MovieChat Forums > Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) Discussion > The major weakness in Sunrise is storyte...

The major weakness in Sunrise is storytelling

posted 11 years ago by bwisialo
34 replies | jump to latest

In my opinion, the cinematography in "Sunrise" is slightly overrated, but the weaknesses of "Sunrise" are in its storytelling.

Murnau’s “Sunrise” (1927) is often praised for its innovative and influential cinematography. For me, the cinematography is very good but not great (8 or 9 but not 10 out of 10), and it is not clear that the film is especially groundbreaking in its cinematography, or that the film, in and of itself, had a major stand-alone influence. Many of the filmmaking techniques in “Sunrise” were used in by Murnau in his earlier German film, “The Last Laugh”(1924) – specifically, techniques of camera movement. “Sunrise” does use some techniques not used in “The Last Laugh” (and vice versa!), but these techniques are not unlike various accomplishments in cinematic symbolism and stagecraft achieved by previous and contemporaneous expressionist films (eg, Murnau's "Faust" (1926)), surrealist films (eg, "Entr'acte" (1924)), and other styles of filmmaking, including, eg, the films of D.W. Griffith. Murnau’s “Faust” ranks among the masterpieces of visual symbolism and complex stagecraft in this era. No doubt, “Sunrise” has stunning sequences: particularly the couple’s walk across the street. In my opinion, however, “The Last Laugh” is a more innovative, experimental, and impressive work of cinematography than “Sunrise.” Again, looking at “Sunrise” in context – but not in relation to any other specific films in particular – its cinematography is good but not great, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm still talking about 8 or 9 out of 10 for cinematography.

However, what really diminishes the film the most for me is the screenplay, plot, and storytelling: 5 or 6 out of 10. I believe “Sunrise: A song of Two Humans” weaves symbolism and realism together in an unfortunately awkward manner. The story is a parable that uses both symbolism and realism. However, it employs symbolism in ways that undercut the credibility of its realism, and it employs realism in ways that similarly render the film’s symbolism not symbolic enough. As a parable, the story is fittingly simple, but in its discordant use of symbolism and realism, the story verges on becoming, but does not quite become, a sequence of forced melodramatic clichés. I don't see a couple going from potentially murderous collapse to a rediscovery and rekindling of their love for one another: I see the pretense of change in hasty melodramatic storytelling. In the realm of parable and fable, Murnau’s “Faust” is in my opinion a much greater film than “Sunrise.” Again, looking at “Sunrise” on its own, the film’s parable plot uses symbolism in an awkward and poorly-executed relationship to its use of realism, or vice versa.

Update -- For the most relevant follow-up comments regarding the second paragraph see this post in the thread:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018455/board/thread/210380031?d=214303145 &p=2#214303145

[–] zoolzool 11 years ago

Who cares.

I mean, besides you.

"but I still wake up, I still see your ghost"

[–] bwisialo 11 years ago

You care enough to reply, but not enough to develop a response that addresses my critique of the film. If you disagree with what I wrote about realism, symbolism, and melodrama in "Sunrise," I'd appreciate hearing why and getting other people's perspectives.

[–] zoolzool 11 years ago

Well to be completely honest with you, I'm not interested in addressing your critique. Sorry. I hope someone else will chime in here and give you the type of response you're looking for. Perhaps I will have more to say on my own thoughts about Sunrise at a later date.

Cheers.

"take it now or leave it 'neath the flash of a neon sky..."

[–] zoolzool 11 years ago

OK I'm back now. This reply is not what you're looking for, so it won't be to your liking, but...

I think you're over-thinking Sunrise, just like you over used the words realism, symbolism, and melodrama in your post.

Sunrise is my number 1 favorite movie. Period. For me that was a personal choice that thankfully required no further analysis of how elements AB&C perfectly tied in to elements XY&Z.

Well, bye for now.

"Everyone you lost, and saved...
Nothing will remain. Cradle or grave."

[–] d.doherty 11 years ago

Most of us don't have the time to combat immature, neurotic over analysis, especially when it's this crazy: e.g. there should have been more symbolism, there should have been less, if there had been more melodrama, and so on.... I can't even remember his point, being as it was, couched in tortured Academese.

Why not move on to the Ozu Board, I think they might enjoy you. .

[–] bwisialo 11 years ago

Your ad hominem response avoids responding to my criticism of the movie with a substantive counter-argument and/or alternative interpretation of the movie, which I'm entirely open to. Sorry if you think my writing style is "tortured Academese," but I think the gist of my criticism is clear.

As for the portion you quoted as "crazy" (“Sunrise” seems to need either much more symbolism, etc.,"): this was merely thinking hypothetically about ways the movie could have been different, and perhaps I shouldn't have included those hypothetical comments. Because my criticism is about the movie as it is, and the criticism stands on its own without the hypotheticals - that's why I put them in parentheses in my original post.

Please also note that I'm not discrediting the movie: this is not at all meant to be a "this movie sucks" sort of post. My views of the movie are by no means entirely negative: as I said in the original post, the cinematography is incredible, etc..

[–] story-consulting01 11 years ago

Dear you, you, you, and self appointed you,

It seems you desperately want to exist by doing your review on a film that is part of History.
To pursue this goal, and as one said, you throw at us big words like realism, symbolism, etc, without really figuring the extent of their meaning, which, naturally, leads you to thicken your discourse with numerous and endless judgements about a film that has been done and cannot be remade, especially by you, not only because you hopefully don't have access to production means, but just because what is done is done.

Take this advice, if you can: please don't criticize what you cannot grasp or, at best, cannot fully understand without putting big words on it to sterilize your fear of it. You will get more by listening.

What's more, one can wonder what your own history is when we read: "I don't see a couple going from potentially murderous collapse to a rediscovery and rekindling of their love for one another: I see the pretense of change in hasty melodramatic storytelling." Why? Because this wobbling prattle shows you haven't been far through life to know what ominous or auspicious surprises can attend to a life story? And it's not "Ad Hominem": are you someone-to-be but not yet?

Godspeed

[–] zoolzool 11 years ago

Wow!

"Everyone you lost, and saved...
Nothing will remain. Cradle or grave."

[–] bwisialo 11 years ago

That I interpret the movie differently than you does not mean that I do not grasp it; that I criticize certain aspects of the film does not mean that I fear it (as something I do not understand); etc.. I would love to listen... to listen to other interpretations of the movie, but those have not been forthcoming, unfortunately. Instead, you appoint yourself to be sufficiently knowledgeable to offer a speculative (and entirely unfounded) interpretation of my personal history as an explanation of why I interpret the movie differently than you. Do you fear interpretations of the film which are different than your own? Do you fear listening to critical interpretations and articulating alternative interpretations in a dialogue?

(One could wonder what your personal history is when you respond to an interpretation different than your own by calling into question the personal history of the person who presents that interpretation. However, I have no interest in wondering about such things; I have no interest in inventing a personal history about you that allegedly explains your response; I do not presume your response says anything in particular about your personal history, much less would I presume to know, merely from your comments, what your response says, if anything, about your personal history.)

I agree that "ominous or auspicious surprises can attend to a life story." However, a life story with such surprises can be a well-told story, a poorly-told story, and everything in between. My criticism is not that "Sunrise" tells a story with these sorts of surprises. It would be more accurate to say that my criticism is that, the telling of this sort of story in "Sunrise" is not done particularly well -- is mediocre and has shortcomings and weaknesses.

When I have more time, perhaps I will clarify my criticism with more specific examples from the movie.

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

the story verges on becoming, but does not quite become, a sequence of forced melodramatic clichés.

Though the rekindling of the couple can be seen as drawn out melodrama, Sunrise goes beyond storytelling. With the sets and camera angles Sunrise contains a very expressionist world which can equally be found in the sequences of 'forced melodramatic cliches'. The recurring scenes of the couple expressing their love was simply an extension of the emotion which inhabits Sunrise's technical style.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] bwisialo 11 years ago

Though the rekindling of the couple can be seen as drawn out melodrama, Sunrise goes beyond storytelling. With the sets and camera angles Sunrise contains a very expressionist world which can equally be found in the sequences of 'forced melodramatic cliches'. The recurring scenes of the couple expressing their love was simply an extension of the emotion which inhabits Sunrise's technical style.

Yes, this speaks to my comments on Sunrise. As you rightly suggest, Sunrise does, on the one hand, contain a very expressionist world. On the other hand, Sunrise contains a realistic story of a couple’s rekindled love, and I have read many comments about the movie being “a very real story between two humans,” etc.. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I have read many comments about the movie “not being realistic.” To me, these opposing comments about the movie arise from a certain disconnect between expressionism and realism in Sunrise.

As I see it, integrating expressionism and realism involves creating a world that expresses the subjective experiences of the characters (expressionism) in such as way that those experiences are grounded in a story that is, in some sense, true to the real-world lives of people (realism).

Murnau’s integration of expressionism and realism was highly innovative (he did this in the Last Laugh as well), and Murnau’s integration of the two in Sunrise is in many ways ingenious. However, my view of Sunrise is that, to put it one way, the connection between the two is too tenuous: the symbolic expression of the character’s experiences rings somewhat hollow because those experiences are not grounded in a story told in a sufficiently realistic manner -- not grounded in characters that provide the force of realism, not grounded in characters portrayed in a sufficiently realistically way because they are portrayed in a more melodramatic way.

As with other aspects of storytelling, melodrama and “not being realistic” are not in themselves problems in my view, but Sunrise attempts to claim a significant degree of realism both in its technical style (which uses realism [see link below] as well as the expressionism you noted) and in its story of heartfelt love. In a sense, the effort at realism is contracted into melodrama because the movie is more expressionist than realistic. The balance between expressionism and realism is off, and the groundedness of expressionism in realism is not sufficiently established.

Here's a positive review which addresses precisely the same issues as above and argues that Sunrise creates a "seamless blend of expressionism and realism."

http://tinyurl.com/m5h7ahz

This is a very insightful review, but I ultimately disagree. To put it one way, I see Sunrise as aiming for a seamless blend of expressionism and realism but creating, instead, a blend of expressionism and melodrama, which changes the entire chemistry in unfortunate ways.

[–] zoolzool 11 years ago

"The recurring scenes of the couple expressing their love was simply an extension of the emotion which inhabits Sunrise's technical style."

Maybe Sunrise is more about emotion and less about "technical" style, which is what all the movie geeks see in it today. Maybe the lighting, camera angles, and sets were used in the manner they were to evoke emotion from the viewer. For example, look at the storm scene. Very technical. Lighting, among other things, had to be just right. However, the scene was created to further the story and communicate a sense of fear and ultimately, loss to the viewer. Murnau didn't do it to show off the technical abilities of his crew. Murnau didn't do what he did to impress todays viewers with his technical style.

Personally speaking, I think if I only watched Sunrise for it's technical aspects I'd be somewhat dead inside.

It's a competitive world.
Everything counts in large amounts.

[–] bwisialo 11 years ago

Maybe the lighting, camera angles, and sets were used in the manner they were to evoke emotion from the viewer. For example, look at the storm scene. Very technical. Lighting, among other things, had to be just right. However, the scene was created to further the story and communicate a sense of fear and ultimately, loss to the viewer.

That's absolutely correct. I agree completely. I think this is precisely the point Errington_92 was making, even if it was perhaps stated unclearly.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MetalWorks 11 years ago

Overanalyzing a Melodrama for being a Melodrama, I think you miss the fact that this is still a genre movie; only that Sunrise was made by an auteur, a man who believed in the visual language as medium for storytelling

Sunrise its one of the few silent films, that doesn't need dialogue to actually have it, because the dialog is in the visuals

[–] bwisialo 11 years ago

Overanalyzing a Melodrama for being a Melodrama, I think you miss the fact that this is still a genre movie; only that Sunrise was made by an auteur, a man who believed in the visual language as medium for storytelling

Sunrise its one of the few silent films, that doesn't need dialogue to actually have it, because the dialog is in the visuals

You've missed my point. Melodrama is not in itself a problem. It's a matter of execution.

As for dialogue via intertitles, Murnau's Last Laugh is even more minimal than Sunrise and the visual language of Last Laugh is executed somewhat better than Sunrise at the level of cinematography and far better at the level of storytelling.

[–] pmoon-2 10 years ago

I guess we should all admire your tenacity, but you have a habit of inviting others to respond to your views and then putting those views beyond the reach of any criticism by constantly shifting your position. Let's look at what you have to say so far.

regarding the cinematography:

For me, the cinematography is very good but not great

as I said in the original post, the cinematography is incredible, etc..

regarding the story:

I don't see a couple going from potentially murderous collapse to a rediscovery and rekindling of their love for one another.

Sunrise attempts to claim a significant degree of realism...in its story of heartfelt love.

regarding melodrama:

[Sunrise is] not grounded in characters portrayed in a sufficiently realistically [sic] way because they are portrayed in a more melodramatic way.

You've missed my point. Melodrama is not in itself a problem. It's a matter of execution.

At this point, I think everyone has missed your point, especially since your critique relies on words like "realism" "symbolism" "melodrama" and "storytelling" without specifying what you mean by them.

If by "realism" you mean a story that is psychologically plausible, or characters that are well rounded, then I doubt that any adult of at least average intelligence--least of all Murnau himself-- has ever considered Sunrise to be realistic in that sense. In fact, he labels his characters as generically as possible (The Man, The Woman, The Woman from the City) thereby foreclosing the possibility of psychological realism. In that sense the film is melodramatic and doesn't pretend to be otherwise. Criticizing Murnau for not portraying his characters realistically is rather like criticizing Picasso for not portraying his models realistically. (The same point about characterization is true, by the way, of The Last Laugh. I fail see how Emil Janning's character in the latter film is any more realistically portrayed than the characters in Sunrise.)

As for the problems in "storytelling" I'm lost as to what you mean. Despite a sparsity of subtitles, there's never any problem following the narrative or understanding the arc of the character's relationships to one another. Flashbacks and the man's imaginings are integrated into the film without causing any confusion. What more is one to expect from a film in the way of storytelling, unless, once again, you're imposing on the film an aesthetic to which it doesn't pretend.

[–] bwisialo 10 years ago

I guess we should all admire your tenacity, but you have a habit of inviting others to respond to your views and then putting those views beyond the reach of any criticism by constantly shifting your position.... At this point, I think everyone has missed your point, especially since your critique relies on words like "realism" "symbolism" "melodrama" and "storytelling" without specifying what you mean by them.

I do appreciate reading interpretations other than my own, clarifying my own views, and potentially coming to new ways of looking at films. And your post has, indirectly, done exactly that. Your way of making your point about "realism" and "melodrama" got me thinking, and I re-watched Sunrise again.

If by "realism" you mean a story that is psychologically plausible, or characters that are well rounded, then I doubt that any adult of at least average intelligence--least of all Murnau himself-- has ever considered Sunrise to be realistic in that sense. In fact, he labels his characters as generically as possible (The Man, The Woman, The Woman from the City) thereby foreclosing the possibility of psychological realism. In that sense the film is melodramatic and doesn't pretend to be otherwise. Criticizing Murnau for not portraying his characters realistically is rather like criticizing Picasso for not portraying his models realistically.

First, when they are read in context, the quotes you excerpted from my previous posts are not inconsistent and they do not express shifting positions. To use your words, my view was -- and still is -- that neither the characters nor the plot of Sunrise are particularly well rounded.

In this sense, I agree with your comment regarding the characters. However, many posts on this board do view the film at least partially in a realistic vein, and numerous commentaries on the film discuss its blend of realism and expressionism. In one of the posts you quoted from, I did define "realism," "expressionism," and what it means to blend the two. And I explained why I don't think the film works very well when viewed this way -- namely, because of the degree to which the characters and character development lack realistic or well-rounded depiction, as your post makes clear.

However, in contrast to your comment, I also do not think the film works well when viewed as melodrama. I agree that characters are not necessarily well rounded in a well-done melodrama. However, when melodrama works without well-rounded characters, it needs to have a well-rounded plot in order to work well. In this sense, I agree with a comment Sydney Lumet once made about melodrama: "In a well-written drama, the story comes out of the characters. The characters in a well-written melodrama come out of the story." I do not view Sunrise as having a particularly well-rounded plot / plot development. This is why I used the words "forced" and "hasty" in reference to story, and why I said, as you quoted, "Melodrama is not in itself a problem. It's a matter of execution."

Nevertheless, your comment got me thinking: "What is Sunrise doing if neither the characters nor the plot are well rounded?" Then I began thinking, read some commentaries, and wondered, "Rather than primarily using realism or melodrama, is Sunrise instead more dream-like than anything else, as some commentaries suggest?" Then I watched Sunrise again. When they are well done, dream-like stories often work by giving scenes an acute intensity without necessarily developing well-rounded characters or plot. As I re-watched Sunrise, it seemed to me that this is what Sunrise does and that Sunrise does this very effectively. And this works quite well with its expressionism.

At this point my views have changed. I still do not view Sunrise as having particularly well-rounded characters or plot, and for these reasons, I do not think interpretations that reference the film's realism or melodrama -- combined with allegory, expressionism, etc. -- are very strong interpretations. However, I now have a great appreciation for the ways that Sunrise, in a dream-like manner, heightens the poignant intensity of one scene after the next, for the specific techniques it uses in doing so, and for the ways the film weaves this together with allegory and expressionism. Sunrise now seems to me to be a quite innovative and ingeniously film in doing these things.

[–] blbl1 11 years ago

Sunrise' heavy dramatic irony simply feels outdated in our post-ironic times.

The screenplay is flat and pointless, and all the reviewers' focus on the technical aspects of the camerawork simply shows how affected the movie is.

[–] bwisialo 11 years ago

I would tend to disagree, but that's a different debate.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wanbaclone 10 years ago

I generally agree with your critique here. Sorry to see that you've gotten such a hard time for it. I see City Lights as a much better example of a parable type love story (though humorous instead of dramatic and certainly less expressionistic). In general, I find that I appreciate the simpler silent films that try to do less. I would mostly agree with you because I think Murnau tries to put the kitchen sink in Sunrise, but all the moving parts don't come together.

+1 on the cinematography being brilliant. It's the same deal for me with Citizen Kane. The camera work is what everyone talks about as if they have to because they know the story doesn't really hold up.

[–] PhantomoftheIMDB 10 years ago

The Phantom can see that Wana.... is some sort of nascent film geek, an arrogant know nothing who knows nothing of life, and nothing of cimema. He (I presume its a male person)knows nothing of life, and has taken up movies in compensation. He has seen City Lights and The General and thinks himself a cineaste.

Get up from your keyboard, little geek, go outside, breathe some fresh air and though I think romance is beyond you, at least observe those in love. you will find that the story holds up, and you even might learn something.

"Amor tussisque non celantur"

[–] wanbaclone 10 years ago

You have unmasked me, Phantom! I see the error of my ways now. I know nothing of film. I merely regurgitate film text books and AV Club article pseudospeak. I think this will help me take stock of what's important in life. I'll be a better man!

...or I could just go back to watching Season 4 of Fringe on Netflix.

~The man is a liar and murderer, and I say that with all due respect.~

[–] bwisialo 10 years ago

Standard fair for IMDb message boards. You post a critical comment about a movie, and on the basis of that post alone someone else posts a comment that asserts -- with astonishing confidence -- what's wrong with you as a person.

[–] ma_marcil 10 years ago

All personal critiques aside, I personally really connected with Sunrise on an emotional level first of all. I only saw it once, several years ago, but I definitely intend to buy the movie when I can. I was also rather surprised by the technical aspects of the movie, but it is really the characters and their personal journey that captivated me, and ultimately their story really touched me, to the point where the ending brought me to tears since I thought it was so beautiful and so well executed. I can not even really comment on the symbolism vs realism aspect of the movie, since I saw it a while ago, but what remains and what I clearly remember is the incredible beauty and emotional depth of it. Someone mentioned City Lights and I also think that is another masterpiece, although quite different from Sunrise as I remember it. There might have been some funny scenes in Sunrise but I remember it as a much somber movie than City Lights. Also, I remember that Sunrise had a kind of surreal quality to it, evoking both a sort of dream state than a nightmare atmosphere at some point. City Lights, however, was more "grounded", for a lack of a better word, in reality as I remember it. Both are memorable for me though and I would even say timeless in their own way.

Bill Foster: I'm the bad guy?...How did that happen?

[–] blue-7 10 years ago

One of the finest articles that I have ever come upon about a film is SUNRISE: A MURNAU MASTERPIECE by Dorothy B. Jones. This captures in my opinion what Murnau was attempting to do with SUNRISE. Written around 1955 it is well worth looking up and reading several times.

[–] rc-108 10 years ago

thank you..Blue-7...
I just found and read this article.

excellent reading... and helped increase my appreciation of this piece of art.

[–] baileysmailbox 10 years ago

I'm just a average viewer with very little specialized knowledge of film storytelling, but have followed the comments here. I read part of the article by Jones in which she states, "this story is told with such striking simplicity that it has the universal appeal of a fable." As I saw the film for the first time this week, that's exactly what I took it for: a fable or fairytale, in which all extraneous elements have been eliminated. Modern films have more characters, scenes, and details than this film. Perhaps more nuance in some cases, although not all.

So when I saw the film, being used to seeing modern film, I was taken aback by the black/white storytelling, characters who are all evil or all good, the vague settings, although the city was nicely rendered, and the simplicity of the story line. But having watched recently some other silents, both comedies and Chaplin's films of that era, I wasn't too taken aback. Murnau was working within the aesthetics of his time, which are not the same as ours, particularly the as regards melodrama and sentimentality.

Having read about the camerawork and cinematography of "Sunrise", I may watch it again for those aspects, although as was stated, these have all been appropriated by later generations of filmmakers. I do wish the some other decision had been made about Ms Gaynor's blonde helmet hairpiece, which more than once got in the way of my enjoyment of a scene (a small item, I know).

As well as "a story of two humans", which the film's original poster proclaims, and on which the film delivers, I wonder if the film has a subtext of the duality of city vs country; with the film coming down on the side of the country. In the early part of the film, we see the man joyously plowing for 3 seconds before stopping to kiss his wife under the shade of a tree. If only real farm work were like that! If it were, more people would have stayed on the land, but this era of the film was one in which people were still streaming into the cities from the land.

Thanks to all the contributors to this board, especially bwisialo, for broadening my knowledge of this film.

[–] baileysmailbox 10 years ago

Also from the Dorothy Jones article,:

"The film has a lyric quality which has rarely been achieved in moving images. And the camera which focuses almost exclusively on the young peasant and his wife is less concerned with the objective events of the story than with the meaning of the events to these two human beings."

That seems like a true statement.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

In my opinion, the cinematography in "Sunrise" is slightly overrated, but the weaknesses of "Sunrise" are in its storytelling.

Cinematography: probably overrated yes... the question is whether one should rate it in terms of that time or in terms of modern cinematography... Imo both... a masterpiece shouldn't feel dated, much. Guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't give much extra points for a film being technically revolutionary in its time if it doesn't impact me still today. I'm rating films based on my personal viewing experience now, at the moment, in this time.

Storytelling: Some have pointed out in this thread that the moody cinematography serves storytelling, perhaps so. However I do agree with OP that storytelling is a weakness in parts, for example when the couple goes to the sea/lake there are really long takes of simple rowing which hardly advances the story at all. Same with the city scenes, they often serve the story very little.

The script: This is imo the biggest weakness of the film... on other hand it is very melodramatic script which should get emotional response, I guess that's a strength, although not that unique for the time... I find for example Chaplin's "The Kid" and especially "City Lights" having much more emotional impact. To make the long story short, the husband was basically homicidal maniac and the wife too forgiving for me to find the story credible. If the story lacks credibility then that is a huge negative in my book. Also, this made me actually dislike the husband and the happy ending not that happy imo, while clearly intended as such by the film(maker).

Maybe one could say that the film was about forgiveness - but I find hard to agree with that since clearly the husband had a huge character flaw; first trying to kill the wife, then threatening a guy with a knife and finally trying to kill the "mistress".

Overall the film kept my interest despite somewhat implausible and overly melodramatic story. I liked acting of the female lead, while the performance of male lead didn't impress me much.

My rating: 6

DON'T BE AFRAID OF ME!

[–] ciffou 8 years ago

What do you mean about the story being weak?
Couldn't you forget that your husband tried to murder you by going to the city and have fun?
Such good times