THE ARTIST - new silent film in Silent Horror Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

THE ARTIST - new silent film

Author	Comment
Wich2		#61	[-]
Feb 24 12 4:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's true that the plot's surface... and has holes... SPOILER! The house had time to burn down five times, by the time Uggie gets them there to save our hero. But it's a fun labor of love! -Craig
	Remove this ad
Elisabeth		#62	[-]
Feb 27 12 12:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	THE ARTIST won five OSCARS, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and BEST ORiGINAL SCORE.(Kim Novak can put THAT in her pipe and smoke it!) "E" Your Signature ... "....I do hope he won't upset Henry..."
Liz.stoogeworld		#63	[-]
Feb 27 12 12:50 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I can't wait to see this next weekend! Why don't you do something to help me? The Psycho Ward's Classic Film Reviews - request a film to be reviewed!
todmichel		#64	[-]
Feb 27 12 6:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's really refreshing to see two movies, the same year, both homages to the silent era and the pioneers of cinema, honored with five Oscars each. Each one - HUGO, and THE ARTIST - being stunning in its own way. I'm just a little intrigued, but to date nobody, apparently, asked for a colorized version of THE ARTIST. Bizarre, bizarre..! Last Edited By: todmichel Feb 27 12 6:54 AM. Edited 1 times.
jplibby		#65	[-]
Feb 27 12 7:43 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Elisabeth wrote: THE ARTIST won five OSCARS, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and BEST ORiGINAL SCORE.(Kim Novak can put THAT in her pipe and smoke it!) "E" "Suck it, Novak!" --Sean Connery
Wich2		#66	[-]
Feb 27 12 11:45 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	>to date nobody, apparently, asked for a colorized version of THE ARTIST< It was already de-colorized, TM - the film was shot in color and converted to b & w.
Rick		#67	[-]
Feb 27 12 12:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Next we'll hear that microphones and recorders were running the whole time, and the DVD release will feature the Oscar-winning version, plus a full-color, Surroundsound version for the terminally moronic.
Wich2		#68	[-]
Feb 27 12 12:35 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	With impenetrable French accents for some of these Hollywood characters!
Dudley Manlove		#69	[-]
Feb 27 12 1:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I hear the original Euro cut is 40 minutes longer with a Goblin soundtrack. And shockingly with hard core Franco style 'inserts'.
luluthebeast		#70	[-]
Feb 27 12 2:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I haven't seen it, mostly because the ads made it look mundane, but after seeing some of the clips they showed on the Oscars last night, it's looking a lot more interesting.
	Remove this ad
Wich2		#71	[-]
Feb 27 12 2:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread, lulu - but it IS a good time at the movies!
Godziwolf		#72	[-]
Feb 27 12 4:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: >to date nobody, apparently, asked for a colorized version of THE ARTIST< It was already de-colorized, TM - the film was shot in color and converted to b & w. Was it shot digitally?
Wich2		#73	[-]
Feb 27 12 5:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Not positive whether the camera original was film or digital; but I do know it was shot in color. Heard the leading man testify to that at a SAG screening.
todmichel		#74	[-]
Feb 27 12 6:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It was shot in 35mm and in color, but just because the b&w film material is now expensive, especially for a little-budgeted movie. According to Azanavicius, the total cost was €10,000,000. As a comparizon, the US promotion campaign's cost for THE ARTIST was TWICE this budget. It was shot in color, but the artistic choice since the beginning was a movie in black & white. And my ironic post was a joke, but I have heard of some people protesting when (once seated in the theater) they saw it was in b&w (horror!) and silent (abomination!) so, finally, it was perhaps not a joke, after all..! Last Edited By: todmichel Feb 27 12 6:22 PM. Edited 4 times.
TServo4		#75	[-]
Feb 27 12 7:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It was shot in 35mm and in color, but just because the b&w film material is now expensive, especially for a little-budgeted movie. As a matter of fact, the reason they shot on color and then printed to black and white is because the director of photography felt that the new B&W stocks were "too sharp" compared to 1928 stocks (which they are). By doing the color->B&W process, he was able to get the effect that he wanted. Shooting on B&W stock wouldn't have cost that much more that it would have made a difference in the budget. The actual 35mm release prints are on color stock, and are horribly mistimed. J. Theakston Capitol Theatre, Rome, NY
pulp novelties		#76	[-]
Feb 27 12 7:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I liked this enough to pick up the Blu-ray, it will be interesting to see how it comes off on my small screen
Wich2		#77	[-]
Feb 27 12 7:39 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	(And of course, "shot in color" doesn't mean the same thing with film as with digital - but I have heard cast members mention that the production was even designed in color, to a degree, for the sake of the cast.)
todmichel		#78	[-]
Feb 27 12 8:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Quote: "As a matter of fact, the reason they shot on color and then printed to black and white is because the director of photography felt that the new B&W stocks were "too sharp" compared to 1928 stocks (which they are). By doing the color->B&W process, he was able to get the effect that he wanted. Shooting on B&W stock wouldn't have cost that much more that it would have made a difference in the budget." You are right, but I was thinking to what happened to Georges Franju 52 years ago for "Les yeux sans visage". He wanted b&w stock of the same quality than in older movies, and the (then) current stock was more gray than b&w (like the stock they used for newsreels). So Franju asked for specially manufactured stock, and it was of course more expensive. This is what I mean about THE ARTIST, to get b&w stock of the same nature than the older movies would have been more expensive that the shooting in color then printed in b&w. And in fact, I ever don't know if it's even possible to have this "older times" quality, nowadays.
TServo4		#79	[-]
Feb 28 12 12:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's still possible to get "the look," but the problem is that a) most photographers don't study high-key lighting such as was used in the classic era, and b) most labs today don't specialize in B&W and get the gamma wrong. J. Theakston Capitol Theatre, Rome, NY
Wich2		#80	[-]
Feb 28 12 11:38 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	True dat, Jack. Also, when I heard "George Valentin" speak, I seem to recall that he mentioned that the expected digital post futzing helped. (That's a GOOD use of computer tech in film, ala Scorcese's tweaking of the different era's looks in THE AVIATOR.)
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

THE ARTIST - new silent film