It's the best movie about marriage ever made.
"Be sure you're right, then go ahead."
Davy Crockett
Right now, I disagree. Please elaborate. I watched the film once, thought it was stunning visually, but wasn't crazy about the story. Watched it again, and am slowly changing my mind. I'm interested to hear your opinion/reasoning!
shareYes it is, but it's the worst movie about divorce ever made. :P
shareThe husband went from plotting his wife's murder to falling in love with her all over again, and in the span of a few hours. How realistic is that? I think realistically, the wife should never trust him again. The murder plot was treated lightly, as if it were on the same level as adultery. So no, I disagree.
shareI agree with RubyHypatia. For me, the film fails in two ways.
First, we're supposed to believe that after the wife has been terrorized on the boat, she agrees to go anywhere with her husband, and actually falls back into a loving wife routine. Now, maybe this has something to do with the times, so maybe I could buy that, despite how flat-out crazy it seems today. This should have been explained more.
(*** spoilers ***)
But what I cannot excuse is the ending of the film. The man who could not kill his wife, and who thinks she died in the storm, now starts strangling the unsuspecting woman he was willing to kill his own wife for? OK, maybe I could buy that too... stress, right? But all we're left with is the next day, the sunrise. Everything is supposed to be all sunny and shiny and wonderful with the man and his recovered wife, and the bad bad city girl has been sent on her way.
Really?
How about we fast forward to, say, next week, when the wife does whatever she does that the man obviously can't stand, and he flips out again because he sent away the one woman who provided some refuge from his annoying wife, and strangles his wife in frustration? Isn't that a bit closer to reality? I'm sure there are other different endings which are also more real than what was presented. The man is not stable.
This was back in 1927, and it was based of a story written in 1917. In the original novel, the husband was much more abusive to his wife. She went along with him, knowing she would not return from the trip. Instead of running to the police and local battered women's shelter (a very 2010 thing to do), she picks out the dress she's to be buried in. But the story just doesn't end here. No! She *gasps* forgives him, and the two fall in love with one another all over again. Good Lord!
There was a time when the man was not stable. Remember the scene where he sees the City Woman, and he puts his fists up to his head, as if he's trying to get rid of her image? It's like he's mad. The same thing when he is imagining murdering his wife. Fortunately for his wife, he realized what he was doing and stopped himself before he went too far.
Lots of people who have seen this movie complain about the same thing... "It's not realistic enough for me! The woman forgave him too easily!" It helps to keep in mind that there's a short story this movie was based on. And, while the movie does deviate from the book, the majority of the plot is the same. It also helps to remember the story, and movie took place in different times.
It's a work of fiction. It doesn't have to be so darn close to 21st century reality. Current movies don't seem very realistic. Reality t.v isn't realistic either.
georgeobrien.us
Zoolzool has pretty much ended this thread right here. And since everyone involved in this film has now passed on I think we'll have to accept their piece of art for what it was - their view of humanity, told through this story, that they committed to film. To argue whether we agree or not with their viewpoint is a selfish, futile and pointless. The film is a statement, not a fact.
shareZoolzool has pretty much ended this thread right here. And since everyone involved in this film has now passed on I think we'll have to accept their piece of art for what it was - their view of humanity, told through this story, that they committed to film. To argue whether we agree or not with their viewpoint is a selfish, futile and pointless.
The film is a statement, not a fact.
@rgcustomer. Remember too that The Man originally responds to The City Gal's drowning suggestion by throttling her, and to The Obtrusive Man who hits on/harrasses The Wife by barely-faux knifing him in the face. The Man's seriously unstable/sociopathic. If we interpret the whole thing as 'what actually happened' then one does fear for the Wife and the Baby's safety long term.
Is there a way around this reading? Yes, but it's some elephant to swallow:
Treat everything from the Man going to bed thinking about killing his Wife (which is visually signposted by the superimposed waters of the lake) until the final Finis sunrise as the Man's dream-state.
In case anyone's interested, I've put a Sunrise vid. up on youtube (with most of my fave. shots from the film and some 'shoegaze' music) here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AR4fN1zlM
In effect I edit down the film in a way that eliminates the murder plot. This is meant as a kind of proof of concept that Sunrise could have worked that way (heretical though it might be to say that!).
I can maybe see her forgiving him, but it was too fast, and then she got back on a boat, the whole time I am like are you crazy?
I agree with the poster that mentioned the protagonist being unstable, he clearly had issues and could snap at any moment.
This movie is a fable and a fairy tale. Realism is not really on its mind at all. That should be obvious from the expressionistic imagery, from the foggy marshes, ghostly hallucinations, exaggeratedly modern (at the time) city, and general dreaminess of it all.
I'm not sure about the original post because I agree that marriage is full of a lot of hard work and little details and day to day life that isn't depicted here. However, I do think it is just about the greatest film ever made. If I had to pick one film to justify the entire existence of cinema, this would be it. And since it is about marriage, maybe the OP is correct.
Seriously? Just watched Sunrise for the first time yesterday. I don't even think this is the greatest silent film ever made. Why is it so hyped? An interesting and important entry in film history, yes. Top five of all time, as I've seen it described? Not a chance.
share
There is some magnificent stuff here and visually/artistically it's a masterwork.
But I still have a big problem with the how she forever dotes on him and then so easily forgives him.
After all, this was not just an affair!
He's seeing another woman and the wife knows
Others know he's seeing another woman, so publically humilated too.
He's literally selling their livelihood to have money to spend on the other woman.
He's selling the very future of their child to get money to spend on this other woman.
he nears as damn it murders her, going so far as to coldy take her out to the lake and actually walk towards her to throw her in.
And what happens? She hangs around him still and all seems much better after he buys her some cake!
"Sorry I tried to murder you, leaving our baby motherless, just so I could go off with my mistress...Here, have some cake to make it better".
REALLY!?
Everything else about the film I like a great deal, a parts of it (especially the finale) are just superb.
And yes, it is a wonderfully romantic and heartfelt film by the end credits.
It's just that what he did all together (as if attempted murder of your wife was not bad enough on its own!!) was just too much for just (if indeed ANY) so easy a forgiveness on her part.
An oh yes...Seeing as he had to go so far as to sell off their livestock to have money, where did they get all the cash to splurge on all these expensive things in the city?
www.beardyfreak.com
With ya. I'd add that, as depicted in the film, his affair with the Woman From the City does not seem remotely deep enough to explain why he would sell out his future financially, then try to murder Angel Wife. The Evil City Woman is a plot device thinner than a McGuffin, and then the filmmaker throws all the blame on her, and implies with her departure that all is now well in the world and the married couple will be completely peaches and cream from now on. Not a glimmer of a suggestion (after the wife's brief terror post-murder-attempt) that he's an unstable and violent lunatic she might be in danger from in future, the next time he has an unfaithful or jealous whim.
I did like the scenes of love rekindling by sharing fun times together, and the cinematography was good. But one of the greatest films of all time? Not even close. The script is way too clumsy.
The Man was clearly torn between lust (and possibly dissatisfaction with his life) and the love. It is important to note he never lays a hand on his wife during the boat scene and quickly backs down. This makes me wonder if she isn't more upset by realizing the affair she probably knew was real was in fact real (which the post about the draft of the script suggests).
His breaking into tears while watching another couple marry, realizing how badly he's broken his vows is the turning point. She sees that he is truly repentant and that he wants to save their marriage.
I'm not sure if this is the best film about marriage ever made, but it has to be one of the best in showing human frailty and redemption.
Why are you assuming "we" aren't realizing this? Also, this being "the best" film about marriage is an opinion.
share