Am I the only one? - Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) Discussion

[–] zoolzool 16 years ago

Possible.

Then again, how can you not see it as a moving declaration of the power of love? I don't think you're the only one, but this is the first time of heard of anyone seeing the ending of Sunrise as anything but happy.

He was ready to kill the woman from the city, but stopped when the maid called out his name. You can't hear her voice, but judging by the scene, and that French horn (?), you could tell that Ansess heard the happiness in her tone.

I don't know. I mean, I respect your view. I just never analyzed the movie much myself.

reply

[–] larrymcg 16 years ago

But we still have to deal with the fact that this is a guy that is capable of murder. If he wasn't interrupted, he was going to kill this woman. Now, is Murnau saying that we're all capable of murder, but love prevents us from going there, and those that commit such crimes are the unloved? Not sure that's a very happy message if you ask me.

I still think this is a terrific film, but the ending fascinates me because I think it is more complex than people are giving it credit for.

reply

[–] zoolzool 16 years ago

Like I said, I never analyzed it much. It could be that what you're saying is right.

I think that Murnau had decided that the ending was going to be happy, in that the no one dies. There had to be some "filler" in between the end of the search, and the discovery of the wife. He couldn't have just had Ansess on the bed or whatever. Maybe the husband could have gone out to drown himself before he heard the calls of the maid.

There seems that there had to be something going on in the middle.....

Now that I think about it, maybe Murnau wanted to present that there is a fine line between grief/sadness and rage. Maybe he wanted to show the viewer that despite the mans blind rage, he was still aware of what he saw and heard around him.....

I guess it's forever up to interpretation. At least you are trying to analyze a part of the movie that isn't already heavily analyzed or criticized.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FilioScotia 16 years ago

There had to be some "filler" in between the end of the search, and the discovery of the wife.

That wasn't "filler". It was the story moving logically and inexorably toward resolution. It was absolutely necessary for Murnau to achieve the denouement he wanted.

You have to remember the city woman was the "unfinished business" in this story. She's the loose end that had to be resolved.

She's watching the search, wondering what was going on. When she sees Ansess, she's thinking "oh my lord he really did drown his wife", just as she asked him to do. She believed he did it so they could be together. That's why she went looking for him, whistling outside his house. She wanted him to pack a bag and go to the city with her.

All that "filler" as you call it, made perfect sense. We're left guessing about how this is going to end right up to the point where he "almost" chokes her to death.

I think Sunrise is a work of cinematic art of the highest order.

Sidebar: Am the only one who was taken by this story's resemblence to the story in A Place In The Sun? I'm not suggesting that APITS was inspired by Sunrise, because we know it was based on the Theodore Dreiser novel An American Tragedy, which was published in 1925, two years before Sunrise was made in 1927. hmmm.

I guess my question should be: Was Sunrise also based on, or inspired by An American Tragedy too?

reply

[–] zoolzool 16 years ago

I don't think so. Sunrise was based on The Excursion To Tilsit which was published in 1917. It wasn't based on An American Tragedy. As for being inspired by it.......

Maybe someone else can chime in here.

reply

[–] d.doherty 16 years ago

The script was written in German, in Germany in 1926 by Carl Mayer,a man who probably had never read the American author Theodore Dreiser.

As zoolzool says it was roughly based on the short story "The Trip to Tilsit" by the popular German author, Herman Suderman. I was given a copy of the story by another Murnau fan and its a beautiful little piece.

The movie diverts from it in some particulars.For instance, in Suderman the main characters are given a nationality: they are Lithuanians and that is where the story takes place.

And, most differently - the man and woman make love in the boat on the way back from Tilsit and he is drowned. Nine months later she bears the child conceived that night.

"Progress may have been all right once, but it has gone on too long."

reply

[–] zoolzool 16 years ago

"the man and woman make love in the boat on the way back from Tilsit and he is drowned. Nine months later she bears the child conceived that night."

They do?!?!!! How the heck did I miss that? I'll have to go back and read it over again!

reply

[–] Pythe 16 years ago

I agree. Don't forget the scene where he pulls a knife on the guy who was hitting on his wife in the barbershop. I think he was at least a tad unbalanced.

Oh, no, I'm not tired. But my finger is!

reply

[–] LittleVikingGirl 16 years ago

HI I think you are looking at the film and the story through today's eyes. Remember Sunrise was made in the 1920's - a different time with different values and social behaviors. I believe the original story was written around the late 1910's whe Russian had occupied Lithuania for about 100 years. That would be enough to make anyone cranky! The Man in the original story was much more of a cad than George was and maybe the political situation kind of trapped people in frustrating situations. I am just trying to provide some possible explanations for the Man's behavior. I didn't think he was all that bad actually. As a lady, I would be pleased to have my husband defend me against creeps like the Obtrusive Gentleman! Comments anyone >

reply

[–] larrymcg 16 years ago

But see, if we're viewing things from the values of that time period, how is the Obtrusive Gentleman any more a creep than the Man? The Man cheated on his wife, plotted to kill her, and later tried to kill his mistress.

Again, I still think this is a great movie, but if we're talking about changing values, then I'd say the film is more a dark reflection of the values of yesteryear than a statement on the power of love. And I'd say the former is far more interesting than the latter, anyways.

reply

[–] zoolzool 16 years ago

He didn't want to really kill the Obtrusive Gentleman. Just give him a good scare. Maybe teach him a lesson that he wouldn't soon forget.

The man was grief stricken, and he just went mad with rage when he saw the City Woman. When a human is under extreme emotions, they can sometimes act out in an irrational manner. Doesn't anyone know that? Also, The Man realized the error of his ways and asked for forgiveness. His wife forgave him. He became a changed man. It's as simple as that.

reply

[–] noveltylibrary 15 years ago

>>>He didn't want to really kill the Obtrusive Gentleman. Just give him a good scare. Maybe teach him a lesson that he wouldn't soon forget.

Right. I actually had the feeling this was rather a light moment, and it turned out very funny.

reply

[–] Projectedlight 13 years ago

I don't doubt that it's intended to be humourous, but given how far the Man is able to take his plot to kill his wife before he becomes too horrified with himself to continue, and that he seems to be about to kill the Woman from the City at the end before he hears the news about his wife, I can't help but find the scene deeply unsettling.

reply

[–] joelarue 16 years ago

man, bless you larry, for asking a thematic question in the imdb forum that requires minimal complex thought to understand - and then enduring the litany of ignorant comments that come with it.

i think you are absolutely right that there is a dark, dark edge to this film, and i think it's that edge, along with the visuals, that has made it such a classic. it reminds me of 'vertigo' in that way.

but i think the darkness goes even further than you suppose, for murnau is using these characters are pure archetypes, not even giving them names. and i think the names he -does- give them are very interesting:

"the man" and "the wife." not "the husband." then there is the opening statement claiming this as a 'universal' story. so, you could go as far as to say that murnau's is telling us that "this is what MEN do, and this is what WIVES do." had it been a story about "a husband" it might have been a very different tale..

reply

[–] sannitti 16 years ago

Truthfully I think it has to do with the time the film was made. By todays standards, the thought that a woman would ever take a man back after he makes it apparent that he seriously considered killing her is ridiculous, especially with the only reason being that they had a fun night out on the town and saw a wedding. But I'm thinking back then that the image of a man strangling a woman was not as taboo as it is today. I believe if Murnau intended to make us have any doubt about the motives of the husband, we would have had some sort of shot to create tension when they go back on the boat on the way home. Instead we get the storm and absolutely no indication that the man has any ill will towards the wife at all. When he pulls the knife in the barber-shop he just cuts the flower, it was a cute littel comedy bit and also shows that, just like his first murder "attempt", he is all bark and no bite. Now in the end when he is strangling the city woman, you could infer that he probably would have killed her if not interupped but, given the era of the film, most contemporary viewers would say she deserved it at that point and it would not be considered a bad thing for him to do, just the logical emotional reaciton given what he went through at that point. Obviously there is some inherent sexism in this movie but I still believe that the end is meant to be happy and we are not meant to villianize the man in any way.

"I am the cheese. I am the best character. I am better than both the salami and bologna combined"

reply

[–] LittleVikingGirl 16 years ago

Sannitti I agree with your interpretation of the values of the 1920's vs. today - geez that's nearly 90 years. A lot has happened in that time.
What's so great about the comments on this blog about Sunrise just confirms what a wonderful piece of ART it really is. There are so many interpretations, feelings and takeaways from the film from different viewers and on various levels and it seems to have touched all that view it, in one way or another. That is the beauty of art...is that it can be seen in so many ways and all of them are RIGHT in the viewer's eyes. If we all interpreted the film the same way, it would not be art at all, but just a documentary. So let's see all this disagreement as a GOOD thing. Keep the comments coming!

reply

[–] thesnowleopard 16 years ago

Truthfully I think it has to do with the time the film was made. By todays standards, the thought that a woman would ever take a man back after he makes it apparent that he seriously considered killing her is ridiculous, especially with the only reason being that they had a fun night out on the town and saw a wedding. But I'm thinking back then that the image of a man strangling a woman was not as taboo as it is today. I believe if Murnau intended to make us have any doubt about the motives of the husband, we would have had some sort of shot to create tension when they go back on the boat on the way home. Instead we get the storm and absolutely no indication that the man has any ill will towards the wife at all. When he pulls the knife in the barber-shop he just cuts the flower, it was a cute littel comedy bit and also shows that, just like his first murder "attempt", he is all bark and no bite. Now in the end when he is strangling the city woman, you could infer that he probably would have killed her if not interupped but, given the era of the film, most contemporary viewers would say she deserved it at that point and it would not be considered a bad thing for him to do, just the logical emotional reaciton given what he went through at that point. Obviously there is some inherent sexism in this movie but I still believe that the end is meant to be happy and we are not meant to villianize the man in any way.

While I see your point, I don't see how any of it negates the OP's point.

Yes, people viewed domestic violence in a different light than they do today (mostly in the expectations of spousal behavior), but that doesn't mean they were unaware of it. Men who strayed once or tried to kill their wives once were just as likely to try again in the 1920s as they are now. People knew that.

So, the OP could very well be right that Murnau intended that dark edge. Either way, *we* can see it (and Murnau would probably be fine with our seeing it) because this is intended as a universal story, which means that different cultures and time periods can bring their own interpretations to it.

The Snowleopard's homepage http://www.geocities.com/rpcv.geo/other.html

reply

[–] holdencopywriting 15 years ago

If I were the wife, I couldn't trust this husband ever again. You don't just forgive someone who has plotted to kill you. I'd take my baby and go home to mother. And who's to say he won't fall for the next slinky "vacationist" to come to the village?

reply

[–] tardesdete 16 years ago

Thats fot you to see that you can make an excellent film out of a script full of holes.

reply

[–] jaibo 16 years ago

I felt rather the same thing. The man is obviously haunted by darkness and violence - he very nearly kills his wife (although always already with a heavy conscience), pulls a knife on the guy in the barber's shop, nearly gets into a fight on the dance floor and finally almost strangles the Woman from the city at the end, saved only by the news that his wife isn't dead (i.e. by external circumstance).

The ending to me has some irony: how long before the man will want to stray with another woman again? How long can he contain his inherent violence. Even the idea of a sunrise is ironic - if there is a sunrise, there will also be a sunset.

It's a complex and ambiguous film, like all works of Art. Murnau certainly wasn't a one dimensional filmmaker...

"This Backwards Day a lot of *beep* ain't it? " - Desperate Living

reply

[–] Robby_net 16 years ago

Wow, I can't believe none of you mentioned the role turning of the situation. To me, it quite clearly meant that you could turn from assiliant to victim at the blink of an eye and that you might be just as vulnerable as the person you wished bad upon.

Also, him pulling a knife in the city I thought was very in character for any "village" boy, that would try to prove his worth, especially considering his acting and actions until that point.

!No IMDB idiot may respond to this.!

reply

[–] Clothes-Off 16 years ago

I thought the whole thing was kinda bizarre, so by that point I was rather numb to absurdity.

It almost lost me at the part where Janet Gaynor went from sobbing to "As long as we're in the city, let's make a day of it!" in a matter of minutes.

But I still thought it was great. And who hasn't been with someone you want to strangle one minute and love the next?

"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

reply

[–] zurichpoet 16 years ago

For me, it totally nailed the grand emotional nature of love. Perfect film.

Charles Rosher and Karl Struss. Geniuses.

reply

[–] kingarthurup 16 years ago

thats how I saw it too.... I was waiting for the sequel.... first he almost kills the city woman (choking) and then she kisses him into submission. This guy is a fruit cake.... homicidal maniac reminiscent of Genghis Khan or Scott and Drew Peterson... (I can't wait for the new comedy film about those 2!)

reply

[–] Musidora-4 15 years ago

I'm with you, Larry. I adore the film. I think it's brilliant. I get teary-eyed every time I watch it.

But I can't help but think, even while wife and husband are reconciling so fantastically in the city, that the wife's capacity to forgive, yet alone trust, is "not of this Earth."

Even more difficult or burdensome for me is my respect for her: she's far too smart to forget. Gaynor's ability to convey, in such quick succession, simplicity, maternal love, fragility, broken-heartedness, grief, composure, true "smarts," and sympathy is remarkable; but, for the course of a marriage, a lifetime? I'm just not sure.

Could the wife just be a willing participant in a future of variations on this sequence of events because she's enthralled by the husband's masculine beauty and virility? With that, I might be projecting something of Murnau on the wife.

Of course, the situation is all compounded by O'Brien's excellence. Ultimately, I don't think that the couple's story is finished when the film ends.

reply

[–] Projectedlight 13 years ago

Of course the wife's capacity for infinite forgiveness is unrealistic to the extreme, and the idea that we should celebrate her reconciling of her with the apparently deeply unstable husband so soon is ridiculous, but the brilliance of the film is that it makes it seem otherwise.

Until the final fade to black, I totally believe in what it says about redemption and the transformative power of love. The force of the performances and Murnau's mastery of visual language are overwhelming.

reply

[–] xylonian-1 15 years ago

I agree with Robby Net's comment:

"To me, it quite clearly meant that you could turn from assiliant to victim at the blink of an eye and that you might be just as vulnerable as the person you wished bad upon"

Not to mention the repeated theme of 'the person you wished bad upon' may act as your "savior" from the roll of victim....even in an indirect way. And....someone wishing to harm you may end up strengthening your possition.

I must admit upon first viewing, the mixture of 'darkness' and 'light', in both the literal and figurative meanings of the words, was intriguing enough, if not confusing*....without the mixing in of complex themes dressed in
simplicity.

One the other hand maybe there were no complex themes and one is to take it at face value....

*was inturupted about 12 times while viewing it, don't you hate it when that happens....????

How many Amish does it take to screw in a light bulb????

reply