Sunday, March 7, 2010

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

"This song of the Man and his Wife is of no place and every place; you might hear it anywhere, at any time.  For wherever the sun rises and sets, in the city's turmoil or under the open sky on the farm, life is much the same; sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet." - Opening Title Cards for Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans.

Well it wasn’t entirely what I expected, but I can’t be sure if I liked it or not.  Actually, given the opportunity to watch it again I probably wouldn’t.  I think I have just been too conditioned to look for actual sound, so that the subtly of silent film escapes me and I find myself tapping my toes.  There is sound, and actually if the movie hadn’t come out after The Jazz Singer, the public would have been a little more receptive.  There are sound effects, and a score of music that runs all the way through.  Amusing moments occur, however, like when a woman tries to whistle and all the audience sees is the pursing of her lips.  And of course no one has any names in the movie.  Why would they need them?  No one is talking.  It is surprising how little words are needed, though, to get the general point across.  But I should backtrack. 

The Plot:
This story takes place in a country village, separated from the Big Bad City by some sort of body of water.  It is a happy village, until the camera pans to the vampy evil seductress, played by Margaret Livingston, from The City, who is having an affair with (and consummately corrupting with lust) a young farmer, played by George O’Brian.  She convinces him to drown his wife and make it look like an accident so they can run away together to The City.  His beautiful, sweet faced wife, played by Janet Gaynor, cries herself to sleep while clutching their child.  The next day, looking dark and tortured, the man takes his wife on an outing on the water—side note: this man is almost constantly tortured looking.  And he stomps a lot.  And rends his hair.  And chokes people.  In case we missed the fact that he is tortured.

His wife, though happy at first at the thought of reconciliation, is horrified when she sees her husband standing over her with grim purpose in his eyes.  He, in turn, is horrified at himself.  They dock the boat and she runs from him into The City.  After he chases her and apologizes, she eventually comes around.  They watch a couple being married; the man realizes how far he has fallen and looks tortured in his wife’s arms.
The rest of the movie involves the couple about town as they get to know each other again and play in The City.  In the boat ride home she falls asleep in his arms as he steers, the image of idyllic bliss.  Until—CRASH!  Lightening strikes!  No, seriously.  There’s a massive storm.  The man frantically tries to get them home, but to no avail.  He ties the bundle of floating reeds to his wife’s body, ironically the same reeds he was going to use earlier to save himself.  They clutch each other in terror.

Once the storm settles, the man washes up on shore, sans wife.  He immediately sets up a search, but all he can find is a shawl amongst some reeds.  He stomps home rending his hair, not knowing that the evil woman-from-the-city has seen the search.  Thinking she has won, she whistles for him outside his home, expecting a joyful assignation.  He runs out to meet her, but instead begins to choke her in his rage.  Before he can kill her, their housekeeper yells from the house.  They’ve found the wife and she is alive.  Abandoning the frivolous flapper, he rushes home to his wife’s side, while she lies in bed and looks up angelically at him, her blonde hair spread across her pillow like a halo.  As the sun rises on a new day the couple kiss and are reconciled as the seductress leaves the village forever on the back of a cart, taking her lustful corruption with her.


The History:
As we know, this film won an Academy Award for best “Artistic Production.”  Incidentally, Janet Gaynor, who I believe was the best part of this film, won for “Best Actress.”  Sunrise also won “Best Cinematography,” and was nominated for “Best Art Direction.”  The director, F. W. Murnau, was German, and a leading light in the German film movement of Expressionism.  He was brought in by William Fox, of Fox studios, to make an Expressionist film in America.  This means a film that uses art design for symbolic effect.  Sunrise was not popular in the box office, in part because Janet Gaynor went blonde for the role, rather than her traditional brown locks.  The other part was the advent of talking films in the form of The Jazz Singer only a month earlier; this movie would be the death knell for silent films.  This was unfortunate for Murnau, as he had spent a fortune making the move, creating elaborate sets and music.  His further attempts at films were greatly curtailed as a result.  Since then, however, it is considered one of the best silent films ever made,  and is now #82 on AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies.

The Verdict?

While I don’t think I’m going to become a silent movie lover anytime soon, I do think there is something to be gained for watching one.  Once.  Let’s not overdo it.  But without any dialogue, the viewer to forced to focus on the actions of the actors.  Janet Gaynor is particularly good at this.  She never has to say a word, and in fact, you hardly see her speak at all.  Unlike George O’Brian, who conveys his grief by rending his hair and bugging out his eyes, Janet Gaynor conveys her emotions by simply fluttering her eyelashes or turning her head.  You immediately connect with her, and can telling that the slow, methodical way she deals with the dishes is indicative of a broken heart.  Any dialogue is unnecessary.  She conveys emotion by the nuance of movement. 

In the time we are in now, a film needs incredible special effects to catch our attention.  I will admit myself that I have so many distractions in my life at one time that it takes something truly extraordinary to catch my interest.  But I think subtly is valuable and we forget how much can be said with no words at all.  We don’t need Janet Gaynor’s character to extrapolate on the effect of her husband’s infidelity; we can see it in the way her shoulders slump as she rests her head in her hands.  The people don’t need names.  This story is, as the title suggests, the story of two humans, and the trials of everyday life.  I can appreciate the basic humanity it represents.  Which is something I should keep in mind as I move into my next (and my last) silent film.

Stay tuned for the foodie portion…
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

A Brief History of Louis B. Mayer...I mean the Academy...

Louis B Mayer at the "Torch Song" mo...Less than one week left!  I can’t wait to start watching…but I’m a little unsure about the silent movie thing.  I’ve only watched one silent movie in my life, Daddy Long Legs, and I didn’t make it all the way through.  In this day and age, with special effects films of the likes of Avatar, it’s hard to connect to a film where sound is considered a special effect.  When I imagine a silent movie, the movie I think of is an over-acted pantomime, with grainy pictures and title cards to carry the plot.  But I’m happy to be proved wrong.   This weekend I will be watching Sunrise on Saturday and Wings on Sunday, followed by the Academy Awards themselves.  Why two movies?  Well, according to my research, both were Best Picture winners in the first ever ceremonies in 1929.

A Little Bit of History…

At the end of 1926, Louis B. Mayer, studio boss of MGM, decided labor unions were ruining the country.  So he invited some powerful Hollywood friends over for Sunday dinner and they came up with the idea of an elite club, one that would help to both mediate the ongoing labor disputes and clean up the image of Hollywood.  A few months later, in 1927, Mayer organized a group of people from the industry’s five branches (actors, directors, writers, technicians and producers) for a dinner at the Ambassador Hotel , during which "The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" was born.  After it became a legal corporation in May of 1927, the first president, actor Douglas Fairbanks, suggested that “awards of merit [be given] for distinctive achievement.”  A year later a voting system was established and categories created.  13 awards were given in varying categories.  The winners would receive a newly designed statuette and the nominees would get a scroll, to tempt them to actually show at the awards.  The winners knew of their awards ahead of time, and while exciting, they were only a small part of an evening that included other Academy business, a sit-down dinner, dancing, lectures and socializing.

Fun Facts



  • The “Oscar” statuette is of a naked man stabbing a sword into a film reel, with five holes representing the five branches of the film industry.  The Academy members wanted to represent a strong, united Hollywood.
  • The technicians had a difficult time coming up with an award for their branch.  In the end, they simply lumped everything together into one all-purpose category: “Best Engineering Effects.”
  • The 1st Academy Awards was the first and only time an award was given for “Best Writing, Title Writing.”  Yes, “Title Writing”, the writing of those cards between silent acting that clues the audience in on important dialogue or action.  The recipient, Joseph Farnham, was also the first Academy Award winner to die; Farnham succumbed to a heart attack just two years later.
  • The Jazz Singer, a Warner Brothers sensation and the first truly successful talking picture, was briefly considered for the categories.  But the Academy members felt that it was impossible to compare this new media with all the silent films.  They therefore decided to award the movie its own Honorary Award for revolutionizing the industry.  Little did they know.

And finally…
The reason for the two movies?  When award categories were decided, the Academy made two winning “Best Picture” categories.  One was for “Best Picture, Production” and the other for “Best Picture, Artistic Quality of Production.”  The difference?  The first would go to “the most outstanding motion picture considering all elements that contribute to a picture’s greatness,” while the latter would be awarded to “the Producing Company, or Producer, who produced the most artistic, unique and/or original motion picture without reference to cost or magnitude.”  I’m having trouble distinguishing between them myself, but I’ve decided that the first award is more like “best blockbuster,” while the second is closer to “best indie flick.”  Whatever the difference, the Academy decided to award the artistic award to Sunrise, while Wings got best overall production.  The Academy members originally wanted to award The Crowd the artistic award.  But Louis B. Mayer, lord of Hollywood and king of the Academy, despised this depressing, realist film about a lowly man who never amounts to much in the crowds of New York City despite his best efforts.   He thought it directly contradicted the Academy’s aim: “It will encourage the improvement and advancement of the arts and sciences of the profession by the interchange of constructive ideas and by awards of merit for distinctive achievements.”  A film about a man who works hard but still achieves nothing, shot on a small budget and distinctly unglamorous, could hardly be considered “constructive.”  Nor could this movie promote the “improvement and advancement” of films.  The judges, exhausted, finally gave in.

This motto, however, is something to consider.  Do all these films follow those aims?  In what years did the Academy stray from its ideals?  And how much depends on who is running the show?  Things to consider.  In later years, the Academy only awarded one award for “Best Picture,” and Wings came to be regarded as the sole winner of 1927-28.  But I feel that that wasn’t the Academy’s original intent, so I’ve decided to watch both.  Alright—I’ve lectured enough!  Please keep reading!  On Saturday, I’ll watch Sunrise, the story of a married farmer who is lead astray from his wife by a woman from the city (damn those wily city women).  And on Sunday, I’ll watch Wings, a war epic about two friends from a small town who fight in WWI, and the women who love them.  Any suggestions on food?  Hmmmm…..what could I make for a movie called “Wings”...
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

In the Beginning

The first time I got this idea into my head, I was in high school.  I went to an old, prestigious boarding school somewhere in the cow fields of Connecticut, where one of the few things to do on a weekend was to watch a good movie with your friends in the dorm.  Very cool, I know.  But I had always loved movies, and it was a great day when I figured out that I could go to the school library and rent as many movies as I wanted for free! (And 30,000+ a year.)  The library had been saving up movies for the past decade or so, and was even beginning to have an extensive DVD collection.  Wow, I'm old.  Anyway, I couldn't get enough of the movies I now had unlimited access to, Netflix having not been invented yet, and I embarked on a plan to educate myself by watching the best movies ever made: the "Best Picture Oscars."  I tried to start at the earliest one the library had, Cimarron, and painfully sat through one of the worst movies I think I've ever seen.  After that, my desire to conquer great cinema noticeably ebbed, I grew up, and spent all my time and effort trying to get into New York City clubs with an ID made out of paper.

Flash forward to the present, and I find myself in a situation that 10 years ago I never could have imagined.  The economy decided to take a serious downswing right around my graduation from college, and job opportunities for a confused English major seem to be few and far between.  I can write, or I think I can write, but other than the several half-finished starts of novels and poems littering my hardrive, I can't seem to work up the enthusiasm for anything.  I'd even thought of a blog, but couldn't think of anything worthwhile to write about.  I knew it should be a challenge of some sorts; at the risk of enraging my peers, blogs had always seemed to me to be largely narcissistic.  Who could possibly care about the everyday trials of my life? Much better to focus on something tangible that others could relate to.

Then the idea occurred to me.  Why not now, armed with my Netflix account and an abhorrent amount of free time, attempt to do what had alluded me nearly 10 years ago?  Of course, with several film classes now under my belt, I have learned enough to know that the Academy Awards are not necessarily the arbiters of great filmmaking.  Many of the best films have been passed over by the Academy, or have lost out to other films that were later forgotten.  I briefly considered the AFI film list; surely if I wanted to watch the best films of our time, I should adhere to that.  But, while I may sometime try to conquer that list, I am still completely drawn to the "Oscars."  I enjoy the idea that I can watch them in order, journeying through time, in a sense.  There are drawbacks (witness Cimarron), certainly I could do without certain titles, but in general I think each movie will give me a sense of the time that it's portraying.  I've always loved old movies for their ability to connect us with the past, with what was important to that particular time.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.  This first entry is my way of writing a forward, an explanation for all that's about to come.  I've decided to watch every movie ever to win an "Oscar" for Best Picture, from the silent movies of 1929 to whichever movie wins this year.  To give myself a guideline, I'll begin when the Academy Awards this year begin, and end with the Academy Awards next year.  To my estimation that's around 2 movies a week.  With each movie I'll write about my thoughts: what that movie was like, a little history of the film, and the reactions of those I can beg into watching them with me.  I'll watch them in order, every one, even those I've already seen.  Yes, even Cimarron.  God help me.

And last but not least, I've decided to rip off TBS and do Dinner and a Movie.  With each film, I'll use what skill I can muster to make something for everyone to snack on while they watch.  Be it popcorn, tacos, meatloaf or lasagna, I'll make something fun that somehow correlates with the particular movie I'm watching, and share it with all of you!  This is more bribery than anything else...I think if I make food, I won't be watching these all alone.

So that's it!  Here I go...the first two, both silent movies, and both winners of the 1929 award for Best Picture (I'll explain in my next post) will be watched by me on Saturday, March 6th and Sunday, March 7th, 2010.  After I've watched both, somewhat fittingly, I'll watch the Academy Awards.  So please read, and maybe watch, with me.  I'll enjoy your comments and support!  And the envelope goes to...
Enhanced by Zemanta