by Kate Rohr

It’s Oscar season, people! Don your fine apparel, pour the bubbly (aka sparkling grape juice) and stay tuned because I’m trying to watch all of the best picture nominees before the big day, Feb. 26. For a complete list of nominations, see here. Now so far I’ve only reviewed “The Descendants,” but I will crank more reviews out as soon as possible, I promise.

Now let’s get down to business. “The Artist” is a silent film about an actor, George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) who refused to make the change to “talkie” films, and the rise of new “talkie” starlet Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo). Now, I know what you’re thinking. Silent? I’m not paying $8 to fall asleep! And to be honest, my initial thoughts were along the same lines. But trust me, people, “The Artist” is something worth staying awake for. And it isn’t hard.

I don’t know if you’re a ‘wait for the movie to come out on DVD’ kind of person, but I would really encourage you to see it in the theater. There’s something indescribably wonderful about watching a silent film in a theater in 2012, especially as the beginning of the movie watches an audience watch a movie. (So meta!) And the sight of a huge audience clapping without being able to hear anything was very cool. Seeing “The Artist” in a theater also amps up the nostalgia angle. You watch this 1920’s audience, dressed up in flapper dresses with feathery headband-things, as a live orchestra plays the accompanying music while the film plays. Beautiful.

If I had seen “The Artist” at any other time of the year, I would have been content to end here. I would have told you that it was a great film, creating nostalgia for a time period and art form, but also rose above the nostalgia to welcome in the changing times. But fortunately/unfortunately, it’s Oscar season, and “The Artist” is up for several Oscars, including best picture, so I’m inevitably thinking in terms of “Should it win?” And the answer is “Sweet mother of pearl, NO!”

I liked “The Artist.” I liked it a lot. It’s a great silent film about silent films, but now it’s entered Oscar territory. The competition, while not so tough, is better than this. Like I said, it’s a great silent film – but I could have used more of today’s film’s story complexity and character depth. It was a silent film in every way, even the bad ones – it didn’t have any greater message, there were lots of random dance numbers and crazy eyebrow movement, and a dog who just by barking can make a policeman understand that a house is on fire. (Although to be fair, the dog was probably my favorite character.) Sorry, but this is no longer 1927. Today’s audiences need a little more.

And as for the acting noms for Dujardin and Bejo – I get it, but no. Just no. The most I can say for Bejo is that she’s really great at winking and crying one tear at a time, but beyond that? Not so special. And I wouldn’t be so upset about Dujardin, but I just don’t see it happening.

So go see “The Artist” – it’s funny, and charming, and you’ll leave appreciating the art of filmmaking. But I give it only a 6, and if it wins the Best Picture Oscar, I’ll be downing the bubbly to drown my sorrows.