Sunrise (1927)
Monday, March 30, 2009 at 7:22AM Towering achievement from master German filmmaker F. W. Murnau (Nosferatu). His first American film, nestled snugly in between D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation (1915) and Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941), Sunrise (1927) is the middle prong of that cinematic trident which offered to us as audience the seminal definitions in the language of film and the craft of visual storytelling.
A couple simply called “The Man” (George O’Brien) and “The Wife” (Janet Gaynor in an Oscar winning performance) own a farm in the country. He becomes bewitched by a woman from the city (Margaret Livingston) and, with her coaxing, plans to drown his wife and run away with the temptress.
Come crunch time, he cannot go through with it. The wife realizes what his intentions were and flees to the city. He follows. They reconcile (a touching second honeymoon on the town). But irony begs tragedy in the film‘s climactic finish.
The story’s universal theme and suspense has given it the legs of timelessness. The real key to its lasting power however is in Murnau’s masterful visuals and the flourishes in which he paints his canvas. He uses superimpositions, scale models, enormous sets, sophisticated camera movements, crowd scenes and remarkably intricate uses of mise en scene.
Unfortunately, Sunrise performed poorly at the box office and Murnau’s artistic visions (and backing) were reined in on his final three pictures. He died in an auto accident in 1931 at the age of 42.
Film also won Oscars for cinematography (Charles Rosher and Karl Struss) and the one time “Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production” award in 1929.
A beautifully restored version is now available on DVD from the Fox Studio Classics line.
Reader Comments (4)
I had to look up mise en scene, and wonder here whether it has the same connotation as "gestalt", or do "intricate uses" point to something more specific?
Fitzeeeeeeeeeeee,
Good question. I am familiar with both terms but never really thought of their similarities in a definitional sense. While there are many schools of thought on the true meaning of "mise en scene" in a cinematic context (it was originally a stage term), I have always adhered to the one that describes it as the composition of a shot; the placement of objects, actors, scenery, etc. (including movement) within the frame.
I have always interpreted "gestalt" to be of the adage "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Particularly when applied to psychological theory.
So, in strictly filmic terms, I would describe the difference between them as looking at the composition of the individual shots in a film ("mise en scene") and having those individual shots pieced together (the task of film editing) to realize the entire story, or the "gestalt" (form/shape) of the film.
Then again, I could be full of shit. But that's my take on it.
C. Adolph, if that's your real name...which I doubt!
Don't forget two more Murnau classics: "The Last Laugh," and "Faust." And you're so correct to put this director in the same league as Griffith and Welles.
Pots of Love,
L
Yes! Pots of love. Murnau is often dismissed in the pantheon of the masters. Griffith is disrespected too, in certain circles, due to a judgment on subject matter (see Leni Riefenstahl), but a visual innovator nonetheless.