Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Fancy Effects vs. Black-and-White


For the first time since 1929, a black-and-white, silent film won an Oscar.  Not only did the film win an Oscar, it won 5 awards, including best picture.  Though The Artist was an incredible film, many viewers did not expect it would take home the title for best picture because it is silent, black-and-white.  In today’s society, some movies are considered good or bad based on their audio and visual effects.  This movie proves this ideal wrong.  The Artist is living proof that a good film is a good film, regardless of if it has all the fancy features.  The movie uses facial expressions and dramatic music as the main forms of communication.  Though there are no words or colors, the viewers can still feel the emotions and passion that the characters feel throughout the film.  Just by watching the preview, one can get a feel for how well the actors portrayed their feelings without words.  Now, most people expect that great films require intense effects, but the reality is, that a movie can be incredible without any words or colors. 


6 comments:

  1. I am in agreement with everything that you have said above, but I think it's only because the movie was a silent film that it won. I feel that because it was different than a normal movie is why it won, not because of the quality of it. In my opinion, it should have never won. In the society we live in today people continue to feel that if something is different, it should win. The silent film had no competition because it was the only film that was different. Not to mention, it was an off year for movies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i LOVED this movie. it deserved the oscar, good points though. I agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sam, I agree with your points. I definitely thought some of the other movies it was up against were much better and it won because it had a different stand out feature.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am in agreement with the sentiment "It won because it was different". It had no competition because the movie was held in a different (in this case higher) regard then every other nominee. It was a "throwback" to silent movies, which clearly gave it a leg up in the eyes of the judges. Although I would disagree with Sam's statement that "it was an off year for movies". That is an opinion obviously but I feel it's hard to compare one year to another year when so many extremely different types of movies come out. Again, my opinion, but I saw a handful of great movies in 2011.

    I like the original post's short and concise description of the movie. I myself have not seen the movie, and have no desire to. But I think the success of this movie proves, that in some cases, perhaps rare ones, great acting can outperform dazzling visual affects. At the Oscars at least.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When have big-budget movies with dazzling special effects ever won the Best Picture Oscar? For that matter, when have the biggest box office ticket sales movies ever won the Best Picture Oscar? I don't think most people believe that a great film has to have intense special effects; they believe that a top moneymaking film has to have intense special effects. (So the real question is, why is it that "great films" and "top moneymaking films" aren't synonymous in our culture? Why do the movies voted as "great" fail to bring in as much revenue as, say, Transformers sequels? Why do we say we want a certain meaning of "quality," but then pay for a different meaning of "quality"?)

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is extremely interesting! Who would of thought this film would take home the title for best picture? I agree with your explanation, i really enjoyed this posting!

    ReplyDelete