I collect early movie magazines and love reading contemporary reviews of what are considered now as masterpieces. I cannot believe how much the critics and public hated this movie, they simply didn't get it. It was so reviled that when later articles were written about it's two stars very few mentioned "Sunrise" in either George O'Brien or Janet Gaynor's filmographies. Simply amazing.
shareDo your early movie magazines have popularity polls? If so do you think you could tell me?
share[deleted]
That's a good idea. I'll go through my magazines to find it, watch this space!
shareThis is a review of "Sunrise" as it appeared in the December 1927 issue of Photoplay magazine.
Sunrise - Fox
The sort of picture that fools high-brows into hollering "Art!" Swell trick photography and fancy effects, but, boiled down, no story interest and only stilted, mannered acting.
F.W.Murnau can show Hollywood camera effects, but, he could learn a lot about story telling from local talent. The only American touch is a fine comedy sequence in a barber shop. The film has it's moments. There is a love sequence that smokes- literally. And there is a pathetic moment when the "hero" tries to drown his wife.
Janet Gaynor does good work, but, looks all wrong in a blonde wig that wouldn't fool anybody. George O'Brien acts like Golem's little boy. Worth seeing for it's technical excellence.
Hmmm
[deleted]
[deleted]
From what I understand, Murnau used every special-effect and technological advancement he had at his fingertips at the time, which probably wasn't accepted with open arms. Think how many crap movies have you seen recently that were just exploiting special-effects and had no real substance. I'm not saying I didn't like Sunrise, I believe it was at the pinnacle of the silent-era. Unfortunately, the silent-era ended soon after the release of this film. Otherwise, it would have had a much bigger influential impact. But instead everyone became distracted with how to use sound.
share
Reading the 1927 Photoplay review, I have to say that I can see where he is coming from. The story itself is a little slight and the performances are far from being the most subtle of the era. However today everything about the film is so archaic (if timeless) that it is easy to look past the broadness of the performances and just lavish in Murnau's vision. SUNRISE has been a short-list favorite of mine since seeing it in a colllege film class.
The sort of picture that fools high-brows into hollering "Art!" Swell trick photography and fancy effects, but, boiled down, no story interest and only stilted, mannered acting.
It's all very simple, really.... That "reviewer" had his head up his ass.
"The dreams in which I'm dying are the best I've ever had."
"Sunrise - Fox The sort of picture that fools high-brows into hollering "Art!" Swell trick photography and fancy effects, but, boiled down, no story interest and only stilted, mannered acting."
Ha! That actually sums up exactly how I feel about it!!! And you "high brows" are still hollering that this is ART! Interesting that my reaction is the same as the critics' and general public's was in 1927.
Too bad your "low brow" self wasn't around back in '27, cause that would mean you'd be dead by now.
Interestingly enough, much as I love Sunrise, "art" wouldn't be one of the words I would use to describe it, but that's just me.
"got a bum education
double digit inflation"
Certain Hollywood magazines were gunning for Sunrise because they were hostile to the influence of "foreigners" and "foreign films" on good ole American movies. William Fox hired Murnau, to great fanfare, and gave him an unlimited budget. Murnau during filming imposed practically a closed set as far as journalists were concerned. See Scott Eyman's excellently researched "Speed of Sound"(1995) for details. The Hollywood media establishment were peeved, to say the least. Chief among these were Lawrence Quirk, the editor of Photoplay.
Hence, the review you quote.
On the other hand, the national media were as favorably impressed as we are today. Robert Sherwood, one of the 20's most celebrated playwrights was the film critic for Life, and he gave it a rave, calling it the greatest movie ever made. Mordaunt Hall in the New York Times gave it an equal rave. William Harrison in his Harrison's Reports, an industry trade paper, was ecstatic in his praise. You can read his review right now - just google "Sunrise" and "Murnau" and it will be among the articles that will appear.
I first saw "Sunrise" as a kid back in the 80's at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. An author named Donald Spoto acted as host and repeated the same old stuff that "People hated It!". An old man stood up in the audience and said with unexpected emotion, "That is not true. I saw in in 1927, and people loved it." Spoto, with consummate rudeness I thought, refused to back down.
In 1927 some people may have hated it - some people do today, but a great many people loved it, and that fact is well documented.
Well, at the end of the day, it took the Oscar for Best Artistic and Unique Picture, so someone must have enjoyed it.
shareNot amazing to me - the story is so implausible it's ridiculous!!!
share