relationship is really never shown. The early part is all superficial, simple stuff set up at tiresome length.
As my mom said, "I liked Singing in the Rain better, and that covered some of the same sort of things."
Of course, The Artist was not absolutely silent; my dad had to interpret twice to inform me there was sound on suddenly, although my mom informed she didn't hear even two words the whole film until the end. Also, my dog reacted when the dog barked midway through.
Through the movie, I counted 8 moments where the visual storytelling truly rose to the occasion. The make-out with the coat was the first one, others included the light feather crashing with unbearable noise in George's dreams; the dialogue with the mirror table, the shadow walking away. the "Indian in the cupboard"-like scene where George's past self tries to get him to perk up. Otherwise, I felt the visual storytelling was medicore; even Singing in the Rain had far better visuals.
I must say the actress playing Peppy Miller certainly fit the role. The dog, of course, got the best stage directions; he saved lives twice, and showed more expression in his repeated dying than most of the actors did. Silent films aren't in the mode of modern film realism, but the visual storytelling was always far more brisk and creative than this movie showed.
Part of that is because, as retold in John S. Schuchman's Hollywood Speaks: Deafness and the Film Entertainment Industry, many silent film actors studied with deaf actors, many even learned sign language: Charlie Chaplin learned sign language, for instance. Buster Keaton was hearing-impaired. Yes, silent films had the Deaf Eye-- and Deaf bodies, too. Many deaf people acted in the early days of the industry. However, you wouldn't know it by this movie.
We never see anybody signing on or off-set. Gestures are minimal and do not fully convey what was used back then. You don't see anybody rehearsing with acting coaches. Deafness is merely hinted at in the visual lips-only scene intended to represent the onslaught of the talkies.
George does not seem deaf at all with other characters, although he nearly gets run over once; probably drunk, or merely deaf in one ear. Many silent film actors who did not make the transition to talkies had speech impedients, accents, or weak voices not considered suitable for talkies. Accordingly, Deaf actors lost a lot of jobs when Hollywood changed to talkies.
For me, if they had clearly shown why George was so resistant to talking films, this would have helped the movie considerably. This review suggests that the true reason for the character's resistance was his French accent. That alone. I suppose the viewers were supposed to deduce he was French and had an accent from his taste in art and dining customs? What, not even have him reading anything written in French or arguing with his wife over politics in Europe, or his wife asking to go back home to Paris, or something? How ridiculous.
Leastaways if I want true silent films done in ASL, right now is the golden age for Deaf filmmaking.