I still like it and applaud it for its originality, it still lingers in the memory unlike some of those other movies.

I disagree - I think The Artist is excellent, streets ahead of some Terrace Malick emperor's new clothes fare or some fairly generic spy film (entertaining though that was).

This film was a real weird one for me as I'd formed the same prejudice opinion of this as the OP and refused to go see it in the cinema. In fact I only saw it a year or so ago, stumbling into it when it was on tv, and was hooked.

It shares a kinship with Once Upon A Time In The West - their historical end of an era settings giving them a romanticism which is pushed by having a lead as a metaphorical embodiment of the dying old ways. This makes it, itself, a superb, timeless piece which will still be viewed that way when most of those other films mentioned will have faded.

I think I like The Artist just as much as the other films you mentioned. But it has more originality. But whatever our opinions, remember this is the Oscars we're talking about. A political, back slapping exercise in prejudice and box ticking.

If there were genuinely some kind of system for objectively defining the best film of any given year, The Oscars would be far from the best.

I still can't forget the year that The King's Speech (decent but stereotypical Oscar fare) won over the more artistic likes of Black Swan, Inception, The Social Network, 127 Hours and True Grit. It won because it fit the appropriate criteria but it had little to say and didn't push the medium forward in any way.

Like what you want to like and don't let an awards ceremony chose for you.

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

I disagree - I think The Artist is excellent, streets ahead of some Terrace Malick emperor's new clothes fare or some fairly generic spy film (entertaining though that was).

This film was a real weird one for me as I'd formed the same prejudice opinion of this as the OP and refused to go see it in the cinema. In fact I only saw it a year or so ago, stumbling into it when it was on tv, and was hooked.

It shares a kinship with Once Upon A Time In The West - their historical end of an era settings giving them a romanticism which is pushed by having a lead as a metaphorical embodiment of the dying old ways. This makes it, itself, a superb, timeless piece which will still be viewed that way when most of those other films mentioned will have faded.

I was set to hate this movie but I was totally blown away. It's one of the few times I agree with the Academy Awards.

However I can see how a lot of people would miss the depth of this film. If I'd seen it 10 years ago, before I took a deep dive into silent films, I would've reacted with meh-to-s'aiight.

I commented more in the other thread about the sneaky twist ending; I'm sure a lot of filmgoers missed it entirely but that 1 line really summarizes a lot. Another brilliant scene which is worth the price of admission is the climactic "BANG!". It illustrates how silent films can achieve suspense in ways that talkies can't. If the audience is paying attention, that's the moment we suddenly realize that silent films aren't just an obsolete or nostalgic curiosity like, say, wooden tennis racquets. It's a different art form which in some ways is still superior.

I'm glad to see the Academy Award judges weren't snoozing on this one. Without being overly didactic or preachy, this film really reminds us that we can't casually say "out with the old, in with the new."