Discussion Film / TheArtist

Still going on. Please discuss it here before re-adding.

Not sure what the problem is with this. In addition to audiences, there were plenty of people of color working on movie sets in the silent era, but the only ones we see are some black people dressed up in Darkest Africa costumes. They later reappear as a representation of George's anxieties in a fantasy sequence, something which has its own Unfortunate Implications. Safe to say the filmmakers didn't give much thought to diversity at any point during the film.

Thing is, George himself is leading them, and he's primarily the one who's attacking himself during that sequence. It's not "OMG BLACK PEOPLE", it's his self-doubt and his being haunted by the recent failure of his Darkest Africa-themed film.

Also, that theatre looked pretty ritzy in the beginning. I do believe regular theatres allowed blacks in, albeit segregated and given the bad seats.

Is this resolved yet? Can the line be re-added?

I am a little bit puzzled as to why there is any disagreement about this at all. Among the objections listed when you look at the history of this page is that "he's talked plenty of times before" and "the actor is French". Those of course are irrelevant when evaluating a silent film. The lead actress was French as well and she was clearly meant to portray an American, and how many times the actor has "talked" onscreen is irrelevant as well since we can't hear the sound of his voice until the end. The other editors object that "there is no comment about gee George why don't you like talkies?". Again, I don't see how this is something that has to be spelled out. We see that George is highly resistant to talkies, when many other people are not—his boss isn't, Peppy Miller the ingenue isn't, his co-star that flipped him off at the beginning isn't. So why isn't George willing to make the transition? Because he is French and has a thick accent, as the ending (yes!) reveals.

Two more things. It strikes me as odd that the default decision here seems to be to agree with the people who deleted the entry. And secondly, is the same person editing this entry with two different user names? It seems an odd coincidence that a user named "Some Dumb Editor" made a deletion on the page for The Artist, and then another user named "Some Other Editor" made the exact same deletion on the same page.

"the default decision here seems to be to agree with the people who deleted the entry"

Well, yeah. The entry is obviously controversial, so the constructive thing to do would be to leave it off until it's been discussed. Isn't this exactly what happened with the Plot Hole entry below?

I don't think the actor's being French is relevant in itself, but along with the character having a French name it kind of implies he's, well, French. But the main thing is that George's reluctance to get into talkies is never really presented as a mystery — there are plenty of reasons set out for it. He's set in his ways, doesn't trust this new medium, resents having to change to suit the vagaries of fashion...

The reveal of his French accent might fit better under Tomato Surprise. But either way, it's such a minor detail that it doesn't really revolutionise anything, which I think is why people disagree with listing it as The Reveal.

I disagree that it'd fit under Tomato Surprise, as that's the resolution of a plot by the sudden revelation of some important detail which has been deliberately hidden from the viewer to make the work dramatic. Is his accent deliberately concealed to increase tension/drama?

I also disagree that it's The Reveal, as that's a big twist or revelation that changes how the plot goes. Is his French accent that important?

It seems that his accent can be assumed from the beginning. The "twist" (I don't think that's the right word, but I can't think of what is) is when he talks at last, not what accent he has.

I think that's an important point. Him talking at all is a throwaway gag, a playful bit of Medium Blending. I don't think it's meant to be at all significant.

She knew and had spoken to Clifton in the past, hadn't she? And, since she was more or less stalking George, chances are she would have learned of that detail somewhere along the way.

"Characters suddenly having knowledge that was never passed to them" doesn't simply refer to knowledge they were given on-screen, there are certain things characters can reasonably be expected to either know or be able to find out.

If George had died at some random bar and she'd suddenly burst through the door, you'd have a point, but he was in his own house, the house he'd spent almost a year apparently barely leaving — is it such a huge leap to imagine she might know where he lives? As Jordan said, she's taken enough of an interest in his life to buy all of his worldly possessions, finding out his address is hardly out of the question.

The question is, is it so implausible as to break Willing Suspension of Disbelief? If not, it's not a Plot Hole. You could always stick it on YMMV under Fridge Logic though.

I put the entry back due to Pacific Mackerel's failure to either justify his/her edits, comment on this page, or respond in a polite manner. I think I will continue to do so as long as Pacific Mackerel continues to edit this page in the manner that he/she is doing (quite rudely) without any justification. I should say thank you to Jordan and johnnye above for at least taking the time to explain their POV on this page.

Regarding the actual entry,

"Characters suddenly having knowledge that was never passed to them" doesn't simply refer to knowledge they were given on-screen

the entry for Plot Hole does not include any such clarification. Under reasons for a Plot Hole, the first one listed is "The author really wants to write a certain scene". The second one is "The author forgets what was written earlier". Peppy needs to save George so she drives to his house at the end. It seems like the question of how the hell does she know where to find him could have been resolved with a scene showing Clifton driving her by George's bungalow earlier, or Clifton could have driven her there for the climax, or there even could have been a scene where Clifton tells her "he's been living at a house on 212 X Street". But they didn't do any of that and instead, at least as far as what is depicted onscreen, Peppy appears to use some sort of psychic homing signal to find George's house.

BTW I am not looking to slag this movie; I loved it, saw it three times, and it was only on the third viewing that I noticed this. I am not inclined to take that entry out as long as Pacific Mackerel deletes it in a rude manner and without justification but if consensus is that it shouldn't be there I am fine with letting it go.

Regardless what you think of Pacific Mackerel, it takes two to have an edit war. Please leave it alone while it's being discussed.

The Plot Hole page doesn't specifically state that characters have in-universe knowledge they haven't been explicitly shown learning, but there has to be some expectation of imagination on the part of the viewers — if anything silent films rely on this even more than talkies.

Again, I suggest that this go on YMMV, because whatever the trope page says it's a subjective matter. Fans naturally get defensive about accusations of Plot Holes because they do come across as slagging off the writers, regardless of intent.

Well, it shouldn't go on YMMV if we call it a Plot Hole. Plot Hole is not YMMV. If it's a plot hole it should go on the main page, and if we decide that "there has to be some expectation of imagination on the part of the viewers" as you suggest then it isn't a plot hole. I really don't have a lot of interest in YMMV pages but if someone wanted to call that Fridge Logic then it could go on the Fridge tab.

I think it is Fridge Logic. It's a minor detail, and as demonstrated by this discussion it's arguable whether it's a Plot Hole or not. And as you say, plot hole isn't a subjective trope.

All right, the Fridge page is fine with me.

Yes, because saying discussion here already reached a consensus is rude.