Can I Ask: Why Is This So Highly Rated?

You're probably not missing anything in the film, but you are certainly missing a human heart

Viewing movies of the same genre, and knowing the definition of a word, isn't enough to appreciate a movie like Sunrise. Obviously.

By the way, I know what "german expressionism" means too, but you don't see me bragging about it.


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

You may or may not have missed anything. You're definitely not "missing a heart" as another comment suggested. First, I agree with you that melodrama is the main weakness of "Sunrise." Second, if you missed anything, it was probably techniques in cinematography that were fairly innovative for 1927 but which are easily missed because the innovations were taken up by others and are now very familiar to us. You can search online for descriptions of many of the innovative techniques in "Sunrise." Nevertheless, while the cinematography in "Sunrise" is very good, the cinematography is somewhat overrated, in my opinion. Here are some more detailed thoughts on these two points -- first the cinematography, then the melodrama.

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 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. (“Sunrise” seems to need either much more symbolism, almost to the point of becoming surrealist film; or a good deal more realism, which would be closer to and more in keeping with the film as it is; or, a much more difficult challenge, more of both symbolism and realism, but woven together in a quite different manner.) 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.

SUNRISE is unquestionably melodramatic. Honestly, I need to watch this movie again to try to pinpoint or analyze exactly why or how it got to me so poignantly. I was fortunate to see it on the big screen, and missed the first 15 minutes or so. Just happened to wander in and start watching, feeling mildly amused for a bit. But there was something about the arc of the interaction and relationship between the two main characters, and their vulnerability and naiveté in the big city that just really pierced my heart and made me love the movie, even in its sweetly silly moments. Of course I relished the impressive amusement fair set. I was sure the movie was German (well, I suppose the director was), and was surprised to find out it was made in the USA. In any case, it really pulled me in and I stayed riveted to the end. I do enjoy many silent movies, but this is among my favorites.




Multiplex: 100+ shows a day, NONE worth watching. John Sayles' latest: NO distribution. SAD.

Don't listen to those who hail this film for it's technical aspects such as "groundbreaking cinematography". While those sorts of things were impressive in those days, they certainly aren't anymore. But that isn't actually why the film is so good. Some people on this board seem to get it but others don't. It's about the emotion. If you have been in love then you might get it. I think that this film remains, for those who can relate to the situations, an experience which takes us to a soaring level of emotion, high above most other films ever made.
At least, that's what I get from it.
I find it highly unlikely that someone can watch this film nowadays and rate it highly based on it's technical aspects... They must be lying to themselves or maybe they just don't understand that films are an emotional experience.
PS: Sunrise is in 11th place on my list of best films that I've ever seen http://www.imdb.com/list/nVbRhKYeCXI/.
I hope that this helped.

I consider Sunrise a flawless film. Try watching again, alone, in the dark, wrapped up in blankets, with no distractions.

Heh, I've had trouble appreciating this movie as well. Compared to Murnau's other classics (like Faust) this one seems to be more... I dunno, infantile I suppose. Not because of the subject - I do like to see beauty and love in everyday life - but mostly because of the badly written melodrama and characters.

***

I've noticed that movie-lovers (those who REALLY appreciate the art of film, not just the average Joes) can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who look at cinema as if they'd be looking at a theatre performance - putting a lot of aesthetic emphasis on the plot, drama, dialogue, character developement, etc...

and

2) Those who look at cinema from a cinematographic point of view, putting a lot of emphasis on visuals, rhythm, the "poetic feel" of the movie sort of speak.

I don't think you can really decide which type of person you are. I for example try to appreciate both sides of movies, but I have to admit I do tend to fall under category 1 most of the time. And while I appreciate the cinematographic beauty and the poetic rhythm of Sunrise - well, the drama is pretty terrible, even for a silent film. The husband and the wife act like 5-year-olds for most parts of the movie! But just like in all critical evaluations, you can't really explain aesthetics: you either get it or you don't.

Maybe you just didn't like it. Why attack someone for that? I've liked a lot of silent movies, but not all, anymore than I like all modern movies.

Aside from the implausibility of being able to forgive and trust a man who was just 10 seconds away from killing you a few hours earlier, the story was just too slow moving. For such a very simple and common plot (husband cheats with a flashy woman from the city, woman convinces him to kill his unsuspecting wife so they can run away together), it took forever to deliver the goods.

In this particular film, I had to focus on taking in all the authentic clothing, cars, and customs of the day because the storyline itself was boring and monotonous. It's fascinating to see the way things were done 85 years ago (e.g. going to a photography studio and a unisex hair salon - who knew they did that back then??? It was quite controversial when hair salons became unisex in the 1970's).

Finally, I gave up around the time the gyrating pigs took front stage; I went off and made a grilled cheese sandwich and later read the full synopsis of the ending on imdb. I am satisfied that my time was better spent making the sandwich than watching the overwrought ending.

I did recognize the film techniques that must have been innovative at the time (the dreamlike sequence in the middle of the city traffic) but I'm not particularly interested in the mechanics of film making.