1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- The Artist

#1142- The Artist (2011)
Starring: Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman
Directed by: Michael Hazanavicius


Plot Summary: It's 1927 and the biggest name in the silent film industry is filmmaker George Valentin. While taking pictures with fans, George meets Peppy Miller, who is trying to be the newest starlet in the business. As Peppy's popularity increases, the demand for silent films decreases. Recently divorced and bankrupt, George still has hope for silent films and does not want to cope with the possibility that the genre he loves could be extinct. To add to the situation, George is torn about his feelings for Peppy, with part of him wanting to love her, and the other part jealous that she is in the spotlight that was once his.


When The Artist won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2011, only one question was in my head, "Is there really still a demand for silent films?" I was confused, not understanding with all the films that were out there that year how a film with no sound could have been named the best film of the year. After reviewing many films from the silent era, my appreciation for it has grown. So, I thought it would be a good time to sit down and watch The Artist, and see two things: if it was deserving of winning Best Picture and if a modern film is able to serve as a fitting tribute to the silent era.

The main character of The Artist is George Valentin, played by Jean Dujardin. After sitting through Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin's films, it's easy for me to see that Valentin is supposed to represent what they were able to do during the era, being able to entertain as both a filmmaker and as a leading man. Dujardin is able to give George a natural screen presence that makes him easily likable. His charisma is able to keep the audience captivated on his story throughout the film, and his interactions with his dog Jack are darn adorable. My favorite part about George, and Dujardin's performance, is that he isn't one dimensional. I know that I was able to empathize with him as much as I could laugh with him.

George's love interest is Peppy Miller, played by Bérénice Bejo. Peppy is just what you'd imagine her to be, peppy. There's not really a whole lot of depth to her character. You can tell she loves George and wants to be a star, and that's about all we get from her. She pretty much captures the era's perception of female characters, like what you would see in Sherlock, Jr. or Modern Times, which I suppose makes for a good representation for the era, but doesn't translate well when looking at a modern actress trying to breakthrough in a modern film. 

When looking at a modern silent film, I couldn't help but notice the film quality due to modern technology. I actually think that hurts the film in trying to be a modern representation of a silent film. If it was trying to look like the era, I'm sure there's a type of filter, or even using old film, that would have helped it feel of the era, and ironically, give it a timeless quality to it. Making it look so crisp and pristine only reminds me that I'm looking at a film from the modern era. If the filmmakers wanted to dazzle me, making it look as accurate as a film from the 1920s would have given The Artist depth and dedication towards its tribute to silent films.

There's a minor controversy about whether or not this film serves as a fitting tribute to the silent era. While it visually captures the silent era, it is in the story's resolution that ultimately sparks debates about what it is trying to say. I think that there are two sides of history involved here. On one side, there is the idea of preserving what is popular at the time, but the other side is about the evolution of an art form. The ending gives what I think is a nice compromise of the two ideas. Both are presented, and historically, we know how it is going to play out, but there is still hope for films, like The Artist, to show us that we can still appreciate silent films.


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

The Artist had me entertained, but I think it could have benefited by cutting down some of the smaller scenes for time in order to convey the main plot. Nevertheless, it was a film that got a lot of people talking in 2011 for its modern use of the silent style, so I think it's worth everyone seeing once to formulate an opinion on whether or not there is a place for modern silent films in today's cinema.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

The Artist and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros., The Weinstein Company, and Entertainment Film Distributors

1001 Movies You Must See Befory You Die- Modern Times

#101- Modern Times (1936)
Starring: Charlie Chaplin, Paulette Goddard, Henry Bergman
Directed by: Charlie Chaplin


Plot Summary: A factory worker employed on an assembly line suffers a nervous breakdown and is sent to a hospital to recuperate. After a mistaken encounter with the police, he is taken to jail and released on good behavior. He then meets a gamin girl and they begin searching for jobs and homes in pursuit of the "American Dream" during an economic nightmare.


For the final film in my first look at the silent era, I thought it would be best to end with arguably the most famous contributor to the era, Charlie Chaplin. Like Buster Keaton, Chaplin served as one of the era's greatest comedians and filmmakers. My introduction to Chaplin came through his film Modern Times, which I recently viewed in my American Literature class (isn't it amazing when stuff works out perfectly like that). Going into it, I wasn't expecting Chaplin to be better than Keaton, but I was looking for something to differentiate the two and luckily, I wasn't disappointed.

Charlie Chaplin, usually referred to as The Little Tramp, is portrayed as a quirky factory worker. Chaplin's brand of comedy is significantly different from Keaton's. While Keaton was able to do physical comedy with a stone face, Chaplin uses all forms of physical comedy. He has many scenes involving stunt work, such as riding on a hook and chain, and another scene involving roller blades. It is his facial expressions that convey humor, as he is able to showcase a range of emotions through various facial responses. We all know what Chaplin's Little Tramp looks like thanks to his trademark hat, cane, and mustache. All these elements add a quality of a comedic icon to the film. Chaplin is the reason that the comedy works, and naturally, he's the main reason that the audience wants to see the film in the first place.

Many wouldn't expect a comedy set during the Great Depression to be that funny, but I think that's what makes it work. While it is set during a time of financial crisis, it is satirical of what the time can bring about. There are scenes where Chaplin is blatantly stating that being locked away in a jail cell is more comfortable and homey than being out in the world starving and homeless, struggling to find work. It's one of the earliest dark comedies I've ever seen and it is his innocence and ambition for a better life that makes his time during the Great Depression seem bearable, as we hope he can overcome poverty.

Chaplin's hope and innocence plays a significant role in two of the film's key highlights. The first is in his romance with the gamin girl, played by Paulette Goddard. The second is in providing a central theme full of heart. There is a point in the film where all hope seems lost, but Chaplin nonchalantly sneaks in the idea that you can get through anything as long as you are with the right person, in his case the gamin girl, and most importantly, you must keep smiling and moving forward. In a movie nowadays, that would seem overly cheesy, but at the time, it could be argued that it was the theme we needed during the Great Depression.


Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

Modern Times not only serves as a statement of the Great Depression, but also offers a tongue-in-cheek ending concerning the growing popularity of sound films. It's a great film and one that I would recommend all fans of comedy should see once, and hopefully own in their collection.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review 

Modern Times and movie images are copyrighted by United Artists, MK2 Editions, and Janus Films/Criterion

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- Sherlock, Jr.

#22- Sherlock, Jr. (1924)
Starring: Buster Keaton, Kathryn McGuire, Joe Keaton
Directed by: Buster Keaton


Plot Summary: A movie theater projectionist is in love with a beautiful girl, but is rivaled by the "local sheik." In attempt to get more money, the sheik steals a pocket watch from the girl's father and sells it, while also planting evidence in the projectionist's pocket. Studying to be a detective, the projectionist attempts to solve the case, until the evidence is discovered and he is banished from the house, framed for the theft. At his shift at the movie theater, the projectionist falls asleep and dreams of being Sherlock, Jr., the greatest detective alive.


During the silent era, there were two iconic comedians who made names for themselves by making and starring in some of the most hilarious films at the time. The first one I decided to look at was Buster Keaton. Sherlock, Jr. was recommended to me by a friend and my professor in my Studies in Film course, so I did my research on it before watching it. Clocking in at only 45 minutes, I thought it would serve as a small introduction to what Keaton's style as a filmmaker and comedian. Thankfully, I was entertained by the film as a whole and the comedy still holds up, but what is it about the comedy or Keaton himself that works?

Half the fun of Buster Keaton as The Projectionist and Sherlock, Jr. is through the actually storytelling of the film, which I'll get into later. What I will say about his physical comedy is in his size. Keaton is able to play a loveable underdog through his physical build, being 5' 5'' in height. We really root for him to clear his name and get the girl, but he's also able to be naturally funny in what he does. There are also some great shots of the physical dedication Keaton gives to his films, one scene involving a train and another involving a motor bike comes to mind.

What I really enjoyed about the film was Keaton's ability to give us two short stories that fit cohesively in a 45 minute film. The first half of the film deals with the story of The Projectionist, while the second half focuses on his day dream of him as Sherlock, Jr. Both stories are able to tell the same story in different stories. As The Projectionist, Keaton is able to portray the story with a vaudevillian sense of realism. A modern audience is self-aware that this does not take place in our modern world, but is still relatable through its use of basic storytelling. As Sherlock, Jr., Keaton adds over the top charm to the story. The overall day dream aspect allows the audience to not take Sherlock, Jr. seriously, and it is even more entertaining when other characters are overly impressed, or for the villains, intimidated by his presence and reputation as the world's greatest detective.

Some of the comedy that shines in Sherlock, Jr. actually surprised me. There are long continuous shots of Keaton that are done without the use of a stunt double and nothing is computer generated. There's also a great scene that involves camera and set tricks to create the illusion of going into a film through the screen and the film constantly changing settings in environments, forcing The Projectionist to react to the environments. It's a great testament to the amount of creativity in storytelling that filmmakers like Keaton were able to put to screen during the silent era.


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

The comedy in Sherlock, Jr. is both over the top and charming. This was a very entertaining introduction to Buster Keaton as a comedian and filmmaker. I strongly recommend any fans of comedy to check out this silent classic.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review 

Sherlock, Jr. and movie images are copyrighted by Metro Pictures Corporation

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- Nosferatu, A Sympathy of Terror

#15- Nosferatu, A Sympathy of Terror
Starring: Max Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schröder
Directed by: F.W. Murnau


Plot Summary: Thomas Hutter is sent to Transylvania by his employer Knock in order to do business with Count Orlok. After being welcomed in Orlok's castle, Thomas begins to have second guesses about him staying there. After many suspicious incidents in the castle, Thomas begins to suspect that Orlok maybe Nosferatu, the "Bird of Death." Orlok's plan is to journey to the city of Wisborg and feast on the blood of Thomas's wife Ellen.


With hopes to watch a good silent horror film, I went back to German Expressionist films and found one of the more famous titles, Nosferatu, A Sympathy of Terror (which I will only refer to as Nosferatu for the rest of the review). Before watching it, I only knew a few things about it. I knew that it was based on Dracula by Bram Stoker, and I was familiar with some of the iconic scenes from the film. Oh, and I remember a reference to the character of Count Orlok in an episode of Spongebob Squarepants (which should totally give away my age and hopefully all '90s kids know which episode I'm talking about). Other than that, I didn't know if there was more to check out and remember it for or not.

The most memorable part of the film is Max Schreck's iconic appearance as Count Orlok. While he is technically supposed to be Dracula, you would never expect that with how his character looks on-screen. There's so much mystery and suspense with his character. Something as subtle as villagers living in fear and telling stories of him lets the viewer know that Orlok is going to be a creature of pure evil, and when you finally see him, he leaves you uneasy with those wide eyes, pointy ears, large teeth and tall frame. While Schreck's appearance is creepy, that is not the only thing that makes this film scary.

With so many vampire movies out there, Nosferatu is able to stay relevant through its innovative use of light and shadows to help accentuate the look and feel of a monster. There's so many great uses of shadows that allow this shadowy figure to expand and take up the whole shot. This is where I got most of my previous knowledge of the film, through scenes where Count Orlok's shadow ascends a staircase, or the shadow of his hands begin creeping after his victims. It left me with an eerie feeling about the film, which I think is the film's saving grace from something that for the most part I would consider tame.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

If you can make it through some dull scenes without Schrek, Nosferatu can actually be a pretty chilling film. Thanks to its creepy use of shadow and the unique design of Count Orlok, I feel comfortable recommending the film to be watched once by all horror fans.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Nosferatu, A Sympathy of Terror and movie images are copyrighted by Film Arts Guild

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- The Phantom of the Opera

#27- The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
Starring: Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, Norman Kerry
Directed by: Rupert Julian


Plot Summary: It's a new season for the Paris Opera House, debuting with their production of Faust. At the height of their popularity, management suddenly resigns upon discovering a phantom that occupies opera box #5. The phantom demands that the leading lady surrenders her part over to relatively unknown Christine Daae, in hopes that she can be his musical apprentice. The phantom also hopes that Christine will be his and will stop at nothing until she falls in love with.


When I went through my horror retrospective last month, I realized that I kind of breezed through silent horror films by only covering one, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. So when I knew I'd be covering silent films for a while, I thought I'd take the opportunity to cover a few more silent horror films. One of the more famous silent horror films is The Phantom of the Opera, which is normally known as the first of the Universal Monster Classics (one of the key eras I focused on in my horror retrospective). This film serves as the bridge between two very crucial eras in horror history, so is it worth seeing?

The biggest selling point for the film should be Lon Chaney's performance as Erik, The Phantom of the Opera. Erik's true identity is not revealed for the first half of the movie, adding an element of mystery and suspense to who the phantom is or what he looks like. Known as "The Man of A Thousand Faces," Chaney was able to use practical makeup effects to transform himself into many unique looking characters, with his most famous being Erik. Look at that makeup in the pictures below and tell me that wouldn't be creepy nowadays to see. To imagine that all that is through makeup is a true testament to Chaney's talent.

One of the more visually stunning elements of The Phantom of the Opera is how grand the film looks. There's great focus to detail and production design that helps bring the audience into this world and makes it feel a bit more third-dimensional. There's even a scene where Technicolor is used to accentuate the use of a red costume, which in 1925 could have been considered groundbreaking for film. Marketed as having a cast of over 5,000, even the extras feel like an important part of the film by helping create the look and feel of an actual opera house, making the film a faithful representation of stage productions.

While it is a silent film, The Phantom of the Opera is also labelled a horror film, which begs the question on if it is scary. For me, I wouldn't use the word scary. I'd more or less use eerie or haunting. The music and atmosphere itself is chilling, and Chaney's makeup job was so effective that some viewers fainted at the sight of it in 1925, but I would never rank it up there with other horror films of the time, like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. It has its following and it scared many when it was first released, but I don't think the horror has aged well.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Like most of the Universal Monster Classics, The Phantom of the Opera has its fair share of horror fan appreciation and following, primarily for Chaney's performance. For all fans of horror, I recommend watching this film at least once.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

The Phantom of the Opera and movie images are copyrighted by Universal Pictures

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- The Great Train Robbery

#2- The Great Train Robbery (1903)
Starring: Alfred C. Abadie, Broncho Billy Anderson, Justus D. Barnes
Directed by: Edwin S. Porter


Plot Summary: A group of bandits break into a railroad telegraph office, ordering the operator to stop the train. As the train stops to fill up, the bandits board the train, force the passengers off, and disconnect the locomotive. Having claimed their loot, the bandits get off the train and attempt to escape on horseback.


Growing up, I was never a big fan of Westerns. They just were never my preference for a film genre. I knew of the film legends like Clint Eastwood and John Wayne, but I figured if I was going to watch their films, I'd be able to appreciate them when I'm older. I guess now's as good a time as ever to start looking at them (and it will be a review series I'm planning in a few months if people are interested). I also thought that I should find one that crosses into my retrospect of silent films, in an attempt to peak my interest with the genre while I'm also looking at another unfamiliar genre (and no, I don't enjoy torturing myself mentally, that's just how it works out when I plan things), hence my first time viewing of The Great Train Robbery.

Compared to something like A Trip to the Moon, I couldn't help but notice the difference in sets used for The Great Train Robbery. While A Trip to the Moon is set in an environment that needed elaborate sets to be created, The Great Train Robbery is able to utilize the real world as a setting for a reenactment of the ol' west. Using horses and a real train for transportation also gives the film an extra depth of dimension to it. It's interesting to note the two kinds of films I chose to start out this retrospective, one being a gateway to fantasy and the future, and the other a stylized, but realistic representation of a previous generation in American history. It serves as evidence of how many different types of styles and genres the silent era helped create.

This film also really helped create a synonymous image of the Western. Not necessarily John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, but it still demonstrates a narrative of cowboys and bandits, robbing trains, shooting guns, and riding on horseback. The story and presentation itself could take viewers back to a time when they were young and were playing "Cowboys and Indians," or something like that. The aged camera style also allows the film to have a documentary-like look to it, as well as displaying a classic story depicting an iconic era in the shaping of America.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars.

The Great Train Robbery offers one of the earliest forms of the western, as well as delivers on a unique setting through its use of the real world. For any fans of silent films or Westerns, I recommend seeing this classic at least once in your lifetime.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review 

The Great Train Robbery and movie images are copyrighted by Edison Manufacturing Company

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- A Trip to the Moon

#1- A Trip to the Moon (1902)
Starring: Georges Méliès, Bleuette Bernon, François Lallement
Directed by: Georges Méliès


Plot Summary: At a meeting of the Astronomer's Club, a proposal is made to go to the Moon. Six astronauts agree to embark on the trip of a lifetime, in a bullet shaped rocket, to see what they can find on the Moon.


To begin my first set of silent movies to review, I thought it would be appropriate to review A Trip to the Moon, one of the most recognizable silent titles in history. I thought it would be important to cover considering that it is the oldest film on the list, and of course, that would also make it the FIRST film on the list. Well, I think I've hyped this one up long enough, let's see what A Trip to the Moon has to offer when looking at the silent era of films, and films in general. Does it still hold up, and if it does, what's the appeal?

Whether you're talking about the sets, the costumes or the story itself, A Trip to the Moon offers some of the most creative imagery I've ever seen for a film. Sure, the space stuff isn't as logical as you'd expect nowadays, but at the time, it took the world by storm because it showed us what COULD happen if we were to ever go to the moon. What would we see? What would it look like? All these questions would be answered decades later, but it was Georges Méliès who helped the world see what it could be like first. And what makes it even more extraordinary is to know that this level of creativity was portrayed on film at the time. 

A Trip to the Moon will always hold a spot in film history. Not only is it one of the most famous silent films of all time, but I also feel it was one of the most important. It was through the imagination that a story was conveyed and captured the attention of audiences around the world. Who knows, without films like A Trip to the Moon, would movies be where they are today?


Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars.

I don't think A Trip to the Moon will ever be remembered for a specific acting performance, but rather for the amount of heart and creativity that went into the project. Since it is one of the most recognizable names in the silent era, I strongly suggest watching it at least once.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

A Trip to the Moon and movie images are copyrighted by Star Film Company

IMPORTANT- Changes Coming to Fowler's Film Blog

Before I get started, I'd like to address all of my followers by simply saying "Thank you." You've really helped motivate me for the last six months to continue posting to this blog each week.

Now, on to what the title reads.

When I covered various horror films in October, it was one of the first times where I felt what I was saying was the most concise I had ever been on reviewing movies. While it had happened when I covered The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and reviewing Batman and The Dark Knight back to back, it was covering numerous films in the same genre in a loose chronological order that made my analysis improve with each film I reviewed. Not to mention the fact that it was fun. If you noticed, these reviews came out sporadically, instead of Thursday night like all my other reviews. My look at horror movies really helped breathe new life and motivation for this blog, so I thought I would take the time to announce the new format for Fowler's Film Blog.

1.  A Sporadic Schedule- Rather than post a review every Thursday night, my followers should be prepared to receive a blog post within a few days of each other. It could be as low as 2 to 3 or as high as 6 to 7, the important part is that the reviews will not be as structured and rigid in the release date and hopefully, that will allow me to incorporate fresh thoughts about the film after seeing it, instead of "HAVING" to wait a week to share my thoughts.

2. Focusing on Film Topics- Thanks to my horror retrospective month, I have the need to focus on topics like that for my reviews from now on. I don't have a specific number planned and or even limiting the time to only a month. The goal is to continue developing chronological analysis of a genre or era in film history. A good example to use is that after Christmas this year, I'll be starting a review series on Disney films through January. The goal is to NOT cover all the Disney movies on the list, only a handful (most likely half) to leave the topic open for me to come back to it in the future.

3. YOU Have a Say in What I Review- While I have been open to suggestions through my friends on my personal Facebook page, I know there are some wondering if I take requests. Yes I do, and I'd like to enforce it more than ever. If you want to comment with suggestions for either themes for a specific month or films for that month, please feel free to do so and I will most definitely put them into consideration, the only criteria it needs to meet is being on Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book. You can find many versions of the list online, with the most updated number being a total of 1154 movies listed.

4. Topics List- I thought I'd share briefly the topics I'm considering covering for the next few months, then you can feel free to leave a comment for a topic you'd either like to see in the near future.

• Silent Films (My next review series from November through mid December)
• Christmas Films (Only three reviews during the Holiday season)
• Disney Films (After Christmas through January)
• Musicals (Contemplating for February, that or Romantic Films)
• Gangster Films (Mobster March, come on, the title writes itself)
• More genre pieces (Science Fiction, Anime, Westerns, etc.)
• A look at a director's work? (Spielberg, Kubrick, Scorcese, Hitchcock, Tarantino etc.)
• A look at an actor's work? (Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, John Travolta, etc.)

This schedule is tentative and is open for other suggestions, so let me know in the comments below.

Thank you to those who have supported me for six months, and to those who will keep following me.

Sincerely,

Danny Fowler (a.k.a. The Author)


Copyright 2013 Fowler's Film Blog. Images are owned by Quintessence Editions