NOSTALGIA ON THE BIG SCREEN

Nostalgia on the Big Screen

It is serendipitous that the best three films I have seen over the past few months have much in common.

I am surprised at three individual films being released so close together having anything (good) in common, yet managing to remain so unique.

Hollywood...you can actually surprise us...when you try!

They all feature the romantic yearnings and appreciation of times long gone...and Paris!

(even more amazing as I am finally heading to Paris later in the year for the first time after years of planning)

I wish I had been around during the periods featured in these films, and of course adore all things Parisian - you can see why I am so enchanted.

It is actually a shame - in terms of awards and the like - the three are out roughly at the same time.

I find it very hard to say which one I loved the most. I saw Midnight in Paris some months ago (it still resonates), Hugo earlier in the year and The Artist recently.

I loved Midnight in Paris for many things - the humour and wit, fabulous characters and dialogue, the return to form of my beloved Woody, and mostly for Paris. It made me laugh...a lot.

I loved Hugo for it's stunning recreation of that period, the intricate sets, Paris and mostly for the homage to silent films and Melies. It made me cry... a lot.

I loved The Artist for being brave in presenting a silent, black and white film in 2011/2, I loved it's homage to great film making, it's characters and mostly Jean Dujardin, for basically carrying the film and barely saying a word. It made me proud.

I love The Academy Awards...all three are up for best film, It will go down between Hugo and The Artist - I have no idea which way to 'vote'...this is fabulous as it is great to have a surprise and actual quality films, that mean something to film buffs, up for the awards, but being this does not help me towards scoring what will win on the night!

Midnight in Paris is so beautifully filmed, that alone, makes it grand. The film has two distinct periods. Paris today - filmed crisply, bright with a blinding palate of clean, light, white and fresh. I suspect Paris is not quite so 'clean', but it works on the big screen and cinema is all about magic, so who am I to question. Then, there is Bohemian Paris of the 20s/30s - it is dark, mysterious, softened, deep colours...just as you (I) imagined it. The fact the main character features in both periods could be a turn off - do not let it be - this is handled with utter perfection, and also wrapped up rather nicely at the end.

The characters are great, well cast and well acted. Owen Wilson, is great - I knew he would be. Before he moved into the shlockbuster comedy roles he is better known for, he made small thoughtful comedy/dramas and was excellent. I am certain Woody knew this casting him, his casting is legendary and he rarely gets it wrong. The casting of the 'legends' featured was also inspired, with wonderful character actors playing these wonderful characters. Most especially Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein, Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald, Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway, and Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali.

But it wasn't just that, it was the set - for both periods, the locations that were used - from Versailles, to Rodin's Garden, the markets, little streets filled with antique shops, the hotels, the little cafes.

...I suppose you can't go wrong in Paris. The costumes - especially those in the older period/s - lots of stunning flapper outfits, velvet, jewels, dark hues of purple, blue, green and burgundy. It was the dialogue - Hemingway in particular had me beaming, and the music - Allen's soundtracks are always a favourite for me as a Jazz fan, this is no exception. There was no wrong note in it...a true piece of art.

In any other year, this would be best film...unfortunately for Woody (not that he'd care!) Hugo and The Artist raise the stakes a little more. Think what you will of Woody Allen the person, but Woody Allen the auteur is on fire at the moment...I always say a bad Woody Allen film is better than most of the crap released...but believe me this is almost as good, if not in the same league as the films he released from the late 70s to the mid 80s.

And then I saw Hugo.

Hugo is based on the amazing book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. Hugo is an orphan who lives in a large Parisian railway station working secretly as a clock keeper. He befriends Isabelle, another orphan who lives with her godfather. Her godfather is Georges Melies, the famous film-maker from the turn of the century. His greatest masterpiece is the fantastic, Le Voyage dans la lune from 1902.

The story is based around Hugo, keeping one step ahead of being discovered and sent to an orphange; and the back story of George Melies, and how he came to be working in a toy store at the station when he was thought dead. Add in the delightful friendship between Hugo and Isabelle, some adventures, automatons, the characters within the railway station, and a whole lot of movie nostalgia and you have a movie that is as close to perfection as I have ever seen. Filmed in 3D (something I do find rather annoying), it had moments where the 3D was an absolute must and added to it's fantastical appeal.

The attention to detail, especially in the set design is second to none. Scorsese crafts another world, but a world you believe actually existed.

And mostly it did!

The sequences where he recreates the making of Melies' films (with some actual footage spliced in) are beyond magical and incredibly sentimental without being saccharine. Whilst, essentially a children's movie, this is a movie for everyone, but especially the silent film enthusiast.

And that is me...I wept with joy throughout most of the film.

A-ha, now this will surely win Best Film at the Oscars...

But, then I saw the Artist.

The Artist is a black and white, silent film...this has apparently taken many people by surprise...I do find that amusing. I love silent film, so I was thrilled to see a new silent film. One that was actually shot in the way true silent films were actually shot. Silent films - to work - need expressive over the top acting, however, not hams. The acting in The Artist is honed carefully, but absolutely expressive and therefore express the story quite wonderfully without words. The sets need to be simple, but also express plot and be almost a character itself. The score must portray the feeling usually portrayed by tone in speech.

The Artist is a French film, written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius with love and dexterity. He captures the essence and charm of silent film, whilst paying homage to the best. I was surprised to see scenes that borrowed from Chaplin, Welles, Keaton and Berkley, amongst others. His use of light and shade, integral in a black and white medium, was perfection. The acting was beyond superb. Jean Dujardin was Valentino, Keaton and Chaplin rolled into one. His expressive features suited the role and in the later, darker part of the film was when he truly shone. Berenice Bejo, a mix of Paulette Goddard, Clara Bow and Claudette Colbert, as the ingénue was bright, cute and funny.

All of these films should bring home something at The Academy Awards this year, but who will win the Best Film - even I cannot work it out. My preference is Hugo, but I suspect The Artist will win...I have roughly a week to work that one out.