There is a magical film from the talented French director-actor team of Michel Hazanavicius (who also wrote it) and actor Jean Dujardin (who won Best Actor at Cannes this year) called The ARTIST that you are finally going to get a chance to see. Just do it. The pair made two very funny, slightly naughty spy parodies--OSS 117: CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES (2006) and OSS 117: LOST IN RIO (2009)--but neither of those films quite prepares you for the near-silent, black-and-white majesty of THE ARTIST, a tragic-comedy that begins in Hollywood in 1927 at the dawn of the talking pictures.
As much as a film like HUGO, THE ARTIST is also a celebration and homage to a great, lost era in filmmaking. I have always loved silent film, even the ones that many consider average, simply because they reveal so much about a style of movie making and acting that is long gone and not considered nearly enough. The film reveals Hazanavicius' deep admiration for this bygone era and represents his attempt to remind us that those silent film actors were not lesser performers simply because we never heard their voices. I was fortunate enough to get a chance to talk with Hazanavicius recently in Chicago, and we had a terrific chat. Please enjoy Michel Hazanavicius (who speaks with a very storng French accent, which may explain some of his phrasings in our talk).
Capone: So I've seen your OSS films and I love those, but with those two films and now THE ARTIST, it begs the questions: Is this modern era not good enough for you? Are you not happy with the way things are today? What is the fascination with recreating these different time periods?
MH: [Laughs] Yeah, I don’t know. That’s a psychoanalytical question, but no actually I’m very happy with the period I live in. I have four children, so if I was not happy… I don’t think so. I know for the OSS movies, I think it’s different, it’s a different reason for the two movies. The character of OSS is so stupid, so racist, so if you put him in the modern era nobody can accept that character. I mean it’s too unacceptable. But you accept it, because it is in the '50s. And also the movie has the look of the '50s, it's so elegant that that makes a balance between the elegance of the movie and the stupidity and the arrogance of the character.
It’s a very complex device to accept those kind of jokes. So that’s the reason for the OSS, and for this one, really I was attracted by the format itself. I had many options for what kind of story to tell and what script I was going to do, one of them was really stupid, but it was very challenging--but too challenging for me--was to adapt the THE INVISIBLE MAN. Trying to tell a story with a character that you can’t see and that you can't hear [the film would have been silent as well], it’s too much for a movie I think, so I quit that.
Capone: Did you really consider that?
MH: Yeah really, I read the book. I mean, it was really challenging. I mean THE INVISIBLE MAN in a silent way, that’s really something if you are able to do it, if you're really good. Maybe I’m going to reconsider it now, but I thought the idea was very attractive, but I didn’t do it. So when I was talking to people about doing a silent movie they were a little bit intrigued, but also I felt that all of them needed a justification. “Why do you want to make a silent movie?” Always, and “Why silent?” So that’s why I said to myself, “They needed justification. So if I tell the story of a silent actor, this is the justification, and they will accept a silent movie if the story is about a silent actor.” So that brings me to the '20s, because to tell the story of a silent actor nowadays, that is very stupid as well.
Capone: They made a movie about Charlie Chaplin, and there’s a lot of talking in it, and you’re right, it felt different hearing him speak when what he’s known for are these silent masterpieces.
MH: Yeah. Actually, I did the same thing in this one that I did with the OSS movies, I did a very simple thing. Usually when people do a period movie, they recreate what they are shooting, but they don’t recreate the way it was shot. so that makes to me something a little bit weird. I can’t imagine Charlie Chaplin--and the movie is really good, but that’s not the point--and maybe that’s not that good of an example, because the movie is great with what Robert Downey Jr. did; it’s really incredible, but there’s something special with seeing Charlie Chaplin talking.
But I can’t imagine a character of the '20s shot with a steadicam, for example. That’s something that doesn’t fit, so I really wanted to respect the way to shoot it and even the period of the kind of stories that they did in these times. That’s why there’s no irony in the movie at all. I mean it’s very simple and entertaining, but also the center of the script is a melodrama, a romance, a very classical romance. I really tried to work not like in the days, because I think it’s a modern movie, but the basis is like in the day, and then I put something more modern on it.
Capone: But you're not just telling a love story; you're telling a story about the changing of the art form, and those little moments where you do introduce sound into it, they really kind of pull you out, and I don’t mean this in a bad way, but you're like “Wow, I’m watching a movie. I’m watching something that is not just a story, but it’s about something very specific in these changing times.” These were times where a lot of actors lost their careers, because they didn’t have the voice for sound. I think there are going to be some people who don’t know Jean as an actor that are going to say “Wow, he has an accent.”
MH: I think for that part, the accent thing, that’s not something I wanted at the beginning. In a way, I really hesitated to keep it like that, because I thought it reduces his story. To me, it’s not just about having or not having an accent, and I don’t want people to think at the end “Oh, they chose that? With the accent?” So I re-dubbed with Jean it with a better accent, but the fact is this one was really charming, and I wanted this movie to be charming, so I kept it because of the charm of that final sentence, and in a way, it happens at the end, so it doesn’t ruin the story itself I think
But about what you said before that, there are two things. First of all you are right, I mean it’s a game. People come now to see a silent movie, black and white, French, and it’s a lot to ask. It could be arrogant in a way, but they come to see that, and I can’t pretend it’s a normal movie. It’s a game. We know that we are watching a show. We know it’s a movie, and I play with that. I play with the cleverness of the audience. That’s why I can, not cheat, but certainly put some sound and then go back to silence. I mean, we're in the movie and we can do whatever. If it’s entertaining and if it’s good and if it tells a story, there’s no reason not to put it in the movie.
About the transition, I think that’s something that is a little bit deeper than just the changing of the format, or the form of the art expression. I think that rings a bell to the audience a little bit deeper, because it’s about a human being in a transition period, and I think it’s something really modern. This is a modern theme really, because the world is going faster than our lifetime, and so when you start to work during all of your working life, the world is moving. And one day or another, you have to adapt. So I think it’s a larger theme than just the movie industry.
Capone: I was going to ask you about the title, because you don’t hear of actors referred to as "artists" all that often anymore. Do you hold actors of that time in higher record? They had to be more of an all-around entertainer than actors today.
MH: No, not really. I think the producers were so powerful in these days and I think actors were more toys than they are any more. Today, actors are really powerful, they generate the movie. They are the real bosses in a way, because they have the power of life and death on movies. If they say, “I’m going to do that movie,” the movie is done. If no star wants to do a movie, there’s no movie. They're really much more powerful. Back in the day, they were the good soldiers of the producers, so this is not the point
Actually, I didn’t choose the title. My first title was BEAUTY SPOT, referring to the beauty mark, and I thought it was a nice title, because it was the small thing that was between them, a very small thing, but the fact is it was not a good title. It didn't have enough of a hook enough. So the producer called me and he said, “I think I have a good title for you.” In the script it was written, you know when there’s a newspaper suddenly say “I’m not a puppet anymore, I’m an artist.” He said, “THE ARTIST” and I said, “Yeah, but the guy is not an artist. The guy is dumb. He just doesn’t want to adapt himself because of his pride,” and I don’t feel it. It’s not a good title; it doesn’t tell the story in a way. He insisted a little bit, and I said, “Okay, let’s try it.”
I have to admit, everybody thought it was a wonderful title, and the fact is I’m not so good with the titles. Once it hooks people, “THE ARTIST” is intriguing, but also it’s really referring to that period. When you think of the Charlie Chaplin movies, you have THE POLICEMAN, THE LADY, THE TRAMP, THE KID, and it’s a very simple way to characterize the characters, to introduce the characters. You think of him in a very simple way. He's the policeman, he’s not a man with a lady… he’s the policeman. So this is THE ARTIST.
Capone: When you were shooting in this very luscious black and white and do a silent film, did you have to sort of re-learn directing?
MH: Yeah, sure. It’s not so much about directing or even acting I think. It’s about writing, because the writing is really different. You have the same goal to make an organic story that works with characters that you want know what will happen to them next, and you have to be entertaining. You have to have a good opening sequence and a good ending and a good arc. You have the same goal, but you don’t have the same tools. You don’t have the dialogue, so what you have are images. It’s a very different way to work.
I think it was certainly different in the '20s, but today I think only a writer-director can do it, because when you write, it’s like pre-directing. You know what kind of images are going to tell the story. It’s not about the characters and the story, and then “How can I direct it?” It’s “that image is good for that sequence” and “that works” and “How can I illustrate or embody that conflict?” “That image is good.” “That setup is good.” But you do all of the setup thinking "this is how the story is told." The actors do what they usually do: they embody the characters, they play the situation, but they don’t tell the story; and the music is the same. Some people make a shot good and say, “The music is like the dialogue of the movie.” There is no dialogue.
You have to accept that there’s no dialogue, and the music doesn’t do the dialogue; the music is more important than the dialogue really. The music gives the emotional trajectory of the story, but there is no dialogue. For example, to do a conflict, the main character hates himself at a point in the story, and how do to tell that? If you have dialogue, you can go into the psychoanalyst, for example, but you don’t have dialogue. Or you can have a a gun up here on the bar when he’s drinking, and he sees himself, and there’s a conflict between him and himself and he shoots at himself, and you tell the story this way. So the writing is very different. It’s easy to direct that kind of sequence, but it’s the conception and to conceive that sequence and to put it in an organic structure that tells a story, that’s the point I think in doing a silent movie.
Capone: Can you just talk about the process you went through to create old Hollywood? Tell me about scouting some of those locations, because that must have been just a great tour through old Los Angeles.
MH: Yeah, the scouting of the locations was the most moving part, because I was taken through wonderful locations, historical locations. I have been in the office of Charlie Chaplin, the office of Harry Cohn, the studio where Chaplin shot GOLD RUSH, MODERN TIMES. I have been in the theaters where he, Charlie Chaplin, did the premiere of MODERN TIMES. I have been in the Cicada restaurant which was a high place of these days, an apartment from the '20s that didn’t change at all, the Paramount studio.
When people go to the Paramount studio and that’s it, but when you are in the '20s mood there is that entrance that you can see in SUNSET BOULEVARD, and it’s very moving to see. I’ve also been in a house in Pasadena, and if you remember SUNSET BOULEVARD, the house of Gloria Swanson, this house has been demolished, and there’s nothing surviving of that house except one thing, a fountain that a guy bought just before the demolition of the house. And we have been in the house of that guy, so there was that fountain. This is the only thing that survived.
SUNSET BOULEVARD for me is a masterpiece, and Billy Wilder is really the director I would love, not to be, because it’s too late, but I love Billy Wilder and he's really the best, everything of his is the best. So yeah we've been there, we’ve been in the William Holden apartment in SUNSET BOULEVARD, the Douglas Fairbanks Studio, and actually one house in the movie, it’s the real Mary Pickford’s house before she married to Douglas Fairbanks, and the bed when he wakes up after the fever, this is the real accurate Mary Pickford’s bed.
So yeah, to see all of these things and even the scout manager and the executive producer we worked with and the cinematographer and everyone, it was amazing to see their reaction. And the American crew really thanked me for that; they said, “We never see our city like that, in the prism of the '20s,” but to recreate it is another question, because you can’t do it, because of the schedule in every little part. You have to concentrate your location and your sets and everything. It's my third period movie; you've seen the other ones. It’s not like I have a trick or a method, but my idea is the less you do, the better it is, because you leave room for the audience to recreate the period
Capone: Making it in black and white probably helps.
MH: Sure, sure. But I spent a lot of time putting out of the frame a lot of props, a lot of things, because usually they want to prove everywhere that it’s the '20s, but if you look here [meaning the room we are sitting in] for example, nothing says to us that we are in 2011; it could be in 1987 or if you change two things, we're in 1976. If you have the good story and good characters, the actors make believable a frame really and sometimes a white wall behind them is more efficient than two things that are supposed to prove that you are in the '20s. You have to question, “Why are these two things in this apartment?” “Okay, we are in the '20s, you don’t have to say to me that we are in the '20s in each frame.” I try to pull things off and let the people do their job. People do a better job than I can do.
Capone: Were you surprised at the response the film got at Cannes and at other festivals after that? You can get isolated when you're making a film. So to actually put it out there in the world, was that a relief after the was so overwhelmingly positive?
MH: I was surprised by the strength and the fact that almost everybody enjoyed it. There is something very special. Now when I think of it, it’s like I found a magical formula that I didn’t expect. I didn’t look for it, but it’s like almost everybody… “love” is maybe too big, but at least enjoyed the movie. There are some things I expected, like I knew that the format, that if the movie was good, the format will be very surprising for people, so that makes something very special. For example, usually when people say “You should see it, it’s very good.” When they go to see the movie, you can be a little bit disappointed like, “Well it’s good, but it’s not THAT good.” But for this one, there’s something that people cannot expect, the strength of the format itself. So I really don’t speak of the movie job, I speak of the format. The format, people can not expect what it does to the audience and how it works. You can expect it and you can be disappointed by the story, by the directing, by the actors, whatever you want, but the format will surprise you for sure. I think people really enjoy that.
I would not say it was a relief, because I was not that stressed. There was something I was not sure of, which is really new for me in that movie, it's the lack or the absence of irony. You know my other films, they are very ironic, and I show how I was clever, how I was funny. Here, I didn’t play that card. I did something very simple. It’s funny and it’s entertaining, but there’s no irony. There’s nothing political except the format, but there’s nothing political in that movie. So for me, I was not sure, “Maybe they're going to think it’s stupid or it’s tacky or it’s cheesy.” I was afraid of that. If someone wanted to kill me, he would do it with that cheesy part. So it was a relief to see that it works, and people accept it, so that was the relief. I thought the movie was good, and that was the most important thing, so I was not that surprised, but yeah I’ve been surprised by the… I don’t know the term in English, but the strength of the reaction, the response and the fact that it was so many people. That was surprising.
Capone: Yeah. Did I read that you had made a short film with Jean recently? Or that you are doing one for an anthology?
MH: It’s a sketch movie, and Jean produced it with other people, and they asked six or seven directors to make a short movies. So they asked me to do one and so after Cannes, I made a short movie. It’s funny. It’s very stupid.
Capone: Is it period?
MH: [Laughs] No, no. It’s contemporary.
Capone: THE ARTIST is an American story. Was there kind of a curiosity in the French filmmaking community about why you were making such a uniquely American story?
MH: Yeah, but it’s a big thing here to be French. I have a lot of questions about being French. I don’t think of myself as a French director; I think I’m a director before being French, especially when I make a movie. Actually Hollywood is not so American; Hollywood is worldwide. I’ve seen more movies from Hollywood than from France, I think. So I really think it’s part of my character. I'm mixed with different influences, but Hollywood belongs to me as anybody else. So when I start to work on a silent movie, I watched a lot of silent movies, and the American ones seemed to me to be the ones that aged the best in the way that the German expressionist movies, which are extraordinary, but are really not modern, and really you watch it like a painting of the '20s, not the American ones. They are very modern, because they are telling stories about people, and that didn’t age really.
The Russians are amazing, awesome, but it’s about editing, it’s very experimental, I mean it’s not about stories really or it’s very political, but you watch it like you are going to the museum, and this is not the case for the American ones. Also, I knew that it was difficult to find some money, and certainly putting Hollywood as the star of the movie, that makes a movie that you can sell everywhere in the world. It’s very different if you do the same story in France; people don’t really care about the French silent movies, they don’t even know it. Everybody knows Hollywood.
But when I decided that I really had to and I really worked to find the American way to tell an American story, I had to be very American. I know that Berenice Bejo really worked on that, and she really wanted to move as an American actress. The American thing was very important in the work, to find something, because the sense of the story is really American.
Capone: Michel, thank you so much. And best of luck.
