wink. A second break? Should not be. Combined with the middling storytelling instincts he's following, and this assignment doesn't even stay on task, nor does it work as a compelling, standalone story.

 

I still love Dujardin, but I would have rather seen a third OSS 117 movie. Those are fucking great.

post #10 of 64

The Artist is mostly charming, witty, and even a little touching. Only, not nearly as witty, charming, and touching as it thinks it is. I credit most of what works to the two leads who are flat out great. Otherwise, it's own self awareness kind of gets in the way a lot of the time. That, and the fact that it might be the greenest movie ever as it seems like it consists of 90% recycled bits. From other greater movies. Someone should put a moratorium on borrowing the theme from Vertigo for awhile. And, I really could do without the flat digital look of the film that's supposed to be a tribute to the silent era. It's a good movie that I'd recommend, but I'd also recommend checking expectations of greatness, let alone originality, at the door.

 

Someone's also going to have to explain to me why a movie that's a tribute to silent movies, directly homages Citizen Kane a couple of times. That seems to be breaking the rules that the movie sets up for itself.

 

I'm also not sure how we're supposed to feel about Dujardin's character. He's a movie star alright, in the Douglas Fairbanks mode, but the movie never goes out of its way to suggest that Hollywood is missing a great talent in any way.

 

You want to see a great movie about the silent era transitioning into sound, Singin' in the Rain is it.

 

The dog, Uggie, is great though. If they were giving Oscars for animal performances, Uggie would be a shoe in.


Edited by EvilTwin - 12/1/11 at 8:34am
post #11 of 64

Hey, does it specifically say in the Oscar rules that nominees have to be human? I'll bet it doesn't. We can get Uggie an Oscar nom through Air Bud logic!

post #12 of 64

Here is the thing with THE ARTIST, which should/will color all expectations/responses. If ten silent films had been made in 2011, I doubt this would be the #1 pick for anyone. It is a dull narrative which entirely rests on the silent film gimmick and Jean Dujardin's smile. Buuuuut there are no other such films in 2011 or any recent year otherwise. A gimmick is a gimmick is a gimmick, but this is a great novelty for 2011. Loved it.

post #13 of 64

Yeah, THE ARTIST can't hold the jock of SUNRISE, CITY LIGHTS, or any number of great silent films. But, it's found a way to stand out as something novel in a crowd because there aren't any other movies like it today. In that sense, good for it. I don't think it's nostalgia that makes some people respond so much, but the joy in discovering a "new" way of seeing how a story can be told.

post #14 of 64

There's a movie that came out this year that made me really feel like I was watching an old silent film. That was Hugo. And while I thought it was a mixed bag overall, I liked it ten times better than this film. It all feels like shallow imitation of the '20s to me. I didn't really feel like giving any kind of shit about Valentin. They couldn't even come up with an intriguing motivation for him to resist the talkie changeover. And Peppy? People only like her because Berenice Bejo is gorgeous, right? Because I honestly could only see her as insanely obsessed with Valentin. It was extremely off-putting. And in the end, I guess they become a kind of Astaire-Rogers pair, and that solves all his problems? Weak. It doesn't help that the dancing is completely unspectacular.

 

I loved the sound nightmare scene. Uggie is terrific. Otherwise, I already, preemptively, unreasonably hate this movie for winning all the Oscars.

post #15 of 64

Oh Kim...

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a359217/vertigo-star-kim-novak-my-body-of-work-was-raped-by-the-artist.html

Quote:
'Vertigo' star Kim Novak: 'My body of work was raped by The Artist'
 
Kim Novak has expressed outrage over the use of music from Vertigo in Michel Hazanavicius's 2011 silent film The Artist. The actress, who starred in the 1958 Alfred Hitchcock classic, said that she feels "violated" by The Artist's decision to use the Love Theme from Vertigo as the backdrop to the film and issued both a trade ad and a press release to vent her frustrations. "I want to report a rape. My body of work has been violated by The Artist. 
 
This film took the Love Theme music from Vertigo and used the emotions it engenders as its own," Novak said "Alfred Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart can't speak for themselves, but I can. It was our work that unconsciously or consciously evoked the memories and feelings to the audience that were used for the climax of The Artist. "There was no reason for them to depend on Bernard Herrmann's score from Vertigo to provide more drama. Vertigo's music was written during the filming. Hitchcock wanted the theme woven musically in the puzzle pieces of the storyline. "Even though they did give Bernard Herrmann a small credit at the end, I believe this kind of filmmaking trick to be cheating. Shame on them!" 
 
Novak went on to claim that the precedent set by The Artist could prove damaging for the film industry at large, adding: "It is morally wrong of people in our industry to use and abuse famous pieces of work to gain attention and applause for other than what the original work was intended. "It is essential that all artists safeguard our special bodies of work for posterity, with their individual identities intact and protected."
 
Novak's manager Sue Cameron shed further light on the controversy, telling Deadline: "She was sitting in her living room, she put the DVD in, and then went into an absolute state of shock and devastation. "When you sit in a theatre and familiar music comes on that engenders ready-made emotion from a past film, and they use that music to evoke those same emotions, it's quite hurtful. "We know that they had the legal right to use the music, but it's the music that was the backdrop for classic scenes, like Kim and Jimmy Stewart kissing by the tree, driving along the coast in the car. She is very, very upset."
The Artist director Michel Hazanavicius has released a statement responding to actressKim Novak, who on Monday compared the use of some music from Vertigo in the Oscar contender to "rape."

 

Edit: Director's response.

http://http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/artist-kim-novak-michel-hazanavicius-279757

 

Quote:

The Artist director Michel Hazanavicius has released a statement responding to actress Kim Novak, who on Monday compared the use of some music from Vertigo in the Oscar contender to "rape."

 

"The Artist was made as a love letter to cinema, and grew out of my (and all of my cast and crew’s) admiration and respect for movies throughout history. It was inspired by the work of Hitchcock, Lang, Ford, Lubitsch, Murnau and Wilder. I love Bernard Herrmann and his music has been used in many different films and I’m very pleased to have it in mine. I respect Kim Novak greatly and I’m sorry to hear she disagrees."

 

 

post #16 of 64

It's a good thing she hasn't starred in any of the films that Tarantino samples cues from.

 

Also, she's still alive???

post #17 of 64

Yeah, Novak's reaction is over the top.

 

That said, while I don't mind nods, especially in a film making nods to other films, to use Vertigo's theme music at the climax, after a pretty much original score up to that point, is an enormous cheat. Twelve Monkeys used the score previously, but handled it deftly while making it obvious where the musical cue was from. The Artist doesn't even really have similar themes.

post #18 of 64

I don't think Kim Novak knows what rape means. 

post #19 of 64

I don't know, it seems a bit unfair to criticize this movie for not being a perfect emulation of the movies it was honoring. It made me want to see more silent movies, so that's something. I thought it was fun and charming, with two great lead performances and a crackerjack dance number finale.

 

One other thing that struck was how this was possibly the damn strangest cast I'd ever seen in a movie. I kept being amused/puzzled by the random actors that would pop up, and when it was over, my first thought was "I just watched a movie in which Bill Fagerbakke had a bigger part than Malcolm McDowell".

post #20 of 64

So in response to Novak's comments, Press Play has set up a contest to see who can do the best "Vertigo" of a movie clip. It turns out that soundtrack really can automatically lend weight to pretty much any scene. I haven't watched all of them, but the Inglourious Basterds one may be my favorite so far. Also They Live.

post #21 of 64

Very enjoyable film, best seen with a crowd (it will lose a lot on what was once called Home Video). It's this year's King's Speech in so much as there are better movies out there, but the academies could do a lot worse than plummel this with awards.

 

But god damn if that dog didn't just irritated the crap out of me. Took me right out of the film a couple of times, particulary during the climax.

 

Still, Berenice Bejo is the most desirable on screen presence of her generation in this. Gorgeous doesn't even cover it.

 

 

post #22 of 64

I can see why the backlash against this film would be strong if it became the Best Picture winner.  It's cute with strong moments, but it feels really hollow.  And not because of its simplicity.  The two leads are great though.  

post #23 of 64

This movie is nice, like a mild spring day, or tapioca pudding. 

 

The most irritating part for me was that a film called "The Artist" doesn't have much to say about being an artist, and the title character isn't that great of an artist to begin with. In the first half of the film, I thought the makers were making fun of the lead character's inability to dance. I was kinda blown away when his career comeback was a result of his off-rhythm shuffling. The film is kinda like Desjardin's dancing ability: Devoid of rhythm and snap, but pleasantly enthusiastic.

post #24 of 64

Yeah, that climactic tapdance would've been the catharsis it wanted to be if it had been more complex. It's like they took a tapdancing lesson a few hours before hand and could only master the basic moves. Really, the whole second half of the movie feels that way. "That's it?" 

 

I mean, the first act setup works, but beyond that setup nothing else happens. He falls purely based on hubris and a dickish sense of his own self-importance, and then spends 45 minutes wallowing in it. All help is shunned, and after the third time, there's nothing left for the audience to feel empathetic for him. He's a poor, misunderstood genius who is in a rut because no one sees his genius, but refuses the multiple chances people give him to show said genius. He can't have it on his terms and he's pissed about that. Which is fine to kick off an arc, but that's the whole thing! He's disgruntled and disillusioned until it's time for the end, then he sees the worth of talkies, and ta-da! dance number. There's no growth, just events.

 

It's an amusing movie, with verve and an obvious love for the era, but it's really been over-inflated by the Weinstein's selling of the film as an artistic triumph. There's not much going on here beyond "Hey, this is fun." It's on the same level of the similarly fun and spoofy OSS117 films, but you don't see anyone falling over themselves trying to sell those films to the Oscars.

post #25 of 64

From Ebert's 4 star review of the film, in which he inadvertently explains why this charmingly harmless film may be getting so much love.

 

 

Quote:
I've seen "The Artist" three times, and each time it was applauded, perhaps because the audience was surprised at itself for liking it so much.

 

I'll bet most audiences would scoff at the thought of enjoying a film that was both silent (mostly) and B&W.  This film gets a lot of power by being able to change people's minds (if for only one film).  Damon is absolutely right to compare it to The King's Speech (though I think that film was executed a lot better as a whole than The Artist was).  It's this year's "One 'arty' movie I can enjoy this year!" film for the howdy-doodads.

 

Yes, I'm absolutely aware of how douchey that sounds.  But there's no venom behind that remark.  I absolutely understand that view.

 

Unrelated note... I found the supporting cast for this film oddly distracting.  Why was Malcolm McDowell in this?

post #26 of 64

I certainly don't think The Artist merits a Best Picture award, but I'll happily accept it over maudlin, pandering crap like The Help or Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. It's something different and unique, and seemed to be made with genuine passion.

post #27 of 64

I wish Hugo was the frontrunner.  Not a perfect film, but also one of genuine passion that moved me even when it wasn't doing anything moving.

post #28 of 64

post #29 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love Machine View Post

Very enjoyable film, best seen with a crowd (it will lose a lot on what was once called Home Video).


I watched it at home (my roommate got a SAG screener), so maybe that's why, but I was really disappointed with this movie.  It was a bit of a slog to get through, to be honest.  Drawing so many elements from Singin' in the Rain definitely didn't do it any favors in comparison (especially that final dance sequence, which, yes, was really bad).  All I could think after it ended was, "So this was Singin' in the Rain, minus about 50% of the humor and fun, with a silent movie gimmick.  Oh, and change the Donald O'Connor character to a dog." 

 

I won't say it's a bad movie, because it isn't.  A lot of things about it bugged me, personally, but in general I think it's just a cute, minor film.

 

 

post #30 of 64

Perhaps the worst thing about The Artist is that for all it's charms, it leaves you with just about nothing to think about or reflect on, beyond how cute the dog was. I just saw The Grey, and I was struck by how much more it gives you to chew on than the presumptive best picture winner. I don't want to dislike this movie, because it's not a bad film, but I can't even begin to understand how anyone could call this the best film of any year, even one as iffy as 2011.

post #31 of 64

I think that's probably the worst of it. It says nothing about silent movies (other than perhaps gives people a chance to appreciate them while also dismissing them) it says nothing about the period, it says nothing about our world now. Which is fine, but not really award material - or at least what one thinks about award material. In some cases the worst thing that can happen to a film is to win these sorts of awards. It's good for Harvey, but it allows perfectly good films like SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE to be disliked solely because it is not all that profound.

post #32 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damon Houx View Post

I think that's probably the worst of it. It says nothing about silent movies (other than perhaps gives people a chance to appreciate them while also dismissing them) it says nothing about the period, it says nothing about our world now. Which is fine, but not really award material - or at least what one thinks about award material. In some cases the worst thing that can happen to a film is to win these sorts of awards. It's good for Harvey, but it allows perfectly good films like SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE to be disliked solely because it is not all that profound.


I do think the film says something about people and carries itself across a thematic finish line, but regardless I feel you strike on what disappoints me about the more aggressive negativity surrounding the film. Hugo has deeper flaws, but plays in an overlapping playground with much bigger ambitions and more interesting gestures. While it's the most-nominated film and I have suspicion it could be a contender if pushed properly, I wish the bigger, messier silent-film-obsessed flick was the nostalgic front-runner rather than the ribbon-tied little tribute that's going to get eaten alive.

 

post #33 of 64

That's quite true about Shakespeare. It's a lovely little film that gets a lot more hate than it deserves, mostly because the most memorable thing about it is that it beat Saving Private Ryan (which is probably the more flawed film anyway). 

 

It does beg the question though. Do we demand profundity, or at least the veneer of it, from great films? Or just Best Picture winners? I don't know. I don't think so though, my personal pick of the nine would be the similarly slight Midnight in Paris. The Artist just didn't hit me very hard, and it will be interesting to see if people remember it at all in even two years time. Or more likely, not that interesting.

post #34 of 64

In a slightly similar vein, I wish the people in the Academy who loved "The Artist" had seen this a year ago.

The-Illusionist_400.jpg

post #35 of 64

I had no expectations when I saw it a month ago (buzz hadn't yet started to build) and I had a good time.  It was warm, it was fun, and it was awfully charming.  I loved the performances.  But "Best Picture"?  Honestly, is that just the Weinsteins knowing how to game the system?

post #36 of 64

I've no idea if this has been mentioned, frankly, I can't be arsed to go through the thread. Film left me very cold, it's charming enough, but what really bothered me was that it's essentially a gimmick and an exercise in style, mimicking a specific era of film making. Except, it never at any point looks like a silent film, it looks like something from the late 30s to mid 40s, so I just came out of it utterly perplexed. What was the point of it? 

post #37 of 64

While I don't think The Artist is profound or anything, I do think it says something about actors needing to embrace the changing times rather than live in the past. And that talented people can still be valuable. That's a relevant theme as Hollywood is still in the midst of the digital revolution. And, I'd argue, that it argues for the place of Andy Serkis.

 

Still, not a strong "Best Picture" candidate by any means.

post #38 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

In a slightly similar vein, I wish the people in the Academy who loved "The Artist" had seen this a year ago.

The-Illusionist_400.jpg


Jesus Clogdancing Christmas YES. That film was first on my mind the second I walked out of this thing. Same ideas, executed with all the substance The Artist is missing after the admittedly perfect first act.

 

The biggest difference is where George in The Artist wallows because he has no idea to survive, ALL WE SEE is his self-pity. The magician in The Illusionist is fighting obsolescence every step of the way, and gives everything just to keep his one fan in the world. Thats just a fundamental storytelling strength that clips The Artist right off at the knees the further it goes along.

post #39 of 64

The Illusionist is like ice cream and puppies and rainbows mixed in a blender and poured all over your naked body by Berenice Bejo.

post #40 of 64

Saw "The Artist" yesterday and liked it a lot more than a lot of the people in this thread.   Maybe it's because I haven't seen enough silent films but I was impressed with the way the story was told and why it was told that way.    I had the same issues with George Valentin as well in the latter half where I was saying, "Just do a Talkie already and save us the grief".   His reasoning only made sense near the end when....

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

...he said "With pleasure".   It's obvious he either had a speech impediment or a very thick European accent and he was self conscious about it.   In fact history is full of silent film stars who couldn't make the transition to talkies because of their voice being too squeaky, too European, or too regional. 

 

 

 

Surprised that wasn't picked up on in this thread.

post #41 of 64

I picked up on that, actually.  It was just thrown out there in the final moment so inconsequentially that I didn't care.  I just thought, "Oh, so that might be why he was so against it.  Ok."  My friends and I wondered if he had some issue with his voice, since we were aware enough of the transition from silent films to talkies.  

 

And I'm glad that the mediocre dancing at the end was mentioned in this thread.  I do remember thinking, "This dancing doesn't seem all that great..."

post #42 of 64

Which is also weird because the dance bit with George only being able to see Peppy's legs is great.

post #43 of 64

And see,  if that was supposed to be a part of the character, and not just the fact that Jean Desjardin is French, then it should have been worked into the story. Maybe he swallows his pride, does a talkie, and everyone laughs at his ridiculous voice (something that happened A LOT during the transition), thus leading him to be outcast from the studios that once fought over him. He then becomes a punchline, not out of his own self-importance or hubris, but because he is suddenly deemed worthless by the world. 

 

Yeah, it furthers the Singin in the Rain mimicry, but when your first 20 minutes are nearly a blow by blow anyway, why not go for broke, especially if it furthers the characters?

post #44 of 64

(response to Justin's post)

 

Oh yeah.  That was really cute.  I suppose it's because the dancing wasn't as elaborate there.

 

The shot where they finish dancing at the end and are all out of breath made me think of the opening credits for SUPER.

 

As the film is now, it really just seemed like the last third of the film (after Peppy takes him to her home to recover) was suddenly about George's terror at being completely emasculated... or being in the lair of a psycho fangirl.  And when he leaves the place, I was never clear on what he was terrified by when he had the lips of strangers hovering around in his mind.  What was that cop supposed to have said to him?  I felt like I missed something.

post #45 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanCE View Post
 Except, it never at any point looks like a silent film, it looks like something from the late 30s to mid 40s, so I just came out of it utterly perplexed. What was the point of it? 


This also kind of bugged me. It has moments where it nailed the style and form, but when it cribs visual cues from the Golden Age (especially the Citizen Kane callouts), it feels confused. I wasn't angry at the Vertigo use because it's sacred, it felt out of place because it's directly referencing a movie that came out thirty years after the death of silent cinema. Which is weird, since the same team's OSS117 films almost completely nail the 1960s Connery Bond films with aplomb.

post #46 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

As the film is now, it really just seemed like the last third of the film (after Peppy takes him to her home to recover) was suddenly about George's terror at being completely emasculated... or being in the lair of a psycho fangirl.  And when he leaves the place, I was never clear on what he was terrified by when he had the lips of strangers hovering around in his mind.  What was that cop supposed to have said to him?  I felt like I missed something.



For a moment there, I thought that the film was about to go full meta and have it so the intertitles wouldn't appear anymore; the whole world has finally gone completely talkie, and he can't communicate! How is he supposed to understand anyone now? But then they're back in the next scene. So who knows.

post #47 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post



For a moment there, I thought that the film was about to go full meta and have it so the intertitles wouldn't appear anymore; the whole world has finally gone completely talkie, and he can't communicate! How is he supposed to understand anyone now? But then they're back in the next scene. So who knows.


SO DID I.

 

post #48 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post



For a moment there, I thought that the film was about to go full meta and have it so the intertitles wouldn't appear anymore; the whole world has finally gone completely talkie, and he can't communicate! How is he supposed to understand anyone now? But then they're back in the next scene. So who knows.


I thought the same thing during the dream sequence.   If they went this way and pulled it off, I would have applauded the audacity of the move.   It would have been a great twist but I don't think anyone but a Charlie Kaufman could make it work.   Best left alone.

 

I guess I'm a bit more forgiving of the film due to my (soon to be fixed) ignorance of silent films.   I thought it was interesting to see a form a storytelling brought back from the dead and see the actors play in the Silent Movie Pantomine  acting style sandbox.    They looked like they were having a blast.   Any suggestions for a Silent Movie noob like myself?   I've seen Metropolis and the Charlie Chaplin stuff, what else is out there? 

post #49 of 64

"Sunrise" is really emotionally powerful and visually innovative. I only saw it for the first time last year, and I was blown away by how original it feels even today. I've never seen a silent film as moving as that one. And Mel Brooks' "Silent Movie" is a good example of someone reviving the silent film brilliantly. I don't know whether or not "The Artist" succeeds in doing so (haven't seen it yet)...but I believe the Brooks movie is definitely a fine example of a wonderful silent movie made long after the silent era ended.

post #50 of 64

Murnau, Lang, Von Stroheim

http://www.criterion.com/boxsets/744-3-silent-classics-by-josef-von-sternberg

Keaton

The Wind

The Crowd

etc.

 

Here's Mike D'Angelo's top ten list of silents:

01. Seven Chances (1925, Buster Keaton)
02. The Last Laugh (1924, F.W. Murnau)
03. The Wind (1928, Victor Seastrom)
04. Sunrise (1927, F.W. Murnau)
05. Sherlock, Jr. (1924, Buster Keaton)
06. Greed (1924, Erich von Stroheim)
07. The Man with a Movie Camera (1929, Dziga Vertov)
08. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920, Robert Wiene)
09. Our Hospitality (1923, Buster Keaton & Jack Blystone)
10. The Last Command (1928, Josef von Sternberg)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › THE ARTIST Discussion Thread