| The black and white era days are long gone. Colour is something that emerged almost half a century ago and thus i think it is important that we embrace colour. But the point is, its not the colour or the lack of it that makes a movie but the story and the style of it.
I'm quite sure that even if artist was made in colour the film would still have been a hit. Because its the story that matters. However, one thing is eternal and that is class. The artist is a class act in today's age and nothing can beat that. The colour aspect magnified the effect, but not alone responsible for its success Riju | ↑ ↓ |
| But i must admit, i'm yet to watch any of those movies and am commenting out of initial impressions and news about them. You brought out one nice thing, one film succeeded in technical category, while other in artistic categories. Yet both essentially are stories that have a strong storyline and made in the same year. Then indeed it is worth asking, which succeeds, tech or art? Nice point. Riju | ↑ ↓ |
| Actually its not like tech or art which preceeds,its actually an overall performance.....story telling,direction,acting,cinematography & everythng dat makes a film cimplete.....so Hugo excels where tech is concerened & Artist does it in art......both r good in der respective places Shouvik | ↑1 ↓ |
| Point well made. What is your opinion, St.jimmy? Riju | ↑ ↓ |
| my opinion is simple.........artist to meet his vision is entitled to do nething!!! on a commercial front its a differnrt issue...... i mean if u wana mke a cmmrcl film- for in gnrl public, u cant make a black n white film and urge people to come..... as color is ne day more fun than B & W, as we see things that way!! but when u treat ur creation as art rather than commodity, director can do nething!!! for example- stan brakhage........he makes film as art, not commodity thats why had power to do things so differently.....(see his works in youtube for better understanding) but one thing that i blv is, film as an art........no good will be done by repeating story, style.......we have to make things differntly, explore new grounds.................because art have to original!! thats why, true artists are rare! thank you for reading this boring lectutre! st.jimmy | ↑1 ↓ |
| True artists are rear indeed.
I've not seen such a wide range of art films, and more of a mainstream junkie. But one thing is true and i agree with you. Repeatation yields nothing. The Artist is like a jewel among coloured glasses. It is one of a kind and thus has a value. But if it were a jewel kept along similar looking jewels, it would still be precious but its appeal would be diminished. Which brings me to say, that no one should try to repeat what The Artist achieved as that effort would be self defeating. No no, not at all boring lecture Suvajit. These things appeal to us and this is the forum to express that. Good of you to bring a relevant topic into discussion. Riju | ↑ ↓ |
| Just saw The Artist sometime back. Must say it is unworthy of the awards it has received. The story couldn't have been more predictable and the acting couldn't have been more bland. Only the lead actress brings any semblance of a movie to this experimental project. The script and 'The Artist' are equally unworthy. If this is the quality of movies becoming best pictures, directors and actors, then God help the Oscars. Riju | ↑ ↓ |