THE ARTIST - “A Triumphant Film for the 21st Century”
Director Michel Hazanavicius speaks to Cinémoi about his daring and exhilirating film about Hollywood’s silent era
When Cinémoi finally meets the man behind one of 2011’s most talked about movies, Michel Hazanavicius is clearly a little jaded from the seemingly endless line of publicity he has had to endure for the The Artist. A small price to pay perhaps as the buzz around the upcoming Awards season is predicting big success for both the film, the stars and the director himself. Even when we mention that we have been following the film since its first screening at Cannes earlier this year, Hazanavicius wrily responds “I’ve been following it too”. A sign of the global odyssey of awards ceremonies, press conferences and film festivals that the film has taken him on and will surely continue to take him on. The attention is not without reason however as The Artist is a lovefelt look into Hollywood’s past, but at the same time is a triumphant film for the 21st Century. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself applauding by the end. When the possibility arose to make this film in a predominately silent format, was there any hesitancy on your part as a filmmaker to use techniques that some may consider to be ‘old fashioned’?
Well for me it’s a long story, I had the desire for maybe 10 or 12 years but actually the first person I had to convince was myself. Because so many people tell you it’s not possible or not an option, you believe them. So the part of you that wants to make that movie has to convince the other part that becomes hesitant. When I finally decided to make The Artist, I used all of my power to convince others to make it and follow me.
Did you have to approach the film in a particular way considering all of the different genres, such as romance, comedy and musicality, that it employs, or was the main focus to tackle the silent format?
Genre and format are of course two different things, but the format allows for another way of storytelling. The most difficult part was the writing of the film because you have to plan what you are going to shoot; it’s almost like pre-directing. For example, there is no sense in asking the actors of today to act like Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton because they won’t know how to do it. You have to work in another direction around natural actors and what they can do. So when you write the script the goals are the same, you want to have a good story, with good characters that people care about and good sequences that are interesting, funny or touching. The only difference was there is no dialogue, you have to deal with images and you have to create all the images that you know are going to tell the story. With respects to imagery, was it difficult to recreate a Los Angeles of the 1920s and 1930s?
It is always difficult because you have to make choices, but this is now my third period movie so I have some ideas or clues for how to make it work. I really think less is more. For example, when you have a good actor and a good character, and he has a good suit and a good haircut, you don’t have to put ‘so many’ 20s things in every part of the image. So you can manage it and try to be simple. Usually when people make period movies they recreate what they are shooting but don’t recreate the way to shoot it. So in a way it is easier to recreate Los Angeles in the 20s when you are making a silent movie because the only images you have seen on Los Angeles are silent and in black and white. This it makes everything more accurate I guess. a way it is easier to recreate Los Regarding the supporting cast did you try to ensure they had the aesthetics of early Hollywood performers?
Yes I knew someone like John Goodman could do it, but it was not completely obvious. He is perfect in films such as The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink and he’s a great actor. But of course the faces are important because you have to catch the character very quickly in a silent movie. It’s easier when you have someone who evokes the character even without acting. With this project I had to work with actors who project their feelings with all their body. For example when John Goodman is happy, his whole body is happy and you can feel it. And of course lead actor Jean Dujardin can evoke a variety of emotions in just one simple smile?
Exactly, and I also think it is the same for Bérénice (Bejo). They are both really good actors who are happy to express themselves and not just with the script. This is not to say that they are better actors than the others, it’s just that some great actors are ‘behind the line’ whereas some are ‘over the line’.